[2:13] Good evening. I want to call to
[2:15] order our City Council study
[2:18] session for Tuesday, SEPTEMBER
[2:20] 8th, 2026. We
[2:21] re going to have
[2:21] let
[2:22] s have Council member
[2:22] today. I
[2:23] ll lead the Pledge of
[2:52] Allegiance. All right. Hope
[2:52] everyone
[2:54] s having a great.
[2:55] Well, it feels like a Monday.
[2:55] It doesn
[2:56] t feel like a Tuesday.
[2:56] It
[2:59] s weird. But first off,
[2:59] we
[3:01] ll do the, uh, executed
[3:04] contract listing for JULY. City
[3:06] manager Martinez. Thanks,
[3:06] mayor.
[3:07] Good evening. Mayor, mayor pro
[3:10] tem and members of council here
[3:11] to answer any questions you MAY
[3:13] have about the information that
[3:14] was presented to you in your
[3:16] packet is our finance director,
[3:17] Katrina Asher.
[3:20] Any questions for our finance
[3:26] director? Anyone? I see none.
[3:27] Excellent. Thank you. Thanks
[3:29] for coming over. You got, like,
[3:30] ten more steps on your counter
[3:31] today.
[3:31] She
[3:31] ll be.
[3:36] Back. Next is the a470
[3:37] presentation. City manager
[3:38] Martinez.
[3:38] Thank you.
[3:39] Mayor.
[3:40] At this time, I will ask the
[3:43] executive Director of a470, Joe
[3:45] Donahue, to have a seat. And I
[3:46] welcome him to the city of
[3:48] Brighton. And I will turn it
[3:50] over to Joe.
[3:54] Welcome. Oh, I think you got to
[3:54] turn on your mic. It
[3:55] s got to
[3:56] turn green. Sorry. There you
[3:56] go. I hope.
[3:57] You have as many questions for
[3:59] me as you have for your finance
[4:00] director. That was a pretty
[4:03] easy presentation. I hope the
[4:03] owner, if they
[4:04] re all that
[4:04] easy.
[4:05] You actually have a
[4:06] presentation? She did. I mean,
[4:07] she just had the attachment of
[4:08] the packet. That was it.
[4:08] All right. I
[4:09] ll take up all my
[4:11] time with presentation. How
[4:11] s
[4:13] that sound? Well, MR. Mayor,
[4:15] Council members, thank you for
[4:16] the invite to come up and give
[4:19] an update on id470. Um, my name
[4:20] is Joe Donahue, executive
[4:21] director. I
[4:22] ve been in this
[4:23] role for about two years, just
[4:24] over two years. Um, I
[4:25] ve been
[4:27] involved with a470 for much,
[4:28] much longer. I served as the
[4:32] finance director from 2000 to
[4:35] 2012, and then I left a470 and
[4:36] traveled the world, moved to
[4:38] Texas, and was a consultant
[4:39] working with toll roads around
[4:40] the country, and then came back
[4:43] in late 2023. And the interim
[4:46] cfo role and then was selected
[4:47] to be the new executive
[4:48] director. So I
[4:48] ve been in this
[4:50] role just like two years. Like
[4:52] I said, um, just taking this
[4:55] opportunity tonight and to
[4:56] really make the rounds with our
[4:57] member jurisdictions, uh,
[4:59] Brighton being one of them. Um,
[5:00] just to give an update on
[5:00] what
[5:03] s happening at a470. Um,
[5:04] talk about partnerships. Um,
[5:05] that
[5:06] s sort of the the new
[5:06] lingo you
[5:07] re going to hear from
[5:09] a470 is partnering and really
[5:11] being engaged in the community
[5:13] and really being, uh, a
[5:14] regional transportation partner
[5:17] and not just being a 47 mile
[5:18] toll road that we are give some
[5:20] updates on what we have going
[5:23] on, um, operationally. But, um,
[5:25] more projects coming your way
[5:26] and then updates on what
[5:26] s
[5:27] happening in the state of
[5:29] Colorado with tolling, um, with
[5:32] the kto and hpt or a plenary on
[5:34] us 36 and sort of how that
[5:36] operation, how it works today
[5:36] and how it
[5:37] s going to start
[5:38] changing here in the near
[5:41] future with hopes of maybe not
[5:42] fully converting to what
[5:42] they
[5:43] re trying to do. But I
[5:43] ll
[5:44] give some updates on what
[5:44] s
[5:47] happening there. Just a real
[5:51] quick about e4 70 e4 70. Um, as
[5:51] I said, it
[5:52] s a 47 mile toll
[5:54] road. It was sort of thought up
[5:56] in the late 80s. There
[5:56] s a
[5:57] public highway authority law
[5:59] passed, um, where local
[6:00] government owned, um, we
[6:01] re
[6:02] sort of a government owned
[6:04] business with no recourse to
[6:05] the cities and counties that
[6:07] sit on our board. Um, but it
[6:08] means that the, the board,
[6:10] which is made up of council
[6:13] members, mayors, county
[6:14] commissioners from each of the
[6:15] jurisdictions, makes all the
[6:16] policies, makes all the
[6:17] decisions, and then it
[6:18] s all
[6:20] carried out by the staff, um,
[6:23] funded solely by tolls. Um, and
[6:24] that is a little bit of the
[6:25] white lie. If anybody that
[6:25] s
[6:27] been in the state any amount of
[6:29] time knows that early on in e4
[6:30] 70, in the early 90s, there was
[6:32] a vehicle registration fee
[6:34] assessed in Adams, Arapahoe and
[6:36] Douglas counties. It was voter
[6:38] approved. It was a $10 fee
[6:40] added to your registration, for
[6:44] which e4 70 got $8.50 of that
[6:46] actually supported $40 million
[6:47] in bonds and the original
[6:49] financing. And it was really a
[6:50] request by the investment
[6:52] community, um, to have local,
[6:55] um, participation and local buy
[6:57] in. And they felt that if
[6:58] taxpayers approve something,
[6:59] that means they
[6:59] ll probably
[7:01] drive the road. Um, those bonds
[7:04] were in fact the fees in about
[7:06] 2010. And then the, uh, they
[7:08] were completely paid off. And
[7:09] then the fee was, uh, they
[7:11] stopped collecting in about
[7:14] 2016 or 17, I believe. Um,
[7:16] today, average daily drivers,
[7:19] about 81,000 customers drive
[7:20] the road. That equates to about
[7:23] 302,000 transactions a day. We
[7:25] have 2.7 million express toll
[7:27] transponders on the street
[7:28] today. And different vehicles.
[7:30] Um, and so to date, we have
[7:33] done about 70.1 million
[7:34] transactions. We
[7:35] ll probably
[7:38] eclipse about 115 million
[7:40] transactions for the year for
[7:42] 2026. Um, the other thing about
[7:44] the transponders, uh, 2.7
[7:47] million represents about 75% of
[7:49] the registered vehicles and
[7:50] sort of the Front Range area by
[7:51] just doing a search. So there
[7:52] s
[7:53] a high saturation of
[7:55] transponders out on the street,
[7:55] and that
[7:56] s going to be an
[7:57] important stat when we start
[7:58] talking about what
[7:59] s happening
[8:01] with tolling in Colorado. Um,
[8:02] quick history of e-4. Again.
[8:03] We
[8:04] re a political subdivision
[8:06] of the state formed under state
[8:08] legislation. And it was really
[8:10] some really innovative thinkers
[8:12] back in the late 80s. Um, and
[8:14] if you look at the the picture
[8:16] there, I believe, uh, Roy Romer
[8:17] is in there. I think Bill Owens
[8:19] actually ran the legislation as
[8:21] a senator in Colorado. And the
[8:23] idea was there was no way to
[8:25] build a beltway that they knew
[8:26] was going to be necessary for
[8:27] the eastern and northeastern
[8:29] regions of Denver to develop.
[8:30] Uh, there was not going to be
[8:31] any traditional funding. So
[8:32] they created the Public Highway
[8:34] Authority Act, at which point e
[8:36] for 70 public highway authority
[8:38] was created. The first section
[8:40] of road was opened in 1991,
[8:42] which went from I-25 to Parker
[8:43] Road. It was a single toll
[8:45] plaza, and it was that way for
[8:47] almost a decade. And then in
[8:49] the late 90s, 97, 98, the
[8:50] biggest section of the road,
[8:51] which basically went from
[8:53] Parker Road to 120th, opened.
[8:55] It opened in about three
[8:57] different sections. Um, but it,
[8:58] you know, it was completed in
[9:01] 97, 98. And then segment four,
[9:03] which was the last section from
[9:06] 120th Avenue up to I-25, was
[9:09] opened in 2003. It was opened
[9:12] as a four lane divided highway.
[9:13] That was sort of the beginning
[9:16] of e 470. The master plan has
[9:17] it ultimately built out to an
[9:19] eight lane divided highway,
[9:21] with more interchanges that
[9:22] were than were built at the
[9:24] beginning. But the idea was,
[9:25] get it built with the funding
[9:26] that they had, keeping the
[9:28] funding as small as possible at
[9:30] the time, and then allow its
[9:32] cash flow to support the
[9:34] widening, adding capacity,
[9:35] building out new interchanges
[9:39] and whatnot. Um, in 2009, e4 70
[9:40] became one of the first toll
[9:42] roads in the country to go 100%
[9:44] cashless, meaning we shut down
[9:45] the cash lanes, we shut down
[9:47] the atm machines at the ramp,
[9:49] so we started taking pictures.
[9:53] Um, by 2025, where we sit, you
[9:55] know, just a year ago, e 470 is
[9:58] again been fully cashless in in
[10:00] 2009, they started thinking
[10:01] about widening and we widened
[10:02] the first section of the road.
[10:04] It also required a full rebuild
[10:06] of a bunch of that pavement
[10:07] that was put down, and it was
[10:09] starting to fail already. But
[10:12] by 2025, I know the the stat
[10:14] there says 16 miles is actually
[10:16] 36 of the 47 miles are now six
[10:18] lanes, three in each direction.
[10:18] Um, and we
[10:20] re actually starting
[10:21] the next phase of widening,
[10:23] which is 104th to us 85. That
[10:25] construction is starting
[10:27] imminently, um, with the goal
[10:29] of having it widened up to us
[10:32] 85 by the end of 2027 or early
[10:36] 2028. Um, so like I mentioned,
[10:37] a470 is locally owned and
[10:38] operated. It
[10:39] s made up of the
[10:41] three counties in five cities
[10:42] Adams, Arapahoe and Douglas
[10:44] counties, and then Thornton,
[10:46] Brighton, Commerce City, Aurora
[10:48] and Parker make up the voting
[10:49] membership. There
[10:50] s also
[10:52] non-voting members, uh, most of
[10:53] the non-voting members are
[10:54] either jurisdictions that are
[10:56] sort of at the terminus or that
[10:56] we
[10:57] re impacting. So Weld
[10:59] County, Arvada sits in there,
[11:01] Broomfield, Greeley, which is
[11:03] sort of an oddity because
[11:03] they
[11:04] re pretty far out there.
[11:05] But there was a point in time
[11:06] where they felt Greeley was
[11:09] important. Lone tree, Weld
[11:10] County. Um, and then you
[11:10] ve got
[11:12] CDot, doctor Cog, uh, regional
[11:18] Air Quality and rtd. So
[11:20] partnerships, you know, when I
[11:23] started a470, you know, really
[11:25] the focus was to really become
[11:27] a really financially viable
[11:29] organization, which it
[11:29] s done
[11:31] very successfully. And it was
[11:32] really to get to a point where
[11:34] our level, we had level debt
[11:35] service, which means right now
[11:38] we pay about $110 million a
[11:39] year in our mortgage, and we
[11:40] ll
[11:41] continue to pay that for about
[11:43] 15 more years. Um, but we
[11:43] re
[11:44] also at a point where we
[11:45] ve got
[11:47] about $2.5 billion of capital
[11:49] that needs to be done and
[11:50] expanded capacity, new
[11:52] interchanges. And then we
[11:52] re
[11:52] going to have to start
[11:54] considering capital replacement
[11:55] of some of the bridges and
[11:56] structures that are, you know,
[11:58] getting to be 40, 50 years old.
[12:01] Um, so talk about local
[12:02] partnership. You know, one of
[12:04] the key partnerships and this
[12:06] council is very aware of the
[12:07] Sable Boulevard interchange. It
[12:10] was an agreement between the
[12:12] city a470 and Adams County. It
[12:14] was an agreement that was inked
[12:15] many years ago. And the
[12:16] construction obviously just
[12:18] opened here just recently. Um,
[12:19] that was key. And that
[12:20] s sort
[12:20] of how we
[12:22] re trying to become
[12:24] as a470, you know, we
[12:24] re going
[12:25] to be part of the solution. We
[12:26] can be part of it either by
[12:28] constructing things, by being,
[12:31] uh, financing partners. Um,
[12:32] really whatever it takes. And I
[12:35] think for me, I envision a470
[12:36] again is more of a regional
[12:38] partner and not just worried
[12:39] about a470. You know, we
[12:39] re
[12:41] going to take care of our asset
[12:42] first, making sure that the
[12:44] road and the service we deliver
[12:44] is what
[12:46] s expected. But if we
[12:46] can do more, we
[12:47] re going to try
[12:49] to do more. Um, other
[12:51] partnerships, of course. You
[12:52] know, we talked about Sable.
[12:52] We
[12:54] ve also made a large
[12:55] investment into the Riverdale
[12:58] Bluffs trail system. That was a
[12:59] partnership with Adams County.
[13:01] Um, and we continue to look at
[13:03] other opportunities. We
[13:03] re
[13:04] looking at potential
[13:06] partnerships with den as they
[13:07] start to look at Pena
[13:08] Boulevard. Um, we
[13:09] re also
[13:10] looking at other construction
[13:11] projects up here to increase
[13:13] the connectivity to our road,
[13:15] but also access to our road at
[13:17] the major, um, interstate
[13:20] interchanges at I-76 and I-70.
[13:21] Um, in addition, we
[13:21] re getting
[13:22] out in the community quite a
[13:23] bit. Um, we
[13:24] re committed to
[13:26] sponsoring and being in local
[13:27] events and all of our
[13:29] jurisdictions. 2 to 3 a year.
[13:31] Um, I think we got listed up
[13:32] there we are the bright Summer
[13:34] fest, the flicks and kicks and
[13:35] the holiday tree lighting
[13:36] ceremony will be a part of here
[13:37] in Brighton. But we
[13:38] re also,
[13:39] like I said, heavily involved
[13:40] in all the counties and other
[13:44] cities in the area as well.
[13:46] Just a few more pictures. You
[13:47] know, the two, the opening of
[13:49] Sable and then the Riverdale
[13:51] Bluffs Trail. Groundbreaking.
[13:54] So some updates on a470 without
[13:55] going back, you know, into
[13:58] Covid. A470 was sort of an
[13:59] anomaly in the country. We
[14:01] recovered from Covid in about
[14:02] two years, and there are some
[14:04] toll roads that are just now,
[14:05] you know, in the last year or
[14:06] so hitting their stride to
[14:08] where they were pre-covid. We
[14:12] hit our projected 2023 numbers
[14:14] in 2023, and we actually
[14:17] exceeded them, um, by about 5%.
[14:18] And those projections were done
[14:20] in 2019. So before Covid hit,
[14:22] we were we were way ahead of
[14:23] where we thought we
[14:23] d be before
[14:25] that happened. But just looking
[14:27] back into 2023, that was sort
[14:29] of the first full year of
[14:30] recovery where we were sort of
[14:31] where we thought we
[14:31] d be. But
[14:32] since then we
[14:33] re seeing about 5
[14:35] to 6% volume growth year over
[14:37] year on our road, which is
[14:39] pretty astounding. Most sort of
[14:41] mature toll roads see about 1
[14:42] to 3% growth, and we
[14:42] re seeing
[14:44] closer to six. A lot of that
[14:44] s
[14:45] attributed to what
[14:45] s happening
[14:46] on the north end of the road.
[14:49] Everything north of I-70, all
[14:50] the growth in Adams County,
[14:51] Brighton, of course, Commerce
[14:53] City, Thornton, um, and we
[14:53] re
[14:54] also looking up into Weld
[14:56] County and sort of looking up
[14:57] I-76 and seeing what that
[14:58] s
[14:58] what
[14:59] s happening out there in
[15:00] addition to what
[15:00] s happening at
[15:02] the airport with Aerotropolis
[15:03] and all the development around
[15:05] the airport. Um, I think the
[15:06] the story was, you know, if you
[15:07] you build an airport in the
[15:08] middle of nowhere, the city
[15:09] will follow. And that
[15:09] s what
[15:09] s
[15:13] starting to happen. Um, so to
[15:15] date this year, um, we
[15:15] re
[15:17] seeing about 9.2 million
[15:19] average transactions per month.
[15:21] I mentioned the 302,000
[15:23] earlier. We did have a record.
[15:26] We did 405,000 transactions in
[15:27] the single day on JUNE 18th,
[15:29] and we will break that record
[15:31] this year still. And then we,
[15:32] like I said, about 6% growth
[15:34] year over year, year to date.
[15:36] One of the important things we
[15:37] did when I came back was to
[15:40] really rebrand a470. You
[15:40] ll
[15:41] start to see a new logo come
[15:42] out. It
[15:43] s a very simple you see
[15:44] it up in the right hand corner,
[15:46] the black a470, that
[15:46] s our
[15:47] logo. There
[15:49] s no graphic
[15:50] involved with it. We want it to
[15:52] be really simple, but we wanted
[15:54] to sort of rebrand in the sense
[15:55] that we wanted the the
[15:56] community to see us as a
[15:58] partner and not just a business
[15:58] that
[16:00] s making money. Because I
[16:01] think what happened to a470
[16:03] over the years was, you know,
[16:04] we we, you know, we find
[16:05] ourselves in the news because
[16:06] the customer calls. We might
[16:08] have made a mistake on a bill
[16:08] and and that
[16:09] s all the
[16:11] community hears about a470 is
[16:13] all the mistakes we make. Um,
[16:14] and so I thought it was
[16:15] important for people to see e
[16:18] for 70 more as a partner as, as
[16:19] a resource to the community.
[16:20] And so that
[16:20] s really been our
[16:22] effort. You know, we did this
[16:24] rebrand. It started early this
[16:25] year. You MAY have seen some of
[16:28] the stuff that was sort of a
[16:29] scandalous, you know, what
[16:29] s
[16:32] happening at the a470. Um, and
[16:34] so we started with that just to
[16:35] sort of get people thinking
[16:36] about, you know, what
[16:36] s
[16:38] happening at a470, where
[16:38] s all
[16:39] the money going? Who
[16:39] s in
[16:41] charge of it? Um, who sets the
[16:43] toll rates. Um, that was
[16:45] followed up by, um, sort of
[16:47] the, an automotive based
[16:49] campaign. And it was meet the
[16:52] 2026 a470. And again, that was
[16:53] really to show people that this
[16:54] isn
[16:55] t about getting customers
[16:57] to drive our road. I think the
[16:59] product we offer has people
[16:59] drive our road. There
[17:00] s not
[17:01] much we can do to move that
[17:03] needle north or south. Um, but
[17:05] if we provide a good product,
[17:05] it
[17:06] s dependable, it
[17:07] s safe.
[17:08] People can get to the airport
[17:09] on time. That
[17:09] s what
[17:10] s going to
[17:12] get people coming back. Um, and
[17:12] so that
[17:13] s really our push. And
[17:14] so we, we launched this
[17:16] campaign and this shows just
[17:19] some statistics on how it was
[17:21] received. We hired a very
[17:22] unique marketing and branding
[17:24] firm. In fact, when we hired
[17:25] them, they had never done
[17:26] anything in the government
[17:27] sector. The companies name
[17:29] standard practice. And they
[17:30] came in and I said, look, your
[17:32] goal is to get people to like
[17:35] a470 and not know why they like
[17:36] driving and why they like it.
[17:37] Toll road. And they said, we
[17:37] re
[17:38] going to try to make you like
[17:40] the London Underground. And
[17:40] they said, remember, that
[17:41] s
[17:42] just a subway. But it
[17:42] s sort of
[17:44] an iconic thing. And they said
[17:45] when people start wearing your
[17:47] logo on a hat or on a shirt,
[17:47] then you
[17:48] ve made it. And so
[17:48] we
[17:50] re not there yet. I wear the
[17:51] logo on my shirt, but I haven
[17:51] t
[17:53] seen my neighbours yet, so. But
[17:53] that
[17:54] s the goal. It was really
[17:55] just to get people to see. E4
[17:58] 70 is something friendly and
[17:59] not, like I said, we
[17:59] re not
[18:00] sort of the Death Star out in
[18:01] Aurora that just wants your
[18:03] money and to go away. You know,
[18:04] we want people to have a good
[18:05] experience and we want it to be
[18:07] right, but we also want them to
[18:08] see and trust us with the money
[18:11] that they give to us to cover
[18:12] the cost of operating. But
[18:12] we
[18:13] re also turning the surplus
[18:14] money back into more
[18:15] infrastructure. And that
[18:15] s
[18:18] really our goal. Um, one of the
[18:19] unique things we did, and this
[18:20] is just a snapshot of what we
[18:22] did, we had a piece of the road
[18:24] on display at the Denver Auto
[18:26] Show this year, and that was
[18:27] very unique. We got a lot of
[18:28] people looking, you know,
[18:28] they
[18:29] re looking at really
[18:30] expensive cars. And they came
[18:30] by and said, what
[18:31] s that? And
[18:31] we said, that
[18:32] s the highway.
[18:34] And it was actually quite to
[18:35] scale. You can see it right in
[18:37] the middle, you know, 12in of
[18:39] asphalt, 12in of base and then
[18:40] 12in of subbase. And that
[18:41] s the
[18:41] engineer said, that
[18:42] s about
[18:44] what we have. But it sort of
[18:45] gave people an opportunity to
[18:46] say, well, why are you here?
[18:47] What what
[18:48] s going on at a470?
[18:49] Tell us about what you
[18:50] re
[18:51] doing. Um, but it was just a
[18:53] unique way to get out there.
[18:53] We
[18:55] ve also made updates to our
[18:57] website. To me, the standard is
[19:00] set by Google and Amazon, and
[19:01] the expectation is when you
[19:01] re
[19:02] buying something online, it
[19:04] needs to be easy and it needs
[19:06] to be secure. And that
[19:06] s not
[19:06] us. We
[19:07] re not I mean, we
[19:08] re
[19:08] easy and secure, but we
[19:09] re not
[19:09] Amazon and we
[19:10] re not Google.
[19:10] And that
[19:12] s and I think the it
[19:13] department for a long time
[19:13] said, well, we
[19:14] re just a toll
[19:14] road. So we
[19:15] re just going to do
[19:17] what we can. And I said no, the
[19:19] expectation is that customers
[19:20] can come in, they can serve
[19:22] themselves, they can work on
[19:22] the website. We
[19:23] ll be adding a
[19:25] mobile app here this year or
[19:26] within the next 12 months. And
[19:28] the idea was a customer should
[19:29] be able to do everything they
[19:31] need to on either the app or
[19:33] the website, and that includes
[19:34] look at all the transactions.
[19:35] If they don
[19:35] t believe that
[19:35] s
[19:36] them, they should be able to
[19:37] look at the pictures on their
[19:38] phone or on their computer.
[19:39] They should be able to dispute
[19:40] if it
[19:41] s not them. Just like if
[19:43] you get a charge on your credit
[19:44] card, you can just make the
[19:45] dispute right there and it gets
[19:47] handled behind the scenes. You
[19:47] shouldn
[19:48] t have to make a phone
[19:49] call to us, and those are
[19:49] improvements that we
[19:50] re making.
[19:52] The system that we operate is a
[19:53] system that we built, and we
[19:53] ve
[19:55] maintained it for 20 plus
[19:57] years. The problem is that
[19:58] system is 20 plus years old.
[20:00] And so as technology improves
[20:02] and all this neat functionality
[20:03] is available on phones and on
[20:05] computers, our system can
[20:05] t
[20:06] hook into that. So we
[20:06] re
[20:07] spending a lot of time and
[20:09] money to modernize that system,
[20:11] to allow this system to be much
[20:14] easier for customers. So just a
[20:15] list of some of the things
[20:15] we
[20:17] ve done. Security was our
[20:18] our top priority. Um,
[20:20] multi-factor authentication,
[20:20] which is everybody
[20:22] s nemesis.
[20:24] We can only send an email code.
[20:24] We
[20:25] re working to be able to
[20:27] send that to a text. Um, in
[20:28] fact, when we first launched
[20:29] it, it took like 15 minutes to
[20:31] get the code. And that was very
[20:32] frustrating for people. And so
[20:33] we made an improvement. Now it
[20:36] comes in about 15 seconds. Um,
[20:37] but we do know that most people
[20:38] do everything in their life on
[20:39] their phone. And so we need to
[20:41] be able to send an sms message,
[20:43] um, working on that. Also other
[20:46] ways to pay um, and set up an
[20:47] account, add to your account,
[20:50] do whatever you need to do. Um,
[20:51] another service that
[20:51] s coming.
[20:51] I
[20:52] m sure you
[20:52] ve seen if you
[20:52] ve
[20:53] been on the road, there
[20:53] s
[20:55] several toll plazas that are
[20:56] being converted to gas
[20:58] stations. Basically, um, their
[21:00] service plazas. We partnered
[21:01] with a company called Apple
[21:01] Green. They
[21:02] re an a company out
[21:04] of Ireland. They run most of
[21:05] the service plazas on, like the
[21:06] New York Thruway, the new
[21:08] Jersey Turnpike. Um, they came
[21:10] in and made about a $70 million
[21:11] investment. And we have a
[21:12] ground lease. So we
[21:13] re actually
[21:15] collecting some revenue off of
[21:16] their fuel sales and their
[21:18] concession sales and their, um,
[21:20] different things inside. And so
[21:20] there
[21:21] s going to be one in
[21:22] Aurora, which is just south of
[21:24] our administration building.
[21:24] It
[21:25] s the old toll Plaza b,
[21:27] which is about Quincy on our
[21:28] road. Um, there
[21:28] s two up in
[21:30] Commerce City, um, which is
[21:30] there
[21:31] s one northbound and one
[21:32] southbound. There are two
[21:33] different stations, but you can
[21:34] get to them on either side of
[21:35] the road. And then there
[21:35] s one
[21:38] in Parker. Um, those, like I
[21:38] said, they
[21:39] re making a huge
[21:40] investment and we
[21:40] re just
[21:41] getting rent. It
[21:42] s a 50 year
[21:43] ground lease. And so they
[21:43] re
[21:44] putting in all the
[21:46] infrastructure. We did make a
[21:48] small investment of about $10
[21:49] million that we would have been
[21:50] making anyway, because we had
[21:52] to at some point level those
[21:53] buildings and get rid of them.
[21:54] And we also had tunnels under
[21:55] the road, and we had a lot of
[21:58] technology in those tunnels. So
[21:59] money that we were going to
[21:59] have to invest. We
[21:59] re actually
[22:01] getting back now in a return
[22:02] via the rent. So that
[22:03] s money
[22:04] that we can now reinvest into
[22:05] the road in the future. Um, the
[22:08] opening schedule is there. The
[22:08] first one
[22:09] s going to open here
[22:10] just in the next couple of
[22:11] weeks. Um, each of the
[22:13] locations will have, like I
[22:15] said, gas filling, um, ev
[22:15] charging. They
[22:16] ll have
[22:17] convenience store and they
[22:17] ll
[22:18] also have, um, we
[22:18] ll have a
[22:20] Starbucks, and then there
[22:20] ll be
[22:21] a couple of restaurants and
[22:23] those are listed there, Shake
[22:25] Shack, Panda Express, Burger
[22:27] King, Popeyes. Um, each of
[22:28] those will have two restaurants
[22:34] and then a Starbucks in there.
[22:36] So interoperability. And so
[22:38] this is sort of a term that if
[22:38] you
[22:39] re not from tolling, you
[22:41] MAY not know what it means. But
[22:42] starting about a year and a
[22:43] half ago, you were able to use
[22:44] your express toll transponder
[22:47] in Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas.
[22:49] Um, and now last year, we added
[22:51] Florida, and now we
[22:51] re also
[22:53] adding e-ZPass. And e-ZPass
[22:55] makes up about 40 toll agencies
[22:56] on the East Coast. There
[22:57] s sort
[22:58] of the big gorilla in tolling,
[22:58] and we
[22:59] re bringing them on and
[23:02] sort of phases. And so just
[23:03] starting here this month or
[23:04] last month, we brought on those
[23:06] agencies there. So if you have
[23:08] an easy pass in those states or
[23:09] you drive to those states and
[23:10] those agencies, you can use
[23:11] your express toll transponder
[23:13] there. And what happens is if
[23:14] you drive on that road, they
[23:15] send us the transaction, we
[23:17] post it to your account here
[23:17] and it
[23:18] s paid. And then we pay
[23:20] that agency. Same thing the
[23:22] other way. If if their customer
[23:23] drives here, we
[23:23] ll send it to
[23:24] them. They
[23:24] ll pay us out of
[23:26] their account. But what it does
[23:26] is it doesn
[23:28] t require you to
[23:29] either get a bill from that
[23:30] state or open an account in
[23:32] that state. And so that was a
[23:35] mandate made back in 2006 that
[23:36] all toll roads be interoperable
[23:38] in the country by 2010. And
[23:38] we
[23:39] re just now starting to get
[23:41] it done here in the mid 2020s,
[23:43] it was a federal legislative
[23:44] mandate, and there was actually
[23:46] a congressman that drove from
[23:47] Washington, dc to Florida, and
[23:48] he didn
[23:49] t understand why he
[23:51] needed a different transponder
[23:52] to go to Florida when he had an
[23:54] easy pass. And so they decided
[23:56] to pass some legislation that
[23:57] said all the toll roads in the
[23:58] country had to be
[23:59] interoperable. Um, it
[24:00] s quite a
[24:01] technological feat because the
[24:03] technology is unique on some of
[24:05] these roads, and it took the
[24:06] industry probably ten years to
[24:08] decide on which protocol,
[24:10] meaning the the tag that gets
[24:11] read, because there was
[24:13] probably ten different tags out
[24:14] there with different protocols.
[24:15] And so they zeroed in on three
[24:18] of them finally. But now every
[24:19] agency has to be able to read
[24:21] all three of those. And so
[24:22] which also means major
[24:24] equipment change out for us. It
[24:25] was right in our life cycle. So
[24:27] we did it. Um, but for some of
[24:29] these East Coast agencies,
[24:30] these are billion dollar multi
[24:32] year programs to change out all
[24:33] that equipment that
[24:33] s out in
[24:34] the lanes to be able to read
[24:36] transponders from Colorado,
[24:37] California, you know, all over
[24:40] the country. But more to come.
[24:42] There. Um talking about what we
[24:43] have coming I mentioned the
[24:45] widening program. Um, you know,
[24:46] we
[24:47] ll start the first phase of
[24:48] that is going under
[24:50] construction right around 104.
[24:53] So about 104th to I-76 or 120th
[24:55] will be the first phase of it.
[24:55] There
[24:56] s a big wetland out there
[24:58] we have to manage through, but
[24:58] there
[24:59] s also railroad tracks.
[25:01] We have to cross it, I-76 and
[25:03] then another railroad at us 85.
[25:04] So the permitting process is
[25:06] quite arduous for us to just
[25:08] even widen that. Um, but what
[25:08] we
[25:09] ll have is three lanes in
[25:10] each direction and then getting
[25:12] on at 76, I believe they
[25:12] re
[25:13] adding an auxiliary lane
[25:15] eastbound. When you get off of
[25:18] southbound I-76 to get on our
[25:19] road to head to the airport,
[25:19] it
[25:20] s a little slow. It
[25:20] s a
[25:22] cloverleaf style interchange
[25:23] right now. And so when you get
[25:24] the trucks coming up there,
[25:25] they
[25:26] re doing about 15 when
[25:27] they hit our road. So I think
[25:27] they
[25:28] re going to add an
[25:29] auxiliary lane also. So
[25:29] there
[25:30] ll be four lanes coming
[25:33] out of there. Um, to alleviate
[25:33] a lot of the friction we
[25:34] re
[25:37] seeing there. Um, some other
[25:40] projects. Um, obviously sables
[25:41] wrapped up Stephen d Hogan
[25:41] Parkway. There
[25:42] s these are
[25:43] traffic signals that a diamond
[25:44] interchange right outside our
[25:47] office. Um, this is a project
[25:48] that the city of Aurora is
[25:49] putting them in. But we funded
[25:51] the project, and so we we
[25:51] funded it. They
[25:52] re getting it
[25:54] constructed, and that gets
[25:55] signalized at the top of our
[25:58] ramps. Gartrell road, which is
[25:58] down in Aurora. That
[25:59] s a
[25:59] project that we
[26:01] re paying 25%
[26:02] of it. They
[26:02] re going to widen
[26:04] that to a I guess it
[26:04] s a six
[26:06] lane bridge now. Um, it
[26:06] ll be
[26:08] two through lanes and two, uh,
[26:10] four through lanes, two in each
[26:11] direction and then two turn
[26:12] lanes. And so we
[26:13] ve got to
[26:14] widen the bridge on both sides.
[26:15] But we also have to modify the
[26:16] top of our ramps. So we
[26:17] re
[26:18] helping fund that. Uh, the
[26:19] biggest one you
[26:20] ll see up there
[26:23] is the I-70 interchange, which
[26:25] today the interchange when it
[26:27] was first built, it used the
[26:28] old Gun Club Road bridge
[26:30] because it was cost prohibitive
[26:31] to build a full interstate
[26:33] interchange out there. And so
[26:36] back in the early 90s or mid
[26:37] 90s, they said, we
[26:37] ll just
[26:39] route the road over the old Gun
[26:40] Club Road bridge. Anybody that
[26:41] drove the road back then
[26:43] recalls having to go through
[26:44] four traffic signals while on
[26:46] e4, I-70 to clear that
[26:47] interchange, and then you could
[26:49] go back up the highway speed.
[26:51] Uh, we alleviated that in the
[26:54] late 2000 by shifting mainline
[26:55] traffic to the west, so you
[26:55] didn
[26:56] t have to go down to the
[26:57] traffic signals. But when you
[26:58] get off at I-70, you have to go
[27:00] to the traffic signals. We will
[27:01] have a fully directional
[27:02] interchange out there,
[27:04] hopefully in the next 5 to 6
[27:05] years. We
[27:06] re starting design
[27:08] and the environmental process.
[27:09] At the beginning of next year.
[27:10] We
[27:11] re in the process of
[27:12] procuring an environmental
[27:14] consultant to facilitate that,
[27:15] but that will be a project that
[27:17] will be sort of a landmark
[27:18] project for you for 70, because
[27:18] it
[27:20] ll have a multi-directional
[27:22] interchange. While that is
[27:24] under evaluation for Nepa,
[27:24] we
[27:25] ll start the same process at
[27:27] I-76, which will be a much
[27:29] bigger project for us. But
[27:29] it
[27:30] ll also have a fully
[27:32] directional interchange at I-76
[27:34] and a470, which today there
[27:34] s
[27:35] only two movements there. You
[27:36] can go from the airport or to
[27:39] the airport. Um, from the north
[27:41] side. And at the time, again,
[27:42] it was based on demand. There
[27:43] was not a lot of demand to go
[27:46] from I-76 west to I-25. And
[27:47] there was just there was no
[27:48] need. But we
[27:49] re seeing the
[27:50] development come and it
[27:51] s time
[27:53] to build that up there. So
[27:53] that
[27:54] s coming. In addition,
[27:54] we
[27:56] re doing a major retrofit
[27:58] and upgrade of our, uh, roadway
[27:59] surveillance system. We have a
[28:01] traffic management center that
[28:02] monitors the road 24 over
[28:04] seven. Um, we installed a new
[28:06] advanced traffic management
[28:07] system, which actually allows
[28:08] us to, um, it
[28:09] ll alert us if
[28:09] there
[28:10] s traffic traveling in
[28:11] the wrong direction. If
[28:12] somebody
[28:13] s stopped on the road,
[28:13] if there
[28:14] s an incident, if
[28:14] there
[28:15] s debris on the road,
[28:15] it
[28:16] ll alert somebody in our
[28:18] traffic management center. But
[28:20] today we have cameras that can
[28:21] see the whole road, but they
[28:23] can only see half the road at a
[28:24] time because we have to pan the
[28:25] cameras back and forth. So
[28:25] we
[28:27] re doubling our high res
[28:28] cameras on the road so we can
[28:30] see 100% of it 100% of the
[28:31] time. Um, we think that
[28:32] s a
[28:34] huge safety enhancement because
[28:36] we can get, um, our roadside
[28:38] assistance team dispatched
[28:40] immediately with that system.
[28:41] If it alerts us if there
[28:41] s
[28:42] anything on the road or if
[28:42] there
[28:43] s a vehicle broke down.
[28:45] Um, we also partner with the
[28:46] State Patrol. So they sit right
[28:47] outside our traffic management
[28:49] center. We have a dedicated
[28:51] troop on a470. We
[28:51] re connected
[28:53] to their radio system as well,
[28:54] so we can dispatch them
[28:57] immediately as well. So updates
[28:59] here in Colorado. Um, this is
[29:00] sort of the home stretch here I
[29:04] believe. Um, so a470 has always
[29:06] processed the transactions for
[29:07] all the other toll roads in
[29:09] Colorado. So as, as CDot got
[29:11] into tolling and they opened up
[29:13] lanes on I-25 and then they did
[29:15] a public private partnership on
[29:17] us 36. And they added the I-25
[29:19] express lanes. The Northwest
[29:21] Parkway came on. We have always
[29:22] processed the transactions.
[29:23] Meaning if you have an express
[29:25] toll transponder, you can use
[29:26] any of those roads. But in
[29:27] addition, we also do the
[29:28] billing for those roads. So if
[29:29] you don
[29:30] t have a transponder,
[29:32] they send us the transactions.
[29:34] We process the billing. Um,
[29:37] several years ago, uh, plenary,
[29:39] which runs the us 36 and
[29:41] central I-25 lanes, and kto,
[29:42] which runs all the other
[29:44] managed lanes in the state.
[29:44] It
[29:46] s the enterprise operating
[29:47] under CDot. Um, they decided
[29:48] we
[29:48] re going to build our own
[29:50] system and do it ourselves. Um,
[29:52] we do that. There is a cost to
[29:53] the state, but it
[29:54] s a pass
[29:54] through cost. There
[29:55] s no profit
[29:58] to a470. We have that, um, the
[29:59] fee that is charged, it
[29:59] s it
[30:00] s
[30:01] tuned to the point that if we
[30:03] stop processing that, we
[30:03] re
[30:04] going to collect that much less
[30:05] from them. So it
[30:06] s really just
[30:08] a break even. Um, we did that
[30:09] because we said, look, this is
[30:10] these are government agencies.
[30:10] We
[30:11] re just going to process the
[30:13] transactions and not make it a
[30:16] profit center. Um, the state is
[30:16] doing it, and it
[30:17] s going to be
[30:19] quite an expensive venture for
[30:19] the state. And that
[30:20] s something
[30:20] that we
[30:21] ve been working with
[30:23] CDot and the state to try to
[30:25] understand why this is
[30:27] necessary, because not only is
[30:29] it going to, you know, be more
[30:31] difficult, but remember, the
[30:33] 2.7 million transponders that
[30:33] are out there that
[30:34] s going to
[30:35] make all those customers
[30:36] question do I need a different
[30:38] transponder? Can I use this
[30:39] same transponder? Do I need two
[30:41] transponders? Now the answer is
[30:42] no you don
[30:44] t. But I have to now
[30:47] explain that to possibly 2.7
[30:49] million or 1.5 million
[30:50] customers, that it
[30:50] s going to
[30:52] work the same. Um, so if you
[30:53] have it, nothing
[30:54] s going to
[30:54] change. If you don
[30:55] t have it, I
[30:57] suggest you get it. Um, but
[30:59] that will be changing. Um,
[30:59] they
[30:59] re going to go through
[31:01] some growing pains. Plenary is
[31:02] actually starting their wind
[31:03] down as we speak. They
[31:04] re
[31:05] started installing their new
[31:06] equipment. And I think by
[31:07] OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, they
[31:07] re
[31:08] going to be doing their own
[31:10] billing. Express toll will
[31:11] still work on that road. But if
[31:11] you don
[31:12] t have an express toll
[31:13] transponder, you
[31:13] re not going
[31:15] to get a bill from a470 or
[31:16] express toll anymore. You
[31:16] re
[31:17] going to get it from plenary
[31:18] roads. And so it
[31:19] s just going
[31:20] to be a different experience
[31:21] for people. Um, we
[31:22] ve already
[31:23] seen where customers are
[31:25] getting really conflicting
[31:27] bills potentially. And so what
[31:28] what
[31:29] s likely to happen is
[31:29] someone
[31:30] s going to think they
[31:30] paid and they
[31:31] re going to end
[31:32] up in collections or have a
[31:33] registration hold on their
[31:34] vehicle before they realize
[31:34] they didn
[31:35] t pay the right
[31:38] company. Um, we are actively
[31:39] working on this, you know, at
[31:41] the Capitol and with the state
[31:43] and with anybody we can to try
[31:45] to slow this down, or at least,
[31:47] um, pause it so that we can
[31:49] maybe make a better decision.
[31:51] Um, but tbd on whether that
[31:53] happens. I think with a new
[31:54] administration, we
[31:55] re we are
[31:57] making some headways, um, with
[31:59] both both candidates on, you
[32:00] know, how we think that this
[32:00] can be a little more
[32:02] streamlined in the future? I
[32:03] think the other thing is for
[32:04] a470, and this is really
[32:06] important when I talk about
[32:08] partnerships, a470 wants to be
[32:10] aligned with the state, whether
[32:12] it be CDot or cto or the other
[32:14] tolling agencies in the state.
[32:15] And what that means is
[32:17] everything we do is stuff the
[32:17] state doesn
[32:19] t have to do. Um,
[32:20] we fund it, you know, through
[32:22] the tolls we collect. And so,
[32:23] um, we want to make sure that
[32:23] there
[32:24] s no sense that we
[32:24] re
[32:25] trying to compete with them in
[32:27] any way and take away something
[32:27] that they
[32:29] re doing. So we just
[32:30] want to get in alignment with
[32:31] whomever ends up as the head of
[32:33] the Dot. When the
[32:35] administration turns over to
[32:36] say, look, how do we partner so
[32:36] that we
[32:37] re not infighting with
[32:41] each other all the time? Um,
[32:42] these are the agencies I just
[32:45] spoke about. Um, and then the
[32:46] changes that are coming. So
[32:48] most immediately, the red
[32:49] section there will be a
[32:51] different operator. It
[32:51] ll be
[32:52] plenary roads. It
[32:52] s the same
[32:53] company that
[32:54] s the p3 today,
[32:54] but they
[32:55] re going to be doing
[32:57] all the billing themselves. Um,
[32:58] eventually they
[32:59] ve talked about
[33:01] issuing a different transponder
[33:02] type, but as of today, their
[33:05] system is not ready to do that.
[33:08] And just to follow up, even
[33:09] when they do, your express toll
[33:11] transponder will continue to
[33:12] work. And so it
[33:13] s going to be
[33:14] just like in any other state.
[33:15] So if if you don
[33:16] t change,
[33:17] you
[33:18] re fine. Even when they
[33:20] start making changes. Um, and
[33:20] that
[33:22] s it. I will take
[33:25] questions.
[33:31] Questions. Mayor Pro Tem.
[33:33] Thank you for coming. And thank
[33:34] you for sharing that. I really
[33:38] appreciate it. Um, I think the
[33:40] most positive thing here is
[33:41] that you
[33:42] re the first of our
[33:43] partners. In the time that I
[33:44] ve
[33:45] been on council, that actually
[33:47] came and talked and wanted to
[33:50] participate in a partnership
[33:52] and engaged with us, uh, many
[33:53] of them, if they deign to give
[33:55] us any attention at all, simply
[33:57] tell us how unimportant we are.
[33:59] So I really appreciate you
[34:01] coming here. And being that
[34:04] that partner. Appreciate that I
[34:06] tongue in cheek, I I
[34:07] ll express
[34:09] frustration that the boulevard,
[34:11] uh, interchange happened so
[34:13] quickly such that we ended up
[34:15] by default behind schedule on
[34:17] some of our saleable Sable
[34:19] Boulevard improvements because
[34:20] that project was six months
[34:22] ahead of schedule. Uh, however,
[34:25] being a driver who absolutely
[34:27] cannot stand the large loop
[34:29] around to get onto westbound
[34:33] 470 at 85, I am so excited that
[34:34] I will even put up with the
[34:36] construction traffic on Sable
[34:37] to get to that interchange and
[34:39] avoid the terrible one. Uh,
[34:41] over there. So I appreciate the
[34:41] work that
[34:43] s happening there. I
[34:46] appreciate, um, the widening on
[34:46] the north end and the
[34:50] recognition that, uh, really,
[34:53] 470 is our access. I worked in
[34:54] the tech center for a very,
[34:56] very long time and without for
[34:59] 74, 72, an hour and 15 minute
[35:00] commute and made it a 37 minute
[35:02] commute on a constant basis. So
[35:04] I appreciate the fact that
[35:05] Brighton fits into that
[35:07] strategy, and it is part of it,
[35:10] and it continues to get
[35:11] attention so.
[35:12] Well, I appreciate that. I
[35:14] mean, I think your commute sort
[35:17] of is the message and not just
[35:18] the time but the consistency.
[35:19] And I think that
[35:19] s what we
[35:21] strive to deliver is
[35:22] dependability. Um, and so our
[35:24] challenge now is during
[35:25] construction, how do we
[35:26] guarantee that dependability
[35:27] without disrupting traffic
[35:29] during the day when drivers are
[35:31] out there and I apologize about
[35:32] the accelerated schedule, I
[35:33] remember talking to the
[35:35] engineers in DECEMBER, and even
[35:36] internally I started talking to
[35:38] our technology team and said,
[35:39] you guys better start thinking
[35:41] about technology because
[35:41] they
[35:41] re going to be ahead of
[35:42] schedule. And everyone
[35:42] s like,
[35:43] what do you mean? I said, it
[35:43] s
[35:44] not snowing. Like we haven
[35:44] t
[35:46] had to shut down at all. And
[35:46] and that
[35:47] s ultimately what
[35:49] happened. And I think I talked
[35:50] to Public Works and I said, you
[35:51] know, unfortunately I think
[35:51] we
[35:52] re going to be way ahead of
[35:53] you guys. And as you guys were
[35:54] getting ready to start doing
[35:57] the roundabouts, um, you know,
[35:57] we
[35:59] re already open. So I
[36:01] apologize. But Io know that
[36:02] some people do like it because
[36:03] it does get them.
[36:04] To work quicker and they
[36:04] re on
[36:07] it. And I there are a number of
[36:08] steps to that, and we probably
[36:10] are the slow part of that
[36:12] ourselves as counsel. Yeah. But
[36:16] um. No, I, I really appreciate
[36:18] you being here. I think that
[36:23] that, um, 470 as, uh, airport
[36:26] transit is going to become ever
[36:27] more important. And I also
[36:29] appreciate you bringing up the
[36:31] aerotropolis and the volume of
[36:31] work that
[36:32] s really going to
[36:33] happen. And we
[36:33] re seeing it
[36:34] happen on the south side of the
[36:36] airport. We are going to see
[36:37] the same things happen on the
[36:38] north side of the airport. And
[36:40] for 70 will be an important
[36:43] part of that access. And
[36:45] transportation around it. So.
[36:45] Well, I didn
[36:46] t mention this,
[36:48] but we also partner with rtd
[36:48] and we
[36:49] re working to expand
[36:51] that partnership in ways that
[36:52] we never have in the past. And
[36:54] I think years ago, there was a
[36:54] belief that we didn
[36:55] t want
[36:56] buses on our road. We wanted
[36:57] everyone on that bus to pay a
[36:59] toll. But, you know, we
[36:59] re part
[37:00] of the transportation network
[37:01] now. We need the buses out
[37:02] there and you don
[37:03] t need to
[37:05] build brt lanes on a470 because
[37:05] we
[37:06] re going to guarantee the
[37:07] bus gets there on time. So
[37:07] we
[37:08] re looking at different
[37:10] partnerships and maybe opening
[37:11] parking rides and partnering to
[37:12] do that with rtd as much as we
[37:13] can as well.
[37:15] That would be fantastic. And
[37:16] getting to the airport without
[37:18] having to go downtown or go at
[37:20] 3:00 in the morning would be a
[37:22] great, great piece. Uh, I won
[37:22] t
[37:23] say any more about the partners
[37:24] who come and tell us how
[37:26] important we are. So thank you
[37:27] very much. I appreciate you
[37:28] being here.
[37:31] Thank you. Council member
[37:32] Carbajal.
[37:33] Yeah, I feel like I learned a
[37:34] lot just now. So I
[37:35] m a regular
[37:36] user. We have our shop in
[37:38] Centennial, so we drive that
[37:40] route every day. Probably three
[37:42] cars out of my household. Um,
[37:45] and so I am amazed that 81,000
[37:47] cars are taking that road every
[37:48] single day. Can you talk to me
[37:52] about that? 75% transponders,
[37:53] like how many of those are
[37:55] regular users? Do you have any
[37:56] data on that?
[37:57] We do. And it
[37:57] s it
[37:58] s actually
[38:00] pretty surprising that there
[38:00] s
[38:01] a pretty small percentage. And
[38:02] I say small. It
[38:03] s probably 20
[38:06] to 30% that are regular, using
[38:07] it more than 3 to 5 times a
[38:09] week. Um, we get a lot of
[38:10] infrequent users. And that
[38:10] s
[38:12] always been our challenge, is
[38:12] we
[38:13] d like to have a transponder
[38:15] in every vehicle, but some
[38:16] people, because it
[38:17] s a prepaid
[38:18] requirement right now, some
[38:19] people say, oh, I don
[38:20] t want to
[38:21] pay prepay any money because I
[38:22] might use it three times this
[38:24] year. And so we
[38:24] re actually
[38:26] exploring ways to make all
[38:28] accounts postpaid, um, with
[38:29] payment technology the way it
[38:30] is now, there
[38:31] s no reason for
[38:32] us to hold your money. If we
[38:34] can just do an auto pay like
[38:35] most people do with a lot of
[38:36] their bills. Just a
[38:37] notification that we
[38:37] re going
[38:39] to charge you for your usage.
[38:40] Last month, um, with a
[38:41] transponder, that
[38:41] s even
[38:42] better. So we
[38:42] re looking at
[38:43] other ways to get more
[38:45] transponders out there. But
[38:45] it
[38:46] s a surprising number of
[38:50] infrequent users, 2470.
[38:51] I think my next question is
[38:52] just I think there
[38:52] s a
[38:53] misconception I like that you
[38:54] led with like where, hey, we
[38:54] re
[38:56] looking to be partners. And I
[38:57] like really appreciate that in
[38:58] all aspects. We should be
[38:59] looking to be good partners
[38:59] because we
[39:00] re here to serve
[39:02] people. Um, but I believe, like
[39:03] a lot of people have said like,
[39:04] hey, when will we stop paying
[39:05] tolls? And I know obviously
[39:07] that is not part of the thing.
[39:08] Right? Until 2041, you
[39:08] re in
[39:09] the first round of the bonds up
[39:13] to 2076. Um, how were you, like
[39:14] going out and sharing the
[39:15] information like, hey, this is
[39:16] just the service that
[39:17] s based
[39:18] on this? I did see a lot of
[39:19] your stuff come out when you
[39:20] were talking about how a470
[39:21] works and who
[39:22] s behind it, but
[39:23] how do you get rid of that
[39:24] misconception and then get
[39:25] people bought into the idea
[39:25] that it
[39:26] s a lifetime thing?
[39:27] I think for us it
[39:28] s just out
[39:30] there and one of the, you know,
[39:31] the the international trade
[39:33] association that is toll roads,
[39:34] it
[39:35] s called ebita and they
[39:36] ve
[39:37] got a tagline that says there
[39:37] s
[39:39] no free roads. And so the
[39:41] reality is, you know, every
[39:42] time you fill up your car in
[39:43] theory and every time you
[39:45] register your vehicle or buy
[39:46] auto parts or whatever, you
[39:46] re
[39:48] paying for transportation in
[39:49] some way, I think what we
[39:50] re
[39:52] trying to show is, hey, we
[39:53] collect the money and we
[39:53] re
[39:54] good stewards with it, and
[39:56] every surplus dollar gets
[39:57] reinvested into more
[39:58] infrastructure. And so that
[39:58] s
[40:00] why when I say we want to
[40:02] partner and do more and we have
[40:03] a board retreat coming this
[40:05] week, um, to really talk about
[40:07] what does that mean? You know,
[40:09] we started a policy. Oh, I
[40:09] don
[40:10] t know, maybe eight years
[40:14] ago of how can we partner to be
[40:15] funding partners for projects
[40:16] that are sort of
[40:17] nontraditional? They
[40:17] re really
[40:19] not doing anything to our road.
[40:19] But maybe there
[40:20] s connectivity
[40:21] to our road. We
[40:22] re looking at
[40:23] ways to say, how can we do more
[40:24] in the region? Maybe it doesn
[40:24] t
[40:25] even have to connect to our
[40:27] road. Maybe it just has to
[40:29] enhance the region and maybe
[40:31] get traffic to flow. Easier to
[40:34] get to our road. Um, I think,
[40:36] you know, really going from the
[40:36] we
[40:36] re a, we
[40:37] re a road to
[40:38] nowhere that goes through
[40:41] nowhere to really just being a
[40:42] part of the the main
[40:43] transportation, the way you get
[40:45] to work every day because there
[40:47] is no major north south access
[40:48] or east west access, that
[40:49] s
[40:51] highway in nature in this part
[40:53] of the metro area. And so I
[40:53] think it
[40:55] s just repetitively
[40:57] being out there and talking to
[40:58] the communities about what we
[41:00] do and what we represent. Um,
[41:01] if we
[41:02] re 70 for a long time
[41:03] took the position of we
[41:03] re just
[41:04] going to sort of keep our head
[41:06] down and not stick our head up,
[41:07] because then people will take
[41:07] shots at us, and we don
[41:08] t want
[41:09] to be defending ourselves. And
[41:11] what I reminded staff when I
[41:13] came back was, if all you
[41:13] re
[41:14] doing is defending yourself
[41:15] five times a year, all that
[41:15] s
[41:17] all the community sees as you
[41:18] defending yourself, they don
[41:19] t
[41:19] ever see the good stuff you
[41:20] re
[41:21] doing. So when we partner in
[41:23] these communities and we go to
[41:23] these events, we
[41:24] re talking
[41:24] about what we
[41:25] re doing. We
[41:25] re
[41:26] showing the projects that we
[41:27] re
[41:28] delivering to your communities.
[41:29] And they
[41:30] re all not just roads.
[41:31] As we talk about the, um,
[41:32] Riverdale Bluffs Park, I mean,
[41:32] that
[41:33] s all trails. We
[41:34] ve built
[41:36] 24 miles of trail along a470,
[41:37] the High Plains Trail, and we
[41:38] want to connect that trail
[41:40] system into all the trail
[41:40] systems, and we
[41:41] ll pay to
[41:43] connect those trails because, I
[41:45] mean, we talk about, you know,
[41:45] we
[41:46] re a highway, but we
[41:46] re also
[41:48] about transportation. And
[41:48] that
[41:49] s transportation, whether
[41:50] it be buses, that
[41:50] s
[41:52] transportation, whether it be
[41:53] bikes and pedestrians. And I
[41:53] mean, there
[41:54] s only so much we
[41:56] can do sort of in our corridor.
[41:59] But I think that we are I think
[42:01] a470, the authority is a
[42:04] critical part of the state
[42:05] infrastructure system,
[42:06] certainly in this region. And I
[42:08] think we need to as we
[42:08] re
[42:09] trying to align with the state.
[42:10] So they see it that way and
[42:10] they don
[42:12] t see us as a nuisance
[42:13] to them.
[42:14] I really appreciate that. Thank
[42:16] you so much. Yeah.
[42:18] Any other questions? Council
[42:21] member Wirth.
[42:23] Thank you mayor. Thanks, Joe.
[42:25] Great presentation. Um, you
[42:26] know, I
[42:27] ve been the alternate
[42:31] now on the a470 board for, for
[42:33] since the beginning of the year
[42:36] and just been really, um,
[42:37] impressed with just the
[42:39] general, the class of the
[42:41] organization. Um, you know,
[42:43] from, from top down to
[42:44] everybody I
[42:45] ve ever met. Just
[42:47] really class operation. Um, and
[42:49] for, for 70, you know, when I,
[42:50] when, when it was built, I kind
[42:52] of saw it as the road way out
[42:54] in the middle of nowhere and
[42:57] knew that and saw you MAY have
[42:58] seen just through the years,
[43:00] uh, I mean, out there got Smoky
[43:00] Hill Road. There wasn
[43:01] t really
[43:02] much of anything out there for
[43:04] 70 got there. That area
[43:05] s
[43:06] amazing. It just happened
[43:07] really all the way through.
[43:07] It
[43:09] s been kind of a conduit for
[43:12] development and attracted a lot
[43:15] of, uh, enterprise into just
[43:17] along the highway enterprise,
[43:19] uh, residential, everything. So
[43:19] it
[43:20] s really been an important
[43:23] part of the, the infrastructure
[43:25] in, uh, in this region. Um, and
[43:27] i look forward it it
[43:27] s neat
[43:28] seeing the projects we have
[43:31] down the road, um, that we
[43:31] re
[43:33] just thinking that much further
[43:35] ahead. And, and the
[43:37] partnerships are a major part
[43:40] of that. As, uh, council
[43:42] member, uh, Padilla mentioned,
[43:43] uh, frequently, we don
[43:43] t really
[43:46] get brought in as a partner or
[43:48] considered seriously as a
[43:49] partner. And it
[43:50] s, uh, it
[43:50] s
[43:52] nice to be involved in that and
[43:54] heavily involved. Yeah. So it
[43:55] s
[43:55] very cool.
[43:57] I appreciate that. And I think,
[43:58] you know, as we start talking
[44:00] strategically, you know, I and
[44:00] you
[44:01] ll hear it, I think you
[44:01] re
[44:03] going to be at our meeting on
[44:05] Thursday. Um, you know, 30
[44:06] years ago, there was a bunch of
[44:07] visionaries that said, we need
[44:08] to create our public highway
[44:09] authority law. And so what
[44:10] we
[44:11] re really challenging our
[44:12] board now. And the and the
[44:13] people that sit behind the
[44:15] board on these councils to be
[44:17] the visionaries of where do we
[44:18] want to take a470 in the
[44:19] future. Now, what does it mean
[44:21] to this region? Back then they
[44:22] said it meant a beltway and now
[44:23] we
[44:23] re saying, okay, what more
[44:26] can just than just a beltway
[44:27] can we be. And so I think
[44:28] that
[44:29] s important. And I think,
[44:30] you know, we want to be
[44:31] partnering with these
[44:32] communities, these cities and
[44:34] counties. And we want to
[44:34] understand what
[44:35] s on your
[44:37] agenda for public works. You
[44:38] know what? What do you have
[44:40] coming? You know, how can we
[44:41] align with that? And so if
[44:41] we
[44:42] re building something and
[44:42] you
[44:43] re building something,
[44:43] maybe there
[44:44] s already some
[44:46] things in the planning that we
[44:47] can talk about. And that
[44:47] s
[44:47] something that we haven
[44:48] t done
[44:49] traditionally. But you
[44:49] re going
[44:50] to see more of that because I
[44:51] think that
[44:52] s important because
[44:52] we
[44:53] re connecting these
[44:55] communities together, um, to
[44:56] each other, but also to
[44:57] yourselves. And so we want to
[44:59] understand what you guys have
[45:00] coming as well. So you
[45:00] ll see
[45:02] more of that as we get into
[45:03] next year as we start to expand
[45:05] our like, what are we planning
[45:07] for in the region.?
[45:08] Well, and that
[45:08] s that
[45:09] s again,
[45:09] that
[45:09] s what
[45:10] s really impressed
[45:11] me about the organization as a
[45:13] whole. And I would challenge
[45:15] anybody to find really a finer
[45:17] drive, um, anywhere in the
[45:19] state. Um, you want to go to
[45:20] potholes and everything, like
[45:20] you can find them out there,
[45:21] but you
[45:21] re not going to find
[45:23] that on for 70. Just really a
[45:26] nice road and well-maintained.
[45:29] And, uh, class organization..
[45:32] Next. Council member Fiedler.
[45:33] Thank you. Mayor. Uh, I just
[45:35] want to extend my thanks as
[45:36] well. Thanks for being here. I
[45:37] appreciate that, love the
[45:39] stance of partners. Appreciate
[45:41] that as well. And this is
[45:42] really personal. I want to
[45:42] thank you for the amount of
[45:44] time before 70 has saved me in
[45:47] my lifetime. So, um, when I
[45:49] lived over in Erie, I drove the
[45:50] toll road when it first started
[45:53] to job in Deer Trail, 71 miles
[45:54] one way. He made it in under an
[45:57] hour most days. Uh, and then in
[45:59] 2012, I took a job here in
[45:59] town. Didn
[46:00] t use you much up to
[46:01] the airport, but now I
[46:01] m
[46:03] driving to Boulder every day,
[46:07] and it saves me anywhere from
[46:09] 15 minutes to 20 minutes one
[46:10] way. So it
[46:10] s almost an hour a
[46:12] day. It saves me and the sable,
[46:14] the Sable interchange saved me
[46:15] about five more minutes, so I
[46:15] don
[46:16] t have to mess around with
[46:18] the the loop de loop down there
[46:19] in 85 and go through town to
[46:20] get there. So and I mean that
[46:23] sincerely. Uh, time is a is a
[46:25] resource and it, it saved me a
[46:26] lot of time in the last 20 plus
[46:27] years. So thank you.
[46:27] All right. I
[46:29] ll make sure I get
[46:30] your contact information. So
[46:31] when we do our next marketing
[46:31] stuff, we
[46:33] ll get you doing a
[46:33] testimony.
[46:33] Oh, we
[46:35] re the swag if you bring
[46:35] it. All right. I
[46:36] ll help you
[46:36] out with the marketing. I
[46:36] d
[46:40] wear that.
[46:42] Any other comments or
[46:45] questions? The logo is nice and
[46:46] simple. I agree. It looks like
[46:50] a road. Yeah. Yes. Council
[46:51] member Carbajal.
[46:52] I love that he made it a little
[46:53] personal. And I
[46:53] ll tell you, I
[46:55] drive a giant food truck that
[46:56] weighs
[46:58] 26,000 and there is not
[47:00] another road that I would trust
[47:01] driving that on between here
[47:02] and there without hitting
[47:03] potholes and messing everything
[47:05] up. So I think that is really
[47:06] important. I never think about
[47:06] that. It
[47:07] s like a commodity
[47:09] that now I just take advantage
[47:11] of. Maybe, um, but when I have
[47:11] to go somewhere else, that
[47:11] s
[47:12] off the beaten path, it
[47:14] absolutely beats my food truck
[47:15] up. So thanks for that.
[47:16] Appreciate that.
[47:17] Here, I got a quick question,
[47:22] um, on that list of different
[47:23] toll authorities that your
[47:26] e-ZPass accepts. I did not see
[47:28] the like the ones in Kansas,
[47:30] Oklahoma, Texas. And I thought
[47:31] it was announced that there was
[47:32] a partnership.
[47:33] Yeah, those are those agencies.
[47:35] Those are the e-ZPass. That
[47:35] s.
[47:37] Which is the brand on the East
[47:38] Coast. We are connected with
[47:41] Kansas, Oklahoma and Texas as
[47:41] well.
[47:42] So that
[47:43] s the current brand
[47:45] already. Okay I will yeah.
[47:45] That wasn
[47:46] t easy. Passes the
[47:47] East Coast brand. And so if you
[47:49] go anywhere on the East Coast
[47:50] they all use e-ZPass. So new
[47:52] Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania,
[47:52] they
[47:55] re all on e-ZPass. And so
[47:55] it
[47:58] s express toll here. But Kay
[47:59] Tag, which is in Kansas, they
[48:01] can drive here, we can drive on
[48:03] the Kansas Turnpike, same thing
[48:04] in Oklahoma and Texas.
[48:06] Thanks for clarifying that.
[48:08] Yeah. Um, question again also,
[48:12] um, when you log in to pay, say
[48:14] online, you get a toll or
[48:16] whatever. Um, what if you don
[48:16] t
[48:18] have an account, you never open
[48:19] up the account and you just
[48:21] have the license plate picture.
[48:23] You can somebody that say drove
[48:25] on a470 last week just kind of
[48:27] plug in their license plate and
[48:28] just pay with before I.
[48:29] Believe you can. It
[48:29] ll what
[48:30] ll
[48:31] ask is for the license plate
[48:32] number. I think they ask for
[48:34] your zip code as well. And if
[48:34] we
[48:35] ve processed that
[48:37] transaction you can pay that
[48:39] transaction or the transactions
[48:40] associated with that license
[48:41] plate with that zip code. If it
[48:42] hasn
[48:43] t been processed yet,
[48:43] there
[48:44] s no real way for us to
[48:45] verify that. So we don
[48:46] t
[48:47] necessarily want to return
[48:48] that. That license plate owes
[48:51] us $300, because your neighbor
[48:51] could be seeing if you
[48:51] re
[48:54] paying your bills. And so we
[48:55] want a second verification. So
[48:56] it
[48:56] s typically once we
[48:56] ve
[48:57] processed it and it
[48:58] s been
[48:59] through the dmv check, it
[49:00] ll
[49:01] say well that license plates
[49:03] registered at this zip code.
[49:04] And so if you put in the
[49:06] combination it would pull that
[49:07] up and you could pay it okay.
[49:08] That
[49:09] s good because I know
[49:10] people that don
[49:10] t have an
[49:12] account. And that would be an
[49:14] easy way to pay. Also, could
[49:15] you get a discount for doing
[49:16] that before you even get the
[49:17] the mail in, you know.
[49:18] Yeah. And that
[49:18] s what that
[49:18] s
[49:19] actually what we
[49:19] re looking at.
[49:20] I mean we
[49:20] re really trying to
[49:23] get away where we can get away
[49:25] from, um, even mailing things
[49:26] to people. We want to be able
[49:27] to send you an sms message.
[49:28] Instead of that.
[49:30] Yeah. Um, and so, I mean, the
[49:32] more stuff we can introduce,
[49:34] that self service, the less it
[49:35] costs us. And then we could
[49:37] probably offer discounts for
[49:38] sure.
[49:42] Cool. Anybody else? Thanks for
[49:44] coming. Thanks for taking time.
[49:45] Hopefully we made your time
[49:47] worthwhile. We gave you a good,
[49:48] what, 45 minutes or so?
[49:49] Yeah, I appreciate it. Sorry if
[49:50] I went a little long.
[49:50] No, no. We
[49:52] re good. We budgeted
[49:53] enough time for you. Thank you.
[49:53] Thank you very.
[49:58] Much. Next presentation. Uh,
[50:01] Edward Byron, jag grant
[50:03] acceptance. City manager
[50:05] Martinez.
[50:08] Thank you. Mayor, here this
[50:10] evening to discuss the Edward
[50:13] Byrne Justice Assistance. Grant
[50:16] is lieutenant struck along with
[50:17] Chief of Police Matthew
[50:18] Domenico. I
[50:19] ll turn it over to
[50:20] lieutenant Struck.
[50:23] All right. Thank you. Sir.
[50:24] Uh. Good morning. Good evening.
[50:26] Mayor, mayor pro tem and
[50:26] council. I
[50:27] m nick struck, and
[50:28] I
[50:28] m a lieutenant for your
[50:29] police department. And I
[50:29] ve
[50:31] been working for your city for
[50:32] the last 16 years. And super
[50:34] excited. Uh, I
[50:35] m going to be
[50:37] introducing our 2025 Edward
[50:39] Byrne, um, Justice Assistance
[50:40] Grant program. I
[50:41] ll call it jag
[50:42] for short, since it
[50:42] s a long
[50:44] name. And what we will be
[50:45] asking for is your approval to
[50:50] accept the grant for 2025. Now,
[50:51] give you a little history
[50:52] because some might not know
[50:53] this is a federal grant funded
[50:54] through the Department of
[50:56] Justice. Every year, Congress
[50:58] sets the budget. And then from
[51:00] that number, they use a formula
[51:02] to allocate to all the
[51:03] jurisdictions in the country
[51:05] based on our three year violent
[51:07] crime average, as compared to
[51:09] the state of Colorado and the
[51:11] nation. So it does vary from
[51:14] year to year. It also I will
[51:16] have you know, is this 2025
[51:17] grant, and we
[51:18] re already more
[51:20] than halfway through 2025. This
[51:23] grant typically posts AUGUST to
[51:24] SEPTEMBER, but because of the
[51:26] government shutdown last year,
[51:27] they pushed everything all the
[51:29] way back to about APRIL this
[51:31] year. So we just got funded. I
[51:32] also tell you that because they
[51:34] just announced the 2026 grant,
[51:35] so you will likely see us in
[51:37] the near future presenting for
[51:39] that grant as well. But let
[51:39] s
[51:41] turn back to the 2025 grant. We
[51:48] were awarded $12,963 for the
[51:50] purchase of our flock, lpr
[51:53] cameras, and this is for this
[51:54] is already awarded grant, but
[51:54] we
[51:56] re seeking for acceptance of
[51:58] the award now also to kind of
[52:00] go over some flock safety
[52:01] stuff. So we use flock safety
[52:03] cameras. They are the license
[52:05] plate recognition cameras. So
[52:08] these cameras give us real time
[52:11] information on various alerts
[52:13] such as stolen vehicles. Um,
[52:15] people associated with warrants
[52:17] on a vehicle. Also non-criminal
[52:20] things so at risk runaways or
[52:22] missing persons. All of these
[52:24] alerts just lead to
[52:25] investigative leads for the
[52:27] officer to follow up on. In and
[52:28] of themselves. It
[52:28] s not
[52:30] probable cause to go in and
[52:31] stop a vehicle. The officer
[52:33] still needs to do our legwork
[52:35] to confirm the information that
[52:36] is verified through the picture
[52:38] of the lpr, so make sure that
[52:39] it actually took the right
[52:40] picture and interpreted the
[52:41] numbers correctly as well as
[52:43] the information. So a practical
[52:44] example. It gives me an alert
[52:46] for stolen vehicle. I would
[52:48] clear it in quick to confirm
[52:49] that actual vehicle is stolen.
[52:49] It wasn
[52:50] t recovered and is not
[52:52] reported. So we still have to
[52:54] do all the confirmation steps.
[52:54] This isn
[52:55] t just an end all be
[52:56] all. There
[52:57] s an alert and we go
[53:00] catch it. So that gives you a
[53:01] little bit about flock safety.
[53:03] Now we have eight cameras
[53:04] throughout the city of
[53:06] Brighton. Seven of them are
[53:07] fixed and one is on a mobile
[53:11] unit. We actually used 2024 jag
[53:13] funds to purchase the cameras.
[53:14] Now, these are on an annual
[53:17] subscription based fee, and it
[53:19] costs about 24,000 for all
[53:21] eight cameras per year to have
[53:23] access to them. Now, you
[53:23] ll
[53:24] notice the jag fund does not
[53:26] cover all of that. So we would
[53:28] use forfeiture money to offset
[53:29] to get the total cost of about
[53:32] the 24,000. And that
[53:32] s what
[53:32] we
[53:33] re seeking for this year.
[53:34] Now, there
[53:35] s no action needed
[53:37] for you today. You will see us
[53:39] at the SEPTEMBER 15th council
[53:40] meeting, where we
[53:41] ll be asking
[53:43] you for approval to accept this
[53:44] grant for use of the floor
[53:47] cameras and short and sweet.
[53:47] I
[53:49] m ready for some questions.
[53:49] Who
[53:50] s got questions for the
[53:55] lieutenant? Council member
[53:58] Tadeo. Sorry if this is.
[53:59] A dumb question.
[54:00] No.
[54:01] What are what is what are
[54:03] forfeiture funds? Where does
[54:04] that come from?
[54:04] Yeah, that
[54:05] s a great question.
[54:07] So there are times when, um,
[54:07] let
[54:08] s say we have a drug
[54:10] seizure that goes through a
[54:12] whole process, um, on asset
[54:13] forfeiture. And the chief is
[54:14] actually able to kind of go
[54:16] into how that gets approved.
[54:17] And those funds used.
[54:19] Uh, Brighton pd is a member of
[54:21] the North Metro Drug Task
[54:22] Force. And as part of that task
[54:25] force, uh, they are involved in
[54:26] large scale drug
[54:28] investigations, uh, along with
[54:30] federal partners that at times
[54:32] result in seizures of property,
[54:34] cash, various other things.
[54:34] We
[54:35] re entitled to a portion of
[54:36] those proceeds by being a
[54:38] member of the North Metro Drug
[54:40] Task Force.
[54:40] So so I
[54:42] m guessing that those
[54:45] Funds are pretty consistent.
[54:47] Unfortunately.
[54:48] Actually, you
[54:48] d be surprised
[54:49] they
[54:50] re not that consistent and
[54:52] they take years and years to
[54:53] show up. We
[54:54] re seeing funds
[54:56] from operations 4 or 5, six
[54:58] years ago because they take a
[54:58] long time.
[54:59] To work. So then what happens
[54:59] then? If we don
[55:00] t have enough
[55:02] of the forfeiture funds and
[55:04] not, you know, the grant money
[55:04] doesn
[55:06] t cover everything.
[55:08] Uh, we have a significant
[55:10] portion. We saved them up over
[55:11] time to use. So we have enough
[55:13] to cover multiple years of
[55:14] costs like this.
[55:16] Thank you.
[55:17] More questions from the
[55:21] council. Council member Snyder.
[55:22] Thank you. Sir.
[55:26] Um, I am not a flat camera
[55:27] detractor. I like them, I think
[55:28] they do a good thing for you.
[55:30] But I do have to ask the
[55:30] question. There
[55:31] s a great deal
[55:32] of communities pulling the
[55:33] plug. I mean, they
[55:33] re on the
[55:38] news every night. Um, do we
[55:40] restrict who can access our
[55:42] system and how they can use it?
[55:42] You know, that
[55:42] s a it
[55:43] s a great
[55:44] question, especially for the
[55:46] times given, uh, and yes, there
[55:47] is restrictions. We have
[55:49] multiple levels of restrictions
[55:51] on who can access. So first we
[55:55] only share with um, 790
[55:55] networks. And I
[55:56] ll give you an
[55:57] example. Brighton pd is one
[55:58] network and we have eight
[56:00] cameras under that network. Not
[56:02] every city has like eight
[56:03] cameras. So it
[56:04] s dependent on
[56:06] the cameras. But we share with
[56:08] 790. Now we receive information
[56:10] from over 1300 networks that we
[56:10] don
[56:11] t share with. Each agency
[56:14] has to request access. So if
[56:15] someone wanted our data we
[56:16] would they would request
[56:17] access. We would have to vet
[56:18] them first before we would
[56:20] allow them to come in. We have
[56:22] two primary rules is we don
[56:22] t
[56:23] share data with private
[56:25] companies we can take in. So we
[56:26] have a couple of vendors that
[56:28] are private, some hotels and
[56:30] some like the Home Depot stuff.
[56:31] They can share their data with
[56:31] us, but we
[56:33] re we do not share
[56:34] backwards to them. And we also
[56:34] don
[56:35] t share with the federal
[56:36] government. They actually flock
[56:38] does not have any contracts
[56:39] with the federal government. So
[56:39] there
[56:41] s no communication link
[56:42] between us and them. So yes,
[56:44] there are restrictions on who
[56:45] we share with. There
[56:45] s also
[56:46] restrictions on the officer
[56:48] level. So especially in the
[56:50] state of Colorado, we aren
[56:50] t
[56:51] allowed to share about
[56:53] immigration enforcement or
[56:55] reproductive care. So when the
[56:56] officers log into their account
[56:58] and this is nationwide, there
[56:59] s
[57:01] a specific alert that these
[57:02] states in Colorado being one of
[57:04] them, you are prohibited. And
[57:05] you could be civilly and
[57:06] potentially criminally charged
[57:08] as an officer for seeking that
[57:10] information in violation of
[57:11] what this our local state laws
[57:14] are. So yes, we have tons of
[57:15] systems in check for those
[57:17] processes. We even audit
[57:18] monthly our searches and
[57:20] thankfully today we have not
[57:22] had any misuse of it. But we
[57:22] re
[57:23] still going to continue to
[57:25] monitor every month on our
[57:27] searches. We even have a built
[57:28] in ai tool that help us to look
[57:29] for if someone
[57:30] s trying to get
[57:31] immigration information through
[57:33] another backdoor, and it helps
[57:35] us. And so we are very much on
[57:36] top of that, because it is
[57:37] pressing, like you mentioned,
[57:39] the name FLoc and everybody
[57:40] s
[57:41] ears perk up. So I hope that
[57:43] answers your question.
[57:44] It does, and I appreciate I ask
[57:45] that more for the people
[57:46] watching because I kind of know
[57:48] how we do it. But but there
[57:48] s
[57:49] so much controversy about it.
[57:50] And it
[57:50] s it
[57:52] s a good tool to
[57:53] help police departments that
[57:55] are understaffed because
[57:56] they
[57:57] re under budgeted. So I
[57:57] don
[57:58] t want to see it go away.
[57:59] But I want people to understand
[58:01] that we are taking safeguards
[58:02] to use it properly.
[58:04] I do want to actually give you
[58:05] an example because I think that
[58:07] might help. So one of the
[58:08] questions would be, well, do
[58:10] you share across state lines?
[58:11] And yes, we do share with other
[58:13] states. And we had a recent
[58:14] case where we had a juvenile
[58:15] that was at risk of human
[58:18] trafficking and had run away.
[58:20] The officer was able to use
[58:22] flock and collaborate. The
[58:24] vehicles at the time near the
[58:25] location of the runaway. We
[58:27] suspected they might be going
[58:29] to Texas. And sure enough, same
[58:30] day we were able to get the
[58:32] flock that they came across
[58:33] Texas and we recovered her with
[58:35] our help from the fbi and the
[58:37] local jurisdiction to bring
[58:38] her. Because if we wouldn
[58:38] t
[58:39] have had that access, there
[58:41] would have not been a way for
[58:43] us to know. After she ran away
[58:44] where her location would have
[58:46] been. So, yes, agreement across
[58:47] state lines, it really does, is
[58:51] a benefit for our city, right?
[58:53] Next we have Councilmember
[58:53] Fiedler, and then we
[58:54] ll go over
[58:55] here.
[58:56] A comment and then a question,
[58:58] because inquiring minds want to
[59:00] know, um, first of all,
[59:02] Lieutenant struck 16 years with
[59:03] the forest. It
[59:05] s exciting. Wow.
[59:07] Congratulations. I remember
[59:08] when. That
[59:09] s awesome. I
[59:10] m dying
[59:11] to know how much is in the
[59:13] forfeiture fund. What is the
[59:14] what is the what is the fund
[59:16] balance in the forfeiture fund?
[59:17] Best guess.
[59:18] I don
[59:19] t have the exact number
[59:20] in front of me. It
[59:20] s several
[59:21] hundred thousand dollars.
[59:26] Six figures. Yes. Wow. Thank
[59:28] you. Chief. I just curious.
[59:30] No problem.
[59:32] Council member curveball.
[59:36] So 790 seems like a lot to me.
[59:36] And I know you said there
[59:37] s,
[59:38] like, some people have 1300
[59:39] that they
[59:40] re sharing with. Once
[59:42] you give access to people at
[59:44] that 790, can you take it back?
[59:46] Can you have it be a short time
[59:47] limited access in terms of that
[59:48] partnership? What does that
[59:50] look like? Or once you open the
[59:50] door to sharing that
[59:51] information, it
[59:52] s just.
[59:53] You know, that
[59:53] s a great
[59:54] question. People on the back
[59:56] end of things. And yes, we are
[59:57] able to retract any access
[59:58] given because our debt is our
[1:00:00] data at the end of the day. So
[1:00:03] if we have given it to access
[1:00:04] to one, um, entity, one
[1:00:06] network, we can absolutely take
[1:00:08] it back from them. We also are
[1:00:11] restricted on retention. So we
[1:00:11] can
[1:00:12] t retain anything longer
[1:00:14] than 30 days. So really if it
[1:00:14] s
[1:00:14] let
[1:00:15] s say it
[1:00:16] s some instance
[1:00:17] that happened longer than that,
[1:00:18] we might not be able to recover
[1:00:19] any information on that. So we
[1:00:21] also limit the time. And
[1:00:22] because we limit the scope of
[1:00:24] the days, that also helps in
[1:00:26] restricting information to that
[1:00:26] kind of answer.
[1:00:27] Yeah, that helps a lot. Is
[1:00:29] there a reason why we leave the
[1:00:31] door open once we allow access
[1:00:32] in certain situations? Like it
[1:00:33] would make sense. Adams County,
[1:00:34] because they
[1:00:34] re right here
[1:00:36] locally or. But is there a
[1:00:36] reason why we
[1:00:39] re keeping 790
[1:00:40] people with access constantly
[1:00:41] on those spots?
[1:00:41] Yeah, that
[1:00:42] s a great question.
[1:00:44] And I would yield back to the
[1:00:45] like our missing person. We
[1:00:45] don
[1:00:46] t know when they cross
[1:00:48] state lines to be able to find
[1:00:49] them. We had another one with a
[1:00:51] gentleman with dementia. Now
[1:00:52] this comes from Denver. He came
[1:00:54] through our sound and then
[1:00:56] ultimately was located up in
[1:00:57] Fort Morgan, um, throughout the
[1:00:59] day. So because of the stretch
[1:01:02] where even suspects or people
[1:01:02] that aren
[1:01:03] t suspects go to, we
[1:01:05] really do need to open door.
[1:01:05] Now. If we didn
[1:01:06] t open the
[1:01:06] door, we wouldn
[1:01:07] t be able to
[1:01:09] find that information. If we
[1:01:09] didn
[1:01:10] t have that open to those
[1:01:11] specific entities, if that
[1:01:12] makes sense.
[1:01:13] Yeah. How long does it take to
[1:01:15] give that access? Like, say you
[1:01:15] didn
[1:01:16] t have it all the way
[1:01:17] open, but you were like, hey,
[1:01:17] we know this person
[1:01:18] s going in
[1:01:19] this direction. We want access
[1:01:20] from these five agencies or we
[1:01:22] want to share, like, what does
[1:01:22] that look like?
[1:01:24] So we can start on our end, but
[1:01:25] ultimately it
[1:01:26] s on Fox servers
[1:01:27] to be able to when do they
[1:01:29] update the system and how long
[1:01:30] do they keep it open. So it
[1:01:30] s
[1:01:31] not necessarily an instant
[1:01:32] thing that we can open up the
[1:01:34] floodgates and be like, yep, we
[1:01:35] can get access. We have to have
[1:01:37] permission from that agency to
[1:01:39] begin with. So there always has
[1:01:40] to be communication prior to
[1:01:41] actually opening up the
[1:01:42] floodgates.
[1:01:44] And once they have access, can
[1:01:45] they utilize that at any time,
[1:01:46] or do they have to ask each
[1:01:47] time that they
[1:01:47] re looking for
[1:01:48] the data that we
[1:01:49] re grabbing?
[1:01:51] Right. So within the parameters
[1:01:52] of the 30 days immigration and
[1:01:53] reproductive care, they
[1:01:54] re
[1:01:55] still bound by those
[1:01:57] restrictions. Um, so they can
[1:01:59] do searches that will come up.
[1:01:59] So if they
[1:02:00] re looking for a
[1:02:01] vehicle of a missing person,
[1:02:03] they can search our our cameras
[1:02:04] for those things. As long as it
[1:02:04] doesn
[1:02:06] t violate those, um, the
[1:02:07] reproductive care and the
[1:02:08] immigration.
[1:02:08] And when you
[1:02:09] re going out and
[1:02:11] doing, um, like an audit
[1:02:14] internally, um, on those items,
[1:02:16] are you also auditing our
[1:02:19] partners, those 790 partners?
[1:02:21] So I actually was down and I
[1:02:22] wanted to add something. And
[1:02:23] your next question hit it. We
[1:02:25] audit our internal use and we
[1:02:26] audit the searches conducted on
[1:02:28] our network by our external
[1:02:28] partners as well.
[1:02:29] And you audit every single one
[1:02:30] of them or you
[1:02:31] re taking
[1:02:31] samples.
[1:02:32] Uh, it
[1:02:33] s not every single one
[1:02:33] of them because there
[1:02:34] s
[1:02:34] probably too many to do. We
[1:02:36] utilize an ai assistant tool
[1:02:38] that helps flag suspicious
[1:02:40] searches, searches of one plate
[1:02:42] conducted multiple times by
[1:02:43] multiple people. There
[1:02:43] s a
[1:02:44] number of different things that
[1:02:46] alert to which ones. So we have
[1:02:47] the ability to audit every
[1:02:48] single one of them. But due to
[1:02:50] the sheer volume we we use
[1:02:52] utilize ai to help us with
[1:02:54] that. But we also some of you
[1:02:55] MAY have seen the news
[1:02:57] recently. FLoc rolled out a
[1:02:58] couple of changes to their
[1:02:59] system that we were actually
[1:03:01] contemplating anyway, like for
[1:03:02] our internal searches, we
[1:03:02] re
[1:03:03] requiring a case number. They
[1:03:05] have made that mandatory for
[1:03:07] all agencies at this point. So
[1:03:09] when another agency runs a
[1:03:11] search on our system, they
[1:03:11] can
[1:03:12] t just put suspicious
[1:03:14] vehicle. They have to put a
[1:03:15] case number tied to it. In that
[1:03:16] case number that
[1:03:17] s tied to it
[1:03:18] gives us an objective thing to
[1:03:20] to look at and go, okay, was
[1:03:22] this search in fact conducted
[1:03:24] for legitimate law enforcement
[1:03:24] reasons or not?
[1:03:25] And that
[1:03:26] s a federal mandate or
[1:03:26] that
[1:03:27] s a Colorado.
[1:03:28] That
[1:03:29] s a flock, uh, change that
[1:03:31] they rolled out in response to
[1:03:32] some of the criticisms they
[1:03:32] ve
[1:03:32] received.
[1:03:35] But not on not legislatively.
[1:03:36] Not legislatively.
[1:03:37] Just practice.
[1:03:39] No, not just practice. It
[1:03:40] s to
[1:03:42] utilize the system. You have to
[1:03:44] enter, uh, the justification, a
[1:03:45] case report or a call for
[1:03:46] service number in the search
[1:03:47] field.
[1:03:48] Okay. Thank you.
[1:03:53] Any other questions? Are we
[1:03:56] going to have this on consent?
[1:03:57] We would like to if you
[1:03:57] re all
[1:04:00] amenable to that.
[1:04:01] I don
[1:04:03] t see any issue with that
[1:04:07] here. Yeah okay. Thank you.
[1:04:07] We
[1:04:09] ll that next week. Thanks.
[1:04:13] Thanks. Next is the 2020 or not
[1:04:18] 26 2016 revenue bond refunding
[1:04:20] city manager update or City
[1:04:24] Manager Martinez.
[1:04:27] Thank you. Mayor. Finance
[1:04:29] Director Katrina Asher will be
[1:04:31] here for this presentation. And
[1:04:33] the next presentation. So I
[1:04:35] will turn the floor over to
[1:04:36] Katrina.
[1:04:39] Thank you. Michael.
[1:04:47] All right. All right, so this
[1:04:49] first item I have for you is,
[1:04:51] as city manager mentioned, a
[1:04:55] refunding of the 2016 water
[1:04:57] activity bonds. So this is
[1:04:58] essentially if you
[1:04:59] ve ever
[1:05:00] owned a house and refinanced a
[1:05:00] house, that
[1:05:01] s really what we
[1:05:01] re
[1:05:02] talking about is refinancing
[1:05:03] our debt. So I
[1:05:03] ll walk you
[1:05:04] through the parameters and what
[1:05:04] we
[1:05:06] re proposing. But as we
[1:05:06] re
[1:05:07] doing that, again, keeping in
[1:05:07] mind we
[1:05:09] re not taking up new
[1:05:10] debt to do new projects, this
[1:05:12] is to pay down old debt and get
[1:05:13] a better interest rate is
[1:05:13] essentially what we
[1:05:13] re trying
[1:05:14] to do is save our save
[1:05:18] ourselves some money. So the
[1:05:18] background on this, this
[1:05:20] actually is some debt that goes
[1:05:23] back to 2009. And so the 20
[1:05:26] when you see 2016we that
[1:05:27] s
[1:05:28] water activity, enterprise
[1:05:30] revenue bonds. So when we issue
[1:05:32] debt in our utility funds I did
[1:05:34] not misspell water. I promise
[1:05:34] you
[1:05:35] re not the first one who
[1:05:35] s
[1:05:38] asked that. Um, so our water
[1:05:40] activity enterprise is actually
[1:05:42] our water and wastewater funds
[1:05:43] together. So for Tabor
[1:05:45] purposes, they are the same
[1:05:46] enterprise fund. So when we
[1:05:48] issue debt in those funds, we
[1:05:49] issue them as part of that
[1:05:50] enterprise, which is the water
[1:05:53] activity enterprise. So these
[1:05:54] bonds were originally issued in
[1:05:56] 2009 to fund improvements for
[1:05:58] both entities. So this debt is
[1:06:00] paid by both of those funds.
[1:06:02] Original term was through 2037.
[1:06:05] In 2016, they were eligible for
[1:06:06] refunding, so we did refund
[1:06:07] them at that point to secure a
[1:06:09] lower interest rate. We did not
[1:06:10] change the repayment term
[1:06:12] though, so still looking at
[1:06:14] repayment at full maturity in
[1:06:17] 2037. So the original issue was
[1:06:19] actually 30.1 million when it
[1:06:21] was issued in 2009. When we did
[1:06:22] that, refunding in 2016 was
[1:06:25] about 27 million. And as of the
[1:06:27] end of last year, just over 16
[1:06:28] million was remaining on those
[1:06:29] bonds. And that
[1:06:30] s the balance
[1:06:30] that we
[1:06:32] re looking to refund.
[1:06:34] So the bonds became eligible
[1:06:36] for refunding in 2026. So we
[1:06:36] re
[1:06:37] not we have to hold them for a
[1:06:38] certain period of time before
[1:06:40] we can do a refunding on them.
[1:06:40] So what we
[1:06:42] re proposing this
[1:06:43] can working with our financial
[1:06:45] advisors at Hilltop Securities,
[1:06:46] they analyze these and and
[1:06:47] said, yeah, we could probably
[1:06:48] save you some money by doing a
[1:06:50] refunding on them. What we
[1:06:51] would propose is a ten year
[1:06:55] term maturing in 2037. So
[1:06:55] again, same issue date. We
[1:06:56] re
[1:06:57] not trying to lower our payment
[1:06:58] by extending the debt. We
[1:06:58] re
[1:06:59] keeping that same payment
[1:07:01] timeline. The savings would
[1:07:02] come from a better overall
[1:07:04] interest rate looking as of as
[1:07:06] of rates right now at a net
[1:07:10] interest cost of 3.6%. Um, the
[1:07:11] savings on that for both of our
[1:07:12] funds together would be just
[1:07:14] shy of 60,000 a year. Um, so
[1:07:16] one thing I will caveat this
[1:07:17] with is that our markets right
[1:07:18] now, including interest rates,
[1:07:21] are a bit volatile. So if we
[1:07:22] were to see interest rates
[1:07:23] increase to a point where it
[1:07:24] s
[1:07:26] no longer, this refunding is no
[1:07:27] longer beneficial to the fund,
[1:07:28] we would know we would not
[1:07:29] continue with it, but we do
[1:07:30] want to get ourselves in a
[1:07:31] position where we could take
[1:07:32] advantage of the interest
[1:07:32] rates. While they are
[1:07:35] beneficial to us. Um, doing a
[1:07:36] refunding or a debt issuance of
[1:07:38] any kind can take about 3 to 6
[1:07:39] months. So we want to make sure
[1:07:39] we
[1:07:40] re getting ahead of this as
[1:07:41] quickly as we can, so we
[1:07:41] re
[1:07:43] ready to move. If the market
[1:07:45] makes sense for that. So as I
[1:07:46] mentioned, we work with our
[1:07:48] partner organizations at
[1:07:49] Hilltop Securities and Butler.
[1:07:50] So we
[1:07:51] ve worked with them on a
[1:07:52] number of debt issuances over
[1:07:54] the many years. They know they
[1:07:55] know us well. We know them
[1:07:55] well. They
[1:07:56] ve been great
[1:07:58] partners in those kinds of
[1:07:59] transactions. Um, when we
[1:07:59] re
[1:08:00] doing a borrowing, there
[1:08:01] s a
[1:08:02] number of documents that go
[1:08:03] into this. The one that would
[1:08:04] come to you if you were
[1:08:05] supportive at the next meeting
[1:08:06] would be the bond ordinance
[1:08:08] that authorizes us to do this
[1:08:09] refunding. There
[1:08:10] s also a very
[1:08:11] large document called a
[1:08:13] preliminary official statement
[1:08:14] that talks a lot about the
[1:08:16] water activity enterprise. We
[1:08:17] talk about both of the funds.
[1:08:18] We talk about the financial
[1:08:20] situation for the funds, what
[1:08:21] they their revenues and
[1:08:22] expenses look like into the
[1:08:23] future. It
[1:08:24] s basically our
[1:08:25] document that we share with
[1:08:27] potential lenders to show them
[1:08:29] that we are a reliable source
[1:08:30] to lend to, and that we would
[1:08:32] like them to loan us money. Uh,
[1:08:34] we would have ratings calls or
[1:08:36] ratings call to rate our bonds,
[1:08:37] and then we would have the bond
[1:08:39] sale. So this here is looking
[1:08:41] at that timeline. So we are
[1:08:42] here at step one which is
[1:08:43] talking to you about it,
[1:08:45] answering questions. If you are
[1:08:47] supportive we will come back
[1:08:48] next week with the first
[1:08:50] reading of the bond ordinance
[1:08:51] and the second reading of that
[1:08:52] to come several weeks later.
[1:08:54] That authorizes us to move
[1:08:55] forward. We would then schedule
[1:08:57] that ratings call in the
[1:08:58] background to be working on
[1:08:58] those documents, like the
[1:09:00] preliminary official statement.
[1:09:02] We do that competitive bond
[1:09:04] sale in NOVEMBER and then close
[1:09:06] and refund our bonds, refund
[1:09:07] the previous the old bonds in
[1:09:09] DECEMBER. So, um, that
[1:09:09] s where
[1:09:12] the ten year timeline starts
[1:09:13] next year, because we would
[1:09:14] still be making our normal debt
[1:09:15] payments this year because we
[1:09:15] wouldn
[1:09:17] t close until DECEMBER
[1:09:19] after those are due. So this is
[1:09:19] the timeline we
[1:09:20] re looking at.
[1:09:20] I
[1:09:21] m talking a little bit more
[1:09:23] about each of those steps. The
[1:09:25] bond ordinance, again, is the
[1:09:26] main document that you would
[1:09:26] see that we
[1:09:27] d be asking for
[1:09:29] your approval on. It sets some
[1:09:31] parameters on what we can do
[1:09:33] when we issue the bonds. So the
[1:09:35] maximum amount of debt issued,
[1:09:36] the maximum interest rate that
[1:09:38] we would accept, and then also
[1:09:39] the maximum maturity, which is
[1:09:43] that 2037 timeline. Um, when we
[1:09:44] do this, as I mentioned, it
[1:09:44] s a
[1:09:46] competitive sale. So we put our
[1:09:47] bonds out there. Different
[1:09:48] underwriters will come in and
[1:09:49] bid on those bonds. So we don
[1:09:49] t
[1:09:51] know until that bond sale
[1:09:52] happens what that interest rate
[1:09:53] would be. But we would select,
[1:09:55] of course, the most competitive
[1:09:57] rate for the city. But we set
[1:09:58] these parameters to say we
[1:09:59] would not go over or accept
[1:10:04] over a certain percentage. In
[1:10:04] mid-OCTOBER, we
[1:10:05] d have the
[1:10:07] rating call. The ratings call,
[1:10:09] um, is gives us that that bond
[1:10:11] rating for the funds and is one
[1:10:12] of the more important factors
[1:10:14] in what that interest rate is.
[1:10:15] So we want to maintain our
[1:10:17] rating, um, and show that we
[1:10:19] are, again, a good credit bet
[1:10:22] for those lenders. And then in
[1:10:23] NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, we have the
[1:10:24] bond sale. We receive the
[1:10:25] funds, we pay off the old debt.
[1:10:27] We have now new debt, and we
[1:10:30] move forward. Um, so as far as
[1:10:32] debt issuances go, this is
[1:10:33] generally a pretty
[1:10:33] straightforward one because
[1:10:34] again, we
[1:10:34] re not funding any
[1:10:35] new projects. We
[1:10:35] re not
[1:10:36] planning to build anything with
[1:10:37] this. We
[1:10:38] re just aiming to save
[1:10:39] the funds some money by getting
[1:10:40] a better interest rate than
[1:10:43] what we got in 2016. So with
[1:10:43] that, I
[1:10:45] m happy to answer any
[1:10:47] questions for you.
[1:10:49] Questions? Mayor Pro Tem,
[1:10:50] thanks.
[1:10:51] Does this also account for any
[1:10:53] costs associated with the
[1:10:55] savings account for the costs
[1:10:56] associated with doing the
[1:10:57] refinance itself?
[1:10:58] It does. Yeah. That that
[1:11:00] maximum debt issued includes
[1:11:02] the debt issuance costs and the
[1:11:03] overall savings that percentage
[1:11:05] factors debt into.
[1:11:07] Okay. Uh, always appreciative
[1:11:09] of that effort from our finance
[1:11:11] department. You guys work very
[1:11:12] hard to save money on the
[1:11:14] existing, uh, debt to make sure
[1:11:14] that we
[1:11:15] re we
[1:11:16] re managing and
[1:11:17] being responsible with our
[1:11:20] funds on a constant basis. And
[1:11:20] I
[1:11:23] m amazed at the diligence to
[1:11:25] always know when is the time to
[1:11:26] take this kind of an action. So
[1:11:27] obviously you
[1:11:28] re not sitting
[1:11:29] and thinking about it once a
[1:11:29] quarter, but it
[1:11:30] s a pretty
[1:11:32] consistent activity. What can
[1:11:34] we do to manage funds and do a
[1:11:35] little bit of savings? I just
[1:11:37] appreciate that tremendously.
[1:11:41] And I, I the city certainly has
[1:11:43] saved a tremendous amount of
[1:11:44] money for your efforts doing
[1:11:47] that. So I appreciate it.
[1:11:48] Definitely appreciated. Council
[1:11:49] Member Tadeo.
[1:11:51] Thank you. And thank you. Yes,
[1:11:53] I completely agree. My question
[1:11:54] is, um, you
[1:11:55] re talking on
[1:11:57] whichever slide for current
[1:11:59] estimated net interest cost of
[1:12:02] 3.6%. And then later on right
[1:12:03] there, you just went past it.
[1:12:05] It max the maximum.
[1:12:08] Rate of 3.7. What do we paying
[1:12:09] right now.
[1:12:10] So when you issue bonds like
[1:12:10] this it
[1:12:11] s not one bond. It
[1:12:12] s
[1:12:13] actually a series of bonds. And
[1:12:16] so they range from 2 to 5. So
[1:12:17] this is where we really rely
[1:12:18] heavily on our partners at
[1:12:19] Hilltop Securities. They do the
[1:12:20] analysis of all of those
[1:12:22] outstanding bonds. And what
[1:12:22] s
[1:12:23] still out there. You know our
[1:12:25] lowest interest rate series has
[1:12:26] already been paid off. So we
[1:12:27] re
[1:12:27] kind of getting into the point
[1:12:28] where what
[1:12:28] s left of our
[1:12:31] previous debt is that that, you
[1:12:32] know, 3 to 5. So it
[1:12:33] s starting
[1:12:35] to get higher. Um, and when we
[1:12:37] say maximum of 3.7, that
[1:12:38] s uh,
[1:12:39] again, there
[1:12:39] s a series, some
[1:12:41] of those series will be lower
[1:12:43] than that. So, yeah, overall,
[1:12:43] we
[1:12:44] re still looking at.
[1:12:45] Yeah. Well I can appreciate
[1:12:45] when you
[1:12:45] re saying we
[1:12:46] re
[1:12:47] estimating savings of, you
[1:12:50] know, 59,000 a year total 650.
[1:12:52] Then for me, I like to hear it
[1:12:53] percentage rates. And I know it
[1:12:53] isn
[1:12:54] t that simple, but I
[1:12:56] appreciate that explanation.
[1:12:57] Sure. Thank you.
[1:13:00] Anybody else? Council member
[1:13:02] Wirth..
[1:13:05] Thanks. You mentioned that if
[1:13:07] rates were to suddenly spike,
[1:13:09] we can hit the brakes, but.
[1:13:09] That
[1:13:09] s correct.
[1:13:10] Yeah. How much notice do we
[1:13:11] have to give them to hit the
[1:13:12] brakes?
[1:13:15] So at this point, um, I mean,
[1:13:15] we
[1:13:17] d be doing the competitive
[1:13:19] sale in NOVEMBER. You know, if
[1:13:19] it
[1:13:21] s late OCTOBER to early
[1:13:22] NOVEMBER, we start realizing
[1:13:22] the market
[1:13:24] s not going to be
[1:13:25] conducive to a refunding. We
[1:13:26] start changing that
[1:13:28] conversation about not doing
[1:13:29] this. And the fed is meeting
[1:13:30] next week to talk about rates.
[1:13:30] That
[1:13:32] ll be a very telling about
[1:13:34] where things are going. But you
[1:13:34] know again that
[1:13:36] s where our
[1:13:37] having our advisors with with
[1:13:38] hilltop. And you know they
[1:13:38] re
[1:13:40] monitoring this for us very
[1:13:42] closely to we can also pause
[1:13:43] and then wait and then come
[1:13:45] back if, if it looks like rates
[1:13:46] are going to drop again to you
[1:13:46] don
[1:13:47] t want to try to time the
[1:13:49] market like that too much. But
[1:13:50] we do want to be cognizant of
[1:13:51] that. If the fed were to raise
[1:13:52] rates, then that could
[1:13:54] definitely change the outcome
[1:13:54] here.
[1:13:55] Yeah, well it
[1:13:55] s hard to tell
[1:13:57] now with the with the new fed.
[1:13:58] The other the last fed chair
[1:13:59] wore everything on his sleeve.
[1:14:01] Right. This guy keeps
[1:14:02] everything close to his vest.
[1:14:03] Very much.
[1:14:03] Um it
[1:14:04] s it
[1:14:04] s going to be much
[1:14:05] harder, but I think it
[1:14:05] s going
[1:14:08] to be pretty volatile. Yes. Um,
[1:14:11] the um, so once you once we
[1:14:15] say. Yep. Go. Um, the time
[1:14:17] frame then is.
[1:14:19] So if, if, uh, we
[1:14:20] ll bring the
[1:14:21] bond ordinance next week for,
[1:14:24] for initial and then final on
[1:14:26] OCTOBER 6th, then things start
[1:14:27] to move quickly for us because
[1:14:27] we
[1:14:28] ll have that ratings call.
[1:14:30] Um, but then the sale itself is
[1:14:31] in NOVEMBER, so we
[1:14:31] ll be aiming
[1:14:32] to close by the end of the
[1:14:33] year.
[1:14:35] Okay. So a couple of months
[1:14:36] okay.
[1:14:37] Yeah. Usually about three
[1:14:38] months is about the quickest we
[1:14:39] can get it. Yeah.
[1:14:41] Financing I know this stuff is,
[1:14:43] you know, molasses uh, is is
[1:14:44] about the same pace. Pretty
[1:14:44] much.
[1:14:45] So in the background. It
[1:14:45] s
[1:14:47] definitely not molasses. No,
[1:14:48] no.
[1:14:49] In the background is not. But
[1:14:51] as far as. Yeah, from start to
[1:14:52] finish, it just seems like it
[1:14:53] takes a long time. Okay. Thank
[1:14:54] you very much.
[1:15:00] For a warm molasses. Any others?
[1:15:02] All right. Thank you. Yes.
[1:15:02] You
[1:15:02] re probably here for the
[1:15:06] next one, right? I am the 2027
[1:15:08] rate and fee proposal. Yes. Oh,
[1:15:10] and you got a Scott joining you
[1:15:11] as well?
[1:15:12] Yes.
[1:15:14] Thank you. Scott.
[1:15:16] Yes. So this if you want to
[1:15:17] introduce the item or should I
[1:15:19] just dive in.
[1:15:21] I never want to introduce rates
[1:15:21] but I
[1:15:25] m going to, um I will say
[1:15:27] that as we go through the
[1:15:29] presentation tonight, uh, I
[1:15:31] asked staff to kind of do the
[1:15:32] calculus like we
[1:15:33] ve been doing
[1:15:35] with our budget when it comes
[1:15:37] to years where spending can be
[1:15:38] a little tight or we have to
[1:15:40] raise rates a little bit more
[1:15:42] than anticipated, we have to
[1:15:44] ask ourselves, what if we don
[1:15:44] t
[1:15:45] do things right? So what if we
[1:15:46] don
[1:15:47] t raise rates? Or if we
[1:15:47] don
[1:15:49] t raise them at the
[1:15:50] suggested rate, what do we lose
[1:15:53] as a city? And I will say that
[1:15:54] both the finance director, our
[1:15:56] utilities director and
[1:15:58] everybody in between has done a
[1:16:00] lot of legwork to come up with
[1:16:01] the number that
[1:16:01] s presented,
[1:16:03] the numbers that are presented
[1:16:06] to you tonight. Um, and really
[1:16:08] do understand that if we don
[1:16:08] t
[1:16:09] have what
[1:16:10] s suggested in terms
[1:16:13] of the rate increases and the
[1:16:15] increases to revenue, we will
[1:16:16] suffer a bit in some of the
[1:16:18] long term maintenance and
[1:16:19] operations of our water
[1:16:20] utilities. So, uh, what
[1:16:20] s
[1:16:21] presented to you tonight, I
[1:16:23] think is absolutely fair and
[1:16:25] reasonable. Staff has done a
[1:16:26] really good job of making sure
[1:16:26] that we
[1:16:27] re doing what we can
[1:16:28] for our residents during this
[1:16:30] time. And I
[1:16:32] m very proud of the
[1:16:34] presentation that will be given
[1:16:35] to you by our finance director
[1:16:36] and utilities director. And now
[1:16:38] I will turn it back over.
[1:16:39] Thank you. Michael.
[1:16:41] So this presentation includes
[1:16:43] both impact fees and utility
[1:16:43] rates. So there
[1:16:44] s a lot going
[1:16:44] on in here. It
[1:16:45] s a pretty dense
[1:16:46] presentation. So I
[1:16:47] m going to
[1:16:48] pause periodically. Just make
[1:16:49] sure that questions are
[1:16:51] answered and all of that. So um
[1:16:53] again this is looking at our
[1:16:56] 2027 proposed rates and fees.
[1:16:57] Um, in anticipation of a fee
[1:16:58] resolution. And actually I
[1:16:59] ll
[1:17:00] note the date on here. Um, it
[1:17:00] s
[1:17:01] not OCTOBER 13th. It
[1:17:01] ll
[1:17:03] actually be OCTOBER 20th when
[1:17:03] you
[1:17:04] ll see the fee resolution
[1:17:05] along with the rest of the
[1:17:07] budget presentation. So, um,
[1:17:09] our goal tonight is to share
[1:17:10] with you what we
[1:17:10] re proposing,
[1:17:12] what our rate studies have told
[1:17:13] us, and then get your feedback
[1:17:16] on that. So if there are any
[1:17:17] adjustments to be made, we can
[1:17:18] do that before that. OCTOBER
[1:17:21] 20th. Um, discussion. So first
[1:17:22] we
[1:17:22] re going to talk about
[1:17:24] impact fees. And with each of
[1:17:24] these I
[1:17:25] m going to talk about
[1:17:26] what is our philosophy, our
[1:17:27] approach to it. And then what
[1:17:30] are we proposing for the fees.
[1:17:32] So impact fees and a lot of
[1:17:33] information on this slide. But
[1:17:35] impact fees are fees that we
[1:17:36] charge on new developments. So
[1:17:38] they are only charged at the
[1:17:40] time of permit issuance. When
[1:17:40] we
[1:17:41] re building a new home or
[1:17:42] developers building a new home
[1:17:43] or building a new business,
[1:17:43] that
[1:17:44] s when those get charged.
[1:17:47] And the purpose of an impact
[1:17:49] fee is to allow the city to
[1:17:50] expand services so that we can
[1:17:51] keep providing the same level
[1:17:54] of services as more residents
[1:17:55] move here, and as more
[1:17:57] businesses exist here. So if
[1:17:58] you add, you know, a thousand
[1:17:59] residents, we might need some
[1:18:01] capital investment to continue
[1:18:03] providing services at the same
[1:18:04] level to those new thousand as
[1:18:06] we did to the other 50,000 that
[1:18:07] are here. So that is what
[1:18:10] impact fees are for. And, um, a
[1:18:10] couple of important
[1:18:12] distinctions on impact fees.
[1:18:13] They can only be used on
[1:18:15] projects that expand services.
[1:18:17] So adding a new road, adding
[1:18:18] new square footage, things like
[1:18:20] that. They cannot be used for
[1:18:21] staff. They cannot be used for
[1:18:22] repairs and maintenance. We
[1:18:22] can
[1:18:23] t use them to replace
[1:18:25] existing assets or fix existing
[1:18:26] assets. So they really are
[1:18:29] truly used for expansion. A
[1:18:30] great example for our use of
[1:18:32] impact fees is when we did the
[1:18:34] widening of Bridge Street. That
[1:18:36] was adding capacity there, or
[1:18:38] the water treatment plant that
[1:18:39] many of you saw today, that was
[1:18:41] adding capacity. Those are the
[1:18:42] kind of projects that impact
[1:18:44] fees, help fund. Um, for our
[1:18:46] rate setting methodology, we
[1:18:48] have to make sure that our fees
[1:18:49] are tied directly to.
[1:18:51] And real quick. Sure. Mayor
[1:18:51] Pro.
[1:18:52] Tem.
[1:18:53] Since you mentioned the water
[1:18:55] treatment plant as part of
[1:18:55] that, that
[1:18:56] s funding the
[1:18:57] portion of the water treatment
[1:19:00] plant that is expansion. But
[1:19:02] the the direct rates themselves
[1:19:04] paid by the existing residents,
[1:19:06] pay the other part of it, which
[1:19:07] is replacement, correct?
[1:19:09] Okay. Just because the plant
[1:19:11] doubled the capacity from the
[1:19:11] old plant, that
[1:19:12] s expansion.
[1:19:12] To.
[1:19:14] That, which is expansion gets
[1:19:15] paid by the impact fees.
[1:19:16] Exactly. Okay. That
[1:19:16] s correct.
[1:19:19] Thanks for clarifying. Proceed.
[1:19:21] So our our fees, in order to
[1:19:24] make sure that they are, um,
[1:19:26] directly attributed to the cost
[1:19:28] of of that expansion, we work
[1:19:30] with rate consultants to, to
[1:19:31] set those fees. And we do that
[1:19:33] not every year. Um, we do about
[1:19:35] every 5 to 10 years more often
[1:19:36] if we feel like that
[1:19:36] s
[1:19:38] necessary, if we feel like our
[1:19:39] our capital improvement plan is
[1:19:41] changed significantly, we might
[1:19:42] do it more often. But generally
[1:19:44] every 5 to 10 years is is
[1:19:47] sufficient. Um, we do index
[1:19:49] most of our fees to inflation.
[1:19:50] That means that on those
[1:19:52] in-between years, as the cost
[1:19:53] of construction goes up, we
[1:19:55] increase the cost of those fees
[1:19:56] by inflation so that we don
[1:19:56] t
[1:19:58] get too far out of sync with
[1:19:58] the costs that we
[1:19:59] re trying to
[1:20:02] recover with these fees. Um,
[1:20:02] when we
[1:20:04] re doing that, um, that
[1:20:06] inflationary indexing, it also
[1:20:06] keeps us, let
[1:20:07] s say it does go
[1:20:09] five years between, um, fee
[1:20:10] studies. If we didn
[1:20:11] t do the
[1:20:12] indexing with inflation, we
[1:20:13] would see a much bigger jump.
[1:20:14] And that
[1:20:15] s what we also want to
[1:20:17] avoid is, is a rate spike
[1:20:17] because we
[1:20:18] ve left the fees
[1:20:20] stagnant for too long. Um, the
[1:20:22] other consideration here is
[1:20:23] that impact fees, especially on
[1:20:24] the residential side, we
[1:20:25] recognize that they are
[1:20:26] typically passed along in the
[1:20:28] cost of a home. The developers
[1:20:28] don
[1:20:30] t usually absorb these.
[1:20:31] They will pass them along in
[1:20:32] the home prices. And so
[1:20:33] affordability is a
[1:20:34] consideration. We definitely
[1:20:35] consider that when we were
[1:20:36] looking at our fees this year
[1:20:40] as well. Um, our philosophy on
[1:20:41] impact fees is a little
[1:20:42] different depending on if it
[1:20:42] s
[1:20:44] residential or non-residential.
[1:20:46] But, um, the city has always
[1:20:47] taken the approach of
[1:20:48] development, pays its own way.
[1:20:50] But we we interpret that a
[1:20:51] little differently depending on
[1:20:52] the kind of fee we
[1:20:52] re talking
[1:20:55] about. So with residential, um,
[1:20:57] development pays its own way
[1:20:58] through those impact fees. So
[1:20:59] if you add a home, the people
[1:21:00] who live in that home will use
[1:21:02] services. The fees that are
[1:21:03] paid as part of that home being
[1:21:05] built help us provide those
[1:21:07] services in the future for
[1:21:09] non-residential. So businesses,
[1:21:10] restaurants, things like that,
[1:21:11] that are being added, they
[1:21:11] re
[1:21:13] bringing jobs, they
[1:21:14] re bringing
[1:21:15] sales tax revenue. So they
[1:21:15] re
[1:21:15] they
[1:21:16] re paying their own way
[1:21:17] through tax creation and job
[1:21:19] creation. So our fees related
[1:21:21] to non-residential. So again,
[1:21:23] business, new businesses being
[1:21:24] built are set to incentivize
[1:21:25] development. They are well
[1:21:27] below what would be considered
[1:21:29] cost recovery. But that also
[1:21:29] means that it
[1:21:30] s cheaper for a
[1:21:32] business to come and build a
[1:21:33] building here. Than it would be
[1:21:35] maybe somewhere else. And then
[1:21:36] on the utility side, our
[1:21:38] utility funds are treated
[1:21:40] almost like a standalone
[1:21:41] business. They their fees must
[1:21:43] fund their operations. The
[1:21:44] combination of both impact fees
[1:21:47] and user rates. We are very
[1:21:48] limited on how we and what
[1:21:49] other money we can get into
[1:21:50] those funds. We can
[1:21:51] t transfer
[1:21:52] tax money without some
[1:21:54] limitations based on Tabor. So
[1:21:55] because of that, cost recovery
[1:21:56] is very, very important in
[1:22:01] those utility funds. So this
[1:22:03] slide here is summarizing our
[1:22:04] methodology for the different
[1:22:06] kinds of fees. But what you
[1:22:06] ll
[1:22:07] see here is in general we
[1:22:08] re
[1:22:08] doing right studies for
[1:22:09] everything. We always want to
[1:22:10] have a rate study when it comes
[1:22:12] to impact fees. And we are
[1:22:15] also, um affecting that
[1:22:17] inflationary increase every
[1:22:17] year. We
[1:22:18] re recommending that
[1:22:19] each year, the one I
[1:22:19] ll point
[1:22:20] out that
[1:22:20] s different is
[1:22:21] wastewater. That is a pass
[1:22:23] through. And that is because
[1:22:24] our wastewater impact fees are
[1:22:26] set by the processors. So Metro
[1:22:27] wastewater, Metro Water
[1:22:29] Recovery or the town of Lake
[1:22:31] Bowie, those are not revenue to
[1:22:31] the city. We actually just
[1:22:33] collect it and give it to them.
[1:22:33] So we don
[1:22:34] t set those and we
[1:22:34] don
[1:22:35] t use that money for our
[1:22:37] own expansion. They use it for
[1:22:39] theirs. So those are passed
[1:22:40] through. But everything else on
[1:22:40] here, you
[1:22:43] ll see, is, um, is a
[1:22:43] study that we
[1:22:44] re doing. We
[1:22:44] re
[1:22:45] hiring a consultant. We
[1:22:45] re
[1:22:46] doing that periodically. And I
[1:22:48] did include on here when we did
[1:22:49] our last studies, which were
[1:22:53] all fairly recently. So let
[1:22:53] s
[1:22:54] talk about inflation, since
[1:22:54] I
[1:22:55] ve mentioned that a number of
[1:22:56] times. And as you saw in that
[1:22:58] last slide, most of our fees
[1:22:59] are changing or being
[1:23:01] recommended to change by
[1:23:03] inflation. So the cities using
[1:23:04] the Denver, Aurora Lakewood
[1:23:05] inflationary index, that
[1:23:06] s what
[1:23:07] we use as our index for
[1:23:07] inflation. That
[1:23:11] s as of JULY
[1:23:13] 2026 available from the Bureau
[1:23:15] of Labor Statistics. We like
[1:23:15] that one because it
[1:23:16] s easily
[1:23:18] verifiable. Um, the number
[1:23:18] that
[1:23:19] s out there, put out by an
[1:23:21] organization that does this as
[1:23:23] a living. So, um, the Denver,
[1:23:24] Aurora, Lakewood inflationary
[1:23:27] index for JULY was 3.9%. That
[1:23:27] s
[1:23:29] a little bit high, higher than
[1:23:29] we
[1:23:30] d like to see it and higher
[1:23:31] than the national average,
[1:23:35] which was 3.4%. So, you know,
[1:23:36] we talked about should we do
[1:23:38] 3.9%. That is what our costs
[1:23:40] are going up by in general. Um,
[1:23:42] that said, 3.9% does increase
[1:23:43] our impact fees and would
[1:23:45] therefore increase housing
[1:23:48] costs. So we looked at instead
[1:23:49] doing 2.5%, which is more of a
[1:23:51] target inflation number that
[1:23:51] we
[1:23:52] d like to see it at. And we
[1:23:54] compared what those would be.
[1:23:57] And so if we were to do the
[1:24:00] 2.5%, um, instead of 3.9, that
[1:24:03] would save about $459 on a
[1:24:05] single family residential
[1:24:06] permit. So we felt like that
[1:24:08] was a good thing to do to help
[1:24:10] keep the fees from having too
[1:24:11] large of an impact on housing
[1:24:13] prices. It does have an impact
[1:24:15] to the city. Um, in terms of
[1:24:16] general fees, things like
[1:24:18] transportation and general
[1:24:19] services impact fees, it would
[1:24:21] be about a $51,000 impact,
[1:24:23] assuming development levels
[1:24:24] remain similar to this year on
[1:24:25] the water fund, it
[1:24:27] s a $210,000
[1:24:28] impact. So those are real
[1:24:30] impacts to consider because our
[1:24:32] cost of, say, buying water do
[1:24:34] not go down. They do go up and
[1:24:35] go up generally by more than
[1:24:38] inflation. Um, that said, um,
[1:24:39] we have to balance that
[1:24:41] affordability versus cost
[1:24:41] recovery when we
[1:24:42] re talking
[1:24:44] about housing impact fees on
[1:24:47] housing. So again, another
[1:24:49] slide with a lot of information
[1:24:50] is trying to get all of our
[1:24:52] general fees on here in one
[1:24:53] place. But um, what you
[1:24:53] re
[1:24:55] seeing here is each of our fees
[1:24:56] and then how much in general we
[1:24:58] bring in per year. Um, off to
[1:25:00] the left. Um, these do vary
[1:25:02] quite a lot by, um, development
[1:25:04] levels. And we do see these go
[1:25:05] up and down depending on what
[1:25:07] development is looking like.
[1:25:08] But, um, just to go through
[1:25:10] these at a high level, parks
[1:25:12] development fees or sorry,
[1:25:13] parks impact fees, they
[1:25:13] re
[1:25:15] charged on residential only.
[1:25:17] Um, they are generally rebated
[1:25:19] back to developers to fund
[1:25:20] parks that they build as part
[1:25:21] of that neighborhood. So we
[1:25:21] don
[1:25:22] t usually keep those for
[1:25:24] our own expansions of the rec
[1:25:25] center or things like that.
[1:25:26] Those are funded with other,
[1:25:28] other sources, but they go back
[1:25:30] to the developers. The impact
[1:25:31] fees go back to developers,
[1:25:32] typically. Um, and our
[1:25:33] recommendation on that one for
[1:25:36] 2027 is just inflation.
[1:25:38] Transportation impact fees are
[1:25:40] charged on all new development,
[1:25:40] whether it
[1:25:42] s residential or
[1:25:44] non-residential. Um, again,
[1:25:45] most recently we use those
[1:25:46] funds for the Bridge Street
[1:25:47] widening project. So it was
[1:25:48] really helpful to make that
[1:25:50] project happen. Um, brings in
[1:25:52] roughly $1.8 million a year.
[1:25:54] And again recommending
[1:25:56] inflationary adjustment. Only
[1:25:57] general Services is a newer
[1:25:58] fee. We just started charging
[1:26:00] that this year or sorry, last
[1:26:03] year and um, charged on
[1:26:04] residential development only.
[1:26:05] Um, it
[1:26:06] s used to fund
[1:26:07] expansion. Needed that. It
[1:26:08] s
[1:26:08] not covered in these other
[1:26:10] areas. So this could be things
[1:26:12] like the new police building
[1:26:13] and the outfitting needed for
[1:26:15] that location that could that
[1:26:15] s
[1:26:16] what this funding could be used
[1:26:19] for. Um, again, looking at just
[1:26:20] an inflationary adjustment
[1:26:21] here, these were all looked at
[1:26:22] in recent years. So we
[1:26:23] re not
[1:26:25] looking at significant changes.
[1:26:27] Um, water and water resources
[1:26:28] have a separate study done on
[1:26:30] that one. Um charged on all new
[1:26:32] development depends a lot on
[1:26:33] the kind of business that they
[1:26:35] have and what kind of water use
[1:26:35] they
[1:26:37] re going to have. But used
[1:26:39] to either purchase raw water or
[1:26:41] expand our facilities, like the
[1:26:42] water treatment plants, so that
[1:26:44] we can treat more water. Um,
[1:26:46] again, looking at just an
[1:26:47] inflationary adjustment is the
[1:26:49] recommendation this year. Um,
[1:26:50] and the last one is storm
[1:26:52] drainage. This one, um, did
[1:26:53] have a rate study done just
[1:26:55] recently. We implemented the
[1:26:58] first part of it in 2026. Um,
[1:26:59] again charged on all
[1:27:01] development based heavily on
[1:27:03] impervious area and used to
[1:27:04] fund storm drainage outfalls
[1:27:07] and infrastructure. So, um, on
[1:27:09] this one, um, we are
[1:27:10] recommending an increase on the
[1:27:11] commercial side. I
[1:27:12] m going to
[1:27:14] defer this to talk a little bit
[1:27:15] more about storm drainage and
[1:27:19] the needs in that fund.
[1:27:21] Certainly. So, um, as Katrina
[1:27:23] mentioned, we are proposing on
[1:27:25] the commercial side, um, an
[1:27:27] inflationary increase plus, um,
[1:27:31] about $0.22 per square foot.
[1:27:33] And this was a recommendation
[1:27:36] of our consultant in the 25,
[1:27:37] um, rate study for storm
[1:27:39] drainage that we completed. Um,
[1:27:41] we looked at impact fees and
[1:27:42] rates during that. So this was
[1:27:44] a recommendation out of the
[1:27:45] impact fee, uh, side of things.
[1:27:46] So I
[1:27:48] m just going to use, um,
[1:27:51] examples of our current impact
[1:27:52] fees. So if you look at our
[1:27:55] current impact fee for a single
[1:27:56] family residential home, it
[1:27:59] s
[1:28:04] $5,488 per home. Um, and we use
[1:28:06] a method called equivalent
[1:28:08] residential area. And that
[1:28:13] number is 3164ft of
[1:28:14] impervious. Um, and that
[1:28:15] s
[1:28:17] basically the, the average, uh,
[1:28:18] impervious area of a
[1:28:20] residential home. So if you
[1:28:21] take the impact fee and you
[1:28:24] divide that by the Ecker, you
[1:28:26] come up with a, a dollar figure
[1:28:28] per square foot of impervious
[1:28:30] area. And if you look at the
[1:28:33] commercial impact fee, um, you
[1:28:36] also have that per square foot,
[1:28:39] um, charge for impervious. And
[1:28:39] there
[1:28:40] s, there
[1:28:40] s a big
[1:28:42] difference in them. So if we do
[1:28:43] the math of the current impact
[1:28:45] fees and look at residential,
[1:28:48] it comes out to $1.74 per
[1:28:50] square foot of impervious area.
[1:28:52] And if you do that same math,
[1:28:52] um, it
[1:28:54] s a dollar three per
[1:28:54] square foot. So there
[1:28:55] s a, a
[1:28:58] big difference between the, um,
[1:28:59] the impact that a residential
[1:29:00] home is paying versus the
[1:29:02] impact of a commercial
[1:29:04] development. And if you think
[1:29:06] about them, the impervious
[1:29:07] area, impervious areas,
[1:29:09] impervious area, it causes the
[1:29:11] same amount of runoff. Um, so
[1:29:13] therefore they should be
[1:29:15] relatively similar to each
[1:29:17] other. So our consultant looked
[1:29:19] at that and said that, um, you
[1:29:21] guys should have parity between
[1:29:23] those two user classifications.
[1:29:24] And that
[1:29:24] s why we
[1:29:25] re proposing
[1:29:27] that additional 22 cent
[1:29:31] increase on the commercial side.
[1:29:33] So a little bit more background
[1:29:34] as well. I think is important
[1:29:36] for the storm drainage fund. So
[1:29:37] we talked earlier in the
[1:29:39] previous item about the water
[1:29:41] and wastewater funds being
[1:29:43] combined as a Tabor enterprise.
[1:29:44] The storm drainage fund is not
[1:29:45] part of that enterprise. So it
[1:29:47] is not an enterprise for Tabor
[1:29:49] purposes. So what that means is
[1:29:50] we can
[1:29:51] t borrow money to fund
[1:29:52] projects and this without voter
[1:29:52] approval. It
[1:29:53] d be like
[1:29:54] borrowing out of the general
[1:29:57] fund. So, um, we also, um, I
[1:29:58] guess the good news is we can
[1:29:59] support it with funds from
[1:30:01] other places. So, you know,
[1:30:03] these funds, the storm fund.
[1:30:03] And I don
[1:30:04] t think we
[1:30:04] re unique
[1:30:06] in this aspect generally would
[1:30:07] not generate enough money to
[1:30:09] build the outfalls and all the
[1:30:10] work that we need. That
[1:30:10] s
[1:30:10] that
[1:30:11] s, um, you know, a single
[1:30:14] outfall can exceed $10 million.
[1:30:15] This fund only brings in about
[1:30:17] 4 million. Um, but what we can
[1:30:19] do is when we have projects
[1:30:20] like Bridge Street or Sable or
[1:30:22] the rec Plex that have a storm
[1:30:24] drainage impact, we ask that
[1:30:25] that project fund the storm
[1:30:27] drainage portion and not ask
[1:30:29] the storm fund to fund it. We
[1:30:30] want the storm fund to fund the
[1:30:32] more regional projects for
[1:30:33] storm drainage that are
[1:30:34] necessary, that aren
[1:30:34] t
[1:30:34] necessarily aren
[1:30:35] t tied
[1:30:36] directly to something else. So
[1:30:36] that
[1:30:37] s part of how we mitigate
[1:30:39] the need that exceeds what is
[1:30:41] able to be funded in this fund.
[1:30:43] But I think the understanding
[1:30:44] of the taper side of it, that
[1:30:46] it is not a taper enterprise,
[1:30:47] so therefore not constrained
[1:30:49] the same way that the water and
[1:30:50] wastewater fund are, but also
[1:30:50] doesn
[1:30:51] t have the benefit of
[1:30:52] being able to borrow. So we
[1:30:52] couldn
[1:30:54] t issue debt to build an
[1:30:55] outfall without going to the
[1:30:58] voters. Um, our project needs,
[1:31:00] as I mentioned, do exceed our
[1:31:02] funding in these funds. So when
[1:31:02] we
[1:31:03] re looking at these rates,
[1:31:04] we consider the parity. And
[1:31:06] then we also considered, um,
[1:31:07] you know, comparability to
[1:31:09] neighboring communities.
[1:31:10] Yes. Um, Mayor Pro Tem had a
[1:31:12] question for Scott.
[1:31:13] No, actually, the question was
[1:31:14] for before we got to Scott
[1:31:14] s,
[1:31:15] but I didn
[1:31:16] t want to interrupt
[1:31:18] him. So, uh, what is the
[1:31:20] difference between the impact
[1:31:24] fee for parks and the
[1:31:28] dedication of land that we just
[1:31:29] reduced recently?
[1:31:31] Great question. So the
[1:31:33] dedication would be usually
[1:31:34] dedicating actual land, or if
[1:31:35] they don
[1:31:35] t have land to
[1:31:36] dedicate, they can pay us for
[1:31:38] that. The impact fee is then to
[1:31:40] develop and build a new park.
[1:31:40] It doesn
[1:31:41] t have to be a park in
[1:31:43] that neighborhood. Um, you
[1:31:44] know, in a lot of these
[1:31:46] communities are building a park
[1:31:46] as part of the neighborhood.
[1:31:47] But let
[1:31:47] s say they couldn
[1:31:47] t or
[1:31:48] didn
[1:31:48] t weren
[1:31:49] t able to didn
[1:31:49] t
[1:31:51] want that we were okay with
[1:31:52] that. They could give us land
[1:31:53] elsewhere to build. They could
[1:31:54] give us money to buy land
[1:31:55] elsewhere to build. That
[1:31:55] s what
[1:31:57] that dedication is. The impact
[1:31:58] fee helps us actually build on
[1:31:59] it.
[1:32:01] Okay. So the land itself and
[1:32:02] then the development of the
[1:32:04] park is, is the distinction
[1:32:06] between okay and I think we
[1:32:08] ended up with a lot of little
[1:32:09] pocket parks that are hard to
[1:32:11] maintain. And manage and uh,
[1:32:14] helping us put larger parks in,
[1:32:18] in, um, residential areas as
[1:32:20] opposed to on every block is a
[1:32:21] good thing. But that
[1:32:22] distinction was one I couldn
[1:32:22] t
[1:32:22] remember.
[1:32:25] Thank you. Yes.
[1:32:30] Okay, so any other questions on
[1:32:31] on storm.
[1:32:32] Before we move on?
[1:32:35] Okay. Um, this next slide is
[1:32:36] kind of summarizing the impact
[1:32:38] fees for residential single
[1:32:40] family. So um, this slide I
[1:32:41] will note these two two numbers
[1:32:43] here are highlighted. Those had
[1:32:46] typos in your um attachment. It
[1:32:47] did not affect the totals. The
[1:32:48] totals in your attachment are
[1:32:49] correct. But these two here had
[1:32:51] transposed numbers. So um, I
[1:32:52] just wanted to point that out
[1:32:53] that that
[1:32:53] s different from
[1:32:53] what
[1:32:54] s in your packet. But
[1:32:56] again totals are accurate and
[1:32:58] are the same. So this is
[1:33:00] showing the fees that we
[1:33:00] ve
[1:33:01] discussed with those
[1:33:02] inflationary impacts. So you
[1:33:04] can see what the difference
[1:33:07] would be with that 3.9%
[1:33:08] inflation versus the reduced
[1:33:09] inflation that we
[1:33:09] re
[1:33:12] recommending. So um, the 2026
[1:33:13] rate current rate is in here at
[1:33:15] 2.5%. You
[1:33:15] d be adding roughly
[1:33:18] $1,000 to these fees in total.
[1:33:21] Um, bringing us to the 2027
[1:33:22] proposed rate. If we had gone
[1:33:23] with the full inflationary
[1:33:24] rate, then we
[1:33:24] d be looking at
[1:33:28] about $1,500, um, of added fees
[1:33:30] there. So that
[1:33:30] s where when I
[1:33:32] mentioned going with a lower
[1:33:34] rate saves $459 per household,
[1:33:34] that
[1:33:35] s that total on the far
[1:33:36] right. So, um, that
[1:33:37] s where
[1:33:37] we
[1:33:38] re coming up with that. I do
[1:33:39] want to note this is just for
[1:33:41] the fees discussed. This is not
[1:33:42] all fees due at permitting that
[1:33:43] has to go through permitting
[1:33:44] process. There
[1:33:44] s there
[1:33:44] s more
[1:33:46] to it than that. This is just
[1:33:46] addressing the fees we
[1:33:46] re
[1:33:47] discussing tonight.
[1:33:48] Mayor Pro Tem is going to
[1:33:48] follow up.
[1:33:51] And again this is the impact on
[1:33:52] new households coming to the
[1:33:53] city. This doesn
[1:33:53] t have
[1:33:55] anything to do with water rates
[1:33:56] or anything else paid by
[1:33:58] current residents.
[1:33:58] That
[1:33:59] s correct. This is paid at
[1:33:59] the time of.
[1:34:01] Permitting, including
[1:34:05] effectively $450 in savings to
[1:34:07] the development of each new
[1:34:07] property.
[1:34:08] That
[1:34:09] s correct. Each new single
[1:34:10] family home. That
[1:34:11] s right.
[1:34:12] And then, Councilmember
[1:34:13] Carbajal.
[1:34:14] Thank you. Mayor. Yeah. My
[1:34:15] question is, when we look at
[1:34:17] the 2026 rates, I understand
[1:34:18] where we got the inflation
[1:34:20] point being 2.5% utilizing
[1:34:21] those things and then figuring
[1:34:23] that 3.9 was too high. But
[1:34:25] where are we currently compared
[1:34:27] to our neighbors in terms of
[1:34:29] these rates?
[1:34:29] I
[1:34:31] d have to go back to our rate
[1:34:32] study from a few years ago, and
[1:34:33] then update where everyone else
[1:34:36] is gone. And honestly, um,
[1:34:37] comparability is a tricky thing
[1:34:39] with impact fees because it has
[1:34:41] to be directly tied to our
[1:34:42] costs of increasing our
[1:34:44] services, which is directly
[1:34:45] tied to what services we
[1:34:46] provide, which will vary by
[1:34:47] community. So we can
[1:34:48] t
[1:34:49] necessarily set these at
[1:34:51] comparable because we want it
[1:34:52] to. I mean, when we do a rate
[1:34:53] study, we
[1:34:54] re given a maximum of
[1:34:56] what we can charge, and that is
[1:34:57] cost recovery based on our
[1:34:58] services that we choose to
[1:35:00] provide to our residents, we
[1:35:01] MAY have more services than
[1:35:03] another community, which means
[1:35:04] we need more to maintain those
[1:35:05] services. As the community
[1:35:07] grows, we can choose to charge
[1:35:09] less and to not fully cost
[1:35:09] recover. That
[1:35:10] s a policy
[1:35:11] decision that we made with
[1:35:14] regard to the commercial fees,
[1:35:15] because we wanted to keep those
[1:35:17] low and incentivize businesses,
[1:35:17] but we couldn
[1:35:19] t charge more
[1:35:20] than what total cost recovery
[1:35:22] is. But I guess what I
[1:35:22] d say is
[1:35:23] comparability is tricky because
[1:35:23] we
[1:35:25] re not comparable in all
[1:35:26] services and all things we
[1:35:27] provide.
[1:35:28] I understand that I
[1:35:28] m just
[1:35:30] interested in maybe seeing some
[1:35:31] of that data for communities
[1:35:33] near us that do have similar
[1:35:34] services, because if we
[1:35:34] re
[1:35:35] saying, hey, we
[1:35:36] re adding 2.5
[1:35:36] because that
[1:35:37] s the suggestion,
[1:35:37] but we
[1:35:39] re already 3% higher
[1:35:40] than everyone else, and we
[1:35:40] re
[1:35:42] seeing a decline in building
[1:35:43] single family homes. And we
[1:35:44] know that we have a housing
[1:35:45] crisis. And I
[1:35:45] m just interested
[1:35:47] in seeing what that looks like
[1:35:49] before I say, like, yeah, 2.5%
[1:35:50] is reasonable because sitting
[1:35:52] here it seems reasonable. I
[1:35:52] just I
[1:35:53] d like something
[1:35:55] comparable so we can see where
[1:35:56] we sit compared to people
[1:35:58] around us. That offer similar
[1:35:59] services, because I understand
[1:36:00] that component.
[1:36:01] Yeah, we can we can look into
[1:36:03] that.
[1:36:06] Okay. Anybody else? All right.
[1:36:09] Proceed then our next slide is
[1:36:11] similar, uh, comparisons. But
[1:36:13] on on commercial. So again this
[1:36:14] is looking at square footage.
[1:36:15] And it didn
[1:36:16] t include water or
[1:36:17] wastewater on here because it
[1:36:20] is so business specific. Um, if
[1:36:21] you are a hair salon it
[1:36:22] s going
[1:36:23] to look very different from a
[1:36:24] grocery store, very different
[1:36:26] from a coffee shop. Right. So,
[1:36:28] um, their water needs are very,
[1:36:29] very different. So this is
[1:36:31] looking at just the, the
[1:36:33] transportation fee which is
[1:36:34] charged on everybody. And then
[1:36:36] the storm fee. And again,
[1:36:37] looking at assuming that 2.5%
[1:36:40] inflation and then at $0.22 per
[1:36:41] square foot that Scott
[1:36:42] mentioned and discussed about
[1:36:43] storm and bringing us to what
[1:36:45] our new cost per square footage
[1:36:46] would be based on these
[1:36:47] recommendations for each of
[1:36:49] these categories. Um, I did
[1:36:50] give a couple examples. And
[1:36:52] again, illustrative only actual
[1:36:53] fees are calculated at the time
[1:36:56] of permitting. But um, for a
[1:36:58] 500 square foot drive through
[1:36:59] like a coffee shop drive
[1:37:00] through, that would be your
[1:37:02] your impact fees would be under
[1:37:04] $1,000 for something of that
[1:37:05] size. Whereas if you wanted a
[1:37:07] 10,000 square foot restaurant,
[1:37:07] it
[1:37:09] d be just under $20,000. Um,
[1:37:10] it would be based on the
[1:37:14] current fees. So that is all I
[1:37:16] have on impact fees. Before we
[1:37:17] move on, I want to just pause
[1:37:19] for any other questions.
[1:37:20] Impact fee questions.
[1:37:22] Councilmember snare.
[1:37:24] We had a discussion about this
[1:37:26] last year. Um, and there was
[1:37:30] some concern that raising these
[1:37:32] impact fees on the commercial,
[1:37:39] um, side might, um, deter
[1:37:42] developers. And I think that
[1:37:42] s
[1:37:43] kind of what
[1:37:44] s kept us afloat
[1:37:46] is new development, bringing
[1:37:48] new taxes. Um, you know, the
[1:37:53] sales tax is so I guess my
[1:37:55] comment rather than a question
[1:38:00] is, um, is it prudent to to do
[1:38:01] that? At this point, we decided
[1:38:01] it wasn
[1:38:06] t last year. Um. On the
[1:38:08] residential side, it just is
[1:38:09] what it is. The thing I hate
[1:38:10] worse than a rate increase is
[1:38:13] not having fresh water. And the
[1:38:14] sewage, and I don
[1:38:14] t want to be
[1:38:15] flooded. Okay? I
[1:38:16] d rather pay a
[1:38:18] little more to prevent that.
[1:38:19] But on the commercial side,
[1:38:21] because they bring us more tax
[1:38:22] revenue, they increase our
[1:38:25] general fund. Are we going to
[1:38:28] deter, um, development by
[1:38:31] raising these fees this much?
[1:38:32] And, you know, recalling last
[1:38:34] year when we talked, well, the
[1:38:35] impact fees have been talked
[1:38:36] about for a couple of years
[1:38:37] now. So we had I think two
[1:38:39] years ago, we talked about the,
[1:38:42] the broader, um, study that
[1:38:44] looked at transportation and,
[1:38:45] and general services and all of
[1:38:46] that. And then we did storm
[1:38:47] last year. So you
[1:38:47] re right,
[1:38:47] there
[1:38:48] s been a couple of phases
[1:38:51] of discussion here. And when we
[1:38:53] did the the broader rate study,
[1:38:54] looked at transportation and
[1:38:55] general services, it actually
[1:38:56] recommended a much higher rate
[1:38:58] than this for the square per
[1:38:59] square footage. And we didn
[1:39:00] t
[1:39:01] implement any of that. We did
[1:39:03] only inflationary increases. So
[1:39:03] we
[1:39:05] ve kept this, um, at what it
[1:39:06] was previously. What it what it
[1:39:09] was years ago and just an
[1:39:10] inflationary increases each
[1:39:12] year. The only one, the only
[1:39:12] change that has not been
[1:39:14] inflationary is the storm,
[1:39:15] which is specifically for
[1:39:17] funding outfalls and that sort
[1:39:17] of thing. But yeah, these are
[1:39:19] already set at a rate that
[1:39:20] s
[1:39:21] uh, I would consider
[1:39:23] incentivizing of new
[1:39:24] development.
[1:39:25] Okay.
[1:39:28] Thank you. Anybody else? Mayor
[1:39:29] Pro tem.
[1:39:31] Yeah I think that matches my
[1:39:34] memory because we had looked at
[1:39:36] rate increases that would
[1:39:38] really effectively have close
[1:39:39] to double those commercial
[1:39:41] rates. And we decided that we
[1:39:41] couldn
[1:39:42] t afford to do that and
[1:39:45] wanted to stay to just these
[1:39:47] incremental changes. I think
[1:39:49] the other thing that happened
[1:39:50] in there, though, is that the
[1:39:51] Fire district gained the
[1:39:53] ability to add impact fees, and
[1:39:55] they implemented the maximum
[1:39:57] available, uh, impact fee,
[1:39:59] which for that same 100,000
[1:40:02] square foot building was
[1:40:05] somewhere around $500,000. So
[1:40:07] there have been increases
[1:40:08] there. They weren
[1:40:09] t ours. But
[1:40:11] that means that, um, we were
[1:40:13] sort of left behind on on
[1:40:15] getting that. My my question on
[1:40:18] on this, uh, again, just trying
[1:40:19] to look at how much of the gap
[1:40:22] to, to fit, uh, is the
[1:40:24] difference between, in this
[1:40:28] case saying, uh, 2.5% plus
[1:40:32] $0.22 versus doing a larger
[1:40:33] percentage, such as using the
[1:40:36] inflationary 3.9%? It looks to
[1:40:39] be, um, on the industrial and
[1:40:40] warehouse space. Closer
[1:40:42] difference between them. But on
[1:40:44] retail and commercial still
[1:40:45] leaves a pretty significant
[1:40:47] gap. Uh, just trying to figure
[1:40:51] out is this one where a
[1:40:52] compromise like saying the
[1:40:54] actual inflation is what we
[1:40:55] need to do, or is our gap so
[1:40:57] significant that we need to
[1:40:59] make up more than that?
[1:40:59] If we
[1:41:00] re looking for cost
[1:41:03] recovery from these fees, then
[1:41:04] yeah, the gap is much larger
[1:41:06] than that. And I recall what
[1:41:08] you did was it would have been
[1:41:09] doubling or even more, um, when
[1:41:11] we when we looked at what the
[1:41:12] rate study said, and when we do
[1:41:12] another rate study, it
[1:41:12] s
[1:41:13] probably going to tell us
[1:41:15] something similar. That doesn
[1:41:15] t
[1:41:16] mean that that
[1:41:17] s necessarily
[1:41:18] what we want to recommend,
[1:41:19] because we do want to continue
[1:41:21] to incentivize business
[1:41:24] development.
[1:41:29] Okay. That makes sense. I, I
[1:41:32] hesitate on on a cost of
[1:41:35] 171,000 increase, but also
[1:41:37] looking at the full effect of
[1:41:39] what is the cost of 100,000
[1:41:41] square foot warehouse. At this
[1:41:41] point, it
[1:41:42] s probably a
[1:41:44] relatively small percentage
[1:41:44] overall.
[1:41:46] To be clear, that 171 is total,
[1:41:46] not the it
[1:41:47] s not the amount
[1:41:48] increased. That
[1:41:49] s the total,
[1:41:49] right?
[1:41:49] That
[1:41:51] s the total. But as a
[1:41:52] percentage of the total cost of
[1:41:54] that square foot of that
[1:41:54] warehouse, it
[1:41:55] s probably not a
[1:41:57] very high percentage. Correct.
[1:41:58] Okay.
[1:41:59] Thank you. Councilmember
[1:41:59] Fiedler.
[1:42:01] Thank you. Mayor. Uh, Katrina,
[1:42:03] an educational question. It
[1:42:03] s
[1:42:05] not a gotcha, I promise. I
[1:42:05] don
[1:42:07] t see educational impact
[1:42:08] fees on here. I know why I
[1:42:09] could you explain to the world
[1:42:10] why that
[1:42:11] s true?
[1:42:12] Because we don
[1:42:12] t develop
[1:42:14] educational facilities as a
[1:42:15] city fair.
[1:42:16] And talk to me about the
[1:42:18] capital facility fee
[1:42:20] foundation. The city has always
[1:42:20] been a great partner in
[1:42:22] collecting that fee on behalf
[1:42:24] of the school district. Right.
[1:42:25] And more so than some of the
[1:42:28] other municipalities. And I
[1:42:28] you
[1:42:29] re aware of that.
[1:42:30] But we yeah, we don
[1:42:31] t utilize
[1:42:32] that as a city.
[1:42:35] Yes. And you partner with the
[1:42:37] school district to cause the
[1:42:39] developers to pay that fee.
[1:42:40] Prior to issuing the building
[1:42:42] permit, correct? Yes. Here
[1:42:42] s
[1:42:44] the trap question. When was the
[1:42:46] last time that fee was adjusted
[1:42:47] for inflation?
[1:42:47] Ooh, that
[1:42:48] s a great question.
[1:42:49] It is a great question. I would
[1:42:50] love you free to explore that
[1:42:52] with your partner at 27 j
[1:42:53] schools and see what they might
[1:42:55] think about doing with that.
[1:42:57] Okay. Thank you.
[1:43:00] Any others?
[1:43:05] What was that your question?
[1:43:07] Before we continue, we
[1:43:08] re only
[1:43:08] halfway through this
[1:43:09] presentation. It
[1:43:12] s like 742. Do
[1:43:13] we want to have a quick break?
[1:43:15] No breaks. Pounding through it.
[1:43:17] I know some others that want
[1:43:17] one.
[1:43:18] Yeah.
[1:43:19] Before the question is, do we
[1:43:20] do it now or after we.
[1:43:20] We
[1:43:21] re at a good spot now to
[1:43:22] take a break. I have two things
[1:43:23] to add before we take a break.
[1:43:27] Number one, uh, the hba did do,
[1:43:30] uh, kind of an assessment of
[1:43:32] permit fees for single family
[1:43:34] homes throughout the metro
[1:43:36] area. Brighton Falls kind of in
[1:43:37] the middle upper, but we are
[1:43:40] lower than our two neighboring
[1:43:41] communities who are growing
[1:43:42] like we are in Adams County,
[1:43:44] Commerce City and Thornton. So,
[1:43:46] for example, last year we were
[1:43:50] at 5401 per new home, and
[1:43:53] Commerce City was at 7477,
[1:43:55] Thornton just under $10,000 for
[1:43:57] impact fees. So again, to
[1:43:57] Katrina
[1:43:58] s point, these aren
[1:43:58] t
[1:43:59] apples to apples. There are a
[1:44:01] lot of variables here, but I
[1:44:01] think it
[1:44:02] s important to point
[1:44:03] out that while we
[1:44:03] re not the
[1:44:05] cheapest by any means, we
[1:44:05] re
[1:44:07] still in line with and cheaper
[1:44:08] than our neighbors here in
[1:44:08] Adams County.
[1:44:09] Now, I don
[1:44:09] t have to ask that
[1:44:11] question later. I wish that was
[1:44:12] in the slides, but thank you
[1:44:13] for that.
[1:44:14] Another thing, just on this
[1:44:15] point of the conversation as
[1:44:16] well, we don
[1:44:17] t hear a lot of
[1:44:20] pushback on our square foot
[1:44:22] charges for industrial and or
[1:44:23] warehouse. So that
[1:44:24] s not one of
[1:44:25] the issues that we have when it
[1:44:27] comes to business development
[1:44:29] here. We do hear it more often
[1:44:30] with retail and commercial and
[1:44:32] office, but generally we don
[1:44:32] t
[1:44:34] hear a lot of complaints on our
[1:44:36] impact fees when it comes to
[1:44:37] warehouse and industrial
[1:44:38] development. So the fees that
[1:44:39] you see here are generally
[1:44:41] accepted by the industry.
[1:44:43] Oh, Council member Carbajal is
[1:44:44] good. A quick.
[1:44:45] Yeah, I love this because I
[1:44:47] looked up the hba Denver thing
[1:44:49] and I saw the part that below.
[1:44:50] But in terms of municipality
[1:44:51] rankings, we
[1:44:52] re still number
[1:44:53] four for the most expensive.
[1:44:54] When you put everything
[1:44:57] together. So and we stay in the
[1:44:59] top four Erie, Castle Rock,
[1:45:00] Brighton and Parker.
[1:45:02] We have a very long argument
[1:45:03] with the hba going on about
[1:45:04] this too. So that
[1:45:05] s why we
[1:45:05] don
[1:45:06] t necessarily use that
[1:45:07] total ranking, because that
[1:45:07] s
[1:45:09] not an apples to apples.
[1:45:10] Marvin. I have been back and
[1:45:11] forth with them on this for a
[1:45:13] couple of years now so that we
[1:45:14] can have another discussion on
[1:45:14] later.
[1:45:16] This slide is in. Their report
[1:45:18] is incorrect, but the other one
[1:45:19] is correct.
[1:45:20] Yes. We because they don
[1:45:20] t take
[1:45:22] into consideration again, when
[1:45:23] it comes to apples to apples,
[1:45:25] that one really isn
[1:45:25] t an apples
[1:45:27] to apples thing. This here is
[1:45:29] just the total cost. The total
[1:45:31] permit fee cost for single
[1:45:33] family. So this one is
[1:45:33] certainly more.
[1:45:34] You don
[1:45:34] t have to do it now,
[1:45:34] but I
[1:45:35] d love to hear some
[1:45:37] elaboration on why it
[1:45:37] s not
[1:45:38] apples to apples.
[1:45:40] Got it? Great question. I
[1:45:40] ve
[1:45:42] been battling with them to. All
[1:45:43] right. Are we good with the
[1:46:10] break? Okay. We will continue
[1:46:13] the presentation. Take it away.
[1:46:13] All right. I
[1:46:14] m going to open us
[1:46:17] up this time. Um, so on the
[1:46:18] screen now, uh, where we
[1:46:18] re
[1:46:20] picking up after the break is a
[1:46:21] new fee. It
[1:46:22] s, um, what we
[1:46:22] re
[1:46:23] calling the water resources
[1:46:26] review fee. So, as you guys all
[1:46:28] know, uh, we require water
[1:46:30] dedication for new development
[1:46:33] in the city. And when a
[1:46:34] developer proposes water
[1:46:36] shares, that is, that are
[1:46:37] acceptable to us, we have to
[1:46:40] review those shares. Um, most
[1:46:42] notably, the historical use. So
[1:46:42] there
[1:46:44] s a different amount of
[1:46:47] credit that us as a city and
[1:46:49] eventually water court will
[1:46:50] give, um, for these water
[1:46:52] shares based on what they have
[1:46:54] been used for in the past. Um,
[1:46:57] so we have our, our consulting
[1:46:58] engineers, sometimes internal,
[1:47:00] sometimes consultants. Look at
[1:47:02] this. Um, we also have to
[1:47:03] sometimes have a legal review
[1:47:05] of that, and that ends up
[1:47:07] costing us, um, quite a bit of
[1:47:09] money that we have no way to
[1:47:11] recover that as of now, as
[1:47:12] Katrina has mentioned, we have
[1:47:14] a long standing philosophy that
[1:47:16] development pays its own way.
[1:47:16] So we
[1:47:18] re proposing that these
[1:47:19] developers would give us an
[1:47:23] escrow deposit of $10,000, um,
[1:47:24] that we would use toward that
[1:47:26] engineering review or legal
[1:47:29] review, and then any unused
[1:47:30] portion of that would be
[1:47:31] returned to the, uh, the
[1:47:33] applicant. Also, we
[1:47:34] re asking
[1:47:36] that the director of utilities,
[1:47:38] myself, be allowed to increase
[1:47:39] that if there are special
[1:47:40] circumstances that would
[1:47:42] increase those fees that the
[1:47:44] city, um, is currently
[1:47:46] absorbing above that $10,000
[1:47:47] figure.
[1:47:47] And I
[1:47:48] ll note on this as well,
[1:47:49] we already do this with
[1:47:51] community development. So if
[1:47:51] there
[1:47:52] s, say, a new metro
[1:47:53] district or a metro district
[1:47:55] wants a plan review, they give
[1:47:57] us a deposit. We use that money
[1:47:59] to pay legal counsel, outside
[1:48:01] counsel to do that work for us.
[1:48:02] And then once all the bills are
[1:48:04] paid, we return, we return the
[1:48:05] unused amount. So this is a a
[1:48:05] process we
[1:48:06] re very familiar
[1:48:09] with. Um, as far as collecting
[1:48:10] the deposits and returning them
[1:48:12] once the bills are paid.
[1:48:14] Mayor Pro Tem, did you want to.
[1:48:15] Ask? Just a snippy comment that
[1:48:16] we had a council member who
[1:48:17] used to be able to calculate
[1:48:19] this on his iPhone during
[1:48:19] meetings, so I
[1:48:20] m surprised that
[1:48:23] it takes $10,000 for work. No,
[1:48:23] it
[1:48:25] s a good idea and
[1:48:29] inappropriate. I take it back.
[1:48:30] COUNCILMAN Carbajal.
[1:48:31] Do we currently.
[1:48:31] Have one or we don
[1:48:32] t have one.
[1:48:33] Right now?
[1:48:34] No, we do not have any fees.
[1:48:36] So, yeah, this is absorbed. No,
[1:48:37] I think.
[1:48:40] Most added. Yes. Correct. Okay.
[1:48:42] Council member Snyder.
[1:48:44] Do they pay for this service
[1:48:45] after it
[1:48:47] s done or they don
[1:48:47] t
[1:48:49] pay anything for the service at
[1:48:50] all? Right now.
[1:48:52] Currently they pay nothing for
[1:48:56] this service. Correct. It it
[1:48:58] out of all of the development
[1:48:59] that we see in all the water
[1:49:01] rights, it can add up to a very
[1:49:02] large number that we
[1:49:02] re
[1:49:02] currently.
[1:49:02] Yeah, I think that
[1:49:03] s where the
[1:49:05] affixing. Absolutely.
[1:49:07] Anybody else. So another
[1:49:09] municipality that has this
[1:49:10] water resource fee or a water
[1:49:11] district or something that we
[1:49:14] can compare to.
[1:49:16] Um, good question. I can look
[1:49:18] into how other similar
[1:49:20] municipalities charge for their
[1:49:22] review. Um, I mean, anybody
[1:49:24] that is requiring water
[1:49:26] dedication is somehow paying
[1:49:27] for that engineering review. So
[1:49:29] I can look into similar costs.
[1:49:30] I just don
[1:49:30] t have a baseline to
[1:49:31] compare this all.
[1:49:34] And again, the amount is set to
[1:49:35] at a level that we know would
[1:49:36] cover the majority of
[1:49:38] situations, but we only pay
[1:49:40] actual costs with it. Anything
[1:49:41] unused, we go back to the
[1:49:42] applicant so we don
[1:49:42] t keep the
[1:49:44] 10,000. If it only costs 2000,
[1:49:45] they get 8000 back.
[1:49:46] Oh, they get it back.
[1:49:47] Yeah, they get back the unused
[1:49:47] portion that.
[1:49:49] Yeah that that that is more.
[1:49:49] Yeah. We
[1:49:50] re just paying actual
[1:49:51] costs.
[1:49:52] Yes. So this. Yeah there would
[1:49:53] be like we aren
[1:49:54] t asking for a
[1:49:55] markup or anything on that.
[1:49:55] It
[1:49:56] s the actual costs that are
[1:49:58] built to us for that review.
[1:49:59] Everything else goes back to
[1:49:59] them.
[1:50:01] Thank you. Thank you. All
[1:50:04] right. Anybody else?
[1:50:05] Councilmember Carbajal.
[1:50:08] Then on the allow for a larger
[1:50:09] would that just be once you
[1:50:09] know that it
[1:50:10] s going to cost
[1:50:11] more like I
[1:50:12] m just like, what
[1:50:13] does that mean at your
[1:50:16] discretion. And like before we
[1:50:16] know how much we
[1:50:17] re spending.
[1:50:18] Just talk to me about that a
[1:50:19] little bit.
[1:50:22] Yeah. So if we utilize the
[1:50:23] 10,000 and say that we
[1:50:23] re
[1:50:25] working on some unique legal
[1:50:27] agreement with them, um, that
[1:50:27] s
[1:50:28] where we would ask for the
[1:50:29] additional. It
[1:50:30] s not typical
[1:50:32] that we have something like
[1:50:32] this. Um, there
[1:50:33] s only
[1:50:34] currently one project that
[1:50:35] we
[1:50:37] re working on that has
[1:50:38] special legal agreements that
[1:50:40] go with it. Um, for the water
[1:50:42] dedication. So, yeah, it would
[1:50:44] be pretty abnormal, right?
[1:50:47] Anybody else? Go on to utility
[1:50:47] rates?
[1:50:49] All right. Let
[1:50:49] s go ahead into
[1:50:51] the meat. Not that we haven
[1:50:52] t
[1:50:53] already been through a lot of
[1:50:54] meat. But anyway, going into
[1:50:57] the the next big chunk of this
[1:50:59] presentation, um, the utility
[1:51:00] rates. So again similar to
[1:51:01] impact fees, we
[1:51:01] ll go through
[1:51:02] our approach. And then with the
[1:51:07] proposals are so um, with our
[1:51:08] utilities, uh, artillery rates.
[1:51:11] So um, we just some background
[1:51:11] on the funds. As I
[1:51:11] ve mentioned
[1:51:13] before, they are enterprise
[1:51:14] funds, which means they do need
[1:51:16] to operate in a financially
[1:51:18] independent way. So the fees
[1:51:19] that we charge, whether it
[1:51:19] s
[1:51:21] impact fees or user rates or
[1:51:23] the combination of those, must
[1:51:25] fund the entirety of the funds
[1:51:26] needs, including operations and
[1:51:28] capital replacement or
[1:51:29] maintenance repairs, things
[1:51:30] like that. So when we
[1:51:30] re
[1:51:32] setting rates and fees in the
[1:51:32] utility funds, that
[1:51:33] s what we
[1:51:34] are looking at is what do we
[1:51:35] need to cover all of the
[1:51:37] operational and capital needs
[1:51:39] of that fund? Um, this
[1:51:41] limitation is it is these are
[1:51:43] for water and wastewater. Tabor
[1:51:44] enterprises. So if we were to
[1:51:46] fall short, we were very
[1:51:47] limited on our options to be
[1:51:48] able to move money into these
[1:51:49] funds. That
[1:51:49] s why we are
[1:51:50] looking so closely at these
[1:51:52] rates every single year with
[1:51:53] water. We do work with a rate
[1:51:55] consultant. Every year we make
[1:51:55] sure that we
[1:51:56] re tracking the
[1:51:58] way we expect it to. Um, if
[1:51:59] something changes in our
[1:52:00] capital improvement plan, um,
[1:52:03] costs come in different things
[1:52:03] like that. We
[1:52:04] re always looking
[1:52:06] at that. So we we meet
[1:52:07] periodically throughout the
[1:52:08] year. Myself, our budget
[1:52:10] director, and Scott all meet
[1:52:11] and look at that really
[1:52:13] regularly. And then we run it
[1:52:14] by our consultants once a year
[1:52:15] just to get a second set of
[1:52:16] eyes and make sure that kind of
[1:52:17] get that sanity check, that
[1:52:18] everything
[1:52:18] s tracking where we
[1:52:20] need to. Um, when you have a
[1:52:21] project as large as the water
[1:52:23] treatment plant coming online,
[1:52:23] there
[1:52:24] s a lot of estimates in
[1:52:25] there over these last several
[1:52:26] years, and now we
[1:52:26] re starting
[1:52:27] to see the reality of that. So
[1:52:27] it
[1:52:28] s really exciting to see
[1:52:28] that. And we
[1:52:29] re again,
[1:52:30] constantly updating the models
[1:52:32] as new information comes in.
[1:52:33] Um, wastewater rates are set
[1:52:34] based on the rates of those
[1:52:36] underlying processors. We
[1:52:36] ve
[1:52:37] talked about that a bit. And
[1:52:38] then storm drainage rates are
[1:52:40] reviewed internally each year,
[1:52:41] and then we have a rate study
[1:52:43] done every 3 to 5 years on
[1:52:44] those ones. They don
[1:52:44] t tend to
[1:52:45] vary quite as much as water
[1:52:46] does or don
[1:52:46] t need. The level
[1:52:48] of monitoring that water does,
[1:52:51] but we do have a rate
[1:52:52] consultant. Look at it
[1:52:53] periodically, so we
[1:52:53] ll walk
[1:52:55] through in the next slides what
[1:52:56] we are proposing. And then I do
[1:52:57] have sample bills to show you
[1:52:59] how all of these different
[1:53:01] changes would affect a bill in
[1:53:03] total. So we
[1:53:03] re going to throw
[1:53:05] the big one out there that I am
[1:53:05] sure we
[1:53:06] ll get those questions
[1:53:08] on initially. As water. Water
[1:53:09] always gets talked about the
[1:53:12] most. So um, our rate study did
[1:53:13] propose 12%. But I want to
[1:53:15] caveat that with a few
[1:53:17] important things. 12% is not
[1:53:18] for the whole bill, and it is
[1:53:20] not even for all of the water
[1:53:21] items. It is for two line items
[1:53:22] on the bill. We also have other
[1:53:23] line items that remain
[1:53:25] unchanged and have remained
[1:53:26] unchanged since they were
[1:53:27] implemented. So when we talk
[1:53:30] about 12%, it is not 12% to the
[1:53:31] overall bill. And when we get
[1:53:32] to the sample bills, I
[1:53:32] ll be
[1:53:34] able to show you that how where
[1:53:36] the 12% is versus some of the
[1:53:37] other line items. So I think
[1:53:38] that
[1:53:39] s an important thing to to
[1:53:41] look at. But um, the 12%, as
[1:53:44] far as um, average bill and
[1:53:45] I
[1:53:46] ll just explain this upfront
[1:53:48] when I talk about average bill,
[1:53:48] I
[1:53:49] m talking about indoor usage,
[1:53:51] which is 4000 gallons per month
[1:53:52] for most customers. So just for
[1:53:54] consistency, I know people
[1:53:55] have, you know, some have large
[1:53:56] yards, some have small yards,
[1:53:57] some have zero escape yards.
[1:53:57] There
[1:53:59] s a lot of variation
[1:54:00] there. So we use just average
[1:54:01] indoor usage when we
[1:54:01] re talking
[1:54:04] about comparability. Um, for an
[1:54:06] average bill or average user
[1:54:09] this 12% is $4 a month. So that
[1:54:09] won
[1:54:10] t buy you a latte at
[1:54:12] Starbucks, which is its own
[1:54:14] issue. And kind of sad, but,
[1:54:14] um, it
[1:54:16] s $4 a month. Is the
[1:54:18] impact on a standard indoor
[1:54:20] bill? Um, the other area on
[1:54:21] here, um, that
[1:54:21] s that
[1:54:22] s a bit
[1:54:24] new. Is this non-potable? Um,
[1:54:25] so non-potable water is
[1:54:26] irrigation only. We now have
[1:54:29] our less reservoir online, um,
[1:54:30] providing non-potable water.
[1:54:31] This is really good news for
[1:54:33] water conservation. Um, our
[1:54:34] non-potable customers, we
[1:54:34] re
[1:54:36] actually one of the biggest
[1:54:37] ones is our parks department
[1:54:38] using non-potable water for
[1:54:40] parks, which saves us some
[1:54:43] money on water fees there. Um,
[1:54:44] but it is only irrigation
[1:54:45] accounts. It
[1:54:46] s only
[1:54:47] non-residential. We don
[1:54:47] t have
[1:54:48] any residential accounts using
[1:54:50] non-potable. But one of the
[1:54:51] things we realized bringing
[1:54:53] that online is we had one rate
[1:54:54] for non-potable. Rather than
[1:54:56] having rates set up for
[1:54:58] residential versus
[1:54:59] non-residential. So what we
[1:54:59] re
[1:55:01] proposing here is that we break
[1:55:02] that out. We have our
[1:55:04] residential and then have
[1:55:06] multi-unit and non-residential,
[1:55:07] have their own rates. And
[1:55:09] actually, um, the rates on
[1:55:10] those well, I presented them
[1:55:12] here as percentages of
[1:55:15] irrigation rates, multi-unit
[1:55:16] and non-residential are both
[1:55:18] the same would be 375 per
[1:55:19] thousand gallons, whereas
[1:55:21] residential is 351. It
[1:55:21] s
[1:55:23] currently 317. So again, we
[1:55:23] re
[1:55:24] kind of setting it based on a
[1:55:27] percentage of irrigation costs.
[1:55:28] The reason non-potable is so
[1:55:30] much lower than regular water,
[1:55:31] potable water is because it
[1:55:32] does not need to go to the
[1:55:33] water treatment plant. It does
[1:55:34] not need treatment or anything.
[1:55:34] It
[1:55:37] s just going and straight as
[1:55:37] it
[1:55:39] s found. Um, also
[1:55:40] non-potable accounts because
[1:55:41] they don
[1:55:43] t have, um, they
[1:55:43] aren
[1:55:43] t doing treatment, they
[1:55:43] don
[1:55:44] t pay the water treatment
[1:55:45] plant fee and they don
[1:55:45] t pay
[1:55:46] the contract water surcharge.
[1:55:48] So those accounts see a
[1:55:50] significantly lower rate. Um,
[1:55:55] overall. So I included this
[1:55:56] slide on our water rate history
[1:55:57] just to provide some
[1:55:59] perspective. We do track these
[1:56:00] over time. And again this is
[1:56:02] looking at average um 4000
[1:56:03] gallon per month average indoor
[1:56:07] usage over time. Um, so looking
[1:56:08] back ten years, you can see in
[1:56:09] here kind of that interesting
[1:56:10] time period where we lowered
[1:56:11] our rates for a few years, but
[1:56:11] they
[1:56:13] re very stagnant for for
[1:56:15] quite some time. Um, but on
[1:56:16] average over the last ten
[1:56:18] years, the water bill for a
[1:56:20] 4000 gallon per month user has
[1:56:26] gone up about $13.58. So $1.30
[1:56:28] per year on average is what
[1:56:28] we
[1:56:29] re seeing. So, um, and the
[1:56:30] breakout here between the
[1:56:30] colors, that
[1:56:31] s your fixed
[1:56:33] charges versus your usage based
[1:56:34] charges. But I just provide
[1:56:36] this to just give some context
[1:56:37] that, yeah, the rates have gone
[1:56:38] up, but they
[1:56:38] re kind of going
[1:56:41] up at $1.36 per year. Um, you
[1:56:42] know, pretty nominal amount
[1:56:47] over time. All right.
[1:56:49] Mayor Pro Tem got a question.
[1:56:51] Um, just to make sure you
[1:56:51] re
[1:56:54] proposing a 12% increase to
[1:56:55] each of the tiers at which
[1:56:56] water is charged.
[1:56:58] Yes, it would be for the the
[1:56:59] fixed service charge and then
[1:57:01] the usage based charge. And
[1:57:02] those are tiered based on usage
[1:57:03] amounts.
[1:57:05] But each tier same same
[1:57:06] percentage increase. Yes.
[1:57:07] Okay.
[1:57:09] The other line items. Sorry.
[1:57:10] The other line items like the
[1:57:12] water treatment plan fee, the
[1:57:13] contract water surcharge will
[1:57:14] not be changing.
[1:57:14] They remain.
[1:57:16] In charge. Those are remaining
[1:57:17] constant, which is good. We
[1:57:17] weren
[1:57:18] t at that six year point
[1:57:21] yet that would contemplate, uh,
[1:57:24] doing an additional, uh. Do you
[1:57:26] have a I know you
[1:57:26] ll get to a
[1:57:28] sample bill shortly, but you
[1:57:30] also have the sample data for a
[1:57:32] typical irrigation or an
[1:57:35] average year irrigation month.
[1:57:36] Um, I think last time we did
[1:57:38] this, we had that one. Also, as
[1:57:39] a comparison.
[1:57:40] We do have that. Yeah. I don
[1:57:40] t
[1:57:41] have that in my slides here. I
[1:57:43] have it on my computer. I can
[1:57:43] share.
[1:57:44] It with you. Okay. We
[1:57:44] re not
[1:57:45] there yet. So it
[1:57:46] s okay. But
[1:57:46] I
[1:57:47] ll be curious. When would you
[1:57:48] get there.
[1:57:49] Yeah. And then the variation
[1:57:51] does, you know, when you get
[1:57:52] into those higher tiers, you
[1:57:53] definitely see.
[1:57:53] Yeah.
[1:57:53] There
[1:57:54] s a change.
[1:57:55] Yeah. Okay. Thanks.
[1:57:55] We
[1:57:57] re not rewarding. Just the
[1:58:00] one you know. First tier. No, I
[1:58:04] just leaving that alone. Yep.
[1:58:05] Then on our water, our
[1:58:08] wastewater. Sorry. And storm
[1:58:09] um, again our waste on our
[1:58:10] wastewater, our approach there
[1:58:11] is to pass through the rate
[1:58:12] increases that are approved by
[1:58:14] our processors. Metro water
[1:58:16] recovery and lock Bui. Metro
[1:58:17] Water Recovery has already
[1:58:19] approved the 6.5% increase. So
[1:58:20] that is what we
[1:58:21] re proposing
[1:58:22] there. Um, the Lockwood Sewer
[1:58:24] Board has not formally proposed
[1:58:26] any rate increases for 2027
[1:58:27] yet. If they were to do that,
[1:58:29] we would do some analysis and
[1:58:29] come back to you with a
[1:58:31] proposal to address that. But
[1:58:32] as of now, nothing has been
[1:58:34] proposed. Um, and then on the
[1:58:36] storm drainage side, um, coming
[1:58:39] off of that rate study in 2025,
[1:58:41] we were recommending a $3 per
[1:58:43] acre sets, $3 per single family
[1:58:44] home. Um, if it
[1:58:44] s commercial,
[1:58:45] then it
[1:58:45] s based on the amount
[1:58:47] of square footage of impervious
[1:58:48] area they have. But for single
[1:58:49] family home, it would be the $3
[1:58:51] per month would be the change.
[1:58:54] There. So then these are the
[1:58:57] sample bills. And I show them
[1:58:58] for Metro water recovery and
[1:58:59] lock both separately because
[1:59:01] their wastewater fees that
[1:59:01] they
[1:59:02] re paying are different.
[1:59:04] Um, one thing so you
[1:59:04] ll note
[1:59:05] that the water rates on either
[1:59:07] side are the same, um, going up
[1:59:11] by just about $4 per month.
[1:59:11] It
[1:59:13] s actually $3.98 per month
[1:59:14] based on that 12% increase. But
[1:59:15] what you can see here is you
[1:59:16] got that flat charge. That
[1:59:17] s
[1:59:18] the service fee that went up by
[1:59:20] about $2, and then you
[1:59:20] ve got
[1:59:21] the usage fee on the bottom.
[1:59:23] That went up by about $2. But
[1:59:24] these other line items remained
[1:59:26] unchanged. That water treatment
[1:59:27] plant fee has been in place
[1:59:28] since 2022, when we broke
[1:59:29] ground on the plant that
[1:59:29] s
[1:59:31] finishing up this year. And
[1:59:32] that is scheduled to remain
[1:59:34] flat. And then the contract
[1:59:36] water surcharge at 460 has been
[1:59:38] in place far longer than I have
[1:59:39] been here and has been for 60
[1:59:40] the entire time. That one has
[1:59:43] never changed. Um, on the
[1:59:45] wastewater side, um, again,
[1:59:45] you
[1:59:46] ll see the rates here are
[1:59:48] quite different between the two
[1:59:50] processors. Um, what Metro
[1:59:52] Water Recovery does review and
[1:59:53] approve rate increases every
[1:59:55] year. Luckily has not approved
[1:59:56] a rate increase for several
[1:59:58] years now, so their rates have
[1:59:59] stayed very, very, very much,
[2:00:03] um, much lower if they, um, you
[2:00:04] know, do need to do an
[2:00:05] increase, we would pass. We
[2:00:06] probably have to recommend
[2:00:07] passing that through as well
[2:00:09] just to keep our increases, our
[2:00:10] costs that we pay them for
[2:00:11] processing. So but I do want to
[2:00:13] point that out that there is a
[2:00:14] pretty large difference between
[2:00:16] the two. Um, and then on storm
[2:00:16] drainage, you
[2:00:17] ll see the $3 per
[2:00:20] month difference there. So
[2:00:22] looking at total bill for a
[2:00:23] metro customer, we are looking
[2:00:25] at around a 10% effective
[2:00:27] increase. After all of those
[2:00:28] things are considered, or about
[2:00:31] $9.62, that will buy you a
[2:00:32] latte at Starbucks. It
[2:00:32] ll
[2:00:33] actually buy you one and a half
[2:00:35] lattes at Starbucks. Based on
[2:00:36] current prices, and depending
[2:00:38] on how many syrups you get, um,
[2:00:39] on the town of Lake Bui, it
[2:00:39] s
[2:00:41] going up by just under $7 per
[2:00:42] month. Based on these
[2:00:44] proposals. And again, a latte
[2:00:45] with a tip. That
[2:00:46] s about what
[2:00:46] you
[2:00:48] ll get. So trying to equate
[2:00:50] these two coffees, uh, because
[2:00:53] we all like to stay caffeinated.
[2:00:54] So this next slide here is our
[2:00:56] comparisons. And this is always
[2:00:57] an important slide to see. This
[2:00:59] is looking just at the water
[2:01:00] costs because that is the one
[2:01:03] that um gets a lot of
[2:01:05] attention. Uh, we are currently
[2:01:06] again this going back to our
[2:01:08] previous slide averaging around
[2:01:10] $44 per month and proposing
[2:01:12] going up to about $48 per
[2:01:13] month. So you can see these
[2:01:15] orange columns are where we are
[2:01:15] now and where we
[2:01:16] re proposing
[2:01:18] to be. Everybody else on here,
[2:01:18] I do want to point out this is
[2:01:21] their 2026 rates. We do not
[2:01:22] have 2027 approved rates for
[2:01:24] most of these communities, or
[2:01:25] almost any of them. Um, we
[2:01:25] re
[2:01:26] doing some research today. I
[2:01:27] know we do have some
[2:01:28] communities that have already
[2:01:30] approved upwards of 10%, others
[2:01:32] that are proposing up to 15.
[2:01:33] Um, a lot of them. What I
[2:01:34] m
[2:01:35] seeing, though, um, is
[2:01:36] somewhere in like the, you
[2:01:39] know, 7 to 9% range is what
[2:01:39] we
[2:01:40] re seeing proposed. A lot of
[2:01:41] them have not published
[2:01:43] anything yet. So, um, we
[2:01:44] anticipate of course, they
[2:01:44] re
[2:01:45] going to be seeing cost
[2:01:46] increases, um, due to
[2:01:47] inflation, just like we are.
[2:01:50] So, uh, as they all go up, you
[2:01:51] know, this looks like we
[2:01:51] re
[2:01:53] going to be moving up and above
[2:01:54] average, but that average
[2:01:55] number is going to move up as
[2:01:56] we see what those other
[2:01:57] communities are proposing for
[2:02:03] their own increases. So with
[2:02:04] that we are under questions.
[2:02:04] I
[2:02:05] ll stay here on the
[2:02:06] comparison slide, because I
[2:02:06] think that
[2:02:08] s got a more
[2:02:08] information.
[2:02:09] So Member Carbajal.
[2:02:11] Yeah, I just I just more want
[2:02:12] to speak to like my feelings
[2:02:14] around raising the water
[2:02:15] prices. I think I totally
[2:02:16] understand that we obviously
[2:02:18] have to recoup for building the
[2:02:19] new infrastructure. And I
[2:02:20] understand what that looks
[2:02:22] like. And I see that $6 in that
[2:02:23] fourth 50 fee that have been
[2:02:25] imposed, kind of, I think, to
[2:02:26] make up for some of that
[2:02:28] ground. But I think one of the
[2:02:30] concerns I have is, um, for me,
[2:02:30] it
[2:02:31] s easy to it
[2:02:32] s it is a
[2:02:33] Starbucks and a latte. But for
[2:02:34] a lot of our community, they
[2:02:34] re
[2:02:35] not going to Starbucks and they
[2:02:35] can
[2:02:36] t afford to feed their
[2:02:38] families. So, um, my question
[2:02:40] is, is like, how are we
[2:02:42] ensuring that we can make
[2:02:43] people this? Because you said
[2:02:45] it was $1.36 over ten years,
[2:02:46] year over year, but now we
[2:02:46] re
[2:02:48] looking at a 10% increase in
[2:02:49] just one year. That
[2:02:50] s a pretty
[2:02:51] significant jump for some of
[2:02:52] the families in our community
[2:02:55] looking at equity. And I think
[2:02:56] like, yes, it
[2:02:56] s a Starbucks
[2:02:58] drink. If we have privilege.
[2:02:59] Um, and if we don
[2:03:00] t, how are we
[2:03:02] ensuring this? And then the
[2:03:03] trust of our community is
[2:03:04] really important when we think
[2:03:06] about partnership. And I wasn
[2:03:06] t
[2:03:08] serving on council when we lost
[2:03:09] a lot of trust for water, but
[2:03:10] my husband actually worked in
[2:03:12] the water department, and I
[2:03:12] still think there
[2:03:13] s a bitter
[2:03:13] taste in our community
[2:03:14] s mouths
[2:03:15] around this. And there
[2:03:15] s stuff
[2:03:16] that comes out every year. So
[2:03:17] how are we combating that when
[2:03:20] it comes to, um, communication
[2:03:21] as well? So those are some of
[2:03:23] my questions, thoughts,
[2:03:24] concerns when it comes to this
[2:03:26] topic.
[2:03:27] So great question around how
[2:03:28] are we helping our most
[2:03:29] vulnerable customers. So we
[2:03:31] have a water assistance program
[2:03:33] that provides, um, currently
[2:03:36] $500 a year for um, for our
[2:03:37] customers that are having
[2:03:38] trouble paying their bill. We
[2:03:39] are proposing increasing that
[2:03:41] to $600 a year, knowing that we
[2:03:43] have kept it at $500 for
[2:03:44] several years now. So it
[2:03:44] s time
[2:03:45] to increase that. So we
[2:03:45] ve
[2:03:46] talked about that internally
[2:03:47] already. That
[2:03:48] s an internal
[2:03:49] policy. So that
[2:03:49] s not something
[2:03:50] that would typically come to
[2:03:53] council. But um is a good data
[2:03:54] point here that we do have that
[2:03:55] program available. Um we
[2:03:56] ve
[2:03:57] allocated in the past up to
[2:04:00] 125,000. And we do use it, um,
[2:04:01] throughout the year for
[2:04:02] customers that that need that
[2:04:04] help. So that is one of those
[2:04:05] tools we have.
[2:04:06] Can you talk to me about like
[2:04:08] what are the parameters for
[2:04:09] that? And does it require them
[2:04:11] coming to ask for that
[2:04:12] services. Um, does it
[2:04:13] automatically when it goes into
[2:04:15] default. Open a conversation
[2:04:16] for that type of service. What
[2:04:17] does that look like in terms of
[2:04:19] them having access to that
[2:04:21] community service piece or that
[2:04:23] community like piece?
[2:04:25] No. Great question. So they do
[2:04:26] have to apply because we don
[2:04:26] t
[2:04:27] want it to go to people who
[2:04:27] don
[2:04:28] t need it. Right? So there
[2:04:30] are some, uh, some
[2:04:31] qualifications. If somebody is
[2:04:32] already receiving assistance
[2:04:33] from the county, like tanf,
[2:04:34] food stamps, something like
[2:04:35] that, they automatically
[2:04:37] qualify. So, um, typically if
[2:04:38] somebody is having trouble
[2:04:39] paying their bill, if they call
[2:04:40] us and say, hey, I can
[2:04:40] t pay my
[2:04:41] bill, I don
[2:04:42] t want to get shut
[2:04:42] off, that
[2:04:43] s the first thing we
[2:04:44] do is we ask them, okay, have
[2:04:44] you looked at the water
[2:04:46] assistance program? Are you
[2:04:47] receiving other assistance?
[2:04:48] Because that will easily
[2:04:50] qualify you. Um, so that
[2:04:50] s kind
[2:04:51] of the process we go through.
[2:04:51] If they
[2:04:52] re still having trouble
[2:04:54] after that, we typically refer
[2:04:56] them to Almost Home because,
[2:04:57] you know, while we MAY not have
[2:04:58] additional money for their
[2:04:59] water bill, maybe they can get
[2:05:00] rental assistance or something
[2:05:01] else to help them in other
[2:05:03] areas of their life. That helps
[2:05:04] balance that out. So that
[2:05:04] s
[2:05:05] where we leverage that
[2:05:07] partnership with Almost Home.
[2:05:08] And when we go to increase, do
[2:05:10] we allow people in our
[2:05:11] community to know that there
[2:05:11] s
[2:05:13] this water assistance program,
[2:05:14] or do we kind of wait until
[2:05:14] they
[2:05:16] re asking for support? And
[2:05:17] if we were to go out and say,
[2:05:18] hey, we have this water
[2:05:19] assistance program, we
[2:05:19] re
[2:05:21] raising your bill 10%, would we
[2:05:22] see a sweep? And it wouldn
[2:05:22] t
[2:05:23] even help to raise it 10%.
[2:05:24] These are the questions that I
[2:05:25] think might be important here
[2:05:26] in our community.
[2:05:28] So we do put it out on our
[2:05:29] Facebook page a couple of times
[2:05:30] a year. And we always see a
[2:05:32] little bit of a spike in
[2:05:33] applications when that happens.
[2:05:35] Um, we always see a spike in
[2:05:36] applications in JANUARY when
[2:05:38] the program renews. In fact,
[2:05:39] roughly half of the money it
[2:05:41] gets used in about the first 3
[2:05:42] to 4 months of the year.
[2:05:43] Because people who use this
[2:05:45] that qualify have qualified in
[2:05:45] the past. They know they
[2:05:45] re
[2:05:47] going to qualify. They apply
[2:05:47] right at the beginning of the
[2:05:48] year, and they get their credit
[2:05:50] on their bill immediately. Uh,
[2:05:52] so yeah, it does. It definitely
[2:05:54] gets utilized, um, and using
[2:05:55] social media and other things,
[2:05:57] we get a, I think pretty good
[2:05:58] participation that way. Um, we
[2:06:00] also get referrals from places
[2:06:01] like Almost Home from them
[2:06:02] telling people, have you
[2:06:03] checked with the city to see if
[2:06:05] you can get help? So again, the
[2:06:06] partnerships help.
[2:06:07] I think my last question, so
[2:06:08] thanks for that information, is
[2:06:09] so it
[2:06:10] s a one time per year of
[2:06:12] that much money.
[2:06:13] Yes. One time. So if they
[2:06:14] qualify they just get a credit
[2:06:15] on their bill. And if their
[2:06:16] bill happens to be about 50
[2:06:17] bucks a month, and that would
[2:06:18] last them for quite a while.
[2:06:20] And have we ever run out of
[2:06:22] that funding?
[2:06:24] Yes. But like in mid-DECEMBER
[2:06:25] typically, I mean, at that
[2:06:25] point where we
[2:06:26] re right at the
[2:06:28] cusp of going to the next year
[2:06:30] and having it reset, if we do
[2:06:31] get close, then I come to to
[2:06:32] Scott and to Michael and we
[2:06:33] talk about that and say, do we
[2:06:35] want to extend it? Because when
[2:06:36] it was a lower threshold, it
[2:06:38] used to be around 100,000.
[2:06:38] Yeah, we were we were running
[2:06:40] out and we came back, you know,
[2:06:41] mid year and said, hey, can we,
[2:06:42] can we afford to up this to
[2:06:44] 125,000 so that we don
[2:06:44] t have
[2:06:46] to turn people away. But once
[2:06:47] we get to about DECEMBER, then
[2:06:47] we
[2:06:47] re talking about it
[2:06:49] resetting in a week or two.
[2:06:50] And, and we just let it roll.
[2:06:51] So we haven
[2:06:52] t had anybody that
[2:06:52] we
[2:06:55] ve turned away. No thank you.
[2:06:58] Mayor Pro Tem.
[2:07:00] Thanks. Um, I think one of the
[2:07:01] other things that we we did
[2:07:03] that I want to get a little bit
[2:07:05] of understanding of is a year
[2:07:07] or two ago, we also changed the
[2:07:09] usage that qualified for the
[2:07:11] tier one pricing, the lowest
[2:07:12] pricing. We moved from 3000
[2:07:14] gallons to 4000 gallons. Uh,
[2:07:17] and that was designed to make
[2:07:19] sure that we were covering
[2:07:21] essentially the houses that
[2:07:21] didn
[2:07:22] t have significant
[2:07:23] irrigation costs over the
[2:07:24] course of the summer. Do we
[2:07:27] know roughly what percentage of
[2:07:30] our users stay within that 4000
[2:07:33] gallons for the full course of
[2:07:33] the year?
[2:07:34] I don
[2:07:34] t know that, but we can
[2:07:35] look into that.
[2:07:37] Okay.
[2:07:38] Because that that
[2:07:38] s one of the
[2:07:40] things that we did do was, was
[2:07:42] increase the amount that you
[2:07:43] could use before you started
[2:07:46] paying the more punitive rates.
[2:07:47] Um, right.
[2:07:48] Actually, if I can, I want to
[2:07:49] go back to this slide here. You
[2:07:52] can see where that happened in
[2:07:54] 2024. You can actually see the
[2:07:57] usage amount dropped. And the
[2:07:58] average bill in that year
[2:08:00] actually declined because we
[2:08:03] increased that bottom tier from
[2:08:04] 3000 to 4000. So people got an
[2:08:05] extra thousand gallons at a
[2:08:06] lower rate. So yeah you
[2:08:07] re
[2:08:07] right. If it
[2:08:08] s if they are
[2:08:10] truly an indoor user, um, which
[2:08:11] is what we consider essential
[2:08:13] use, then yeah, they
[2:08:13] re getting
[2:08:15] a pretty affordable rate.
[2:08:20] Good. Um. Then I lost my train
[2:08:22] of thought for my other
[2:08:27] question. Um. Oh. Uh, which was
[2:08:32] our water rate study is based a
[2:08:34] lot on, uh, because this is one
[2:08:36] of those, uh, enterprise funds
[2:08:38] that needs to pay for itself.
[2:08:38] It
[2:08:40] s designed the numbers that
[2:08:40] you
[2:08:41] re giving us aren
[2:08:42] t numbers
[2:08:45] around, uh, hypotheticals and
[2:08:45] what we would like to
[2:08:46] accomplish. They
[2:08:47] re designed
[2:08:48] around what our actual costs
[2:08:49] are going to be. Is that
[2:08:50] correct?
[2:08:50] That
[2:08:51] s correct.
[2:08:55] Yeah. So it at one point in
[2:08:58] time, uh, the water rates were
[2:09:01] exclusively a political issue.
[2:09:01] And we
[2:09:02] ve worked really hard
[2:09:03] over the last number of years
[2:09:03] to make sure that we
[2:09:04] re looking
[2:09:10] at actual costs, actual, um, uh,
[2:09:13] program and content fees to
[2:09:13] make sure that we
[2:09:14] re covering
[2:09:14] those. We
[2:09:16] re not really allowed
[2:09:18] to make wild profits in this
[2:09:20] region, but we do have to cover
[2:09:22] our own expenses that, uh,
[2:09:26] slope down, uh, on that chart a
[2:09:29] couple of years into it was a
[2:09:31] great political boon and then
[2:09:34] caused us to run in the red for
[2:09:35] a significant amount of time,
[2:09:38] which also placed us at risk at
[2:09:40] one point or another of
[2:09:42] effectively failing to run our
[2:09:45] enterprise and be eligible to
[2:09:46] be taken over by state
[2:09:49] entities. So, uh, I want to
[2:09:50] point out that that this isn
[2:09:51] t
[2:09:53] a political description of do
[2:09:55] we want to increase things by
[2:09:56] 10%? It
[2:09:57] s a we need to cover
[2:10:00] our increase in costs, which is
[2:10:01] 10%.
[2:10:01] That
[2:10:02] s correct. And I have to
[2:10:04] give Scott a lot of credit for
[2:10:06] his diligence with our
[2:10:07] financial plan. He
[2:10:07] s got such a
[2:10:09] good handle on our capital
[2:10:11] planning and all the all the
[2:10:12] projects we need. You know, I
[2:10:13] can go look at that water
[2:10:14] treatment plant and I can
[2:10:14] t
[2:10:15] wrap my head around the
[2:10:17] engineering and how you would
[2:10:18] estimate cost for that. But
[2:10:18] he
[2:10:19] s got a great team and they
[2:10:22] look at that plan in so much
[2:10:22] detail. And it
[2:10:23] s it
[2:10:23] s a lot of
[2:10:25] projects over the next 15 years
[2:10:25] that we
[2:10:27] re looking at. And um,
[2:10:28] making sure not just can we
[2:10:29] build them, but then can we
[2:10:30] maintain them. And, you know,
[2:10:32] when we were putting planning
[2:10:32] for this water treatment plant,
[2:10:33] we had consultants that helped
[2:10:35] us understand what do our
[2:10:37] operating costs need to do in
[2:10:38] order to actually operate this
[2:10:39] plant that does so much more
[2:10:40] than our old one, right. So
[2:10:40] we
[2:10:42] re definitely looking at all
[2:10:43] of these costs in so much
[2:10:44] detail and getting all the
[2:10:46] right experts behind it to make
[2:10:48] this as accurate as possible.
[2:10:49] Yeah. And the tour today
[2:10:50] certainly pointed out the
[2:10:53] number of places that we are
[2:10:56] effectively engineering savings
[2:10:57] into the program. We
[2:10:57] re
[2:11:00] recovering, uh, water and
[2:11:01] running through additional
[2:11:02] cycles rather than simply
[2:11:04] returning them or sending them
[2:11:06] off and paying for wastewater.
[2:11:07] There are a number of
[2:11:09] engineering pieces in here that
[2:11:12] actually reduce our effective
[2:11:13] usage and our effective cost
[2:11:15] per gallon, uh, from what it
[2:11:16] is. So I think we
[2:11:16] re doing a
[2:11:19] lot to manage and control those
[2:11:21] costs. At some point, things
[2:11:23] simply cost more on our
[2:11:26] responsibilities to be, uh,
[2:11:27] effective fiduciary
[2:11:29] responsibility for the city and
[2:11:31] pay or collect what it costs to
[2:11:34] run those things. Okay. Thanks.
[2:11:36] Anyone else? Council member
[2:11:37] Fiedler.
[2:11:40] Thank you. Mayor. And I would
[2:11:41] just add two things can be true
[2:11:44] at the same time. One, we do
[2:11:45] need to pay what the costs are,
[2:11:47] and it MAY be a financial
[2:11:48] burden to those folks who are
[2:11:50] struggling to do other things.
[2:11:50] It
[2:11:51] s not an Or situation. It
[2:11:51] s
[2:11:53] an end. So I appreciate the
[2:11:54] numbers. I believe those to be
[2:11:56] true. But the statement earlier
[2:11:58] around Equitable City and how
[2:11:59] it might be hard for some
[2:11:59] families, it
[2:12:00] s true. It can be
[2:12:02] both can be true at the same
[2:12:06] time.
[2:12:08] Okay, Councilmember Carbajal.
[2:12:09] Just a question on the thing,
[2:12:10] because I understand the
[2:12:11] fiduciary responsibility, I
[2:12:12] would I would echo that. That
[2:12:13] s
[2:12:15] not, um, like lost and made,
[2:12:16] just so you understand that.
[2:12:17] But my question for you is when
[2:12:18] you said, we look at these
[2:12:18] rates and we
[2:12:20] re looking over 15
[2:12:22] year period of time, are these
[2:12:25] rates what we need now to
[2:12:27] operate, or are these rates
[2:12:28] starting to have us have a
[2:12:29] little bit of flex in that
[2:12:31] time? Is it something you could
[2:12:33] go half up this year and half
[2:12:34] up next and still meet the
[2:12:36] margin of 15 years? I want to
[2:12:37] understand what that means in
[2:12:39] terms of 15 years of time.
[2:12:42] Sure. Great question. So, uh,
[2:12:43] the way the model works, we put
[2:12:45] in all of the costs and then it
[2:12:48] tells us what what years we
[2:12:49] need zero and what years we
[2:12:50] need. 30. Right. And we
[2:12:50] re
[2:12:51] trying to mitigate the 30. So
[2:12:53] we put in the rates to try to
[2:12:54] get us to that so that we can
[2:12:55] keep them as steady as
[2:12:57] possible. So we are looking at
[2:12:59] at rate increases over time to
[2:13:00] make sure that we don
[2:13:00] t end up
[2:13:03] in a in a shock situation where
[2:13:04] we were trying to keep them
[2:13:05] artificially low. And then we
[2:13:07] need, you know, 20% like or 50
[2:13:08] like some of our communities
[2:13:09] have had in recent years. We
[2:13:10] re
[2:13:11] really trying to avoid that. So
[2:13:11] yeah, we
[2:13:12] re looking at it over
[2:13:13] time and kind of plugging in.
[2:13:15] All right. Could we go lower
[2:13:16] this year if we went lower this
[2:13:17] year. Does that mean higher
[2:13:18] this year. Right. We
[2:13:19] re playing
[2:13:20] with that a lot to try to keep
[2:13:21] it as level as we can.
[2:13:22] And I know that we
[2:13:22] re we
[2:13:22] re
[2:13:22] working.
[2:13:24] On a two year right. Like every
[2:13:27] two years we increase and we
[2:13:27] can do so much information
[2:13:28] every.
[2:13:29] Single year. We come back every
[2:13:30] year with the proposal, what
[2:13:30] that is.
[2:13:32] So with looking at that 15
[2:13:32] year, what you
[2:13:33] re telling me is
[2:13:33] each year we
[2:13:34] ll be looking at
[2:13:36] about the single rate in order
[2:13:37] to be in track.
[2:13:38] No, no, not 12 each year. In
[2:13:40] fact, if we did 12 this year,
[2:13:40] we
[2:13:42] d be looking at probably ten
[2:13:43] next year, and then it would
[2:13:44] drop down to six after another
[2:13:45] year or two. So it would it
[2:13:47] would go down based on the
[2:13:48] models we have now. Those are
[2:13:49] estimates. The further out you
[2:13:50] get, the squishy your numbers
[2:13:52] get. But yeah, we don
[2:13:52] t
[2:13:53] anticipate 12 annually.
[2:13:55] And is there a reason why we
[2:13:57] went high up front instead of
[2:13:58] opposite. Just I don
[2:13:58] t I don
[2:13:58] t
[2:13:58] know.
[2:13:59] Yes. I mean there
[2:14:00] s a
[2:14:01] compounding effect on that. And
[2:14:01] we
[2:14:03] ve got some significant
[2:14:04] projects in the next couple of
[2:14:05] years that we needed to make
[2:14:06] sure we had funding for. So if
[2:14:08] we tried to do, you know, six
[2:14:09] now, that would actually mean
[2:14:11] higher rate increases later to
[2:14:13] try to fund those projects. So
[2:14:14] we were trying to, again,
[2:14:15] mitigate a really big jump in a
[2:14:18] year like 2029, where we have a
[2:14:19] lot of capital projects that
[2:14:20] are happening. And we did also
[2:14:21] look at could we move those
[2:14:22] capital projects, but at some
[2:14:23] point you can
[2:14:23] t keep delaying
[2:14:23] things or you
[2:14:25] ve got a deferred
[2:14:26] maintenance issue..
[2:14:28] And have you guys collaborated
[2:14:30] already out of this area? If
[2:14:31] this was the past, how you
[2:14:31] ll
[2:14:32] look at marketing or
[2:14:33] communicating with the
[2:14:36] community about those items?
[2:14:39] Yeah, certainly. So, um, every
[2:14:41] year after the the rate
[2:14:43] increases, uh, past, we
[2:14:45] basically launch a campaign to
[2:14:46] share that information. Um,
[2:14:47] there
[2:14:48] s flyers, inserts that go
[2:14:50] out with the bills. We do
[2:14:52] Spanish and English videos.
[2:14:52] There
[2:14:54] s social media posts. So
[2:14:57] we do try to target all of our
[2:14:59] customers, um, and let them
[2:15:02] know of the the increase and
[2:15:03] the reason for the increase.
[2:15:04] And we also include that water
[2:15:06] assistance program information
[2:15:08] with that communication.
[2:15:11] Thank you.
[2:15:13] Council Member Snyder.
[2:15:14] I don
[2:15:17] t like my water bill. I
[2:15:19] have a beautiful yard. I like
[2:15:21] it that way. So I pay the water
[2:15:25] bill. Um, this afternoon we had
[2:15:28] the opportunity to walk through
[2:15:30] $180 million water treatment
[2:15:31] plant. That
[2:15:32] s 90% complete.
[2:15:32] That
[2:15:33] s going to provide some of
[2:15:35] the best water in the western
[2:15:36] United States to the residents.
[2:15:39] And it has to be paid for. And
[2:15:40] it is unfortunate rates have to
[2:15:41] go up. And inflation
[2:15:43] s at 3.9%.
[2:15:46] And um stuff costs more. That
[2:15:47] treatment plant will only
[2:15:50] handle estimates 70,000 people.
[2:15:50] We
[2:15:51] re going to be there in 12
[2:15:52] to 15 years. We
[2:15:52] re going to
[2:15:54] need another water treatment
[2:15:54] plant. And you can
[2:15:55] t just wave
[2:15:56] a magic wand and come up with
[2:15:57] the money. So that
[2:15:58] s part of
[2:16:00] what these increases do future
[2:16:01] development, future needs. And
[2:16:03] we have to keep up with them.
[2:16:05] But we it correct me if I
[2:16:05] m
[2:16:05] wrong. We
[2:16:06] re under state
[2:16:07] guidelines. We can
[2:16:09] t just say
[2:16:13] hey, we want an extra $500,000
[2:16:14] in water fees this year. We
[2:16:17] have to have a provable use and
[2:16:18] need for that money that is
[2:16:20] directly related to providing a
[2:16:22] good quality product to our
[2:16:23] citizens, right?
[2:16:23] That
[2:16:25] s correct. Yes. So this
[2:16:27] this rate increase, this 12%
[2:16:27] that we
[2:16:28] re asking for is what
[2:16:29] is needed to continue to
[2:16:31] provide the level of service
[2:16:34] that we are, if there is some
[2:16:36] other percentage, um, you know,
[2:16:39] that council would consider
[2:16:40] there would be something that
[2:16:42] is not going to happen that
[2:16:45] likely will have an impact on
[2:16:48] service level or cost increases
[2:16:49] could go up.
[2:16:50] Thanks, Scott. And if I just I
[2:16:50] don
[2:16:51] t want my water bill to go
[2:16:52] down, I
[2:16:53] ll take some of my
[2:16:53] grass out.
[2:16:57] Thank you.
[2:17:02] Anybody else? All right.
[2:17:03] That is all we.
[2:17:05] Have for you tonight. So if
[2:17:05] there
[2:17:06] s, uh. Yeah.
[2:17:07] That
[2:17:08] s it.
[2:17:10] Well, I thank you both for your
[2:17:11] dedications. I know it
[2:17:11] s hard
[2:17:14] to talk about any sort of rate
[2:17:15] adjustments. Those are
[2:17:17] sensitive topics here in our
[2:17:20] community. But I also know that
[2:17:22] Director Olson, because he is
[2:17:24] so dedicated to utilities, he
[2:17:26] moved back to Brighton so he
[2:17:27] can pay these kind of rates. So
[2:17:29] we appreciate that.
[2:17:30] We call him the company man
[2:17:30] here.
[2:17:30] And I.
[2:17:31] Did internally.
[2:17:33] I moved here just to pay the
[2:17:33] water rates.
[2:17:36] Yes, you did.
[2:17:37] A man of honor, if you will.
[2:17:45] Yes. Dedication. Thank you.
[2:17:46] All or.
[2:17:48] Even one last thing on this. As
[2:17:50] I mentioned in the beginning,
[2:17:51] we played this scenario so many
[2:17:53] times now, uh, including
[2:17:54] everything that was mentioned
[2:17:56] tonight behind the scenes,
[2:17:57] whether it
[2:17:58] s the two in front
[2:17:59] of you here, the budget
[2:18:01] director, uh, everybody, like I
[2:18:02] mentioned in between that, you
[2:18:03] know, we when we have our
[2:18:04] huddles and we have our
[2:18:06] discussions about this, we talk
[2:18:07] about the scenarios and what it
[2:18:09] will cost us if we don
[2:18:09] t do
[2:18:10] something, if we delay
[2:18:11] something. I think there
[2:18:12] s one
[2:18:12] lesson that we
[2:18:13] ve learned as a
[2:18:14] city that
[2:18:16] s sometimes delaying
[2:18:17] things is going to cost you a
[2:18:19] significantly a significant
[2:18:21] amount more in the long run.
[2:18:23] The $180 million water
[2:18:24] treatment plant that we
[2:18:24] re
[2:18:25] fortunate enough to have,
[2:18:25] because that
[2:18:26] s now a $300
[2:18:28] million water treatment plant
[2:18:29] in Westminster, could have cost
[2:18:33] us somewhere between 70 and
[2:18:35] $120 million if we would have
[2:18:38] done certain things in back
[2:18:39] when we had the opportunity to
[2:18:41] do it. So I do want to take a
[2:18:42] moment to thank the team,
[2:18:43] because they really are
[2:18:45] cognizant. Of the residents
[2:18:45] when they
[2:18:45] re when they
[2:18:45] re
[2:18:46] setting these rates or
[2:18:48] suggesting these rates. Like I
[2:18:50] mentioned, we go over things
[2:18:51] time and time again to make
[2:18:51] sure that we
[2:18:52] ve we
[2:18:53] ve got what
[2:18:54] we believe is the right thing
[2:18:55] for our residents and for
[2:18:56] utility.
[2:18:57] But if we didn
[2:18:58] t address this
[2:19:01] now, we versus then we might
[2:19:02] not have addressed the pfas
[2:19:03] issue because that wasn
[2:19:04] t such
[2:19:05] an important topic back then
[2:19:07] either. So I think we hit the
[2:19:08] sweet spot.
[2:19:09] I agree.
[2:19:15] Yeah, cool. Thank you. Next
[2:19:17] here it is. Water treatment
[2:19:19] chemicals. Master price
[2:19:22] agreement, awards, city Manager
[2:19:24] Martinez.
[2:19:26] Director Olson. Once again.
[2:19:29] Sorry, I was just moving seats.
[2:19:32] I like this one better. All
[2:19:33] right. Thank you for having me
[2:19:35] again this evening. Uh, this
[2:19:37] item is, uh, master price
[2:19:39] agreement awards for water
[2:19:45] treatment, plant chemicals. All
[2:19:46] right, this evening, I
[2:19:46] ll walk
[2:19:48] us through some background and
[2:19:50] overview, the procurement
[2:19:50] summary and staff
[2:19:51] s
[2:19:53] recommendation for a future,
[2:19:55] uh, regular council meeting.
[2:19:56] Um, just to give you a reminder
[2:19:58] on what the master price
[2:20:00] agreements are and then open it
[2:20:02] up for any questions. So just
[2:20:04] some background, the water
[2:20:06] system demand here in the city
[2:20:10] of Brighton in 2025 was about
[2:20:13] 2.2 billion gallons, and
[2:20:15] approximately 70% of that, or
[2:20:17] 1.5 billion gallons, is treated
[2:20:18] at our water treatment plant
[2:20:21] facilities. The rest of the 30%
[2:20:25] is purchased water. So numerous
[2:20:28] chemicals are required to
[2:20:29] remove contaminants during the
[2:20:32] water treatment process or
[2:20:34] further aid in that process.
[2:20:36] Um, and there are several other
[2:20:37] NPAs that are going to be
[2:20:40] awarded for, uh, specific
[2:20:42] chemicals. Um, however, only
[2:20:45] two of these exceed, uh, the
[2:20:46] amount that requires city
[2:20:50] Council approval. So, uh, city
[2:20:52] staff did publish a formal
[2:20:54] solicitation through bid net
[2:20:56] direct with the intent of
[2:20:57] entering into these master
[2:20:59] price agreements. Uh, the
[2:21:01] solicitation resulted in 14
[2:21:03] submissions, 12 of which were
[2:21:05] deemed responsive. And staff
[2:21:05] s
[2:21:07] recommendation is at a future
[2:21:09] city council meeting to accept
[2:21:11] the lowest, most responsive and
[2:21:13] responsible fee schedule and,
[2:21:15] uh, award master price
[2:21:16] agreements with not to exceed
[2:21:18] amounts for one of our
[2:21:22] solutions. Usa and pbs, Inc. Um
[2:21:27] in not to exceed amounts of
[2:21:30] $900,001.6 million,
[2:21:32] respectively. So just a
[2:21:34] reminder that, uh, master price
[2:21:35] agreements are a contract
[2:21:36] between the city and the
[2:21:38] vendor. It establishes, uh,
[2:21:41] terms and conditions, the scope
[2:21:42] of the goods or services that
[2:21:43] they
[2:21:44] re going to provide and
[2:21:46] pricing during that initial one
[2:21:49] year term. It we are able to
[2:21:51] extend that for an additional
[2:21:53] four year terms, up to a total
[2:21:55] of five years, as long as we
[2:21:58] accept a proposed reasonable
[2:22:00] increase that they, um, provide
[2:22:01] to us and that we still need
[2:22:06] that service. And with that, I
[2:22:08] will take any questions.
[2:22:11] Questions? Council member
[2:22:11] today.
[2:22:13] Okay, I need a little
[2:22:15] clarification so it can turn
[2:22:16] into a five year contract.
[2:22:17] Starts out as a one year
[2:22:18] contract, but you can extend it
[2:22:20] each year as long as the amount
[2:22:22] that it goes up is like
[2:22:25] inflationary or cost of the
[2:22:26] product.
[2:22:26] Correct? Yes.
[2:22:28] Okay. Thank you.
[2:22:31] Anyone else? That
[2:22:33] s it. Oh,
[2:22:34] mayor Pro Tem.
[2:22:35] Not a question on this. Uh, but
[2:22:36] since he
[2:22:36] s still here, I really
[2:22:38] want to thank you and Jordan
[2:22:39] for the tour of the plant
[2:22:42] today. Uh, lots of amazing
[2:22:44] information. Uh, really cool to
[2:22:45] see how far along we
[2:22:45] re coming.
[2:22:49] And really need to see the
[2:22:51] approaches that are different,
[2:22:53] more contemporary. Uh, and the
[2:22:54] benefits that they
[2:22:54] re going to
[2:22:56] provide. So thanks. Thanks to
[2:22:57] you. Thanks to Jordan, who
[2:22:57] s
[2:22:57] still here.
[2:22:59] Yes, absolutely. Yeah. And I
[2:23:00] asked Jordan to come tonight in
[2:23:01] case you guys started asking
[2:23:02] questions. About what?
[2:23:04] Chemicals? Uh, because he can
[2:23:05] rattle off every single
[2:23:07] chemical and what it does over
[2:23:08] there, and I cannot.
[2:23:09] And has some questions on
[2:23:12] chemicals.
[2:23:15] We bring our council chemist in
[2:23:16] to ask the questions.
[2:23:18] Um, and if there are no
[2:23:19] objections, we
[2:23:20] d like to place
[2:23:22] these two on the consent agenda
[2:23:23] for the next regular meeting.
[2:23:25] Bent and MAY have a problem
[2:23:27] with that. Go ahead. Go ahead
[2:23:28] and place it.
[2:23:29] All right. Thank you very much.
[2:23:32] All right. Thank you. And then
[2:23:34] the policy regarding the
[2:23:35] interview and appointment
[2:23:37] procedure for city board,
[2:23:38] commission and authority
[2:23:43] members proposed 2026 second
[2:23:46] revision. Is this yours? City
[2:23:47] Attorney Calderon?
[2:23:50] Uh, I am the speaker. This is
[2:23:51] city Council
[2:23:55] s agenda item. Um,
[2:23:58] we did do an update. Thank you.
[2:24:02] City Manager Martinez. Uh,
[2:24:04] council did do an update, but
[2:24:07] we had some questions
[2:24:09] specifically from the Housing
[2:24:12] Authority about, um, a couple
[2:24:16] things in the presentation. Uh,
[2:24:20] in the in the policy. So one
[2:24:22] suggested change is to allow a
[2:24:25] little more flexibility so that
[2:24:28] an applicant can attend the
[2:24:29] meeting where they
[2:24:29] re being
[2:24:31] interviewed. And that counts as
[2:24:32] the meeting that they
[2:24:32] re
[2:24:32] attending. So you
[2:24:33] re not having
[2:24:34] to attend a meeting and then
[2:24:35] come to the next meeting to be
[2:24:37] interviewed. It could all be
[2:24:38] one. That
[2:24:40] s one so good. It
[2:24:42] just allows for that. Doesn
[2:24:42] t
[2:24:45] require that. Um, the second
[2:24:50] one is we did have where the
[2:24:53] candidate, um, who had not
[2:24:54] attended a meeting, the
[2:24:56] application was held until they
[2:24:59] attended the meeting. So we
[2:25:00] re
[2:25:02] clarifying that the application
[2:25:03] would still be sent to the
[2:25:05] staff liaison so that the staff
[2:25:07] liaison can provide the
[2:25:08] information to the candidate
[2:25:10] about the date and time for the
[2:25:11] meeting, so that they can
[2:25:13] attend a meeting and so that
[2:25:15] they have the information. Um,
[2:25:18] and the other change is a
[2:25:21] practice that has been
[2:25:23] occurring, but that was not
[2:25:25] spelled out. Basically, you can
[2:25:27] be sworn in at the city Council
[2:25:28] meeting at the board
[2:25:30] commissioner authority meeting,
[2:25:33] or if none of those dates work
[2:25:34] at the city clerk
[2:25:40] s office. Um,
[2:25:44] a new question is, well, if a
[2:25:49] possible addition. So the well,
[2:25:50] unfortunately, it looks like
[2:25:51] the red lines disappeared
[2:25:52] because it was a word document
[2:25:53] that got uploaded to registrar.
[2:25:54] And then the red lines don
[2:25:54] t
[2:25:56] show up. Uh, the previous
[2:26:00] three. Yeah, the previous three
[2:26:02] suggestions are in are already
[2:26:05] in the document. This idea is
[2:26:06] not in the document, but it is
[2:26:09] a point of discussion as to
[2:26:10] whether you would like to
[2:26:13] include this. So would you like
[2:26:15] to have the information? So
[2:26:16] when you have a candidate who
[2:26:18] is up for renewal, would you
[2:26:21] like the information about
[2:26:23] their attendance at the
[2:26:24] meetings during their first
[2:26:27] term to be a part of the packet
[2:26:28] that you get to consider them
[2:26:29] for renewal?
[2:26:31] Yes. Yes.
[2:26:33] Yes..
[2:26:33] Okay. We
[2:26:36] ll add that in and
[2:26:39] that was all of the changes. So
[2:26:39] they
[2:26:41] re pretty minor.
[2:26:42] Anybody have any comments or
[2:26:44] questions. Mayor Pro tem.
[2:26:48] Well I, I get the early changes
[2:26:50] in those. Makes sense. To
[2:26:50] clarify I don
[2:26:51] t think any of
[2:26:53] those were out of line of the
[2:26:54] policy. We had written. But
[2:26:56] clarification is always good.
[2:26:57] Um, when we
[2:26:59] re looking at the
[2:27:03] Border Commission members past
[2:27:04] a or looking at Re
[2:27:06] appointments, is there also
[2:27:11] some sort of assessment of I
[2:27:12] performance is probably the
[2:27:17] wrong word, but participation
[2:27:19] and value and performance to to
[2:27:21] look at that, that
[2:27:23] reappointment. I mean I
[2:27:23] ll,
[2:27:24] I
[2:27:27] ll use as an example in the
[2:27:31] distant past we had a series of
[2:27:33] planning commission things that
[2:27:35] came to us and the decisions
[2:27:36] didn
[2:27:38] t really comply with, say,
[2:27:39] statute and our Land Use and
[2:27:40] Development code. And the
[2:27:42] council ended up reviewing
[2:27:48] those in and writing, making a
[2:27:50] different decision based on, on
[2:27:53] those inputs. Are there means
[2:27:54] for us to look at whether or
[2:27:56] not somebody is actually
[2:27:58] performing their duties for
[2:27:59] reappointment?
[2:28:01] We made the rules.
[2:28:04] Uh, currently there is no yeah,
[2:28:05] there
[2:28:07] s no method of
[2:28:08] quantifying.
[2:28:09] When they reapply.
[2:28:11] Yes. Other than your interview
[2:28:12] when they reapply. But there
[2:28:13] s
[2:28:14] no method of quantifying their
[2:28:16] participation or their
[2:28:18] performance.
[2:28:20] And we had a few things where
[2:28:21] where some of the decisions
[2:28:23] made by some of those councils
[2:28:25] place to sit in legal jeopardy.
[2:28:27] So I would be curious, figuring
[2:28:29] out how how to make sure that
[2:28:31] we are also looking at
[2:28:32] accountability for those
[2:28:35] appointments that MAY be more
[2:28:36] complicated than what you
[2:28:36] re
[2:28:37] putting in front of us right
[2:28:38] now.
[2:28:40] I believe that probably would
[2:28:41] warrant some further
[2:28:43] discussion. And I would also
[2:28:45] want to have a discussion with
[2:28:46] the various boards and
[2:28:47] commissions about what that
[2:28:49] would look like.
[2:28:52] Council Member Snyder.
[2:28:52] I
[2:28:56] m just wondering, would it be
[2:28:58] possible to require a
[2:28:59] recommendation letter from the
[2:29:00] current director of the
[2:29:02] committee that they be
[2:29:04] reappointed? Because if they
[2:29:04] re
[2:29:05] not performing, the director
[2:29:06] isn
[2:29:07] t going to write him a
[2:29:08] letter asking they be
[2:29:10] reappointed. I mean, is that
[2:29:11] like the way we could solve
[2:29:15] that?
[2:29:17] We do currently require when
[2:29:18] someone is up for
[2:29:20] reappointment, that the Border
[2:29:21] Commission make a
[2:29:22] recommendation on that.
[2:29:23] Okay.
[2:29:23] So it
[2:29:26] s already.
[2:29:30] Any other questions or comments?
[2:29:37] Um, let me pull mine up here. I
[2:29:39] would prefer and not put it as
[2:29:41] a requirement to still swear
[2:29:43] him in at council meeting, but
[2:29:46] understand that certain things
[2:29:47] come up where they can
[2:29:47] t always
[2:29:49] make it. But that
[2:29:49] s a
[2:29:50] preference, is what I
[2:29:51] m saying
[2:29:56] not a requirement? Yes. Mayor
[2:29:57] Pro tem.
[2:29:57] That
[2:30:00] s the preference already.
[2:30:02] But it can cause people to not
[2:30:04] be able to take their seats and
[2:30:07] serve. And we can be putting as
[2:30:09] much as a seven week delay in
[2:30:10] people
[2:30:11] s ability to serve on,
[2:30:13] on a committee or commission
[2:30:16] and be an effective member if
[2:30:18] we have to wait until they get
[2:30:20] to a city council meeting
[2:30:21] before they can then go to the
[2:30:23] next monthly.
[2:30:24] Which is why I
[2:30:24] m saying
[2:30:25] preference in that requirement.
[2:30:27] So at.
[2:30:28] Preference isn
[2:30:29] t a policy? No,
[2:30:29] it
[2:30:30] s just a an approach.
[2:30:36] My opinion. Okay. Anybody else?
[2:30:37] Okay. We got some adjustments
[2:30:39] to be made okay.
[2:30:40] Thank you. All this will be
[2:30:42] coming back to you um, at a
[2:30:43] regular meeting.
[2:30:46] Thank you. Does anybody have
[2:30:48] any policy items they need to
[2:30:49] bring up that they couldn
[2:30:49] t
[2:30:54] bring on the online form? Okay.
[2:30:55] Next meeting, next week.
[2:30:57] Regular meeting downstairs.
[2:30:57] We