Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-21 (Regular) Meeting Agenda Packet, ,/ ~Englewood 1000 Englewood Pkwy -Council Chambers Englewood, CO 8011 O 1. Call to Order. 2. Invocation . 3. Pledge of Allegiance. 4. Roll Call. 5. Consideration of Minutes of Previous Session. AGENDA Regular City Council Meeting Monday, Nov. 21, 2016 •7:00 p .m. a. Minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting of Nov. 7, 2016. 6. Recognition of Scheduled Public Comment. The deadline to sign up to speak for Scheduled Public Comment is Wednesday , prior to the meeting, through the City Manager's Office . Only those who meet the deadline can speak in this section . (This is an opportunity for the public to address City Council. There is an expectation that the presentation will be conducted in a respectful manner. Council may ask questions for clarification, but there will not be any dialogue. Please limit your presentation to five minutes.) a. Coween Dickerson, Englewood resident, will address Council regarding communications . b . Scot Kelley, from Colorado Lighting, will address Council regarding the Wastewater Treatment Plant lighting project. c. Kathleen Bailey, Englewood resident, will address Council regarding concerns about the Allen Water Filter Plant third study. d. Ida May Nichol, Englewood resident, will address Council regarding the Comprehensive Plan. e. Doug Cohn, Englewood resident, will address Council regarding historic preservation. 7. Recognition of Unscheduled Public Comment. Speakers must sign up for Unscheduled Public Comment at the beginning of the meeting . (This is an opportunity for the public to address City Council. There is an expectation that the presentation will be conducted in a respectful manner. Council may ask questions for clarification, but there will not be any dialogue . Please limit your presentation to three minutes. Time for unscheduled public comment may be limited to 45 minutes, and if limited , shall be continued to General Discussion .) Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services . please notify the Gty of Englewood ( 303 -762-2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when services are needed. Council Response to Public Comment. 8 . Communications, Proclamations, and Appointments. 9. Consent Agenda Items a. Approval of Ordinances on First Reading. i. Council Bill 46 -To amend the current Englewood Ordinance by repealing the current language under 7-68-7(1) which states, "Loiter for the purpose of begging" with engage in aggressive panhandling and its definitions, and 7-6B-9 - Begging, by removing language regarding public ways and public place. Staff: Acting City Attorney Dugan Comer ii. Council Bill 47 -To approve a City Ditch Grant of Temporary Construction Easement and a City Ditch Crossing Agreement with Public Service Company of Colorado. Staff: Director of Utilities Tom Brennan b. Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading . i. Council Bill 45 -Approve the proposed bill for an Ordinance, a Memorandum of Understanding with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Erwironmental Leadership Program. Staff: 'v··tv•.JTp Plant Director Dennis Stowe ii. Council Bill 44 -Approve the proposed bill for an Ordinance authorizing a Grant Agreement between the State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs and the City of Englewood to receive funding for the Marijuana Impact Grant Program. Staff: Cmdr. Vance Fender c. Resolutions and Motions. i. Staff recommends Council approve, by Motion, a new Agreement for Professional Auditing Services. Staff: Finance and Administrative Services Director Kathleen Rinkel ii. Staff recommends Council approve, by motion, a contract to the lowest bidder, Goodland Construction, Inc. for the renovation of Rotolo Park playground. Staff: Open Space Manager Dave Lee iii. Staff recommends Council approve, by motion, a contract to the lowest bidder, Fast Signs of Englewood for the construction of Parks Gateway Enhancements Phase 2. Staff: Open Space Manager Dave Lee 10. Public Hearing Items . a. A Public Hearing regarding the proposed Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan Update. 11 . Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions. Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services. please notify the City of Englewood (303-762 -2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when services are needed. ' a. Approval of Ordinances on First Reading. b. Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading. i. Council Bill 31 -Approve this bill for an ordinance establishing the 2016 mill levy to be collected in 2017. Staff: Finance and Administrative Services Director Kathleen Rinkel ii. Council Bill 32 -Approve the proposed bill for an ordinance adopting the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget for fiscal year 2017. Staff: Finance and Administrative Services Director Kathleen Rinkel iii. Council Bill 33 -Approve the proposed bill for an ordinance appropriating funds for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant for fiscal year 2017. Staff: Finance and Administrative Services Director Kathleen Rinkel iv. Council Bill 34 -Approve the proposed bill for an ordinance adopting the 2017 Budget. Staff: Finance and Administrative Services Director Kathleen Rinkel v. Council Bill 35 -Approve the proposed bill for an ordinance appropriating funds for 2017. Staff: Finance and Administrative Services Director Kathleen Rinkel c. Resolutions and Motions. i. The Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommends Council approve, by motion, a Risk Assessment for Allen Water Filter Treatment Plant alum residuals in the amount of $111,675 .00. Staff: Utilities Director Tom Brennan 12. General Discussion. a. Mayor's Choice. b. Council Members' Choice. 13 . City Manager's Report. 14. City Attorney's Report. 15. Adjournment. Please note: If you have a disability and need auxiliary aids or services, please notify the Gty of Englewood (303-762-2405) at least 48 hours in advance of when services are needed. 11/21/16 City Council Meeting Tonight as we continue to wait for the 2010 Sludge Report, I am asking City Council to vote against approving Keck & Brennan's costly 3rd Study. I will go through each study topic included in this study to demonstrate why. 1) Review of Englewood's Residuals Management Process: Englewood's on paper Residuals Management Process is State Approved. And detailed reports on our Residuals Management Process already exist and are available through the City and/or the water Plant. So why are you PAYING a 3rd Party to duplicate already existing available Reports? Is it because it will "look good" on the public report? 2) Review Alternative Residuals Management Processes: Isn't that what you already pay Tom Brennan to do? So why are you ALSO PAYING a third party to review alternative Residuals Management Processes? Is it because it will "look good" on the public report? 3) Review Englewood's Compliance with the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment {referred to here as State): The State regulates, among other things, what level of radioactive elements in sludge can be disposed of within a Municipal Landfill. The State can demand a RESRAD Risk Assessment be performed if sludge reports show high levels of radioactive elements in the sludge. Which the State demanded Englewood do, in 2012. However, as soon as Englewood ceased its request to dispose in a Municipal Landfill, after being denied, the State had no authority to require Englewood to run a RESRAD on behalf of Englewood's own employees. So Englewood remained in compliance with the State even though Englewood did not do the 2012 State Requested RESRAD Risk Assessment. Tragically, following the State Denial, Englewood then also failed to inform the State {who could have stopped Englewood) that Englewood intended to ignore Englewood's own State Approved Residuals Management Process requiring yearly disposal, and instead stockpile the sludge starting with 2011, rather than pay the high cost of disposing at the Hazardous & Radioactive Landfill. It was only after a citizen complaint in 2016 informing the CDP HE, after 5 years of stockpiling sludge, that Englewood was finally cited by the State for their failure to comply with Englewood's own on paper Residuals Management Process for yearly disposal. A record of only one 2016 Citation from the CDPHE will certainly "LOOK Great" on this public report. But, hidden will be the fact of Englewood's negligent absence of any due concern for their own employee's safety {and that of the immediate neighbors) in failing to assess the Onsite Radiation Dose Risk exposure from the high concentrations of radioactive elements in the sludge. And also hidden will be the fact that Englewood displayed further disregard for employee safety as well as intentional deceit to CDPHE in their choice to stockpile the sludge rather than honor their own State Approved Residuals Management Process agreement for yearly disposal. 4) As for the Risk Assessment itself as outlined in this 3rd Study: As I stated in more detail last City Council Meeting, Brennan and Keck 's 3rd study states only that they will do a risk assessment study based on "all available historical years " using RESRAD or some "other" unidentified tool. This strategy allows for leeway to select only the first historically bad year, 2009, then go backwards and plug in "all available" historical good years which will generate a skewed false low dose risk result Englewood will be happy to report to the Public. For all of the above reasons, again I ask you to vote "no" tonight on this expensive, redundant, and easily publicly misleading Study . And please, instead , demand that Englewood Management provide the 2010 Sludge Report to our group so that a RESRAD Onsite Worker Risk Assessment for 2009, 2010, & and 2011 sludge can finally be completed. Thank you. Kathleen Bailey Englewood City Council November 21, 2016 Good evening Mayor Jefferson, Council and City Manager Mr. Keck, We, The Englewood Historic Preservation Society, are sincerely grateful to you Council Members and our City Manager Mr. Keck, for considering and working toward making it possible for our city to establish an Englewood Historic Preservation Commission in this Comprehensive Plan. For the first time in our cities history in well over a century, our Englewood History will be recognized and appreciated. We also appreciate all the effort and hard work your staff has put forth and continues to do for our citizens. You All Will Be Making History! Thank You History tells us a story and has enormous power in bringing the past before our eyes, as if it were the present. To establish a History Museum for our city would be a dream come true. Our Legacy is an interconnection across time with a need for those who have come before us and a responsibility to those who come after us. Any city who saves their Heritage is a Healthy Community. In this Comprehensive Plan I am so appreciative for all the areas' involved in our city that citizens have the opportunity to take part in and enjoy for years to come. I appreciate the Art and Culture for what it brings to our city which is good and there has been much said about the Art and Culture, such as The Museum of Outdoor Art. However, there have been huge amounts of funding for this museum over many years and funding for saving our Englewood Heritage or a Museum for our citizens, has not been forth coming through past councils or past city management. They did not invest in Englewood's unique history. So, when I see statements in the Comprehensive Plan that outlines a direction that recognizes Englewood's History and preserves those elements that make Englewood a great place, and promote actions to help the city thrive and strengthen in the coming years warms my heart. When I see in the Comprehensive Plan objectives such as encourage and support efforts to create and fund incentive programs for the preservation and restoration of historically significant residential buildings; along with objectives such as to encourage educational efforts to improve civic pride in Englewoods Historic Heritage and Artistic Historical elements in new developments and fa~ade enhancement's, brings a smile to our face. .. Outstanding objectives in the Comprehensive Plan are to encourage our Englewood History in neighborhoods that would add character and establish neighborhood identity to make our city great again in historic terms. The Englewood Historic Preservation Commission will not be a part of The Englewood Historic Preservation Society; they will be separate and have their own board members and activities. The city appoints the Commission Board Members. The Englewood Historic Preservation Society came about after a City Council Meeting concerning the sale of our Historic Englewood Train Depot on March 19, 2012. A small group of 8 people formed the Englewood Historic Preservation Society in order to try and save our Historic Train Depot. We received our 501c3 in two months and unheard of. We had our first historic lecture/program in May of 2012, just two months after we formed the society. Our first lecture was called "Meet Me at the Motel." It was a great program concerning the 80 some motels along the Santa Fe Corridor before it became 1-25. Most people do not know of all the many "Historic Treasures" that have come out of this little city called Englewood and the history surrounding us. We welcome you to our activities and membership. We have a monthly lecture/program always historic and a newsletter along with a website. We have fundraisers such as a Victorian High Tea in one of Englewood's beautiful Victorian Homes and a beautiful Gala and other activities with the Chamber. We are very appreciative of the present City Council and City Manager Mr. Keck, for the respect they have shown us and their willingness to save our City History. Dues are $20.00 a year and $35.00 per family. Please join us!! Thank You Ida May Nicholl PUBLIC COMMENT ROSTER AGENDA ITEM 7 UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT November 21, 2016 Speakers must sign up for Unscheduled Public Comment at the beginning of the meeting. Please limit your presentation to three minutes PLEASE PRINT NAME ADDRESS TOPIC e~w1c_. Re s R-e S i,1 c.. Ko '1 s For all the tender hearts abused, To all who have been so misused. How can we help you to derive Life's best, to both survive and thrive? Stranger danger lurking near Is not really what you have to fear. It's those you know and love each day That likely put you in harm's way. The person living beyond the fence Convicted of a sex offense Is supervised closely by the law And endures long treatment for every flaw. If we push offenders underground It's likely that they will be found Returning to behaviors past, Their restoration will not last. With a place to call their own, A stable and inviting home; A job, and loved ones lend a hand - The wayward have a place to stand. The truth is not found on t.v. Ah yes, for victims to be free - Offenders' healing must be found As neighborhoods share solid ground. Susan Walker 720 690-7125 Farewell to Title 7 (Ordinance 34) Coalition for Sexual Offense Restoration (CSOR) www.csor-home.org 11-22-16 dft/?61-Y A) n /ti !(A /!-/If t12_ ( (/\_ Housing Restriction Fact Sheet 1 There is a growing trend to pass residency restrictions and zoning ordinances in Colorado. Although these restrictions may make people feel safer, research indicates that, as demonstrated below, these restrictions do little to increase public safety. • The vast majority of sex offenses are committed against a person the offender knows. o 93% of child sexual abuse victims know their abusers. Children are at the highest risk of being sexually victimized by people they know including acquaintances, family friends, and family members (Snyder, 2000}. o 83% of adult female rape victims knew the offender (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006) • Over 86% of new sex crimes are committed by someon offense and 95% of new sex crimes against children conviction for sex offense against a child {Langan, -c • Sex offense recidivism is unrelated to the pr , or daycare centers {Minnesota DOC, 2007; S • When offenders victimize a strang . neighborhood {Minnesota DOC, 200 • o previous conviction for a sex ·tted by someone with no previous ose, 2003}. ifferent are much less likely to sidency restriction from child care centers ation was unknown jumped from 1 in 46 od, 2006}. • Following parolees regis 2009 {California The Jacob Wetterling Resour cy restrictions in California, the number of sex offender crea y 2400% from November 2006 through September agement Board, 2011). "Because residency restrictions shown to be ineffective at preventing harm to children, and may indeed actually increase the risks to kids, J -does not support residency restriction laws. Such laws can give a false sense of security while sapping resources that could produce better results used elsewhere." Colorado Sex Offender Management Board On September 19, 2011, the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board endorsed the following statement (SOMB Draft Minutes, September 19, 2011), "The SOMB does not support sex offender residency restrictions or zoning restrictions that are counter-productive to the effective supervision of sex offenders" [REFERENCES ON BACK] October 14, 2011 Sex Offense/Offender Task Force of the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice Housing Restriction Fact Sheet REFERENCES California Sex Offender Management Board {2011). Homelessness among California's registered sex offenders: An update. Sacramento, CA: Author. Jacob Wetterling Resource Center. (http://www.jwrc.org/KeepKidsSafe/SexualOffenderslOl/ResidencyRestrictions/tabid/84/Default.aspx) 2 Langan, P.A., Schmitt, E.L., & Durose, M.R. {2003). Recidivism of sex offenders released from prison in 1994. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice {NCJ 198281). Minnesota Department of Corrections. {2007). Residential Pro Minnesota. St. Paul, MN. htt : www.doc.state.mn.us ublications docu Rood {2006, January 23). New data shows twice as (Article based on a data request to the Iowa Sex Offender Management Board {2004) locations of sex offenders in the c htt : de· .state.co.us odvsom sex SOMB DRAFT Minutes {2011 htt : dc".state.co (These Minutes ar will be posted at the df ements for and ntil October 21, 2011 and, thereafter, ied to law enforcement: Victim, incident, and s, U.S. Department of Justice (NCJ No. 182990). Tjaden, P., and the Nationa e, and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from ey. Nationat Institute of Justice {NCJ No. 210346). Willis, G. M., & Grace, R. molesters: effects on s 218-240. 'uality of community reintegration planning for child ivism. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 20, October 14, 2011 Sex Offense/Offender Task Force of the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date: Agenda Item: Subject: November21 , 2016 9ai AMENDMENT OF TITLE 7-6B-7 & 9 : LOITERING Initiated By: Staff Source: City Attorney Dugan Comer, Acting City Attorney COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION In 1985 the Englewood Municipal Code was amended to provide that it was unlawful for a person to loiter for the purpose of begging . RECOMMENDED ACTION To amend the current Englewood ordinance by repealing the current language under 7-6B-7(1) "Loiter for the purpose of begging ", and to replace it with language that makes it unlawful to engage in aggressive panhandling , and to amend 7-6B-9 with the removal of the following language: "or to place himself in or upon any public way or public place " . BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED In the summer of 2015, the U .S . D istrict Court for the 10th District held in Browne v . City of Grand Junction that the Grand Junction Ordinance banning the practice of panhandling by loitering on street corners was unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution . Since then , numerous Colorado communities have repealed their begging or panhandling ordinances , amended them to prevent aggressive panhandling, or simply stopped enforcing their current begging or panhandl ing ordinance . Englewood was one of the communities that stopped enforcing its then current begging ordinance , but had not amended the current ordinance . In August of 2016 the ACLU sent out letters to 34 communities in Colorado essentially demanding that those communities make an effort to repeal or amend their current ordinances , or face possible litigation. After reviewing several other cities ordinances regarding aggressive panhandling , and ensuring that these ordinances would pass constitutional scrutiny , it was decided to model Englewood's new aggressive panhandling ordinance with the one currently used by the City of Durango, which has been held to be a valid constitutional exercise of the City's police powers. FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact to the City is contemplated . LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Proposed Bill for an Ordinance • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 BY AUTHORITY A BILL FOR COUNCIL BILL NO. 46 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ------- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 7, CHAPTER 6(B), SECTIONS 7 AND 9, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000 PERTAINING TO "LOITERING." WHEREAS, in the summer of 2015 the United States District Court overturned the Grand Junction Panhandling Ordinance, which had far reaching effects on similar ordinances in other municipalities in Colorado including Englewood; and WHEREAS, after the decision in Browne vs. City of Grand Junction many Colorado communities repealed, amended or stopped enforcing their panhandling/begging ordinances including the City of Englewood; and WHEREAS, on August 31, 2106 the City of Englewood along with 34 other Colorado municipalities received a letter from the ACLU demanding that the City repeal or amend its current Panhandling Ordinance; the tone of the letter implied that the City could find itself involved in litigation if it did not amend its ordinance; and WHEREAS, in order to comply with the decision in Brown vs. City of Grand Junction, and other decisions by the Federal Courts, the City Attorney's Office reviewed current ordinances from other jurisdictions which have withstood challenges by the ACLU and have been upheld as Constitutional; and WHEREAS, the ordinance currently being used by the City of Durango was reviewed, and is recommended as a model for the City of Englewood, in that it restricts a person's conduct and not their free speech rights. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby amends Title 7, Chapter 6(B), Section 7, entitled Loitering of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows: 7-6B-7: Loitering. A . It shall be unlawful to: I. Loiter for the purpose of begging; or ~ge in aggres~J~a11b_1J,ndling~ 1 As used in this Title Aggressive Panhandling means: Aggressive panhandling: Any form of panhandling that includes any of the following activities: l· Knowingly touching or causing physical contact with another person without that person's consent during the course of panhandling. 11. Using violent. threatening. intimidating. coercive or aggressive gestures or conduct toward a person during the course of panhandling or in response to a refusal by any person to give money. m. Using fighting words or directing violent or obscene verbal or written language toward any person during the course of panhandling or in response to a refusal by any person to give money. IY. Taking any action that obstructs or blocks a public sidewalk. doorway. entryway or other passage way used by pedestrians in a public place or that obstructs the passage or the travel of any person during the course of panhandling in a manner that requires them to take evasive action to avoid physical contact with any person. ~-It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in aggressive panhandling in any public place within the City. v1. Nothing contained in this Section shall apply to or limit any panhandling that is conducted solely by passively standing or sitting with a sign or other indication that one is seeking donations. without approaching or directing a request to any specific person. 2. Loiter in a place, at a time and in a manner not usual and appropriate for the place, or where circumstances warrant alarm or concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm is warranted is the fact that such person takes flight upon appearance of a peace officer, refuses to identify himself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself, or conceal or dispose of any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a peace officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford such person an opportunity to dispel any alarm which would otherwise be warranted by requesting him to identify himself and explain his presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the peace officer did not comply with the preceding sentence, or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person was true and, if believed by the peace officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm; or 3. Loiter so as to interfere with the free and unobstructed use of a public way or place by other persons . B. For purposes of this section, "loiter" means to be dilatory, to stand idly around, to linger, delay or wander about, or to tarry in a public place . 2 • • • • • • Section 2. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby amends Title 7, Chapter 6(B), Section 9, entitled Begging of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows: 7-6B-9: Begging: It shal I be unlawful for any person to go about from door to door of private homes or commercial or business establishments, or to place himself in of upon any public •way or public place to beg or receive alms for himself or for another. Section 3. Safety Clauses. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Englewood, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be obtained. Section 4. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance or it application to other persons or circumstances. Section 5. Inconsistent Ordinances. All other Ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or conflicting with this Ordinance or any portion hereof are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict. Section 6. Effect of repeal or modification. The repeal or modification of any provision of the Code of the City of Englewood by this Ordinance shall not release, extinguish, alter, modify, or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture, or liability, either civil or criminal, which shall have been incurred under such provision, and each provision shall be treated and held as still remaining in force for the purposes of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits, proceedings, and prosecutions for the enforcement of the penalty, forfeiture, or liability, as well as for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree, or order which can or may be rendered, entered, or made in such actions, suits, proceedings, or prosecutions. Section 7. Penalty. The Penalty Provision of Section 1-4-1 EMC shall apply to each and every violation of this Ordinance. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of November, 2016. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 24 1h day of November, 2016 . 3 Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 23rd day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of November, 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis 4 • • • '' . , • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Subject: November 21, 2016 2100 W. Littleton Blvd. -City 9aii Ditch Public Service Company Electrical Conduit Initiated By: Staff Source: Utilities Department Staff Tom Brennan, Director of Utilities PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION None. RECOMMENDED ACTION Council approval of the City Ditch Grant of Temporary Construction Easement and a City Ditch Crossing Agreement for the Public Service Company of Colorado for an electrical conduit at 2100 W. Littleton Blvd. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED Public Service Company of Colorado, a Colorado corporation is requesting a Grant of Temporary Construction Easement and a City Ditch Crossing License Agreement to install a buried electrical line in a conduit for the The Grove at Littleton. The Grove is a 55+ senior living community consisting of 160 apartment units with mixed use restaurant and retail space. It is located on the southeast corner of W . Littleton Blvd. and S. Bemis St. Englewood's City Ditch right-of-way runs through a portion of the property, requiring license agreements for crossing the City Ditch with a buried electrical line. The electrical conduit will be buried 30" deep and run to a transformer located next to the building. The City of Englewood retains its right-of-way ownership and the crossing agreement does not prevent Englewood from constructing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, removing or enlarging the City Ditch. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Grant of Temporary Construction Easement City Ditch Crossing License Agreement Legal Descriptions and Exhibits eem ·s Llttleton Blvd Publlc Service City o ;tcf't Easem ent • • • D ~ ENGLEWOOD WATER & SEWER BOARD Regular Meeting November 8, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Englewood Water and Sewer Board was called to order at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, CO 80110 by Chairman Clyde Wiggins . . e 2. ROLL CALL Members present: Burns, Jefferson, Wiggins, Oakley, Roth, Habenicht, Gillit, Yates, Moore Members absent: None Also present: Tom Brennan, Director of Utilities 3. MINUTES The Board received a copy of the July 12, 2016 Water Board Minutes. Motion: To approve the July 12, 2016 Water and Sewer Board Minutes. Moved: Burns Seconded: Roth Ayes: Motion carried. ~ 4. PUBLIC FORUM None . e 5. NEW BUSINESS a. 2100 W. LITTLETON BLVD. -CITY DITCH -PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRICAL CONDUIT Public Service Company has requested a Grant of Temporary Construction Easement and a City Ditch Crossing License Agreement to install a buried electrical line encased in a conduit for The Grove at Littleton. It is located on the southeast corner of W. Littleton Blvd. and S. Bemis St. Englewood's City Ditch right-of-way runs through a portion of the property, requiring license agreements for crossing the City Ditch with a buried electrical line. The electrical conduit will be buried 30" deep and run to a transformer located next to the building. Motion: Moved: To recommend Council approval of the City Ditch Grant ofTemporary Construction Easement and a City Ditch Crossing Agreement for the Public Service Company of Colorado for an electrical conduit at 2100 W. Littleton Blvd . Habenicht Seconded: Gillit Ayes: All Motion carried. '' • e • b. RITE-AID VACATION OF EXISTING SEWER EASEMENT AND GRANT OF SEWER EASEMENT. KRF965 LLC purchased the former Bally's property located at 285 and Clarkson St. A Rite-Aid store is being built and the existing 20' wide sewer easement was reconfigured for the most advantageous use of the site. Council approved the original Exchange of ROW, Grant of ROW and Grant of Temporary Construction License at their March 14, 2016 meeting. It was later discovered that the 20' easement must be shifted 1.2' to the south to prevent it from being in the building's foundation. Documents will be forthcoming and will be forwarded to Council, once finalized and approved by the City Attorney's office. Motion: Moved: To recommend Council approval of the Vacation of Sewer Easement, Grant of Sewer Easement Agreement and Grant of Temporary Construction Easement to KRF-965 LLC for the Rite-Aid store located at 285 and S. Clarkson St. Gill it Seconded: Burns Ayes: All Motion carried. • • • • ~ c. ALLEN PLANT ALULM RESIDUALS RISK ASSESSMENT City Council requested a study be performed to access the potential risk of harm to plant workers and adjacent neighbors from exposure to Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENO RM) i n the water treatment residuals generated at the plant, and to evaluate the Allen Water Treatment Plant's residuals management practices, from generation through processing, storage and disposal. Integral's proposal brings together a team of scientist and engineers from three companies, Integral Consulting Inc ., Dewberry Engineers Inc., and Two Lines Inc . to perform a health risk assessment, an evaluation of radionuclide health effects and an evaluation of the current treatment process and alternative treatment processes . Integral Consulting's proposal for its services is $111,675 .00 . Wayne Oakley commented that he supports the study and likes that the processes are being addressed . Don Roth believes that Integral Consulting will be a good team and he was impressed with the Allen Water Filter Plant informational video. Steve Yates discussed how the video can be used for recruiting. Motion: Moved: Recommend Council approval of the proposal from Integral Consulting, Inc . for RFP-16-020, Risk Assessment for Allen Water Filter Treatment Plant Water Treatment Residuals and Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORMs) Management in the amount of $111,675 .00. Burns Seconded: Roth Ayes : All Motion carried. ~ 6. STAFF'S CHOICE a. MEMO DATED OCTOBER 31, 2016 FROM COLORADO WATER TRUST. The Board received a memo thanking Englewood for their participation in the Colorado Water Trust's Flowing Waters Partnership . 7. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting adjourned at 5:23 p.m. The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be Tuesday, January 10, 2016 at 5 :00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room. Sincerely, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary Englewood Water and Sewer Board .. • • • • • • WATER AND SEWER BOARD PHONE VOTE November 10, 2016 A phone vote was conducted for the members of the Englewood Water and Sewer Board for the November 8, 2016 Water Board meeting. 1. MINUTES OF THE MAY, 2016 WATER & SEWER BOARD MEETING. Motion: Moved: Ayes: Members not reached: Nays: Motion carried. To approve the May 8, 2016 Water and Sewer Board Minutes. Habenicht Seconded: Roth Moore, Habenicht, Oakley, Gillit, Jefferson, Wiggins, Roth Yates None The next meeting will be held January 10, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary Englewood Water & Sewer Board • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO . 4 7 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ------- A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CITY DITCH CROSSING LICENSE AGREEMENT AND GRANT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LICENSE IN ORDER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO (XCEL) TO PROVIDE ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO THE GROVE LITTLETON LOCATED AT 2100 WEST LITTLETON BOULEY ARD, LITTLETON, COLORADO. WHEREAS , Prinzoc Littleton, LLC is constructing The Grove Littleton project at 2100 West Littleton Boulevard, in Littleton, CO and Englewood 's City Ditch Right-of-Way runs through a portion of the property; and WHEREAS, the Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) submitted a request to the City of Englewood to construct a 750 KVA buried electric line over the City of Englewood 's City Ditch Right-of-Way in order to provide the Grove Littleton at 2100 West Littleton Boulevard with electric service; and WHEREAS, the Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) has signed both the Temporary Construction License and City Ditch Crossing License Agreement; and WHEREAS, Englewood's City Ditch Right-of-Way runs through a portion of the property and requires license agreements for crossing the City Ditch with a buried electrical line ; and WHEREAS, Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) electrical conduit will be buried 30 " deep and run to a transformer located next to the building; and WHEREAS , the City of Englewood will retain all of its Right-of-Way ownership and shall not be obstructed from constructing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, removing, improving and enlarging the City Ditch, and all necessary underground and surface appurtenances thereto necessary or desirable for the transmission of water within this Right-of-Way ; and WHEREAS , the Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommended approval of the City Ditch Crossing License Agreement and Grant of Temporary Construction License in order for Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) to construct a buried electric line over Englewood 's City Ditch Easement at 2100 West Littleton Boulevard, Littleton, Colorado at their November 8, 2016, meeting . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD , COLORADO , THAT: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes City Ditch Crossing License Agreement to the Public Service Company of Colorado for the construction of buried electric line over Englewood's City Ditch Right-of-Way at The Grove Littleton project at 2100 West Littleton Boulevard, in Littleton, CO. Section 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to execute and the City Clerk to attest and seal for and on behalf of the City of Englewood the City Ditch Crossing License Agreement to Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) to provide electric service to the Grove Littleton project at 2100 West Littleton Boulevard, Littleton, CO, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes the Grant of Temporary Construction License to the Public Service Company of Colorado for the construction of buried electric line over Englewood's City Ditch Right-of-Way at The Grove Littleton project at 2100 West Littleton Boulevard, in Littleton, CO. Section 4. The Director of the Englewood Utilities Department is hereby authorized to sign for and on behalf of the City of Englewood the Grant of Temporary Construction License to Public Service Company of Colorado (Xcel) to provide electric service to the Grove Littleton project at 2100 West Littleton Boulevard, Littleton, CO, attached hereto as Exhibit 2. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of November, 2016. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 24th day of November, 2016. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 23rd day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of November, 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis • • • • • • CITY DITCH CROSSING LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT made and entered into as of this day of ______ , 2016, by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado, herein referred to as "City", and PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO Inc . herein referred to as "Licensee". WITNESSETH: The City without any warranty of its title or interest whatsoever, hereby authorizes Licensee, its successor, assigns, to install 750 KVA buried electrical lines, in conduit (hereinafter conduit) over the City's rights-of-way for the City Ditch in order to provide electric service to 2100 West Littleton Blvd., Littleton, CO also known as "The Grove Littleton", as described as follows: Described in Exhibit A, consisting of 2 pages attached hereto. I . Any construction contemplated or perfonned under this License shall comply with and confonn to standards formulated by the Director of Utilities of the City and such construction shall be performed and completed according to the plans approved by the City, as shown on attached Exhibit B. 2. The Licensee shall notify the City's Director of Utilities at least three (3) days prior to the time of commencement of the construction of, or any repairs made to, Licensee's conduit so that the City may, in its discretion, inspect such operations . 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of the commencement of construction of said conduit the Licensee shall complete such construction, place and maintain permanent, visible markers, of a type and at such locations as designated by the City's Director of Utilities, referring to the centerline of the installation and shall clear the crossing area of all construction debris and restore the area to its previous condition as near as may be reasonable. In the event the planning of the centerline markers and the clearing and restoration of the crossing area is not completed within the time specified, the City may complete the work at the sole expense of the Licensee. .. .. . . 4. The City shall have the right to maintain, install, repair, remove or relocate the City Ditch or any other of its facilities or installations within the City's rights-of-way, at any time and in such manner as the City deems necessary or convenient. The City reserves the exclusive right to control all easements and installations. In the event the conduit should interfere with any future use of the City's rights-of-way by the City, the Licensee shall, upon request and at its sole expense, relocate, rearrange, or remove its installations so as not to interfere with any such use . 5. Any repair or replacement of any City installation made necessary, in the opinion of the City's Director of Utilities because of the construction of the conduit or other appurtenant installation thereof, shall be made at the sole expense of the Licensee . E x H I B I T 1 6. The stipulation and conditions of this License shall be incorporated into contract specifications if the construction herein authorized is to be done on a contract basis. 7. The rights and privileges granted in this License shall be subject to prior agreements, licenses and/or grants, recorded or unrecorded, and it shall be the Licensee's sole responsibility to detennine the existence of said documents or conflicting uses or installations. 8. The Licensee shall contact and fully cooperate with the City's personnel and the construction shall be completed without interference with any lawful, usual or ordinary flow of water through the City Ditch. Licensee shall assume all risks incident to the possible presence of such waters, or of storm waters, or of surface waters in the City Ditch. 9. All trenches or holes within the City's rights-of-way shall be backfilled and tamped to the original ground line in layers not to exceed six (6) inches loose measure to a compaction of ninety percent (90%) Standard Proctor Maximum Density. I 0 . Licensee, by acceptance of this License, expressly assumes full and strict liability for any and all damages of every nature to person or property caused by water from the ditch leaking through the ditch banks or pipeline at the point or points where the Licensee performs any work in connection with the crossing provided by this License. The Licensee assumes all responsibility for maintenance of the Licensee's installation. 11. Licensee shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers and employees, against any and all claims, damages, actions or causes of action and expenses to which it or they may be subjected by reason of said conduit being within and across and under the premises of the City or by reason of any work done or omission made by Licensee, its agents or employees, in connection with the construction, replacement, maintenance or repair of said installation. 12. It is expressly agreed that in case of Licensee's breach of any of the within promises, the City may, at its option, have specific performance thereof, or sue for damages resulting from such breach. 13. Upon abandonment of any right or privilege herein granted, the right of Licensee to that extent shall tenninate, but its obligation to indemnify and save hannless the City, its officers and employees, shall not terminate in any event. 14. The undersigned represents that he is an authorized officer of Licensee and has authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of Licensee and that Licensee will accept and abide by all the terms and conditions hereof. 2 • • • • • • In granting the above authorization , the City reserves the right to make full use of the property involved as may be necessary or convenient in the operation of the water works plant and system under the control of the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE ) ) ) CITY OF ENGLEWOOD Joe Jefferson, Mayor LICENSEE: SS. The foregoing License -City Ditch Crossing Agreement was acknowledged before me this ~JS* day of °'_fq 2t'f'2016 by Richard J . Grady, Manager Siting and Land Rights of Public Service Company of Colorado, a Colorado Corporation . JAMES 0 WALKER Notary Public State of Colorado Notary ID 19964001352 My Commission Expires Jan 30, 2020 3 • EXHIBIT LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 16. TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. CITY OF LITTLETON, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET 1 OF 2 LICEl\JSE DESCRIPTION: A PARCEL OF GROUND SITUATED 11--l THE CITY OF LITTLETON, .A.RAPA HOE COLJl\)TY, STATE OF COLORADO, I t~ THE SW y,; OF SECTIOt,J 16, T. 5 S., R 68 W. 6TH P t·A., DESCRIBED AS: COM tv!Ei'JClf~G AT THE t'-lORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, llHERtv10Ut-JTAH'J SUBDI VISION AS PLATTED IN THE RECORDS OF SAID COUtHY; THEt,JCE ALONG THE SOUTH LI NE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT -OF-WAY FOR WEST LITTLETON BOULEVARD s 39·47'1o·w, A DISTANCE OF 24.82 FEET TO A POlf~T l YING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN EASEMEIH GR/\tHED It~ BOOK 41.36 PAGE 250 Af~D THE SOUTHERLY ROW OF UTTLETOl'J BOULEVARD; THENCE ALONG S.A.10 EAST U f\JE S 20'19'05"W, A DISTANCE OF 50.24 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALOt ,lG SAID EAST LINE S25"13'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 15 . 71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNli~G; THEtKE N64'46 1 24"W, A DISTMJCE OF 25.00 FEET TO THE POI NT OF TERMINUS. THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS DESCR IPT tON IS THE E.A.ST Llt•IE OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, lrHERMOUrHAIN SUBDIVISIOf~ AS PLATTED IN THE RECORDS OF ARAPAHOE COUN TY BElhlG soo·12'1o"w tAOl\IUlv1El\JTED BY A TAG AHO SHINER STAMPED PLS 33202 AT THE NORTH END AND A FOUND #5 REBAR ON THE SOUTH Er 'JD . DESCRIPTION PREP .A.RED BY ROGER KELLEY PLS 24 6 67 FOR AN D ON BEH AL F OF B.A.S ELINE LA.l\JO SURV EYlf ,IG BASELINE LAND SrlRVEYINC, INC.- PROJECT H IOJ86 5023 \'/. 120th l.·1e ., i/15.3, 8roomf eld Co 80020 (.30.3) 457-J954 E x H I B I T A EXHIBIT LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH. RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. CITY OF LITTLETON, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO I I I I I I J.....&-II I ~ !t) / .ffe /Y I / r.i} Q.v I I 0 ra I I tlJ'::) I I ~ 11-,' I /(/~ / / / I SHEET 2 OF 2 LITTLETON BOULEVARD (100' PUBLIC R.O.W.) sag• 47' 10"W 24 .82' N89" 47' 1 O"E 247.40' CENTERLINE LICENSE N64 • 46' 24"W 25.00' Scale: 1" -40' .. I I I f / / 40 20 0 40 BASELINE LAND SURVEYING, INC . PROJECT # 10388 5 0 23 \'I 120th Ave ., #153. Broomfield Co 8 0 020 (303) 457 -3964 • • • • •H .,.._, • .._,, fW I ttt•f""\• "-~, • ......._...,...,. -•I U .. t\I"'""''-''"""' 1 '-"'· UNS ARE CONTROLLED ON SHEET C6 .1. "TH£ 6-oV£ LJTTLE1btJ 11 ~) 00 vJ, L JTf LE)orJ BL t!D 16" EXISTING H\I\ Tt:R LINE (l'UtlLIC) C.: I ,I ~o.tU PROPOSED STORM CLEANOUT(TYP:~ • , .. , \ \---......... , .. " L/TrLETON \ BOULEVARD •,'r, '" ""''tl-4 '\ _,, __ -~:-.,; _,,. IF§!~ PROPOSED BUILDING,.._, • re EXISrtNG Wt lf£R ------ AfANHOLt: (IYP) ---.._"-> ~ SCALE: 1• = JO' ORIGINAL GAAl'HIC SCALE VN assumes no responslblll!y for ull~ll' locallons. Vtl on this drawing have been ploUed liom lhe 'nrmallon. It !!I, however, lhe conlroclors Reid vertfy Iha location or all uUllUos prior amenl of any consllucllon. ... I I I ... ...,.. I;· 1·1· /. . I '. ~} I ~ ~ ·'". I . :;t;· I .· I I " I J . I FG.fk J; OJSTfNG . .:. I Unt .lri' FAS(;Mf'NT 1·~ I .'I // . I PROPOSED BUILDING FF=5369.00 PROPOSED STORM TO BE TIED INTO INTERNAL ROOF DRAIN NETWORK FF=5372.00 24LF-O"I PRIVATE SERVICE( DOWNS TR INVERT Tl;: EXISTING! PROPOSI CLEANOl IE=5365.J PROPOSED E FF=537f ID -f-m-X)(111 GRANT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LICENSE THIS AGREEMENT is made this __ day of , 2016, between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, (hereinafter referred to as "the City or Grantor") and the PUBLIC SERVICE COMP ANY OF COLORADO, a Colorado corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Licensee"). WHEREAS, the City owns a certain Right-of-Way for the City Ditch; and WHEREAS, Licensee desires to make certain improvements in the area relating to their 750 KV A buried electrical lines, in conduit over the City's rights-of-way for the City Ditch in order to provide electric power and the City agrees to give Licensees a Construction License for said utility lines in conduit improvements. WITNESS, the City, without any warranty of its title or interest whatsoever, hereby grants the Licensee the use of the property, hereinafter described, the City now owns for the following improvements: Legal description: See attached Exhibit A, consisting of 2 pages attached hereto. Construction Improvements: See attached Exhibit B, Construction Drawings or Plans. NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed between the City and Licensee that the Licensee shall be granted a construction easement to make the improvements described in Exhibits A and B. Subject to the following conditions: 1. Period of Construction. Licensee's right to use the construction easement area depicted on Exhibit A shall terminate on December 31, 2017, and shall not thereafter be reinstated on a temporary basis without the express written consent of Grantor. This shall in no way limit the City of Englewood's access to perform regular maintenance. 2. Restoration. The Licensee will do what is necessary to restore all Grantor's property damaged or disturbed as a result of the project to as near its original condition as is practical, including but not limited to seeding on the City Ditch dedicated Right-of-Way. 3 . Exercise of Reasonable Care. The Licensee will use all reasonable means to prevent any loss or damage to Grantor or to others resulting from the construction. 4. As-Built Drawings. The Licensee shall supply Grantor a map that shows the construction area and defines the construction site. E x H I • T 2 • • • • • 5. Assignment. Licensee's assignment of this Agreement will not relieve Licensee of its obligations hereunder. The provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit and be binding on the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto. 6 . Authority to Enter Into Agreement. The undersigned represents that he is an authorized officer of Licensee and has authority to enter into this Agreement on behalf of Licensee and that Licensee will accept and abide by all the terms and conditions hereof. This Agreement shall terminate upon completion of said improvements and approval by the City of Englewood . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals of the date first above written. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO Tom Brennan, Director of Utilities LICENSEE: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this..{ }St day of Ctfobt r , 20 .lb_, by Richard J. Grady, Manager, Siting and Land Rights of Public Service Company of Colorado, a Colorado Corporation. WITNESS my hand and seal. My Commission expires: JAMES D WALKER Notary Public State of Colorado Notary ID 19964001352 l.. My Comm ission Expires Jan 30, 2020 -2- EXHIBIT LOCATED IN THE SW 1 /4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M CITY OF LITTLETON, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET 1 OF 2 LICENSE DESCR IPTI ON: A PARCEL OF GROUND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF LITTLETON, ARA PAHOE COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO, IN THE SW ~ OF SECTION 16, T. 5 S., R 68 W., 6TH P.M., DESCRIBED AS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, INTERMOUNT Al t~ SUBDIVISION AS PLATTED IN THE RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF -WAY FOR WEST LITTLET ON BOULEVARD S 89"4 7'10" W, A DISTANCE OF 24.82 FEET TO A POINT LYING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EAST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN EASEMENT GRANTED IN BOOK 4136 PAGE 250 AND THE SOUTHERLY ROW OF LITTLETON BOULEVARD ; THENCE ALONG SAID EAST LINE S 20"19'05" W, A DISTANCE OF 50.24 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID EAST LINE S25"13'36"W, A DISTANCE OF 15. 71 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE N64 "46'24"W, A DISTANCE OF 25.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF TERMINUS. DESCRIPTIO~l PREPARED BY ROGER KELLEY PLS 24667 FOR ANO ON BEHALF OF BASELINE LAND SURVEYING BASELINE LAND SURVEYING, INC. PROJECT # 1 0388 5023 W. 12oth Ave., #153, Broomfield Co 80020 (303) 457-3964 E x H I B I T A EXHIBIT LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M. CITY OF LITTLETON, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO I SHEET 2 OF 2 LITTLETON BOULEVARD (100' PUBLIC R.O .W.) S89° 47' 10"W 24 .82' N89" 47' 10"E 247.40' S25° 13' 36"W 15.71' CENTERLINE LICENSE N64° 46' 24"W 25.00' 40 BASELINE LAND Scale: 1" 20 0 SURVEYING, INC. PROJECT # 1 0388 40' 5023 W. 120\h Ave., #153, Broomfield Co 80020 (303) 457-3964 • • 40 • • I HE-{::;,EoV£ LlTILE1btJ ~Joa vJ, ~JTfLETOrJ B _LVD • •""'-•''-''I~ I l'l"r'll• ~ V1'1'-'-'-"-'-"'I I IL..f t.<1 ••~'-1'1-I L..'-'o NS ARE CONTROLLED ON SHEET C6.1. 16'' EXIST"/tvG WATER LINE (PUBLIC) EXIS/"ING STORfVI--..._ UNE (/'.WIVA TE) 15 30 60 • I I SCALE: 1• = 30' ORIGINAL GRAPHIC SCALE EXISTING WA /"ER lv/ANHOLE (/"'r'P.) --------•.. -J~l; /;/ .{/ .j~=t' _.}F _::;::/ N assumes no responsibllily for ulllily locelions. n on this drawing have been plolled from the 1rmatlon. 11 ls, however, the· contractors aid verify the locallon or all ullllUes prior men! of any construction. ;~ ··"° Ii .:;/ /, /' I l:.r ,;/ {.:~ .. I ly 1/1 // <!;·' / ~/f I /-............! ,. .. , .,~ . !..........._I CT :>" .w.OO' EXfSTIN ·• 11 I I <J:-,::-UT/l.ln' p \ '' G __£.: / .... . ,.;;· / · / .,rr;:vr /. / t::; "J,/LD./U PROPOSED STORM CLEANOUT(TYP.) "''" . . .(: ~:::~<:::~: .... ··· ·<:::--·· PROPOSED BUILDING FF=5369.00 PROPOSED STORM TO BE TIED INTO INTERNAL ROOF DRAIN NETWORK ~~,l.. .. .. ::·~~~·;~ ... ~ ·:~~~~·· . .. ~·:.-:\:·.::·:::.:::·:· ~ . . lr==9~ PROPOSED BUILDING Jl?dP)s m' FF=5372.00 ______ .... ...,, __ _ 24 LF-0" I PRIVATE SERVICE(( DOWNSTR INVERT TO EXISTING I PROPOSI CLEANOl IE=5365.3 PROPOSED E FF=537! W -t-m-:CXPI • Date November 21, 2016 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item 9bi Subject Colorado Environmental Leadership Program - Memorandum of Understanding-2nd Readina INITIATED BY STAFF SOURCE Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Dennis W. Stowe, Plant Manager Jim Tallent, Treatment Division Manager COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION There is no previous Council action for this item . The goal for this action is to approve a Memorandum of Understanding for this program . RECOMMENDED ACTION The recommended action is to approve a bill for an ordinance, on second reading, a Memorandum of Understanding with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Environmental • Leadership Program . • BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The Colorado Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) is a voluntary program that encourages and rewards superior environmental performers that go beyond the requirements of environmental regulations and move toward the goal of sustainability . The program is open to all Colorado businesses, industries, offices, educational institutions, municipalities, government agencies , community, not-for-profit and other organizations. Currently, the program consists of three tiers, Bronze, Silver and Gold. There is NO cost to participate . In 2016, the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant submitted an application to the ELP for recognition as a Silver Partner, and was accepted at this level. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no financial impact of this program . LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Program acceptance letter Silver Partner Certificate Press release • • • ORDINANCE NO . SERJES OF 2016 BY AUTHORJTY COUNCIL BILL NO . 45 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MARTINEZ AN ORDINANCE AUTHORJZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL MEMORANDU M OF AGREEMENT WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO IMPLEMENTING THE COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM. WHEREAS, C .R.S 29-1-203 as well as Article XIV § 18(2) of the Colorado Constitution encourage governmental entities to make efficient and effective use of their powers and responsibilities through cooperation and the execution of intergovernmental agreements ; and WHEREAS , the Colorado Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) is a voluntary program that encourages and rewards superior environmental performers that go beyond the requirements of environmental regulations and move toward the goal of sustainability; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Environmental Leadership Program is open to all Colorado business , industries , offices , educational institutions, municipalities, government agencies , community, not-for-profit and other organizations ; and WHEREAS , the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant submitted an application to the Colorado Environmental Leadership Program and has obtained admission as a Silver Partner into the Colorado Environmental Leadership Program; and WHEREAS , the passage of this Ordinance authorizes the intergovernmental Memorandum of Agreement between the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant concerning participation in the Colorado Environmental Leadership Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood , Colorado hereby authorizes the Memorandum of Agreement between the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant concerning participation in the Colorado Environmental Leadership Program, attached hereto as "Exhibit A ". Introduced , read in full, and passed on first reading on the 7th day of November, 2016. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 10th day of November, 2016 . 1 Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 9th day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 21st day of November, 2016. Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No._, Series of 2016, on the 24th day of November, 2016. Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 23rd day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis , City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood , Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No ._, Series of 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis 2 • • • • • COLORADO Environmental Leadership Program MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT Between THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT And LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Concerning PARTICIPATION IN THE COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM I. The Colorado Environmental Leadership Program (program) is a voluntary program that provides the regulated environmental community with incentives to go beyond basic compliance with environmental laws and regulations. Applicants must meet all program requirements to obtain admission into the program. II. Acceptance into the program renders the participant eligible for various incentives set forth in department policy; however, the program does not guarantee to the participant all the incentives listed in the policy. Ill. By entering into this Memorandum of Agreement (agreement), the department recognizes that the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant has met all of the application requirements of the program. IV. By entering into this agreement, the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant agrees to abide by the requirements for participating in the program and to any commitments made to the department during the application negotiation process. V. This agreement shall expire three years from the date of issuance. Date of issuance: x Dennis W. Stowe Littleton/ Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant 4300 Cherry Creek Drive S., Denver, CO 80246·1530 P 303-692-2000 www.colorado.gov/cdphe John W. Hickenlooper, Governor i Larry Wolk, MD, MSPH, Executive Director and Chief Medical Officer E x H I B I T A -olorado Environmental · Leadership Program (ELP) Handbook • • • • COLORADO ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM HANDBOOK Page 1.0 Purpose 1 2.0 Definitions 2 3.0 Eligibility Requirements 5 4.0 Requirements for Supporting Role 7 5.0 Application and/or Nomination to the ELP Process 7 6.0 Retention, Probation and Termination of Designation/Benefits 10 7.0 Probation or Termination of Program Tier Designation and Benefits 12 8.0 ELP Benefits 12 Appendix A -Environmental Management System (EMS) Requirements 14 Appendix B -Incentives Table 21 Website: https :I /www.colorado .gov/pacific/ cdphe/ environmental-leadership -program Phone: 303-692-3477 Email: Lynette.Myers@state .co .us 2 1.0 PURPOSE The Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) is a voluntary program that encourages and rewards su-• perior environmental performers that go beyond the requirements of environmental regulations and move toward the goal of sustainability. The program is open to all Colorado businesses, industries, offices, educational institutions, municipalities, government agencies, community, not-for-profit and other organizations. Currently, the program consists of three tiers, Bronze, Silver and Gold. The purpose of this document, The Colorado Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) Handbook, is to provide a central reference for policies and procedures associated with Colorado's ELP. The Hand- book summarizes information on current aspects of program implementation, including eligibility re- quirements and member incentives. To further clarify and interpret program criteria, guidance infor· mation is also provided and clearly marked as "guidance". The Handbook is a perennial "working document" that will be maintained primarily in electronic form so that program updates can be incor- porated into it quickly and frequently. 2.0 DEFINITIONS As used in this document, unless otherwise specified or the context otherwise requires, the following definitions are provided: 1. Advisor -any entity that at a minimum complies with the mandatory elements in- cluded in this document and has been so designated by the department as an Advisor to the ELP. 2. Advocate -any entity that at a minimum complies with the mandatory elements in- cluded in this document and has been so designated by the department as an Advo- cate of the ELP. 3. Applicable environmental requirements -the federal and state environmental stat- utes, regulations and policies applicable to the entity. 4. Aspects -those processes, products and activities over which an entity has control and that can or has the potential to positively or negatively interact with the environ- ment. 5. Auditor -a person that is qualified to conduct an EMS audit at the facility. Auditors can be internal or external auditors. An internal auditor is a person that is employed at the facility being audited and is qualified, as determined by the facility, to con- duct an EMS audit at the facility; an external auditor is a person that is not employed at the facility being audited and is qualified, as determined by the department, to audit for conformance of the EMS to the criteria set forth in this document. 6. Bronze Tier -an Environmental Achiever or the entry-level tier of the ELP. 7. Department -the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. 8. Entity -any facility of a corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, municipality, county, city, city and county, special district, educational institution, not-for-profit, or state or federal department or agency located and doing business in Colorado. 9. Environmental Achiever -a Bronze Tier designation under the ELP designed to rec- ognize entities that have made significant achievements in improving the environ- ment in Colorado. 10. Environmental Leader · any entity that at a minimum complies with the mandatory elements included in this document and has been so designated by the department to the Gold Tier of the ELP. 11. Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) -the bronze, silver, gold tiers of the de- partment's recognition and reward program. 3 • • • 12. Environmental management system (EMS) -part of an overall management system that identifies and addresses environmental concerns through the allocation of resources, as- signment of responsibilities and ongoing evaluation of practices, processes and procedures to achieve sound environmental performance. 13. Environmental management system audit -a systematic, independent, and documented verification process, conducted by an EMS auditor, which objectively obtains and evaluates evidence to determine whether an entity's EMS conforms to the requirements of an EMS as defined in this document. 14. Environmental Partner -any entity that at a minimum complies with the mandatory ele- ments included in this document and has been designated by the department to the Silver Tier of the ELP. 15. Environmental Steward -any entity that at a minimum complies with the mandatory ele- ments included in this document and has been designated by the department to the Plati- num Tier of the ELP. 16. Executive Director -the executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment. 17. Facility -all contiguous property, land and structures under the control of the owner or operator and used for a designated purpose. 18. Gold Tier -an Environmental Leader of the ELP. 19. Impacts -positive or negative changes that occur in the environment as a result of the as- pects. 20. Objectives -overall environmental goals set by the entity to mitigate impacts and lead to improved environmental performance. 21. Pollution prevention -eliminating or minimizing the initial generation of waste at the source or using environmentally sound on-site and off-site reuse or recycling. Waste treat- ment, release or disposal is not considered pollution prevention. 22. Program tiers -the Bronze, Silver, and Gold tiers of the ELP. 23. Responsible official -an individual who has the authority to sign and certify on behalf of an applicant to the ELP the truth, accuracy and completeness of the application or compli- ance forms. 24. Serious violation -a violation that is prone to cause significant impact to human health or to the environment, which may include, but is not limited to: violation of a consent order; failure to obtain a permit or license; a knowing violation; failure to respond to official re- quest for information; or multiple (environmental) violations. A conviction for criminal violations or under investigation for criminal violations of applicable environmental laws, or out-of-court settlements of formal charges, including falsely certifying compliance and knowing violations; or an on-going EPA or state-initiated litigation. 25. Significant environmental achievement -a meaningful improvement in the environment by implementing an operational change, product replacement, new technology, business practice or other innovative measure that results in an improvement to air quality, water quality, a reduction in water use, solid or hazardous waste generated, energy usage, pol- lution prevention, an Energy Star certification, etc. Significant impacts -the impacts as determined by an entity that could cause significant changes in the environment or cause harm to public health. Silver Tier -an Environmental Partner of the ELP. Substantial compliance -an entity is committed to maintaining compliance with applica- ble state and federal environmental regulations, as necessary, to qualify for the ELP . Supporting role -participation in the ELP either as an Advisor or an Advocate . 4 30. Targets· specific goals that are set to meet the objectives. 31. Waste • any material or other resource that is not incorporated into a product, such as surplus, obsolete, off-specification, contaminated or unused material and in· eludes any of the following: air emissions, water discharges, hazardous waste and solid waste. 3.0 ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS Requirements for Program Tier Status Those entities that operate in Colorado and voluntarily seek or agree to designation in one of the pro· gram tiers must meet the compliance and beyond-compliance eligibility requirements below. 1. Compliance-Related Requirements Compliance-related eligibility requirements for an entity that voluntarily seeks or agrees to designation at one of the program tiers of the Environmental Leadership Pro· gram can be found in below. Requirement Period of Time Bronze Silver Gold An entity may not be eligible to participate in the program if • • • there has been a pattern of regulatory or permit violations, no· tices of violation, civil penalties and/or criminal penalties and significant compliance advisories (or informal enforcement ac- tions) that indicate a lack of commitment to environmental leadership. Evidence of no serious violations of applicable local, state and One One Three federal environmental laws and permits for a period of time year year years immediately prior to the date of submission of the application for participation in the program. No conviction of environmental laws or out-of-court settlements Two Two Five of formal charges of criminal violations within a period of time years years years before filing the application. No settlement agreement has been entered into and no compli· One One Three ance or consent order has been issued for serious violations of year year years environmental laws and permits for a period of time immedi· ately prior to the date of submission of the application for par- ticipation in the program. Any entity that applies for the program and is part of a corpora-N/A N/A At time tion, partnership, sole proprietorship, municipality, county, city of appli· and county, special district, or state or federal agency or de· cation partment that has other Colorado facilities may not be eligible for the program unless all of the said Colorado facilities are in compliance with applicable local, state and federal environ· mental laws and regulations. This provision will be looked at on a case-by-case basis. *Compliance history and the evaluation of commitment to the environment will be de· termined on a case-by-case basis by ELP and Department environmental staff and man- agement. 5 • • • • • • 2. Beyond-Compliance Requirements In addition to the compliance-related requirements, there are beyond-compliance require- ments for each of the program tiers. These requirements are described below. A. Bronze Achiever An entity is nominated to the Bronze Tier of the ELP for making a significant achieve- ment(s) in improving the environment of Colorado. The areas of achievement, which must be beyond compliance, may include one or more of the following: • Improvement in air quality; • Improvement in water quality; • Reducing water usage; • Reducing energy use (e.g. an Energy Star achievement); • Solid and/or hazardous waste reductions; • Implementing pollution prevention actions; • Land use improvements or protection; • Environmental education, outreach or mentoring; and/or, • Other innovative measures which benefit the environment. B. Silver Partner An entity applying to the Silver Tier of the ELP must commit to develop and implement an environmental management system (EMS) within an agreed upon timeframe, not to exceed three years, in addition to meeting the requirements for "beyond-compliance" activities and programs. Certain milestones (at a minimum) must be met to remain in the program, however, an entity has the opportunity to apply to the Gold Tier sooner if they meet the following requirements: (NOTE: Not all requirements may apply and will be determined on a case-by-case basis) . • By the end of year one the entity must, at a minimum, demonstrate "in process" EMS implementation steps beyond that of the time of applying to the program. • By the end of year two, the entity must, at a minimum, have in process additional portions of an EMS beyond that of the first year. • By the end of year three, the entity must have a fully functional EMS, conducted a third party audit and comply with all the requirements listed in Appendix A. At such time, an entity may apply directly to the Gold Tier. NOTE: A Silver Level company may apply to the Gold level before the three year time- line should it meet the criteria requirements of the Gold level. C. Gold Leader To qualify for designation as a Gold Leader, an entity MUST: • Have in place a fully operational, facility-specific EMS. • Have completed at least one full cycle of an EMS that conforms to the criteria set forth in Appendix A (a full cycle includes planning, implementation and operation, checking and management review). • Have completed both an EMS and internal compliance audit. • Have completed a third·party assessment of the EMS. (Third-party assessments may be performed by a lead auditor in your parent company or by an independent audi- tor, but not by individuals who played a substantive role in developing the EMS for the facility). • Provide a summary, on-site review or some other documentation of an entity's EMS that demonstrates achievement of the criteria set forth in (Appendix A). • Demonstrate "Past Achievements" in order to show commitment to improving envi- ronmental performance. In general, small entities (50 employees or less) will be asked to demonstrate one Past Achievement, and large entities four. 6 • Set continual environmental improvement goals "Future Commitments" as the means to achieve environmental excellence. Future Commitments should be based on a sound systematic approach to environmental decision-making and goal setting, supported by measurable results. The number of Future commit- ments an entity must set depends on the size of the entity as determined by the department. In general, small entities will be asked to set two continual im- provement goals and large entities four goals. Guidance: Continual environmental improvement goals should promote the following: (1) the elimination or reduction of waste at the source of generation; (2) redirection of waste streams for reuse or for substitution of commercial products; (3) environ- mentally sound on-site and off-site recycling programs; and, (4) beyond compliance activities and programs. Other goals may include attending or sponsoring environ- mental workshops, developing case studies, establishing pollution prevention net- works with suppliers or providing the department with pollution prevention infor- mation for possible publication or dissemination . Aspects are chosen by the facil- ity. Commitment for improvement should relate to the significant environmental aspects identified in the EMS and should take into account local environmental pri- orities and pollution prevention opportunities. Optional activities or programs that qualify for continual environmental im- provement can include participating in mentoring opportunities with other compa- nies or organizations such as providing technical assistance and exchanging innova- tive technologies, attending or sponsoring workshops and developing case studies. 4.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR SUPPORTING ROLE The supporting role in the ELP is designed to enhance and complement the overall program. Those entities that operate in Colorado and agree to participate in a supplementary role as an Advocate or Advisor must meet the requirements outlined below. 1. Advisor This section applies to an individual or group that acts in an advisory capacity and assists in shaping the future of the ELP. Examples of existing or expected advisory capacities follow: • Pollution Prevention Advisory Board • Colorado Environmental Partnership (CEP) • Internal Advisory Panel The Internal Advisory Panel consists of representative(s) from each of the envi- ronmental divisions (Air Quality Control, Consumer Protection, Hazardous Materi- als and Waste Management, Water Quality Control) at the department. • External Advisory Panel The External Advisory Panel consists of current ELP Members. 2. Advocate This section applies to an individual or group that promotes and supports the ELP in a variety of ways. For example, an Advocate may be a consulting firm that provides a free training session to our members or a trade association that encourages nomina- tions and applications to the program or even a company that provides in-kind or fi- nancial contributions for the annual fall recognition event. 5.0 NOMINATION and/or APPLICATION TO THE ELP The program tiers are open to all Colorado businesses, industries, offices , educational institutions, municipalities, government agencies, community, not-for-profit and other organizations. An entity 7 • • • • • • wishing to apply for designation in the Environmental Leadership Program shall follow the procedures set forth in this document . 1. Application and/or Nomination Form Submission Information There are currently three tiers of the ELP for which entities may apply: Bronze Achiever, Silver Partner and Gold Leader. To determine which of the existing program tiers is the best fit for your entity, see Section 3.0. Applicants are encouraged to submit forms elec- tronically. Applications and nomination forms should be sent to lynette.myers@state.co.us A. Bronze Achiever Nominations of candidates to the Bronze Tier of the program may be made by a prospective recipient, state or local inspectors or others with knowledge of the environmental achievement of the business or entity. The Bronze Nomination forms are accepted throughout the year. In order to be recognized in the current year at the fall awards event must complete and submit nominations by June 30th each year. B. Silver Partner To join the program at the Silver Tier, complete a Silver Environmental Leader- ship Application. Silver Partner Applications are accepted throughout the year. Entities wishing to be recognized in the current year at the fall awards event must complete and submit the application by June 30th of each year. C. Gold Leader To join the program at the Gold Tier, complete a Gold Environmental Leadership Application. (Application instructions are provided separately.) Gold Leader Ap- plications are accepted throughout the year, but applications are only processed once per year. Entities wishing to be recognized in the current year at the fall awards event must complete and submit applications by June 30th each year. 2. Nomination and/or Application Form Review Process The schedule for nomination and application form submittal and the review process for acceptance into the ELP is discussed below. The timelines outlined in this document are subject to change due to timeliness of expected responses, availability of department resources and other unforeseen circumstances. A person operating an entity in Colorado may reapply for consideration into the ELP at any time. A. Bronze Achiever 1. Nomination Submittal Nominations may be submitted at any time. Those organizations wishing to be recognized in the current year at the fall awards event must complete and submit nominations by June 30th of each year. 2. Nomination Receipt The department will contact the nominator (not the nominee) to acknowledge receipt and to provide a timeline for processing. 3. Nomination Internal Processing During the processing period, the department shall: • Review the nomination for completeness and request additional informa- tion as needed; • Conduct a compliance review of .the nominee; • Consult with the advisory panel(s) on any nomination as necessary; 8 • If required, request that the internal/ external advisory panel(s) pro- vide a recommendation for approval or denial of the nomination to the executive director of the department. 4. Acceptance Process The department will make a determination of acceptance or denial: If the department approves a nomination, a letter of acceptance will be sent to the nominator and nominee. If however, the nomination is de- nied, at a minimum, the nominator will be notified of the decision. 5. Incentive Rewards for Nominated Members Bronze Achiever recipients are eligible for the incentives listed in Appen· dix B (Environmental Leadership Program Incentives Table), for an entire year following receipt of the award. B. Silver Partner 1. Application Submittal Applications may be submitted at any time. Those organizations wishing to be recognized in the current year at the fall awards event must com- plete and submit nominations by June 30th of each year. 2. Application Internal Processing • The department will contact the applicant of receiving an application to acknowledge receipt and to provide a timeline for processing the application. • The department will complete an initial review of the application to ensure completeness of application. The department will contact the • applicant to request additional information if necessary. • • The department will conduct an envfronmental compliance review af- ter the June 30th deadline once all applications have been received. • The department will schedule a site visit, if necessary, upon receipt of a complete application. Guidance: During the application review process the department will con- duct a compliance review of each applicant and/or nomination to the ELP. The compliance review will include consulting available databases and enforcement sources including the EPA and local health departments to obtain compliance information. Prior to applying to the ELP, applicants are encouraged to assess their own compliance record. 3. Acceptance Process The department will make a determination of acceptance or denial: Within 90 days of the June 30th deadline date and review of a complete application the department will notify the applicant, in writing, of the approval or denial of the applicant into the ELP. 4. Incentive Rewards for Nominated Members Silver Partner recipients are eligible for the incentives listed in Appendix B (Environmental Leadership Program Incentives Table), for three years following receipt of the Silver Status or until Gold Leader Membership is achieved (whichever comes first). · C. Gold Leader 1. Application Internal Processing 9 • • • • • The department will contact the applicant of receiving an application to ac- knowledge receipt and to provide a timeline for processing the application. • The department will complete an initial review of the application to ensure completeness of application. • The department will contact the applicant to request additional information if necessary. • The department will conduct an environmental compliance review after the June 30th deadline once all applications have been received. • The department will schedule a site visit, if necessary within 60 days of the June 30th deadline date. Guidance: During the application review process the department will conduct a compliance review of each applicant and/or nomination to the ELP. The com- pliance review will include consulting available databases and enforcement sources including the EPA and local health departments to obtain compliance information. Prior to applying to the ELP, applicants are encouraged to assess their own compliance record. 2. Public Comment Period • The department will initiate a public comment period within 60 days of the June 30th deadline date. • As a Gold Leader candidate, the application and all related documentation will be made available for public review for a period of not less than 30 days. Public review, at a minimum, will include: posting a notice on the department's Internet site. The public notice will allow for comments to be made to the department. • The department will notify the applicant of all comments received. The documentation provided for public review includes a copy of the applicant's environmental policy. • Following close of the public comment period, the department will advise the applicant of any significant comment(s) that could impact eligibility. 3. Approval or Denial • Once significant comment(s) have been sufficiently addressed, the Adminis- trator will provide a recommendation for approval or denial of the applica- tion to the executive director of the department. • Within 90 days of the June 30th deadline of the application the department will notify the applicant, in writing, of the approval or denial of the appli- cant into the ELP. • There is no formal appeal of the executive director's final eligibility deci- sion. 4. Incentive Rewards for Nominated Members Gold Leader recipients are eligible for the incentives listed in Appendix B (Environmental Leadership Program Incentives Table), for the three year/ recognition period. 6.0 RETENTION AND RENEWAL OF PROGRAM TIER DESIGNATION AND BENEFIT 1. Requirements for Program Tier Status The requirements to retain a program tier status in the ELP are described below. If require- ments are not met, probation or termination of a member's status and incentives may result. (Refer to "7.0 Probation or Termination of Program Tier Designation and Benefits") . 2. Tier-Specific Retention and Renewal Requirements 10 In addition to compliance requirements, there are also specific retention and renewal re- quirements for each tier of the ELP. More information is provided below. A. Bronze Achiever • Bronze Achiever awards are honored for at least a one -year period from receipt of notification of award from the department. • Bronze Achiever awards are NOT automatically renewed. A nomination form docu- menting further achievements may be submitted to the department for considera- tion of a subsequent Bronze Achiever award. B. Silver Partner 1. Retention/ Annual Progress Report Silver Partners are recognized for a maximum of three years unless Gold Level Status is achieved sooner. Silver status shall not exceed three years (see provision for a request of extension below). To retain status as a Silver Partner, an entity must: • Continue to progress implementation of an EMS as required by the Eligibility Re- quirements in section 3.0 of this Handbook. • Non-participation and/or not meeting the required milestones may lead to pro- bation or termination of a member's designation . 2. Completion of the Silver Partner Requirements Once all requirements are met within the three-year period (or sooner), Silver Part- ners may submit a Gold Environmental Leadership Program Application to the de- partment to achieve Gold Level Status. The application will be treated as a Gold Leader Application as stated in section 4.0 "Nomination/ Application to the Environ- mental Leadership Program" of this handbook. 3. Extension of three year Recognition In the event a Silver Leader Company may need an extension of the three year maximum status, formal request must be made to the ELP Administrator. Determi- nations of each request will be handled on a case-by-case basis. Possible requests for extension may include: • Regulatory/Compliance "three year clean compliance record concerns"; • Economic/Resources issues for implementing and EMS. C. Gold Leader 1. Retention/Annual Progress Report Gold Leaders are honored for three years and may renew their membership. To retain status as a Gold Leader, an entity must: • Continue to maintain and implement an EMS as required by (Appendix A) of this document. A pattern of non-conformances may lead to probation or termina- tion of a member's designation. • Annually report metrics and goals to the ELP in order to track progress towards continuous improvement goals and explain any unmet goals or changes in com- mitments. 2. Renewal On the three year anniversary year, Gold Leaders are required to submit a Gold Leader Renewal Application, by June 30th of that same year. 3. Change of Ownership In the case of a change of ownership, the department may consider the environ- mental record of the new owner in determining whether the criteria in this docu- ment are met. The department should be notified at least 30 days prior to a 11 • • • • • • 7.0 change of ownership with instructions as to membership status (e.g., remain in program or terminate membership) . PROBATION OR TERMINATION OF PROGRAM TIER DESIGNATION AND BENEFITS 1. Environmental Compliance To retain program tier status in the ELP, entities must endeavor to maintain substantial compliance with applicable environmental regulations while in the program. The execu- tive director of the department may place a member on probation or terminate its ELP designation for any of the following environmental compliance issues: • The ELP member has been convicted of a criminal violat.ion of applicable environ- mental requirements; • The ELP member has been assessed a significant civil or administrative penalty or dam- ages for violation(s) of environmental requirements; • The ELP member has been found by a court of appropriate jurisdiction to have been responsible for an illegal action that caused substantial endangerment to public health or to the environment; or, • The ELP member was found by the executive director to have failed to promptly or adequately correct and resolve a violation of applicable environmental requirements. 2. ELP Program Compliance In addition to Environmental Compliance, entities must maintain deadline dates for reten- tion and renewal requirements. The executive director of the department may place a member on probation or terminate ELP designation for any of the following ELP Program compliance issues: • The ELP member has failed to submit Reports and/or applications as required by the tier level; · • The ELP member has failed to submit a Renewal Request application as required by the tier level; • The ELP member has not completed the above mentioned requirements as appropriate. 3. Probation The executive director will advise the ELP member of his/her intent to place the ELP member on probation not less than 30 days before the action occurs. Length of probation and actions required will be determined on a case-by-case basis. There is no formal ap- peal of the executive director's probation decision. Possible actions may include: • Member must refrain from using ELP logo; • Existing incentives may be restricted or terminated; and • Requested incentives may be postponed or denied. 4. Termination ELP status will be terminated at the written request of the entity at any time or if the member fails to renew its application. In cases other than those listed in the paragraph directly above, the executive director will advise the ELP member of intent to terminate the ELP designation not less than 30 days before the action occurs. Upon termination from the ELP, the department will terminate or restrict all benefits provided to the former ELP member, as determined by the executive director. 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM BENEFITS Colorado's ELP members are recognized as entities that inspire and challenge other organizations to higher levels of environmental performance. The voluntary and substantial commitments that mem- bers make with respect to environmental protection are recognized and valued commitments to the state of Colorado. In exchange, the department provides a number of guaranteed and potential benefits as set forth in department policy (see Appendix B). Entities interested in any of the listed 12 potential incentives, or interested in proposing an alternative incentive not included on the incen- tives table in (Appendix B), should contact the ELP to determine feasibility and discuss the details of finalizing an incentive(s) agreement. • • • 13 • APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EMS) REQUIREMENTS • • 14 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EMS) REQUIREMENTS (Note: This section closely reflects the ISO 14001 (2004) requirements.) • Guidance: There are many models of EMSs. The department considers an EMS to be a flexible system designed to continually manage and reduce an entity's environmental impact. The complexity of an EMS can range from simpler and more streamlined for smaller, less complex organizations and busi- nesses to very comprehensive for larger, more complex entities. Regardless of complexity, all EMSs must identify and rank the full spectrum of an entity's environmental impacts and all applicable en- vironmental legal and regulatory obligations. The EMS must be fully supported by and incorporated into the existing management structure of a company or entity and must be appropriate to the na- ture, scale and potential environmental impacts of an operation or entity. The department 's EMS framework is similar to ISO 14001, but certification to the international standard is not required by the department. 1. Environmental Policy An environmental policy statement should demonstrate a high tier of commitment to environ- mental management through the establishment of guiding principles. The environmental pol- icy should be available to the public and be communicated to all employees who work for or on behalf of the entity. The environmental policy should be appropriate to the nature and scale of the entity or business and should include all of the following: • A commitment to environmental excellence and continual environmental improvement; • A commitment to pollution prevention; • Commitment to comply with applicable environmental regulations and other requirements; and, • A statement acknowledging the importance of communication with employees and the public. Guidance: • The policy statement should be kept brief, appropriate to the scope of the EMS and meaning- ful to management, employees and to the entity as a whole. A brief description of the busi- ness or entity may be included in the policy statement. Procedures that convey how fre- quently a policy will be reviewed, who is responsible for reviewing the policy, how the policy is communicated to employees and how the policy will be made available to the public should also be developed. 2. Planning 2.1 Environmental Aspects -Identification and prioritization of activities and the corre- sponding aspects that have or can have an impact on the environment. Guidance: Identifying environmental aspects and impacts can be one of the most challenging ele- ments of an EMS. Begin by identifying activities at the facility and the corresponding environmental aspect resulting from these activities. Include day-to-day operations, infrequent operations and activities related to potential accidents or emergencies. From this analysis the expected or likely environmental impact can then be identified. The impacts should be ranked to identify the most significant impacts. The EMS should include procedures to help identify both positive and negative actual or poten- tial environmental impacts and to ensure that the impacts and opportunities for envi- ronmental improvement are considered to determine significance and set environ- mental objectives. From the comprehensive list of environmental impacts , the next step is to develop the criteria that will be used to determine the significance of each impact. This step iden-• tifies the aspects of an entity's operations that have or can have significant impacts on 15 • 2.2 • 2.3 2.4 • the environment. Guidance: The significant impacts will be used to develop other elements of the EMS in- cluding: setting environmental objectives and targets; developing operational proce- dures; training employees; and, establishing monitoring and measuring programs. A consistent methodology that includes criteria such as any related legal requirements, the likelihood of occurrence, the frequency, intensity, duration and offensiveness, or concerns of interested parties or the community of potential or real environmental impacts, should be considered. Once criteria are selected, a procedure to rank or score the criteria should be developed. The ranking can be numerical or based on a rating of high, medium or low. Regardless of the ranking or scoring system selected, it is important that each environmental impact is analyzed in a consistent way to de- velop a sound evaluation process Legal and other Requirements -A list of legal and other requirements should include all applicable environmental federal, state and local requirements related to its envi- ronmental aspects, including all applicable environmental permits and the terms and conditions contained therein. Company-specific requirements or other external re- quirements (e.g., community, customer, shareholders, etc.) should also be included with this list. An entity must also determine how these requirements apply to its envi- ronmental aspects. Guidance: Identifying and keeping up-to-date with legal and other requirements is important to the implementation and continued improvement of the EMS. A procedure should be developed to describe how to identify any environmental requirements that are appli- cable to the scope of the EMS. Consider federal, state and local requirements as well as all environmental permits, industrial codes of practice, agreements and non- regulatory guidelines. Tables that list regulatory and other requirements, including recordkeeping requirements and external regulatory inspections are helpful in track- ing and keeping up-to-date with legal and other requirements. Objectives and Targets -The EMS should include objectives and targets to help ad- dress environmental impacts in a definitive, systematic way. The target is a detailed performance requirement that supports a specific objective. Objectives and targets are often combined together into one procedure in the environmental management program. Each objective should be realistic, quantitative and measurable. Guidance: When establishing objectives, consider the following: significant aspects; the environ- mental policy; legal and other requirements; technological options; pollution preven- tion opportunities; financial, operational and business requirements; and views of in- terested parties and/or the surrounding community. Environmental Management Program(s) -An environmental management program is a systematic way of managing environmental objectives and targets. The program should focus on continual improvement and address significant impacts of an entity's activities. The program should include a list of roles and responsibilities for implemen- tation, maintenance and control of the EMS. Guidance: An action plan should be developed for achieving compliance and meeting objectives and targets. The action plan should define the steps that will be taken to achieve each stated objective and target, include who is responsible for meeting the target, the timeline for achieving milestones and the target date for completion. 16 3. Implementation and Operation 3.1 Structure and Responsibility -An EMS must define structure and responsibility. This element defines and documents roles and responsibilities for your entity. These roles and responsibilities must be clearly communicated to appropriate personnel. Gujdance: Identify all personnel responsible for activities that could have an impact on the envi- ronment. The EMS should document roles, titles and responsibilities. The personnel responsible for serving as management for purposes of reviewing the EMS should also be included in this list. 3. 2 Training, Awareness and Competence -Successful implementation of an EMS is de- pendent on a program that includes employee and supply chain training and aware- ness. Training is needed when the EMS is first implemented; new employees are hired; employee responsibilities change; procedures change; new processes or equipment is installed; suppliers are brought on-site, or new regulations are put in place. The EMS should include procedures that establish and maintain environmental training needs for all employees and subcontractors who have responsibility or authority over activities that have significant environmental impact or the potential for significant environ- mental impact. Gujdance: Employees (and suppliers) should be trained on relevant elements of an EMS. Training should include information on the environmental policy, the significant environmental aspects of their activities and related work instructions, objectives and targets, their EMS roles and responsibilities, the emergency action plan and other pertinent infor- • mation related to the EMS. The EMS should identify and track the training needs of • each employee (within the scope of the EMS). If questioned in the field, employees should be able to demonstrate competency about the EMS and their environmental responsibilities. 3.3 Communication -The EMS must include a communication plan for internal communi- cation and external community outreach and communication. Both a process and procedures for communicating information on environmental issues and the EMS to em- ployees and with the public, including the local community and interested groups, should be developed. Guidance: Environmental leaders should maintain a community outreach and communications plan to effectively communicate the environmental impact, objectives and targets of your business or entity and to address the community's perceptions and reactions to this information. Public communication and outreach activities can vary across facilities depending on the size, setting, type of operation or other sensitivities. At a minimum, public communication and outreach plans should include procedures for: (1) identifying and responding to community concerns; (2) informing the community of important mat- ters that might or do effect it; and , (3) reporting on the facility's environmental policy, EMS and performance commitments. Other communication efforts might include rais- ing environmental awareness in the community, providing or assisting with training, education or incentive methods that focus on environmental improvement and excel- lence in the community. Active communication with employees and the community help to convey: what an EMS is; what management's commitments are with respect to environmental issues; the benefit(s) an EMS brings to the business or entity; and pro- gress in meeting objectives and targets. Communication plans and techniques will vary for each company or entity. 17 • • • • 3.4 Environmental Management System Documentation -The EMS documentation element is designed to ensure that entities create and maintain documents in a manner sufficient to implement the EMS. Documentation can be maintained in paper or electronic form. 3.5 Guidance: The EMS documentation requirement can be met by development of an EMS manual. The manual should detail the overall structure of the EMS and ensure that the EMS is understood and operating as designed. EMS procedures should be either referenced, but not included in the manual, or incorporated consis- tently into the manual. Written procedures are not required for all elements of the EMS. A separate procedures document from the manual is a cleaner and clearer approach. The following diagram depicts a common document hierar- chy. Policy EMS Manual Procedures Work Instructions Records Document Control -Controlling documents is another important element of an EMS. An established document control process helps to track progress and im- provements. A procedure that describes how documents will be controlled and identifies personnel responsible for controlling EMS documentations should be included in the EMS. Guidance: Keep the document control process simple and within easy access. Creating a master EMS document list may be helpful. Documents should be periodically reviewed and revised as necessary. Original documents should be dated and identified as the most recent version. Current versions of essential documents should be available at all locations as appropriate. One way to track docu- ments is to use headers with pertinent tracking information. Obsolete docu- ments should be removed from the working files, but retained when necessary for legal and or historical recordkeeping purposes. Reasonable precautions should be taken to protect original documents from damage, loss or other acci- dental events, such as fire or flood. Controlled documents include: the envi- ronmental policy; related procedures; and, records and forms used to imple- ment and track the EMS. 3.6 Operational Control -Operation and maintenance programs for equipment and other activities that are related to legal compliance and achieving the objec- tives and targets in the EMS should be included as part of the EMS. 3.7 Emergency Preparedness and Response -It is important to identify the poten- tial for and how to respond to accidents and emergency situation of environ- mental aspects. 18 Guidance: The outcome should result in having documented procedures/instructions in place for emergency type situations. They should be easy to reference and use, and all effected • personnel understand how to react in emergency situations. It is important to include prevention and mitigation of environmental aspects of potential accidents and emer- gencies. Should an emergency situatfon arise, it is important to review and revise pro- cedures as applicable after the situation is controlled to ensure they are complete and accurate. 4. Checking and Corrective Action 4. 1 Monitoring and Measurement -Establish and maintain specific measurable metrics and/or goals to monitor progress toward achieving and obtaining goals. This data will be used to validate and support EMS efforts within the department and for other Envi - ronmental Stewardship Program needs (i.e., publications, presentations and information dissemination). Guidance: The outcomes must be measurable and should be linked to the environmental policy, objectives and targets of a company or entity. Measurable goals might include: quan- tity of air pollution reduced or mitigated; quantity of water pollution reduced or miti- gated; quantity of hazardous and solid waste reduced or mitigated; quantity of water and energy use reductions; and, reduction in risk to employees and the community. For example, environmental performance might be reported in solid waste reduction in tons per year; hazardous pollutants (air, water, or waste) in pounds per year; water use reduction in gallons per year; energy use reduction in kWh per year; and, air pollut- ant reductions (C02, PM, and VOCs) in tons or pounds per year. Other measures might include pollution prevention performance information and community involvement measures such as increased reporting to the community through public reports (i.e., • sustainability or environmental reports), and community involvement in identifying goals of facility. 4.1.2 A program should also be in place for ensuring equipment used for monitoring and measuring environmental conditions is calibrated according to the manu- facturer's recommendations. 4. 2 Nonconformance and corrective and preventive action -Establish and maintain proce- dures for investigating and correcting rionconformance. Guidance: Identify the cause of the nonconformance. Implement the necessary corrective action. Implement and/or modify controls necessary to avoid repetition of the nonconfor- mance. Record any changes in written procedures resulting from the corrective action 4. 3 Records -Establish and maintain procedures to provide and require records to be kept. Guidance: Records should be identified, maintained and show disposition by determining reten- tion times. Records should be easily retrievable, legible and traceable. 4.4 Environmental Management System Audit -Procedures to provide for regular self· initiated regulatory compliance and EMS (systems) audits must be included in the EMS. Both internal and external or third party audits should be conducted on a regular basis. Effective mechanisms (procedures) should be in place to assess compliance with envi-• ronmental laws; assess conformance with the procedures and systems of the EMS; assure that effective mechanisms are in place to promptly and adequately respond to and ad- 19 • 4.5 • • dress violations of applicable environmental requirements or nonconformance of the EMS . Guidance: The entire EMS needs to be audited periodically to identify any inconsistencies between your EMS requirements and actual practices and measurements. An aud;t is an impor- tant tool to determine if your EMS is being properly maintained and implemented. Au- dits will help to identify and resolve EMS deficiencies and can be used to assess regula- tory compliance and to update environmental and legal requirements in the EMS. As a rule of thumb, all parts of the EMS and compliance related issues should be audited at least once each year. To be effective, the EMS should include: (1) audit procedures and protocols that are specific to your company and operations; (2) a schedule of appropri- ate audit frequencies; (3) auditor training; and, (4) appropriate audit records. The in- ternal and external EMS auditors should be trained in auditing techniques and manage- ment system concepts. Auditors should also be objective, knowledgeable of the appli- cable environmental regulations and of the facility operations. Management Review -Establish and maintain a procedure for management review of the EMS. Guidance: Reviews may include: (1) results from audits; (2) the extent to which objectives have been met; (3) the continuing suitability of the environmental management system in relation to changing conditions and information; (4) concerns amongst relevant inter- ested parties. The reviews should be documented/recorded . 20 APPENDIX B INCENTIVE TABLE 21 • • • • ELP Incentive Table Use of ELP Logo and Leadership Award Partnership with the state Invitation to Fall Recognition or similar event Public Recognition Provide press release and other assistance on public/ communit outreach needs Complementary registration to leadership forums and/or re- duced fees for EMS training or other related training sessions Mentoring/ partnership/ networking opportunities. Notice of rulemaking initia- tions. To the extent possible, assign same permit writer and inspec- tor for a site to ensure consis- tent inspection, interpretation and enforcement. One-stop multi-media inspec- tions Yes Yes Logo available for recognition purposes. Yes Yes Add comfort level for members and internal employees. Yes Yes Recognition Yes Yes Recognition Yes Yes Recognition and work to improve external relationships. Yes Yes Provide training Yes Yes Organize workgroup meetings Yes Yes Yes No Include members in the stake- holder process for regulatory proposals -only those where a stakeholder process is initi- ated. Assign same inspector for two or three years. If requested by leadership company, allow per- mit writer to visit facility. One-stop visits. One-day inspec- ELP ELP ELP ELP ELP ELP ELP State State Yes No tions with combined report, State where feasible. 22 x x x x * x x * * x * * * Priority permitting for modifi-Include leadership logo on forms cations to the extent consistent (cover letter) for easy identifica- with backlog reduction require-Yes No tion. ELP members will be "red State x x ments and other statutory limi-tagged" in Air Database. tations. Allow sites to comply with only Case-by-case. Title V sources most stringent Leak Detection already allowed to streamline. and Repair (LOAR) require-Streamline using most stringent men ts. Yes No requirement. Requires policy State * change, permit modification, EPA approval through permitting process? Expedited technical assistance. Yes No Expedite ELP member requests * where practicable. State Consolidated permitting -one EMS as a permit. Compliance is permit for all media. Pilot No baseline. Must remain in compli- State * ance with all applicable regula- tory requirements. •rhis table lists a variety of incentives potentially available to members of the Colorado Environmental Leadership Program. All optional incentives must be requested by ELP member. x **Pending further discussion. CDPHE has signed a Memorandum of Agreement with EPA to work together on developing incentives and other program benefits. 23 • • • • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Subject: November 21, 2016 9bii Marijuana Impact Grant Agreement-2nd Reading Initiated By: Staff Source: Police Department Commander Vance Fender PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION On April 25, 2016, City Council gave permission to the Police Department to apply for the Marijuana Impact Grant Program . (On July 8 , 2016, we were notified that we had been awarded the grant. On October 7, 2016, we received the Agreement from the Department of Local Affairs .) RECOMMENDED ACTION The Police Department is recommending that City Council approve a bill for an ordinance, on second reading, authorizing a Grant Agreement between the State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs and the City of Englewood to receive funding for the Marijuana Impact Grant Program. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The purpose of this program is to award grants to eligible local governments who do not allow the sale of retail marijuana within their jurisdiction (at the time application was made), but who are experiencing the impacts of retail marijuana from surrounding communities or any other illegal activity related to marijuana . The grant program has two key components : • Identify documented causational impacts to eligible local governments and determine grant dollars needed to reimburse for those impacts; and • In awarding grants, priority will be given to applicants who intend to use the grant funds for one or more of the following purposes: o To pay for additional law enforcement activities related to retail marijuana, including costs associated with increased arrests, increased traffic violations, and prevention of out-of-state diversions and trafficking of marijuana. Since the beginning of 2015, the Police Impact Team , Fire Marshal and Building and Safety Division have been tasked with investigating Marijuana Grow Operations (20+ cases) to verify compliance with local laws and building/fire codes. There is a significant concern in regards to the environment that our employees are being exposed to when conducting these investigations. This includes exposure to high levels of mold spores , low toxicity pesticides and other chemicals , carbon monoxide, and electrical hazards. Our grant request is for the purchase of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) which will adequately protect our employees during these investigations . FINANCIAL IMPACT The funding for this project ($12,436) will be provided by the State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Bill for an Ordinance Grant Award Letter Grant Agreement Exhibit B -Scope of Project Murphy Robinson • om: nt: To: Cc: Subject: Murphy, per your voicemail. Jeff Sanchez Wednesday, November 16, 2016 7:37 AM Murphy Robinson Dugan Comer FW: FW: MJ #16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 -GRANT AGREEMENT From: Norton -DOLA, Tamra [mailto:tamra.norton@state .co.us] Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 5:45 PM To: Jeff Sanchez <jsanchez@Englewoodco.gov> Subject: Re: FW: MJ #16-008-Englewood PD Equipment 2016 -GRANT AGREEMENT Hi Jeff, We determine eligibility at the time of application . We have to have some point to stop that moving target. I recommend w e proceed as planned with the contract based on eli gibility at time of application and move forward. If the November ballot passes, the City would not be eligible to apply in future funding cycles. Please let me know if your City Attorney agrees or if there are additional questions . Thanks , • Tamra Norton Marijuana Impact Grant Program Manager AV ~~!~n~o~~ ''"' Orv1-;tnn cl. L(.X?il f...t."":'•lf'rnm P 303.864.7734 I F 303.353.0751 1313 Sherman St., Room 521, Denver, CO 80203 tamra.norton@state.co.us I dola.colorado.gov/dlg • • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 44 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GILLIT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS (DOLA) AND THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO WHEREAS, C.R.S 29-1-203 as well as Article XIV § 18(2) of the Colorado Constitution encourage governmental entities to make efficient and effective use of their powers and responsibilities through cooperation and the execution of intergovernmental agreements; and WHEREAS, this Grant exists in C.R.S. 24-32-106 and 29-3 .5-101 and funds have been budgeted, appropriated and otherwise made available pursuant to C.R.S. 24-32-117 (Marijuana Cash Fund) and a sufficient unencumbered balance thereof remains available for payment; and WHEREAS, the City of Englewood applied for and has been awarded a Marijuana Impact Grant of $12,436.00; and WHEREAS, federal funds from the U.S. Department of Justice fund are used; and WHEREAS, the passage of this Ordinance authorizes acceptance of the Marijuana Impact . Grant Funds from the State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) will be used by the Englewood Police Department to purchase equipment consisting of personal protection equipment, air monitor, and camera for the City of Englewood Police Department. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes the acceptance of a grant from the State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to assist the Englewood Police Department in purchasing equipment consisting of the purchase of personal protection equipment, air monitor and camera to deal with the impacts from the sale, transfer, cultivation, or processing of retail marijuana or any illegal activity related to marijuana, attached hereto as "Exhibit A". Section 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Intergovernmental Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Englewood. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 7th day of November, 2016 . Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 10th day of • November, 2016. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 9th day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days . Read by title and passed on final reading on the 21st day of November, 2016. Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No._, Series of 2016, on the 24th day of November, 2016. Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 23rd day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days . Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST : Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No ._, Series of 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis • • MJ #16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 GRANT AGREEMENT Between STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS Identification #s: Encumbrance #: Contract Management System #: Project Information: Project/Award Number: Project Name: Performance Period: Brief Description of Project I Assistance : Program & Funding Information: And CITY OF ENGLEWOOD F17MJ16008 94733 MJ 16-008 Summary Award Amount : $12.436 .00 (DOLA 's primary identification #) (State of Colorado 's tracking #) Englewood PD Equipment 2016 Start Date: End Date: 9/30/2017 The Project consists of the purchase of personal protection equipment, air monitor. and camera for the City of Englewood Police Department. Program Name Marijuana Impact Grant Program Funding source: State Funds Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number (iffederal funds): NI A Funding Account Codes : E x H I B I T A MJ # 16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND NOTICE OF NONLIABILITY ................................................................................................. 2 3. RECITALS ........................................................................................................................................................................... 2 4. DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 5. TERM ................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 6. STATEMENT OF WORK ................................................................................................................................................... 5 7. PAYMENTS TO GRANTEE ............................................................................................................................................... 5 8. REPORTING -NOTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................................ 6 9 . GRANTEE RECORDS ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 10. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION-STATE RECORDS ................................................................................................. 7 11 . CONFLICTS OF INTEREST ............................................................................................................................................ 8 12 . REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES .................................................................................................................. 8 13. INSURANCE ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 14. BREACH .......................................................................................................................................................................... 11 15. REMEDIES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 11 16. NOTICES and REPRESENTATIVES ............................................................................................................................. 14 17 . RIGHTS IN DATA, DOCUMENTS, AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE ........................................................................ 14 18 . GOVERNMENT AL IMMUNITY ................................................................................................................................... 14 19. STATEWIDE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .............................................................................................. 14 20. RESTRICTION ON PUBLIC BENEFITS ....................................................................................................................... 15 21. GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 15 22. COLORADO SPECIAL PROVISIONS .......................................................................................................................... 18 SIGNATURE PAGE .............................................................................................................................................................. 20 EXIDBIT A-RESERVED. EXIDBIT B -SCOPE OF PROJECT EXIDBIT C -RESERVED . EXIDBIT D-RESERVED. EXIDBIT E -RESERVED . EXIDBIT F -RESERVED. EXIDBIT G -FORM OF OPTION LETTER FORM I -RESERVED. 1. PARTIES This Agreement (hereinafter called "Grant") is entered into by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD (hereinafter called "Grantee"), and the ST A TE OF COLORADO acting by and through the Department of Local Affairs for the benefit of the Division of Local Government (hereinafter called the "State" or "DOLA"). 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND NOTICE OF NONLIABILITY. This Grant shall not be effective or enforceable until it is approved and signed by the Colorado State Controller or designee (hereinafter called the "Effective Date"). The State shall not be liable to pay or reimburse Grantee for any performance hereunder, including, but not limited to costs or expenses incurred, or be bound by any provision hereof prior to (see checked option(s) below): A. IZI The Effective Date. B. 0 The Effective Date; provided, however, that all Project costs, if specifically authorized by the federal funding authority, incurred on or after March l, 20XX, may be submitted for reimbursement as if incurred after the Effective Date . C. 0 insert date for authorized Pre-agreement Costs (as such term is defined in §4), if specifically authorized by the funding authority . Such costs may be submitted for reimbursement as if incurred after the Effective Date . 3. RECITALS Page 2 of20 • • MJ # 16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 A. Authority, Appropriation, and Approval Authority to enter into this Grant exists in C.R.S. 24-32-106 and 29-3.5-101 and funds have been budgeted, appropriated and otherwise made available pursuant to C .R.S. 24-32-117 (Marijuana Tax Cash Fund) and a sufficient unencumbered balance thereof remains available for payment. Required approvals, clearance and coordination have been accomplished from and with appropriate agencies. B. Consideration The Parties acknowledge that the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and other good and valuable consideration are sufficient and adequate to support this Grant. C. Purpose The purpose of this Grant is described in Exhibit B. D. References All references in this Grant to sections (whether spelled out or using the §symbol), subsections, exhibits or other attachments, are references to sections, subsections, exhibits or other attachments contained herein or incorporated as a part hereof, unless otherwise noted. 4. DEFINITIONS The following terms as used herein shall be construed and interpreted as follows: A. Budget "Budget" means the budget for the Project and/or Work described in Exhibit B. B. Closeout Certification "Closeout Certification" means the Grantee's certification of completion of Work submitted on a form provided by the State. C. Evaluation "Evaluation" means the process of examining Grantee's Work and rating it based on criteria established in §6 and Exhibit B. D. Exhibits and other Attachments The following are attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein: i. Exhibit B (Scope of Project) ii. Exhibit G (Form of Option Letter) E. Goods "Goods" means tangible material acquired, produced, or delivered by Grantee either separately or in conjunction with the Services Grantee renders hereunder. F. Grant "Grant" means this agreement, its terms and conditions, attached exhibits, documents incorporated by reference pursuant to the terms of this Grant, and any future modifying agreements, exhibits, attachments or references incorporated herein pursuant to Colorado State law, Fiscal Rules, and State Controller Policies. G. Grant Funds "Grant Funds" means available funds payable by the State to Grantee pursuant to this Grant. H. Party or Parties "Party" means the State or Grantee and "Parties" means both the State and Grantee. I. Pay Request(s) "Pay Request(s)" means the Grantee's reimbursement request(s) submitted on form(s) provided by the State . J. Pre-agreement costs "Pre-agreement costs," when applicable, means the costs incurred on or after the date as specified in §2 above, and prior to the Effective Date of this Grant. Such costs shall have been detailed in Grantee's grant application and specifically authorized by the State and incorporated herein pursuant to Exhibit B. K. Project "Project" means the overall project described in Exhibit B, which includes the Work. L. Project Closeout Page 3 of20 MJ # 16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 "Project Closeout" means the submission by the Grantee to the State of an actual final Pay Request, a final • Status Report and a Closeout Certification. M. Program "Program" means the grant program specified on the first page of this Grant that provides the funding for this Grant. N. Review "Review" means examining Grantee 's Work to ensure that it is adequate, accurate, correct and in accordance with the criteria established in §6 and Exhibit B. 0. Services "Services" means the required services to be performed by Grantee pursuant to this Grant. P. Status Report(s) "Status Report(s)" means the Grantee 's status report(s) on the Work/Project submitted on form(s) provided by the State. Q. Subcontractor "Subcontractor" means third-parties, if any, engaged by Grantee to carry out specific vendor related services. R. Subgrantee "Subgrantee" means third-parties, if any, engaged by Grantee to aid in performance of its obligations . Subgrantee is bound b y the same overall programmatic and grant requirements as Grantee . S. Subject Property "Subject Property" means the real property, if any , for which Grant Funds are used to acquire , construct, or rehabilitate. T. Substantial Progress in the Work "Substantial Progress in the Work" means Grantee meets all deliverables and performance measures within the time frames specified in Exhibit B. ll~~ • "Work" means the tasks and activities Grantee is required to perform to fulfill its obligations under this Grant and Exhibit B, including the performance of the Services and delivery of the Goods . V. Work Product "Work Product" means the tangible or intangible results of Grantee 's Work, including, but not limited to , software, research, reports, studies, data, photographs , negatives or other finished or unfinished documents, drawings, models, surveys, maps, materials, or work product of any type, including drafts. 5. TERM A. Initial Term-Work Commencement Unless otherwise permitted in §2 above, the Parties ' respective performances under this Grant shall commence on the Effective Date. This Grant shall terminate on September 30, 2017 unless sooner terminated or further extended as specified elsewhere herein . B. Two Month Extension The State, at its sole discretion upon written notice to Grantee as provided in §16, may unilaterally extend the term of this Grant for a period not to exceed two months if the Parties are negotiating a replacement Grant (and not merely seeking a term extension) at or near the end of any initial term or any extension thereof. The provisions of this Grant in effect when such notice is given, including, but not limited to prices, rates, and delivery requirements , shall remain in effect during the two month extension. The two- month extension shall immediately terminate when and if a replacement Grant is approved and signed by the Colorado State Controller. Page 4 of20 • MJ #16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 6. STATEMENT OF WORK A. Completion Grantee shall complete the Work and its other obligations as described herein and in Exhibit B. Except as specified in §2 above, the State shall not be liable to compensate Grantee for any Work performed prior to the Effective Date or after the termination of this Grant. B. Goods and Services Grantee shall procure Goods and Services necessary to complete the Work. Such procurement shall be accomplished using the Grant Funds and shall not increase the maximum amount payable hereunder by the State. C. Employees All persons employed by Grantee or Subgrantees shall be considered Grantee's or Subgrantees' employee(s) for all purposes hereunder and shall not be employees of the State for any purpose as a result of this Grant. 7. PAYMENTS TO GRANTEE The State shall, in accordance with the provisions of this §7, pay Grantee in the following amounts and using the methods set forth below: A. Maximum Amount The maximum amount payable under this Grant to Grantee by the State is $12,436.00 (TWELVE THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED THffiTY SIX and XX/100 DOLLARS), as determined by the State from available funds. Grantee agrees to provide any additional funds required for the successful completion of the Work. Payments to Grantee are limited to the unpaid obligated balance of the Grant as set forth in Exhibit B. B. Payment i. Advance, Interim and Final Payments Any payment allowed under this Grant or in Exhibit B shall comply with State Fiscal Rules and be made in accordance with the provisions of this Grant or such Exhibit. Grantee shall initiate any payment requests by submitting invoices to the State in the form and manner set forth and approved by the State. ii. Interest The State shall not pay interest on Grantee invoices. The State shall fully pay each invoice within 45 days of receipt thereof if the amount invoiced represents performance by Grantee previously accepted by the State. iii. Available Funds-Contingency-Termination The State is prohibited by law from making fiscal commitments beyond the term of the State's current fiscal year. Therefore, Grantee's compensation is contingent upon the continuing availability of State appropriations as provided in the Colorado Special Provisions, set forth below. If federal funds are used with this Grant in whole or in part, the State's performance hereunder is contingent upon the continuing availability of such funds. Payments pursuant to this Grant shall be made only from available funds encumbered for this Grant and the State's liability for such payments shall be limited to the amount remaining of such encumbered funds. If State or federal funds are not fully appropriated, or otherwise become unavailable for this Grant, the State may immediately terminate this Grant in whole or in part to the extent of funding reduction without further liability in accordance with the provisions herein. iv. Erroneous Payments At the State's sole discretion, payments made to Grantee in error for any reason, including, but not limited to overpayments or improper payments, and unexpended or excess funds received by Grantee, may be recovered from Grantee by deduction from subsequent payments under this Grant or other grants or agreements between the State and Grantee or by other appropriate methods and collected as a debt due to the State. Such funds shall not be paid to any person or entity other than the State. C. Use of Funds Grant Funds shall be used only for eligible costs identified herein and/or in Exhibit B. Page 5 of20 MJ #16-008-Englewood PD Equipment 2016 i. Budget Line Item Adjustments. Modifications to uses of such Grant Funds shall be made in accordance with §4.4 of Exhibit B. For line item adjustments, the State will provide written notice to Grantee in a form substantially equivalent to Exhibit G ("Option Letter"). If exercised, the provisions of the Option Letter shall become part of, and be incorporated into, this Grant. D. Matching/Leveraged Funds Grantee shall provide matching and/or leveraged funds in accordance with Exhibit B. 8. REPORTING -NOTIFICATION Reports, Evaluations, and Reviews required under this §8 shall be in accordance with the procedures of and in such form as prescribed by the State and in accordance with §19, if applicable. A. Performance, Progress, Personnel, and Funds State shall submit a report to the Grantee upon expiration or sooner termination of this Grant, containing an Evaluation and Review of Grantee's performance and the final status of Grantee's obligations hereunder. In addition, Grantee shall comply with all reporting requirements, if any , set forth in Exhibit B. B. Litigation Reporting Within 10 days after being served with any pleading in a legal action filed with a court or administrative agency, related to this Grant or which may affect Grantee's ability to perform its obligations hereunder, Grantee shall notify the State of such action and deliver copies of such pleadings to the State's principal representative as identified herein. If the State's principal representative is not then serving, such notice and copies shall be delivered to the Executive Director of DOLA. C. Performance Outside the State of Colorado and/or the United States [Not applicable if Grant Funds include any federal funds] Following the Effective Date, Grantee shall provide written notice to the State, in accordance with §16 (Notices and Representatives), within 20 days of the earlier to occur of Grantee's decision to perform, or • its execution of an agreement with a Subgrantee to perform, Services outside the State of Colorado and/or • the United States. Such notice shall specify the type of Services to be performed outside the State of Colorado and/or the United States and the reason why it is necessary or advantageous to perform such Services at such location or locations. All notices received by the State pursuant to this §8.C shall be posted on the Colorado Department of Personnel & Administration's website . Knowing failure by Grantee to provide notice to the State under this §8.C shall constitute a material breach of this Grant. D. Noncompliance Grantee's failure to provide reports and notify the State in a timely manner in accordance with this §8 may result in the delay of payment of funds and/or termination as provided under this Grant. E. Subgrants/Subcontracts Copies of any and all subgrants and subcontracts entered into by Grantee to perform its obligations hereunder shall be submitted to the State or its principal representative upon request by the State . Any and all subgrants and subcontracts entered into by Grantee related to its performance hereunder shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and shall provide that such subgrants be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. 9. GRANTEE RECORDS Grantee shall make, keep, maintain and allow inspection and monitoring of the following records: A. Maintenance Grantee shall make, keep, maintain, and allow inspection and monitoring by the State of a complete file of all records, documents, communications, notes and other written materials, electronic media files, and communications, pertaining in any manner to the Work or the delivery of Services (including, but not limited to the operation of programs) or Goods hereunder. Grantee shall maintain such records (the "Record Retention Period") until the last to occur of the following: (i) a period of five years after the date this Grant is completed or terminated, or final payment is made hereunder, whichever is later, or (ii) for such further period as may be necessary to resolve any pending matters, or • Page 6 of20 MJ # 16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 (iii) if an audit is occurring, or Grantee has received notice that an audit is pending, then until such audit has been completed and its findings have been resolved. B. Inspection Grantee shall permit the State, the federal government (if Grant Funds include federal funds) and any other duly authorized agent of a governmental agency to audit, inspect, examine, excerpt, copy and/or transcribe Grantee's records related to this Grant during the Record Retention Period for a period of five years following termination of this Grant or final payment hereunder, whichever is later, to assure compliance with the terms hereof or to evaluate Grantee's performance hereunder. The State reserves the right to inspect the Work at all reasonable times and places during the term of this Grant, including any extension. If the Work fails to conform to the requirements of this Grant, the State may re.quire Grantee promptly to bring the Work into confomiity with Grant requirements, at Grantee's sole expense. If the Work cannot be brought into conformance by re-performance or other corrective measures, the State may require Grantee to take necessary action to ensure that future performance conforms to Grant requirements and exercise the remedies available under this Grant, at Jaw or in equity in lieu of or in conjunction with such corrective measures. C. Monitoring Grantee shall permit the State, the federal government (if Grant Funds include federal funds), and other governmental agencies having jurisdiction, in their sole discretion, to monitor all activities conducted by Grantee pursuant to the terms of this Grant using any reasonable procedure, including, but not limited to: internal evaluation procedures, examination of program data, special analyses, on-site checking, formal audit examinations, or any other procedures. All monitoring controlled by the State shall be performed in a manner that shall not unduly interfere with Grantee's performance hereunder. D. Final Audit Report Grantee shall provide a copy of its audit report(s) to DOLA as specified in Exhibit B. 10. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION-STATE RECORDS Grantee shall comply with the provisions of this §10 if it becomes privy to confidential information in connection with its performance hereunder. Confidential information, includes, but is not necessarily limited to, state records, personnel records, and information concerning individuals. A. Confidentiality Grantee shall keep all State records and information confidential at all times and comply with all laws and regulations concerning confidentiality of information. Any request or demand by a third party for State records and information in the possession of Grantee shall be immediately forwarded to the State's principal representative . B. Notification Grantee shall notify its agent, employees, Subgrantees, and assigns who may come into contact with State records and confidential information that each is subject to the confidentiality requirements set forth herein, and shall provide each with a written explanation of such requirements before they are permitted to access such records and information. C. Use, Security, and Retention Confidential information of any kind shall not be distributed or sold to any third party or used by Grantee or its agents in any way, except as authorized by this Grant or approved in writing by the State. Grantee shall provide and maintain a secure environment that ensures confidentiality of all State records and other confidential information wherever located. Confidential information shall not be retained in any files or otherwise by Grantee or its agents, except as permitted in this Grant or approved in writing by the State. D. Disclosure-Liability Disclosure of State records or other confidential information by Grantee for any reason may be cause for legal action by third parties against Grantee, the State or their respective agents . Grantee shall, to the extent permitted by law, indemnify, save, and hold harmless the State, its employees and agents, against any and all claims, damages, liability and court awards including costs, expenses, and attorney fees and related costs, incurred as a result of any act or omission by Grantee, or its employees, agents, Subgrantees, or assignees pursuant to this §10. Page 7 of20 MJ #16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 11. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Grantee shall not engage in any business or personal activities or practices or maintain any relationships which conflict in any way with the full performance of Grantee's obligations hereunder. Grantee acknowledges that with respect to this Grant, even the appearance of a conflict of interest is harmful to the State's interests. Absent the State's prior written approval , Grantee shall refrain from any practices, activities or relationships that reasonably appear to be in conflict with the full performance of Grantee's obligations to the State hereunder. If a conflict or appearance exists, or if Grantee is uncertain whether a conflict or the appearance of a conflict of interest exists, Grantee shall submit to the State a disclosure statement setting forth the relevant details for the State's consideration. Failure to promptly submit a disclosure statement or to follow the State's direction in regard to the apparent conflict constitutes a breach of this Grant. 12. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES Grantee makes the following specific representations and warranties, each of which was relied on by the State in entering into this Grant. A. Standard and Manner of Performance Grantee shall perform its obligations hereunder in accordance with the highest standards of care, skill and diligence in the industry, trades or profession and in the sequence and manner set forth in this Grant. B. Legal Authority-Grantee and Grantee's Signatory Grantee warrants that it possesses the legal authority to enter into this Grant and that it has taken all actions required by its procedures, by-laws, and/or applicable laws to exercise that authority, and to lawfully authorize its undersigned signatory to execute this Grant, or any part thereof, and to bind Grantee to its terms. If requested by the State, Grantee shall provide the State with proof of Grantee's authority to enter into this Grant within 15 days of receiving such request. C. Licenses, Permits, Etc. Grantee represents and warrants that as of the Effective Date it has, and that at all times during the term • hereof it shall have, at its sole expense, all licenses, certifications, approvals, insurance, permits, and other • authorization required by law to perform its obligations hereunder. Grantee warrants that it shall maintain all necessary licenses, certifications, approvals, insurance, permits, and other authorizations required to properly perform this Grant, without reimbursement by the State or other adjustment in Grant Funds. Additionally, all employees and agents of Grantee performing Services under this Grant shall hold all required licenses or certifications, if any, to perform their responsibilities . Grantee, if a foreign corporation or other foreign entity transacting business in the State of Colorado, further warrants that it currently has obtained and shall maintain any applicable certificate of authority to transact business in the State of Colorado and has designated a registered agent in Colorado to accept service of process. Any revocation, withdrawal or non-renewal of licenses, certifications, approvals, insurance, permits or any such similar requirements necessary for Grantee to properly perform the terms of this Grant shall be deemed to be a material breach by Grantee and constitute grounds for termination of this Grant. 13. INSURANCE Grantee and its Subgrantees shall obtain and maintain insurance as specified in this section at all times during the term of this Grant: All policies evidencing the insurance coverage required hereunder shall be issued by insurance companies satisfactory to Grantee and the State . A. Grantee i. Public Entities If Grantee is a "public entity" within the meaning of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, CRS §24-10-10 l, et seq ., as amended (the "GIA"), then Grantee shall maintain at all times during the term of this Grant such liability insurance, by commercial policy or self-insurance, as is necessary to meet its liabilities under the GIA. Grantee shall show proof of such insurance satisfactory to the State, if requested by the State. Grantee shall require each subgrant with Subgrantees that are public entities, providing Goods or Services hereunder, to include the insurance requirements necessary to meet Subgrantee's liabilities under the GIA. Page 8 of20 MJ #16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 ii. Non-Public Entities If Grantee is not a "public entity" within the meaning of the GIA, Grantee shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Grant insurance coverage and policies meeting the same requirements set forth in §13(B) with respect to Subgrantees that are not "public entities". B. Grantees, Subgrantees and Subcontractors Grantee shall require each subgrant with Subgrantees and each contract with Subcontractors, other than those that are public entities, providing Goods or Services in connection with this Grant, to include insurance requirements substantially similar to the following: i. Workers' Compensation Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by State statute, and Employer's Liability Insurance covering all of Grantee, Subgrantee and Subcontractor employees acting within the course and scope of their employment. ii. General Liability Commercial General Liability Insurance written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 10/93 or equivalent, covering premises operations, fire damage, independent contractors, products and completed operations, blanket contractual liability, personal injury, and advertising liability with minimum limits as follows: (a) $1,000,000 each occurrence; (b) $1,000,000 general aggregate; (c) $1,000,000 products and completed operations aggregate; and (d) $50,000 any one fire. iii. Automobile Liability Automobile Liability Insurance covering any auto (including owned, hired and non-owned autos) with a minimum limit of $1,000,000 each accident combined single limit. iv. Malpractice/Professional Liability Insurance This section D shall I [8J shall not apply to this Grant. Grantee, Subgrantees and Subcontractors shall maintain in full force and effect a Professional Liability Insurance Policy in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence and $1,000,000 in the aggregate, written on an occurrence form, that provides coverage for its work undertaken pursuant to this Grant. If a policy written on an occurrence form is not commercially available, the claims-made policy shall remain in effect for the duration of this Grant and for at least two years beyond the completion and acceptance of the work under this Grant, or, alternatively, a two year extended reporting period must be purchased. The Grantee, Subgrantee or Subcontractor shall be responsible for all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney's fees, arising out of or resulting from such party's performance of professional services under this Grant, a subcontract or subgrant. v. Umbrella Liability Insurance For construction projects exceeding $10,000,000, Grantee, Subgrantees and Subcontractors shall maintain umbrella/excess liability insurance on an occurrence basis in excess of the underlying insurance described in §13B(i)-(iv) above. Coverage shall follow the terms of the underlying insurance, included the additional insured and waiver of subrogation provisions. The amounts of insurance required in subsections above may be satisfied by the Grantee, Subgrantee and Subcontractor purchasing coverage for the limits specified or by any combination of underlying and umbrella limits, so long as the total amount of insurance is not less than the limits specified in each section previously mentioned. The insurance shall have a minimum amount of $5,000,000 per occurrence and $5,000,000 in the aggregate. vi. Property Insurance This subsection shall apply if Grant Funds are provided for the acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation of real property. Insurance on the buildings and other improvements now existing or hereafter erected on the premises and on the fixtures and personal property included in the Subject Property against loss by fire, other hazards covered by the so called "all risk" form of policy and such other perils as State shall from time to time require with respect to properties of the nature and in the geographical area of the Subject Property, and to be in an amount at least equal to the replacement cost value of the Subject Property. Grantor will at its sole cost and expense, from time to time and at any time, at the request of State provide State with evidence satisfactory to State of the replacement cost of the Subject Property. Page 9 of20 MJ # 16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 vii.Flood Insurance If the Subject Property or any part thereof is at any time located in a designated official flood hazard • area, flood insurance insuring the buildings and improvements now existing or hereafter erected on the Subject Property and the personal property used in the operation thereof in an amount equal to the lesser of the amount required for property insurance identified in §vi above or the maximum limit of coverage made available with respect to such buildings and improvements and personal property under applicable federal Jaws and the regulations issued thereunder. viii. Builder's Risk Insurance This subsection shall apply if Grant Funds are provided for construction or rehabilitation of real property. Grantee, Subgrantee and/or Subcontractor shall purchase and maintain property insurance written on a builder's risk "all-risk" or equivalent policy form in the amount of the initial construction/rehabilitation costs, plus value of subsequent modifications and cost of materials supplied or installed by others, comprising total value for the entire Project at the site on a replacement cost basis without optional deductibles. Such property insurance shall be maintained, unless otherwise agreed in writing by all persons and entities who are beneficiaries of such insurance, until final payment has been made or until no person or entity other than the property owner has an insurable interest in the property. a) The insurance shall include interests of the property owner, Grantee, Subgrantee, Subcontractors in the Project as named insureds. b) All associated deductibles shall be the responsibility of the Grantee, Subcontractor and Subgrantee. Such policy may have a deductible clause but not to exceed $10,000. c) Property insurance shall be on an "all risk" or equivalent policy form and shall include, without limitation, insurance against the perils of fire (with extended coverage) and physical loss or damage including, without duplication of coverage, theft, vandalism, malicious mischief, collapse, earthquake, flood, windstorm, falsework, testing and startup, temporary buildings and debris removal including demolition occasioned by enforcement of any applicable legal requirements, and shall cover reasonable compensation for Grantee's, Subgrantee's and Subcontractor's services and expenses required as a result of such insured loss. d) Builders Risk coverage shall include partial use by Grantee and/or property owner. e) The amount of such insurance shall be increased to include the cost of any additional work to be done on the Project, or materials or equipment to be incorporated in the Project, under other independent contracts Jet or to be Jet. In such event, Subgrantee and Subcontractor shall be reimbursed for this cost as his or her share of the insurance in the same ratio as the ratio of the insurance represented by such independent contracts Jet or to be let to the total insurance carried. ix. Pollution Liability Insurance If Grantee and/or its Subgrantee or Subcontractor is providing directly or indirectly work with pollution/environmental hazards, they must provide or cause those conducting the work to provide Pollution Liability Insurance coverage. Pollution Liability policy must include contractual liability coverage. The policy limits shall be in the amount of $1,000,000 with maximum deductible of $25,000 to be paid by the Grantee's Subcontractor and/or Subgrantee. C. Miscellaneous Insurance Provisions Certificates of Insurance and/or insurance policies required under this Grant shall be subject to the following stipulations and additional requirements: i. Deductible. Any and all deductibles or self-insured retentions contained in any Insurance policy shall be assumed by and at the sole risk of the Grantee, its Subgrantees or Subcontractors, • ii. In Force. If any of the said policies shall fail at any time to meet the requirements of the Grant as to form or substance, or if a company issuing any such policy shall be or at any time cease to be approved by the Division oflnsurance of the State of Colorado, or be or cease to be in compliance with any stricter requirements of the Grant, the Grantee, its Sub grantee and its Subcontractor shall • promptly obtain a new policy. Page 10 of20 MJ #16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 iii. Insurer. All requisite insurance shall be obtained from financially responsible insurance companies, authorized to do business in the State of Colorado and acceptable to Grantee, iv. Additional Insured Grantee and the State shall be named as additional insureds on the Commercial General Liability and Automobile Liability Insurance policies (leases and construction Grants require additional insured coverage for completed operations on endorsements CG 2010 11 /85, CG 2037, or equivalent). v. Primacy of Coverage Coverage required of Grantee, Subgrantees and Subcontractors shall be primary over any insurance or self-insurance program carried by Grantee or the State. vi. Cancellation The above insurance policies shall include provisions preventing cancellation or non-renewal without at least 45 days prior notice to the Grantee and Grantee shall forward such notice to the State in accordance with §16 (Notices and Representatives) within seven days of Grantee's receipt of such notice. vii.Subrogation Waiver All insurance policies in any way related to this Grant and secured and maintained by Grantee or its Subgrantees and Subcontractors as required herein shall include clauses stating that each carrier shall waive all rights of recovery, under subrogation or otherwise, against Grantee or the State, its agencies, institutions, organizations, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers. D. Certificates Grantee, Subgrantee and Subcontractor shall provide certificates showing insurance coverage required her.eunder to the State within seven business days of the Effective Date of this Grant or of their respective subcontract or subgrant. No later than 15 days prior to the expiration date of any such coverage, Grantee, Subgrantee and Subcontractor shall deliver to the State or Grantee certificates of insurance evidencing renewals thereof. In addition, upon request by the State at any other time during the term of this Grant, sub grant or subcontract, Grantee, Sub grantee and Subcontractor shall, within 10 days of such request, supply to the State evidence satisfactory to the State of compliance with the provisions of this §13. 14. BREACH A. Defined In addition to any breaches specified in other sections ohhis Grant, the failure of either Party to perform any of its material obligations hereunder in whole or in part or in a timely or satisfactory manner, constitutes a breach. The institution of proceedings under any bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or similar law, by or against Grantee, or the appointment of a receiver or similar officer for Grantee or any of its property, which is not vacated or fully stayed within 20 days after the institution or occurrence thereof, shall also constitute a breach. B. Notice and Cure Period In the event of a breach, notice of such shall be given in writing by the aggrieved Party to the other Party in the manner provided in §16. If such breach is not cured within 30 days of receipt of written notice, or if a cure cannot be completed within 30 days, or if cure of the breach has not begun within 30 days and pursued with due diligence, the State may exercise any of the remedies set forth in §15. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the State, in its sole discretion, need not provide advance notice or a cure period and may immediately terminate this Grant in whole or in part if reasonably necessary to preserve public safety or to prevent immediate public crisis. 15. REMEDIES If Grantee is in breach under any provision of this Grant or if the State terminates this Grant pursuant to §15(B), the State shall have the remedies listed in this §15 in addition to all other remedies set forth in other sections of this Grant following the notice and cure period set forth in §14(B), if applicable . The State may exercise any or all of the remedies available to it, in its sole discretion, concurrently or consecutively . A. Termination for Cause and/or Breach If Grantee fails to perform any of its obligations hereunder with such diligence as is required to ensure its completion in accordance with the provisions of this Grant and in a timely manner, the State may notify Page 11 of20 MJ # 16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 Grantee of such non-performance in accordance with the provisions herein . If Grantee thereafter fails to promptly cure such non-performance within the cure period, the State, at its option, may terminate this entire Grant or such part of this Grant as to which there has been delay or a failure to properly perform. Exercise by the State ofthis right shall not be deemed a breach of its obligations hereunder. Grantee shall continue performance of this Grant to the extent not terminated, if any. i. Obligations and Rights To the extent specified in any termination notice, Grantee shall not incur further obligations or render further performance hereunder past the effective date of such notice, and shall terminate outstanding orders and subgrants/subcontracts with third parties . However, Grantee shall complete and deliver to the State all Work, Services and Goods not cancelled by the termination notice and may incur obligations as are necessary to do so within this Grant's terms. At the sole discretion of the State, Grantee shall assign to the State all of Grantee's right, title, and interest under such terminated orders or subgrants/subcontracts. Upon termination, Grantee shall take timely, reasonable and necessary action to protect and preserve property in the possession of Grantee in which the State has an interest. All materials owned by the State in the possession of Grantee shall be immediately returned to the State. ii. Payments The State shall reimburse Grantee only for accepted performance up to the date of termination. If, after termination by the State, it is determined that Grantee was not in breach or that Grantee's action or inaction was excusable, such termination shall be treated as a termination in the public interest and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be the same as if this Grant had been terminated in the public interest, as described herein. iii. Damages and Withholding Notwithstanding any other remedial action by the State, Grantee also shall remain liable to the State for any damages sustained by the State by virtue of any breach under this Grant by Grantee and the State may withhold any payment to Grantee for the purpose of mitigating the State's damages, until such time as the exact amount of damages due to the State from Grantee is determined. The State may withhold any amount that may be due to Grantee as the State deems necessary to protect the State, including loss as a result of outstanding liens or claims of former lien holders, or to reimburse the State for the excess costs incurred in procuring similar goods or services . B. Early Termination in the Public Interest The State is entering into this Grant for the purpose of carrying out the public policy of the State of Colorado, as determined by its Governor, General Assembly, and/or Courts. If this Grant ceases to further the public policy of the State, the State, in its sole discretion, may terminate this Grant in whole or in part. Exercise by the State of this right shall not constitute a breach of the State's obligations hereunder. This subsection shall not apply to a termination of this Grant by the State for cause or breach by Grantee, which shall be governed by §lS(A) or as otherwise specifically provided for herein. i. Method and Content The State shall notify Grantee of such termination in accordance with §16 . The notice shall specify the effective date of the termination and whether it affects all or a portion of this Grant. ii. Obligations and Rights Upon receipt of a termination notice, Grantee shall be subject to and comply with the same obligations and rights set forth in §lS(A)(i). iii. Payments • • If this Grant is terminated by the State pursuant to this §lS(B), Grantee shall be paid an amount which bears the same ratio to the total reimbursement under this Grant as the Services satisfactorily performed bear to the total Services covered by this Grant, less payments previously made. Additionally, if this Grant is less than 60% completed, the State may reimburse Grantee for a portion of actual out-of-pocket expenses (not otherwise reimbursed under this Grant) incurred by Grantee which are directly attributable to the uncompleted portion of Grantee's obligations hereunder; provided that the sum of any and all reimbursement shall not exceed the maximum amount payable to • Grantee hereunder. Page 12 of20 MJ # 16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 C. Termination for No Substantial Progress in the Work The State may elect to terminate this Grant upon receipt and review of any Quarterly Progress Report, submitted per the time periods defined in Exhibit B, if such Quarterly Progress Report fails to evidence Substantial Progress in the Work as directed, defined and expected under Exhibit B. Further, the State may elect to terminate this Grant if the Grantee fails to complete Project Closeout within three months of completion of the Work. Exercise by the State of this right shall not be deemed a breach of its obligations hereunder. i. Obligations and Rights To the extent specified in any termination notice, Grantee shall not incur further obligations or render further performance hereunder past the effective date of such notice, and shall terminate outstanding orders and subgrants/subcontracts with third parties . However, Grantee shall complete and deliver to the State all Work, Services and Goods not cancelled by the termination notice and may incur obligations as are necessary to do so within this Grant's terms. At the sole discretion of the State, Grantee shall assign to the State all of Grantee's right, title, and interest under such terminated orders or subgrants/subcontracts. Upon termination, Grantee shall take timely, reasonable and necessary action to protect and preserve property in the possession of Grantee in which the State has an interest. All materials owned by the State in the possession of Grantee shall be immediately returned to the State. ii. Payments The State shall reimburse Grantee only for accepted performance up to the date of termination. iii. Damages and Withholding Notwithstanding any other remedial action by the State, Grantee also shall remain liable to the State for any damages sustained by the State by virtue of any breach under this Grant by Grantee and the State may withhold any payment to Grantee for the purpose of mitigating the State's damages, until such time as the exact amount of damages due to the State from Grantee is determined. The State may withhold any amount that may be due to Grantee as the State deems necessary to protect the State, including loss as a result of outstanding liens or claims of former lien holders, or to reimburse the State for the excess costs incurred in procuring similar goods or services. D. Remedies Not Involving Termination The State, at its sole discretion, may exercise one or more of the following remedies in addition to other remedies available to it: i. Suspend Performance Suspend Grantee's performance with respect to all or any portion of this Grant pending necessary corrective action as specified by the State without entitling Grantee to an adjustment in price/cost or performance schedule. Grantee shall promptly cease performance and incurring costs in accordance with the State's directive and the State shall not be liable for costs incurred by Grantee after the suspension of performance under this provision. ii. Withhold Payment Withhold payment to Grantee until corrections in Grantee's performance are satisfactorily made and completed. iii. Deny Payment Deny payment for those obligations not performed, that due to Grantee's actions or inactions, cannot be performed or, if performed, would be of no value to the State; provided, that any denial of payment shall be reasonably related to the value to the State of the obligations not performed. iv. Removal Demand removal of any of Grantee's employees, agents, or Subgrantees whom the State deems incompetent, careless, insubordinate, unsuitable, or otherwise unacceptable, or whose continued relation to this Grant is deemed to be contrary to the public interest or not in the State's best interest. v. Intellectual Property If Grantee infringes on a patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret or other intellectual property right while performing its obligations under this Grant, Grantee shall, at the State's option (a) obtain for the Page 13 of20 MJ #16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 State or Grantee the right to use such products and services; (b) replace any Goods, Services, or other • product involved with non-infringing products or modify them so that they become non-infringing; or, (c) if neither of the foregoing alternatives are reasonably available, remove any infringing Goods, Services, or products and refund the price paid therefore to the State. 16. NOTICES and REPRESENTATIVES Each individual identified below is the principal representative of the designating Party. All notices required to be given hereunder shall be hand delivered with receipt required or sent by certified or registered mail to such Party's principal representative at the address set forth below. In addition to, but not in lieu of a hard-copy notice, notice also may be sent by e-mail to the e-mail addresses, if any, set forth below. Either Party may from time to time designate by written notice substitute addresses or persons to whom such notices shall be sent. Unless otherwise provided herein, all notices shall be effective upon receipt. A. State: B. Grantee: Chantal Unfug, Division Director Division of Local Government Colorado Department of Local Affairs 1313 Sherman Street, Room 521 Denver, Colorado 80203 Email : chantal.unfug@ state.co .us Joe Jefferson, Mayor City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Email: iiefferson @ en11lewoodf!ov .01v 17. RIGHTS IN DATA, DOCUMENTS, AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE This section 0 shall I 0 shall not apply to this Grant. Any software, research, reports, studies, data, photographs, negatives or other documents, drawings, models, materials, or Work Product of any type, including drafts, prepared by Grantee in the performance of its obligations under this Grant shall be the exclusive property of the State and, all Work Product shall be delivered to the State by Grantee upon completion or termination hereof. The State 's exclusive rights in such Work Product shall include, but not be limited to, the right to copy, publish, display, transfer, and prepare derivative works. Grantee shall not use, willingly allow, cause or permit such Work Product to be used for any purpose other than the performance of Grantee's obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the State. 18. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, nothing herein shall constitute a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or other provisions of the GIA . Liability for claims for injuries to persons or property arising from the negligence of the State of Colorado, its departments, institutions, agencies, boards, officials, and employees is controlled and limited by the provisions of the GIA and the risk management statutes, CRS §24-30-1501, et seq., as amended. 19. STATEWIDE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM If the maximum amount payable to Grantee under this Grant is greater than $100,000 either on the Effective Date or at anytime thereafter, this §19 applies. Grantee agrees to be governed, and to abide, by the provisions of CRS §24-102-205, §24-102-206, §24-103-601, §24-103.5-101 and §24-105-102 concerning the monitoring of vendor performance on state Grants and inclusion of Grant performance information in a statewide Contract Management System. Grantee's performance shall be subject to Evaluation and Review in accordance with the terms and conditions of • this Grant, State law, including CRS §24-103.5-101, and State Fiscal Rules, Policies and Guidance . Evaluation • and Review of Grantee's performance shall be part of the normal Grant administration process and Grantee's performance will be systematically recorded in the statewide Contract Management System. Areas of Evaluation Page 14 of20 MJ #16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 and Review shall include, but shall not be limited to quality, cost and timeliness. Collection of information relevant to the performance of Grantee's obligations under this Grant shall be determined by the specific requirements of such obligations and shall include factors tailored to match the requirements of Grantee's obligations. Such performance information shall be entered into the statewide Contract Management System at intervals established herein and a final Evaluation, Review and Rating shall be rendered within 30 days of the end of the Grant term. Grantee shall be notified following each performance Evaluation and Review, and shall address or correct any identified problem in a timely manner and maintain work progress. Should the final performance Evaluation and Review determine that Grantee demonstrated a gross failure to meet the performance measures established hereunder, the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration (Executive Director), upon request by the Department of Local Affairs, and showing of good cause, may debar Grantee and prohibit Grantee from receiving future grants and bidding on future contracts . Grantee may contest the final Evaluation, Review and Rating by : (a) filing rebuttal statements, which may result in either removal or correction of the evaluation (CRS §24-105-102(6)), or (b) under CRS §24-105-102( 6), exercising the debarment protest and appeal rights provided in CRS § §24-109-106, 107, 201 or 202, which may result in the reversal of the debarment and reinstatement of Grantee, by the Executive Director, upon a showing of good cause. 20. RESTRICTION ON PUBLIC BENEFITS This section 0 shall I IZI shall not apply to this Grant. Grantee must confirm that any individual natural person is lawfully present in the United States pursuant to CRS §24-76.5-101 et seq. when such individual applies for public benefits provided under this Grant by requiring the applicant to: A. Produce an identification document in accordance with §2.1.1 through §2 .1.3 of Colorado Department of Revenue's Rule # 1 CCR 201-17, Rule for Evidence of Lawful Presence, as amended. B. Execute an affidavit herein attached as Form 1, Residency Declaration, stating i. That he or she is a United States citizen or legal permanent resident; or ii. That he or she is otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law. [The following applies if Grant is funded with federal funds]. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent that there is any conflict with the provisions above or those set forth in the Residency Declaration attached hereto as Form 1 and any provision of federal law, the provisions of federal law shall prevail. 21. GENERAL PROVISIONS A. Assignment and Subgrants Grantee 's rights and obligations hereunder are personal and may not be transferred, assigned or subgranted without the prior, written consent of the State. Any attempt at assignment, transfer, or subgranting without such consent shall be void. All assignments, subgrants, or subcontracts approved by Grantee or the State are subject to all of the provisions hereof. Grantee shall be solely responsible for all aspects of subgranting and subcontracting arrangements and performance. B. Binding Effect Except as otherwise provided in §21(A), all provisions herein contained, including the benefits and burdens, shall extend to and be binding upon the Parties' respective heirs, legal representatives, successors, and assigns. C. Captions The captions and headings in this Grant are for convenience of reference only, and shall not be used to interpret, define, or limit its provisions . D. Counterparts This Grant may be executed in multiple identical original counterparts, all of which shall constitute one agreement. Page 15 of20 MJ #16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 E. Entire Understanding This Grant represents the complete integration of all understandings between the Parties and all prior • representations and understandings, oral or written, are merged herein. Prior or contemporaneous additions, deletions, or other changes hereto shall not have any force or effect whatsoever, unless embodied herein. F. Indemnification-General Grantee shall, to the extent permitted by law, indemnify, save, and hold harmless the State, its employees and agents, against any and all claims, damages, liability and court awards including costs, expenses, and attorney fees and related costs, incurred as a result of any act or omission by Grantee, or its employees, agents, Subgrantees, or assignees pursuant to the terms of this Grant; however, the provisions hereof shall not be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protection, or other provisions, of the GIA, or the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671 et seq., as applicable, as now or hereafter amended. G. Jurisdiction and Venue All suits, actions, or proceedings related to this Grant shall be held in the State of Colorado and exclusive venue shall be in the City and County of Denver. H. Applicable Laws At all times during the performance of this Grant, Grantee shall comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and their implementing regulations, currently in existence and as hereafter amended. Grantee also shall require compliance with such laws and regulations by subgrantees under subgrants permitted by this Grant. I. Use Covenants This section 0 shall I !ZI shall not apply to this Grant: For Subject Property that is owned by Grantee upon execution of this Grant, Grantee shall record a Use Covenant substantially equivalent to Exhibit F with the county in which the property resides as soon as reasonably practicable after execution of this Grant. For Subject Property acquired by Grantee using Grant Funds, Grantee shall record a Use Covenant substantially equivalent to Exhibit F with the county in which the property resides as soon as reasonably practicable after acquisition of such property. J. Modification i. By the Parties If either the State or the Grantee desire to modify the terms of this Grant to either increase or decrease total awarded funds, make budget line item adjustments to Grant Funds, and/or change the performance period or term of the Grant, this may be achieved unilaterally by DOLA through an Option Letter (Exhibit G). Except as otherwise provided in this Grant, no modification shall be effective unless agreed to in writing by the Parties in an amendment, properly executed and approved in accordance with applicable Colorado State law, State Fiscal Rules, and Office of the State Controller Policies. Changes to the Grant shall be authorized for approval by the following State or DOLA parties: a) Approval by Division Director The Division Director of DOLA, or his delegee, shall have authority to approve changes to the Responsible Administrator and Key Personnel specified in §5 of Exhibit Band the Principal Representative in §16. b) Approval by DOLA Controller The DOLA Controller shall have authority to approve all changes to the Grant which are not reserved to the Division Director above. ii. By Operation of Law This Grant is subject to such modifications as may be required by changes in Federal or Colorado State law, or their implementing regulations . Any such required modification automatically shall be incorporated into and be part of this Grant on the effective date of such change, as if fully set forth herein. K. Order of Precedence The provisions of this Grant shall govern the relationship of the Parties. In the event of conflicts or inconsistencies between this Grant and its exhibits and attachments including, but not limited to, those Page 16 of20 • • MJ # 16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 provided by Grantee, such conflicts or inconsistencies shall be resolved by reference to the documents in the following order of priority: i. Colorado Special Provisions ii. The provisions of the main body of this Grant (excluding the cover page) iii. Any executed Option Letters iv. Exhibit B (Scope of Project) v. The cover page of this Grant L. Severability Provided this Grant can be executed and performance of the obligations of the Parties accomplished within its intent, the provisions hereof are severable and any provision that is declared invalid or becomes inoperable for any reason shall not affect the validity of any other provision hereof. M. Survival of Certain Grant Terms Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, provisions of this Grant requiring continued performance, compliance, or effect after termination hereof, shall survive such termination and shall be enforceable by the State if Grantee fails to perform or comply as required. N. Taxes The State is exempt from all federal excise taxes under IRC Chapter 32 (No. 84-730123K) and from all State and local government sales and use taxes under CRS §§39-26-101 and 201 et seq. Such exemptions apply when materials are purchased or services rendered to benefit the State; provided however, that certain political subdivisions (e.g., City of Denver) may require payment of sales or use taxes even though the product or service is provided to the State. Grantee shall be solely liable for paying such taxes as the State is prohibited from paying for or reimbursing Grantee for them. 0. Third Party Beneficiaries Enforcement of this Grant and all rights and obligations hereunder are reserved solely to the Parties, and not to any third party. Any services or benefits which third parties receive as a result of this Grant are incidental to the Grant, and do not create any rights for such third parties. P. Waiver Waiver of any breach of a term, provision, or requirement of this Grant, or any right or remedy hereunder, whether explicitly or by lack of enforcement, shall not be construed or deemed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of such term, provision or requirement, or of any other term, provision, or requirement. Q. CORA Disclosure To the extent not prohibited by federal law, this Grant and the performance measures and standards under CRS §24-103.5-101, if any, are subject to public release through the Colorado Open Records Act, CRS §24-72-101, et seq. THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 17 of20 MJ #16-008-Englewood PD Equipment 2016 22. COLORADO SPECIAL PROVISIONS A. The Special Provisions apply to all Grants except where noted in italics. i. CONTROLLER'S APPROVAL. CRS §24-30-202 (1). This Grant shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the Colorado State Controller or designee. ii. FUND AVAILABILITY. CRS §24-30-202(5.5). Financial obligations of the State payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available . iii. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY. No term or condition of this Grant shall be construed or interpreted as a w ai v er , express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections, or other provisions , of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, CRS §24-10-101 et seq., or the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C . §§1346(b) and 2671 et seq., as applicable now or hereafter amended. iv. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR • Grantee shall perform its duties hereunder as an independent Grantee and not as an employee. Neither Grantee nor any agent or employee of Grantee shall be deemed to be an agent or employee of the State . Grantee and its employees and agents are not entitled to unemployment insurance or workers compensation benefits through the State and the State shall not pay for or otherwise provide such coverage for Grantee or any of its agents or employees. Unemployment insurance benefits shall be available to Grantee and its employees and agents only if such coverage is made available by Grantee or a third party. Grantee shall pay when due all applicable employment taxes and income taxes and local head taxes incurred pursuant to this Grant. Grantee shall not have authorization, express or implied, to bind the State to any Grant, liability or understanding, except as expressly set forth herein. Grantee shall (a) provide and keep in force workers' compensation and unemployment compensation insurance in the amounts required by law, (b) provide proof thereof when requested by the State , and • (c) be solely responsible for its acts and those of its employees and agents. v. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. Grantee shall strictly comply with all applicable federal and State laws , rules, and regulations in effect or hereafter established, including, without limitation, laws applicable to discrimination and unfair employment practices . vi. CHOICE OF LAW. Colorado law , and rules and regulations issued pursuant thereto , shall be applied in the interpretation, execution, and enforcement of this grant. Any provision included or incorporated herein by reference which conflicts with said laws , rules , and regulations shall be null and void. Any provision incorporated herein by reference which purports to negate this or any other Special Provision in whole or in part shall not be valid or enforceable or available in any action at law , whether by way of complaint, defense , or otherwise. Any provision rendered null and void by the operation of this provision shall not invalidate the remainder of this Grant, to the extent capable of execution. vii.BINDING ARBITRATION PROHIBITED. The State of Colorado does not agree to binding arbitration by any extra-judicial body or person. Any provision to the contrary in this Grant or incorporated herein by reference shall be null and void . viii. SOFTWARE PIRACY PROHIBITION. Governor's Executive Order D 002 00. State or other public funds payable under this Grant shall not be used for the acquisition, operation , or maintenance of computer software in v iolation of federal copyright laws or applicable licensing restrictions. Grantee hereby certifies and warrants that, during the term of this Grant and any extensions , Grantee has and shall maintain in place appropriate sy stems and controls to prevent such improper use of public funds . If the State determines that Grantee is in v iolation of this prov ision , the State may exercise any remedy available at Jaw or in equity or under this Grant , including, without Page 18 of20 MJ #16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 limitation, immediate termination of this Grant and any remedy consistent with federal copyright laws or applicable licensing restrictions. ix. EMPLOYEE FINANCIAL INTEREST. CRS §§24-18-201and24-50-507. The signatories aver that to their knowledge, no employee of the State has any personal or beneficial interest whatsoever in the service or property described in this Grant. Grantee has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, that would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of Grantee's services and Grantee shall not employ any person having such known interests. x. VENDOR OFFSET. CRS §§24-30-202 (1) and 24-30-202.4. [Not applicable to intergovernmental agreements] Subject to CRS §24-30-202.4 (3 .5), the State Controller may withhold payment under the State's vendor offset intercept system for debts owed to State agencies for: (a) unpaid child support debts or child support arrearages; (b) unpaid balances of tax, accrued interest, or other charges specified in CRS §39-21-101, et seq.; (c) unpaid loans due to the Student Loan Division of the Department of Higher Education; ( d) amounts required to be paid to the Unemployment Compensation Fund; and (e) other unpaid debts owing to the State as a result of final agency determination or judicial action. xi. PUBLIC GRANTS FOR SERVICES. CRS §8-17.5-101. [Not applicable to agreements relating to the offer, issuance, or sale of securities, investment advisory services or fund management services, sponsored projects, intergovernmental Agreements, or information technology services or products and services] Grantee certifies, warrants, and agrees that it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who shall perform work under this Grant and shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States to perform work under this Grant, through participation in the E- Verify Program or the State program established pursuant to CRS §8-l 7.5-102(5)(c), Grantee shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Grant or enter into a grant with a Subgrantee that fails to certify to Grantee that the Subgrantee shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Grant. Grantee (a) shall not use E- Verify Program or State program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while this Grant is being performed, (b) shall notify the Sub grantee and the granting State agency within three days if Grantee has actual knowledge that a Subgrantee is employing or contracting with an illegal alien for work under this Grant, ( c) shall terminate the Sub grant if a Sub grantee does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien within three days of receiving the notice , and (d) shall comply with reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation, undertaken pursuant to CRS §8-17.5-102(5), by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If Grantee participates in the State program, Grantee shall deliver to the granting State agency, Institution of Higher Education or political subdivision, a written, notarized affirmation, affirming that Grantee has examined the legal work status of such employee, and shall comply with all of the other requirements of the State program. If Grantee fails to comply with any requirement of this provision or CRS §8- 17 .5-101 et seq., the granting State agency, institution of higher education or political subdivision may terminate this Grant for breach and, if so terminated, Grantee shall be liable for damages. xii.PUBLIC GRANTS WITH NATURAL PERSONS. CRS §24-76.5-101. Grantee, if a natural person eighteen (18) years of age or older, hereby swears and affirms under penalty of perjury that he or she (a) is a citizen or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (b) shall comply with the provisions ofCRS §24-76.5-101 et seq., and (c) has produced one form of identification required by CRS §24-76.5-103 prior to the Effective Date of this Grant. (Special Provisions -effective 111 /09) Page 19 of20 MJ #16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 CMS#94733 SIGNATURE PAGE THE PARTIES HERETO HA VE EXECUTED TIDS GRANT * Persons signing for Grantee hereby swear and affirm that they are authorized to act on Grantee's behalf and acknowledge that the State is relying on their representations to that effect. GRANTEE STATE OF COLORADO CITY OF ENGLEWOOD John W. Hickenlooper, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS By: Joe Jefferson Name of Authorized Individual (print) By: Title : Ma¥O:r: Irv Halter, Executive Director Official Title of Authorized Individual Date : *Signature Date : PRE-APPROVED FORM CONTRACT REVIEWER By: Rachel Harlow-Schalk, Financial Assistance Director Date: ALL GRANTS REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE STATE CONTROLLER CRS §24-30-202 requires the State Controller to approve all State grants. This Grant is not valid until signed and dated below by the State Controller or delegate. Grantee is not authorized to begin performance until such time. If Grantee begins performing prior thereto, the State of Colorado is not obligated to pay Grantee for such performance or for any goods and/or services provided hereunder. STATE CONTROLLER Robert Jaros, CPA By: ______________ _ Janet Miks, CPA, Controller Delegate Page 20 of20 • • MJ #16-008-Englewood PD Equipment 2016 EXHIBIT B -SCOPE OF PROJECT (SOP) 1. PURPOSE 1.1. Marijuana Impact. The purpose of the Marijuana Impact Grant Program is to assist eligible local governments who do not allow the sale ofretail marijuana within their jurisdictions, but are experiencing documented impacts from the sale, transfer, cultivation, or processing of retail marijuana or any illegal activity related to marijuana. 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT(S) AND WORK 2.1. Project Description. The Project consists of the purchase of personal protection equipment, air monitor, and camera for the City of Englewood Police Department. 2.2. Work Description. The City of Englewood (Grantee) shall purchase personal protection equipment (PPE), an air monitor, and camera for the Englewood Police Department. Grantee shall own all of the purchased equipment. 2.3. Responsibilities. Grantee shall be responsible for the completion of the Work and to provide required documentation to DOLA as specified herein. 2.3.1.Grantee shall notify DOLA at least 30 days in advance of Project Completion. 2.4. Recapture of Advanced Funds. To maximize the use of Grant Funds, the State shall evaluate Grantee's expenditure of the Grant Funds for timeliness and compliance with the terms of this Grant. DOLA reserves the right to recapture advanced Grant Funds when Grantee has not or is not complying with the terms of this Grant. 2.5. Eligible Expenses . Eligible expenses shall include: equipment and materials costs and freight costs . 3. DEFINITIONS 3.1. "Cumulative Budgetary Line Item Changes" means a cumulative or increasing accumulation of additional expenses within a specific line item as listed in §6.2 Budget within this Exhibit B. 3.2. Project Budget Line items. 3.2.1. "Equipment, Vehicles or Materials Acquisition" means vehicles, equipment and materials costs, freight costs, RFP/Bid advertisement costs, hardware , software and training costs, installation costs, and attorney's fees . 3.3. "Substantial Completion" means the Work is sufficiently complete in accordance with the Grant so it can be utilized for its intended purpose without undue interference . 4. DELNERABLES 4.1. Outcome. The final outcome of this Grant is the City of Englewood Police Department obtaining new equipment. 4.2. Service Area. The performance of the Work described within this Grant shall be located in Englewood, Colorado. 4 .3. Performance Measures. Grantee shall comply with the following performance measures: Milestone/Performance Measure/Grantee will: By: Provide DOLA with Project/Puchase Timeline December 30, 2016 Submit Quarterly Pay Requests See §4.5.2 below Submit Quarterly Status Reports See §4.5.2 below Submit Project Final Report December 29, 2017 4.4. Budget Line Item Adjustments. Page 1of4 MJ #16-008-Englewood PD Equipment 2016 4.4.1.Grantee may request that DOLA move Grant Funds between and among budget line items, so long • as the total amount of Grant Funds remains unchanged. To make such budget line item changes, DOLA will use an Option Letter (Exhibit G). 4.4.2.Grantee may increase or decrease the amount of any one or any combination of budget line items of "Other Funds" as described in §6.1, or move funds between and among budget line items of such "Other Funds," so long as the total amount of such "Other Funds" is not less than the amount set forth in §6.1 below . Grantee may increase the Total Project Cost with "Other Funds" and such change does not require an amendment. DOLA will verify the Grantee's contribution of "Other Funds" and compliance with this section at Project Closeout. 4.5. Quarterly Pay Request and Status Reports. Beginning 30 days after the end of the first quarter following execution of this Grant and for each quarter thereafter until termination of this Grant, Grantee shall submit Pay Requests and Status Reports using a form provided by the State. The State shall pay the Grantee for actual expenditures made in the performance of this Grant based on the submission of statements in the format prescribed by the State . The Grantee shall submit Pay Requests setting forth a detailed description and provide documentation of the amounts and types of reimbursable expenses . Pay Requests and Status Reports are due within 30 days of the end of the quarter but may be submitted more frequently at the discretion of the Grantee. 4.5.1.For quarters in which there are no expenditures to reimburse, Grantee shall indicate zero (0) in the request and specify status of the Work in the Status Report. The report will contain an update of expenditure of funds by line item as per §6.2 of this Exhibit B Scope of Project as well as a projection of all Work expected to be accomplished in the following quarter, including an estimate of Grant Funds to be expended. 4.5.2.Specific submittal dates. • Quarter Year Due Date Pay Request Status Report 4th (Oct-Dec) 2016 January 30, 2017 Yes Yes 1•1 (Jan-Mar) 2017 April 30, 2017 Yes Yes 2°d (Apr-Jun) 2017 July 30, 2017 Yes Yes 3rd (Jul-Sep) 2017 October 30, 2017 Yes Yes 4 .6 . DOLA Acknowledgment. The Grantee agrees to acknowledge the Colorado Department of Local Affairs in any and all materials or events designed to promote or educate the public about the Work and the Project, including but not limited to: press releases, newspaper articles, op-ed pieces, press conferences, presentations and brochures/pamphlets. 5. PERSONNEL 5.1. Replacement. Grantee shall immediately notify the State if any key personnel specified in §5 of this Exhibit B cease to serve . Provided there is a good-faith reason for the change, if Grantee wishes to replace its key personnel, it shall notify the State and seek its approval, which shall be at the State 's sole discretion, as the State executed this Grant in part reliance on Grantee 's representations regarding key personnel. Such notice shall specify why the change is necessary , who the proposed replacement is , what their qualifications are, and when the change will take effect. Anytime key personnel cease to serve, the State, in its sole discretion, may direct Grantee to suspend Work until such time as replacements are approved. All notices sent under this subsection shall be sent in accordance with §16 of the Grant. 5.2. Responsible Administrator. Grantee's performance hereunder shall be under the direct supervision of Jeff Sanchez, Deputy Police Chief (jsanchez@englewoodgov.org), an employee or agent of Grantee , who is hereby designated as the responsible administrator of this Project. Such administrator shall be updated through the approval process in §5.1. If this person is an agent of the Grantee, such person must have signature authority to bind the Grantee and must provide evidence of such authority. Page 2 of 4 • MJ #16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 5.3. Other Key Personnel. None. Such key personnel shall be updated through the approval process in §5.1. 6. FUNDING The State provided funds shall be limited to the amount specified under the "Grant Funds" column of §6.2, Budget, below. 6.1. Matching/Other Funds. Initial estimates of Grantee's contribution are noted in the "Other Funds" column of §6.2 below. Increases to Grantee's contribution to Total Project Cost do not require modification of this Grant Agreement and/or Exhibit B. 6.2. Budget Budget Line Item(s) - Equipment, Vehicles or Materials Acquisition Total 7. PAYMENT _-Total Cost -- . '.~: ·.: , .. $12,436 $12,436 Grant Funds -, $12 ,436 $12,436 -_ Other -•Other Fmids ::. · -:Furicls ' Source / ;-- $0 Grantee $0 Payments shall be made in accordance with this section and the provisions set forth in §7 of the Grant. 7.1. Payment Schedule. If Work is subcontracted or subgranted and such Subcontractors and/or Subgrantees are not previously paid, Grantee shall disburse Grant Funds received from the State to such Subcontractor or Subgrantee within fifteen days of receipt. Excess funds shall be returned to DOLA. Pa ent · --Amount Interim Payment(s) $11 ,379 Final Payment $621 Total $12,436 ·'·' .. .· ... ,. Paid upon receipt of actual expense documentation and written Pay Requests from the Grantee for reimbursement of eli ible a roved ex enses. Paid upon Substantial Completion of the Project (as determined by the State in its sole discretion), provided that the Grantee has submitted, and DOLA has acce ted, all re uired re orts. 7.2. Interest. Grantee or Subgrantee may keep interest earned from Grant Funds up to $100 per year for administrativ e expenses. 8. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS 8.1. Reporting . Grantee shall submit the following reports to DOLA using the State-provided forms . DOLA may withhold payment(s) if such reports are not submitted timely. 8.1.1.Quarterly Pay Request and Status Reports. Quarterly Pay Requests shall be submitted to DOLA in accordance with §4.6 of this Exhibit B. 8.1.2.Final Reports. Within 90 days after the completion of the Project, Grantee shall submit the final Pay Request and Status Report to DOLA. 8.2. Monitoring. DOLA shall monitor this Work on an as-needed basis. DOLA may choose to audit the records for activ ities performed under this Grant . Grantee shall maintain a complete file of all records , documents, communications , notes and other written materials or electronic media, files or communications, which pertain in any manner to the operation of activities undertaken pursuant to an executed Grant. Such books and records shall contain documentation of the Grantee 's pertinent activity under this Grant in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Page 3 of 4 MJ #16-008 -Englewood PD Equipment 2016 8.2.1.Subgrantee/Subcontractor. Grantee shall monitor its Subgrantees and/or Subcontractors, ifany, • during the term of this Grant. Results of such monitoring shall be documented by Grantee and maintained on file. 8.3. Bonds. If Project includes construction or facility improvements, Grantee and/or its contractor (or subcontractors) performing such work shall secure the bonds here under from companies holding certificates of authority as acceptable sureties pursuant to 31 CFR Part 223 and are authorized to do business in Colorado. 8.3.1.Bid Bond. A bid guarantee from each bidder equivalent to 5 percent of the bid price. The "bid guarantee" shall consist of a firm commitment such as a bid bond, certified check, or other negotiable instrument accompanying a bid as assurance that the bidder shall, upon acceptance of his bid, execute such contractual documents as may be required within the time specified. 8.3.2.Performance Bond. A performance bond on the part of the contractor for 100 percent of the contract price. A "performance bond" is one executed in connection with a contract to secure fulfillment of all the contractor's obligations under such contract. 8.3.3.Payment Bond. A payment bond on the part of the contractor for 100 percent of the contract price . A "payment bond" is one executed in connection with a contract to assure payment as required by statute of all persons supplying labor and material in the execution of the work provided for in the contract. 8.3.4.Substitution. The bonding requirements in this §8.3 may be waived in lieu of an irrevocable letter of credit if the price is less than $50,000. 9. CONSTRUCTION/RENOVATION. The following subsections shall apply to construction and/or renovation related projects/activities: 9.1. Plans & Specifications. Construction plans and specifications shall be drawn up by a qualified engineer or architect licensed in the State of Colorado, or pre-engineered in accordance with Colorado law, and hired by the Grantee through a competitive selection process. 9.2. Procurement. A construction contract shall be awarded to a qualified construction firm through a formal selection process with the Grantee being obligated to award the construction contract to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder meeting the Grantee's specifications. 9.3. Subcontracts. Copies of any ,and all contracts entered into by the Grantee in order to accomplish this Project shall be submitted to DOLA upon request, and any and all contracts entered into by the Grantee or any of its Subcontractors shall comply with all applicable federal and state laws and shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado. 9.4. Standards. Grantee, Subgrantees and Subcontractors shall comply with all applicable statutory design and construction standards and procedures that may be required, including the standards required by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and shall provide the State with documentation of such compliance. THE REST OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 4 of 4 • • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Subject: Approval, by Motion , of a Profess ional Auditing November 21 , 2016 9ci Services Agreement with Swanhorst & Company llC. Initiated By: Department of Finance and Staff Source: Kathleen Rinkel , Director of Administrative Services Finance and Administrative Services PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION From 2006 through 2010 the City had a professional auditing services agreement with Johnson, Holscher & Company PC . From 2011 through 2015 the City had a professional auditing services agreement with Holscher, Mayberry & Company llC. On March 21 , 2016, Council passed Resolution 51 adopting the Englewood Financial Policies that require the City to solicit proposals for professional auditing services at least every six years . RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends Council approve, by Motion , a new Agreement for Professional Auditing Services to include auditing services for the City , the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant; the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority , the Englewood Environmental Foundation and the Englewood Mclellan Reservoir Foundation . BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED A yearly audit performed by a Certified Public Accounting Firm is required by State of Colorado Statute and the City's Municipal Code. In 2016 the City issued a request for proposal for professional auditing services . The responding firms were ranked based on experience, technical ability and fees. Two firms were identified as finalists and after interviewing both , the City has selected Swanhorst & Company llC to provide professional auditing services for the City , the Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority , the Englewood Environmental Foundation and the Englewood Mclellan Reservoir Foundation . FINANCIAL IMPACT The request for proposal required firms to provide fee proposals for 2016 through 2020. The selected firm's fees for professional auditing services are $41 ,000 for 2016 through 2018 and $42 ,000 for 2019 and 2020. The 2016 audit fee is included in the proposed budget and represents a savings of approximately 5% when compared to the 2015 audit fee . • LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Professional Auditing Services agreement. • • • PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Contract Number PSA/16-53 Auditing Services $ 41,000 This Professional Services Agreement (the "Agreement") is made as of this 7th day of November, 2016, (the "Effective Date") by and between Swanhorst & Company, LLC, a Colorado corporation ("Consultant"), and The City of Englewood, Colorado, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Colorado ("City"). City desires that Consultant, from time to time, provide certain consulting services, systems integration services, data conversion services, training services, and/or related services as described herein, and Consultant desires to perform such services on behalf of City on the terms and conditions set forth herein. In consideration of the foregoing and the terms hereinafter set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, agree as follows: 1. Definitions. The terms set forth below shall be defined as follows: (a) "Intellectual Property Rights" shall mean any and all (by whatever name or term known or designated) tangible and intangible and now known or hereafter existing (1) rights associate with works of authorship throughout the universe, including but not limited to copyrights, moral rights, and mask- works, (2) trademark and trade name rights and similar rights, (3) trade secret rights, (4) patents, designs, algorithms and other industrial property rights, (5) all other intellectual and industrial property rights (of every kind and nature throughout the universe and however designated) (including logos, "rental" rights and rights to remuneration), whether arising by operation of law, contract, license, or otherwise, and (6) all registrations, initial applications, renewals, extensions, continuations, divisions or reissues hereof now or hereafter in force (including any rights in any of the foregoing). (b) "Work Product" shall mean all patents, patent applications, inventions, designs, mask works, processes, methodologies, copyrights and copyrightable works, trade secrets including confidential information, data, designs, manuals, training materials and documentation, formulas, knowledge of manufacturing processes, methods, prices, financial and accounting data, products and product specifications and all other Intellectual Property Rights created, developed or prepared, documented and/or delivered by Consultant, pursuant to the provision of the Services . 2. Statements of Work. During the term hereof and subject to the terms and conditions contained herein, Consultant agrees to provide, on an as requested basis, the consulting services, systems integration services, data conversion services, training services, and related services (the "Services") as further described in Schedule A (the "Statement of Work") for City, and in such additional Statements of Work as may be 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org PSA # 16-53 Auditing Services executed by each of the parties hereto from time to time pursuant to this Agreement. Each Statement of Work shall specify the scope of work, specifications, basis of compensation and payment schedule, estimated length of time required to complete each Statement of Work, including the estimated start/finish dates, and other relevant information and shall incorporate all terms and conditions contained in this Agreement 3. Performance of Services. (a) Performance. Consultant shall perform the Services necessary to complete all projects outlined in a Statement of Work in a timely and professional manner consistent with the specifications, if any, set forth in the Statement of Work, and in accordance with industry standards. Consultant agrees to exercise the highest degree of professionalism, and to utilize its expertise and creative talents in completing the projects outlined in a Statement of Work. (b) Delays. Consultant agrees to notify City promptly of any factor, occurrence, or event coming to its attention that may affect Consultant's ability to meet the requirements of the Agreement, or that is likely to occasion any material delay in completion of the projects contemplated by this Agreement or any Statement of Work. Such notice shall be given in the event of any loss or reassignment of key employees, threat of strike, or major equipment failure. Time is expressly made of the essence with respect to each and every term and provision of this Agreement. (c) Discrepancies. If anything necessary for the clear understanding of the Services has been omitted from the Agreement specifications or it appears that various instructions are in conflict, Consultant shall secure written instructions from City's project director before proceeding with the performance of the Services affected by such omissions or discrepancies. 4. Invoices and Payment. Unless otherwise provided in a Statement of Work, City shall pay the amounts agreed to in a Statement of Work within thirty (30) days following the acceptance by City of the work called for in a Statement of Work by City. Acceptance procedures shall be outlined in the Statement of Work. If City disputes all or any portion of an invoice for charges, then City shall pay the undisputed portion of the invoice by the due date and shall provide the following notification with respect to the disputed portion of the invoice. City shall notify Consultant as soon as possible of the specific amount disputed and shall provide reasonable detail as to the basis for the dispute. The parties shall then attempt to resolve the disputed portion of such invoice as soon as possible. Upon resolution of the disputed portion, City shall pay to Consultant the resolved amount. 5. Taxes. City is not subject to taxation. No federal or other taxes (excise, luxury, transportation, sales, etc.) shall be included in quoted prices. City shall not be obligated to pay or reimburse Consultant for any taxes attributable to the sale of any Services which are imposed on or measured by net or gross income, capital, net worth, franchise, privilege, any other taxes, or assessments, nor any of the foregoing imposed on or payable by Consultant. Upon written notification by City and subsequent verification by Consultant, Consultant shall reimburse or credit, as applicable, City in a timely manner, for any and all taxes erroneously paid by City. City shall provide Consultant with, and Consultant shall accept in good faith, resale, direct pay, or other exemption certificates, as applicable. 6. Out of Pocket Expenses. Consultant shall be reimbursed only for expenses which are expressly provided for in a Statement of Work or which have been approved in advance in writing by City, provided Consultant has furnished such documentation for authorized expenses as City may reasonably request. 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov.org 2 PSA # 16-53 Auditing Services • • • • • • 7. Audits. Consultant shall provide such employees and independent auditors and inspectors as City may designate with reasonable access to all sites from which Services are performed for the purposes of performing audits or inspections of Consultant's operations and compliance with this Agreement. Consultant shall provide such auditors and inspectors any reasonable assistance that they may require. Such audits shall be conducted in such a way so that the Services or services to any other customer of Consultant are not impacted adversely. 8. Term and Termination. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue unless this Agreement is terminated as provided in this Section 8. {a) Convenience. City may, without cause and without penalty, terminate the provision of Services under any or all Statements of Work upon thirty (30) days prior written notice. Upon such termination, City shall, upon receipt of an invoice from Consultant, pay Consultant for Services actually rendered prior to the effective date of such termination . Charges will be based on time expended for all incomplete tasks as listed in the applicable Statement of Work, and all completed tasks will be charged as indicated in the applicable Statement of Work . {b) No Outstanding Statements of Work. Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing the other party with at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of termination if there are no outstanding Statements of Work. {c) Material Breach. If either party materially defaults in the performance of any term of a Statement of Work or this Agreement with respect to a specific Statement of Work (other than by nonpayment) and does not substantially cure such default within thirty (30) days after receiving written not ice of such default, then the non-defaulting party may terminate this Agreement or any or all outstanding Statements of Work by providing ten (10) days prior written notice of termination to the defaulting party . {d) Bankruptcy or Insolvency. Either party may terminate this Agreement effective upon written notice stating its intention to terminate in the event the other party: (1) makes a general assignment of all or substantially all of its assets for the benefit of its creditors; (2) applies for, consents to, or acquiesces in the appointment of a receiver, trustee, custodian, or liquidator for its business or all or substantially all of its assets; (3) files, or consents to or acquiesces in, a petition seeking relief or reorganization under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws; or (4) files a petition seeking relief or reorganization under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws is filed against that other party and is not dismissed within sixty (60) days after it was filed . {e) TABOR. The parties understand and acknowledge that each party is subject to Article X, § 20 of the Colorado Constitution ("TABOR"). The parties do not intend to violate the terms and requirements of TABOR by the execution of this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement does not create a multi-fiscal year direct or indirect debt or obligation within the meaning of TABOR and, notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, all payment obligations of City are expressly dependent and conditioned upon the continuing availability of funds beyond the term of City's current fiscal period ending upon the next succeeding December 31. Financial obligations of City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available in accordance with the rules, regulations, and resolutions of City and applicable law . Upon the failure to appropriate such funds, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated. 1000 Englewood Parkway , Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org 3 PSA # 16-53 Audi ti ng Servi ce s {f) Return of Property. Upon termination of this Agreement, both parties agree to return to the other all property (including any Confidential Information, as defined in Section 11) of the other party that it may have in its possession or control. 9. City Obligations. City will provide timely access to City personnel, systems and information required for Consultant to perform its obligations hereunder. City shall provide to Consultant's employees performing its obligations hereunder at City's premises, without charge, a reasonable work environment in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including office space, furniture, telephone service, and reproduction, computer, facsimile, secretarial and other necessary equipment, supplies, and services. With respect to all third party hardware or software operated by or on behalf of City, City shall, at no expense to Consultant, obtain all consents, licenses and sublicenses necessary for Consultant to perform under the Statements of Work and shall pay any fees or other costs associated with obtaining such consents, licenses and sublicenses. 10. Staff. Consultant is an independent consultant and neither Consultant nor Consultant's staff is, or shall be deemed to be employed by City. City is hereby contracting with Consultant for the Services described in a Statement of Work and Consultant reserves the right to determine the method, manner and means by which the Services will be performed. The Services shall be performed by Consultant or Consultant's staff, and City shall not be required to hire, supervise or pay any assistants to help Consultant perform the Services under this Agreement. Except to the extent that Consultant's work must be performed on or with City's computers or City's existing software, all materials used in providing the Services shall be provided by Consultant. 11. Confidential Information. {a) Obligations. Each party hereto may receive from the other party information which relates to the other party's business, research, development, trade secrets or business affairs ("Confidential Information"). Subject to the provisions and exceptions set forth in the Colorado Open Records Act, CRS Section 24-72-101 et. seq., each party shall protect all Confidential Information of the other party with the same degree of care as it uses to avoid unauthorized use, disclosure, publication or dissemination of its own confidential information of a similar nature, but in no event less than a reasonable degree of care. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, each party hereto agrees not to disclose or permit any other person or entity access to the other party's Confidential Information except such disclosure or access shall be permitted to an employee, agent, representative or independent consultant of such party requiring access to the same in order to perform his or her employment or services. Each party shall insure that their employees, agents, representatives, and independent consultants are advised of the confidential nature of the Confidential Information and are precluded from taking any action prohibited under this Section 11. Further, each party agrees not to alter or remove any identification, copyright or other proprietary rights notice which indicates the ownership of any part of such Confidential Information by the other party. A party hereto shall undertake to immediately notify the other party in writing of all circumstances surrounding any possession, use or knowledge of Confidential Information at any location or by any person or entity other than those authorized by this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall restrict either party with respect to information or data identical or similar to that contained in the Confidential Information of the other party but which (1) that party rightfully possessed before it received such information from the other as evidenced by written documentation; (2) subsequently 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov.org 4 PSA # 16-53 Auditing Services • • • • • • becomes publicly available through no fault of that party; (3) is subsequently furnished rightfully to that party by a third party without restrictions on use or disclosure ; or (4) is required to be disclosed by law, provided that the disclosing party will exercise reasonable efforts to notify the other party prior to disclosure . (b) Know-How . For the avoidance of doubt neither City nor Consultant shall be prevented from making use of know-how and principles learned or experience gained of a non-proprietary and non-confidential nature . (c) Remedies. Each of the parties hereto agree that if any of them, their officers, employees or anyone obtaining access to the Confidential Information of the other party by, through or under them, breaches any provision of this Section 11, the non-breaching party shall be entitled to an accounting and repayment of all profits, compensation, comm1ss1ons, remunerations and benefits which the breaching party, its officers or employees directly or indirectly realize or may realize as a result of or growing out of, or in connection with any such breach. In addition to, and not in limitation of the foregoing, in the event of any breach of this Section 11, the parties agree that the non-breaching party will suffer irreparable harm and that the total amount of monetary damages for any such injury to the non-breaching party arising from a violation of th is Section 11 would be impossible to calculate and would therefore be an inadequate remedy at law. Accordingly, the parties agree that the non-breaching party shall be entitled to temporary and permanent injunctive relief against the breaching party , its officers or employees and such other rights and remedies to which the non-breaching party may be entitled to at law, in equity or under this Agreement for any violation of this Section 11 . The provisions of this Section 11 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement for any reason . 12. Project Managers. Each party shall designate one of its employees to be its Project Manager under each Statement of Work, who shall act for that party on all matters under the Statement of Work . Each party shall notify the other in writing of any replacement of a Project Manager . The Project Managers for each Statement of Work shall meet as often as either one requests to review the status of the Statement of Work. 13. Warranties. (a) Authority. Consultant represents and warrants that: (1) Consultant has the full corporate right , power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform the acts required of it hereunder; (2) the execution of this Agreement by Consultant, and the performance by Consultant of its obligations and duties hereunder, do not and will not violate any agreement to which Consultant is a party or by which it is otherwise bound under any applicable law, rule or regulation; (3) when executed and delivered by Consultant, this Agreement will constitute the legal, valid and binding obligation of such party, enforceable against such party in accordance with its terms; and (4) Consultant acknowledges that City makes no representations, warranties or agreements related to the subject matter hereof that are not expressly provided for in this Agreement (b) Service Warranty. Consultant warrants that its employees and consultants shall have sufficient skill , knowledge, and training to perform Services and that the Services shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner. (c) Personnel. Unless a specific number of employees is set forth in the Statement of Work, Consultant warrants it will provide sufficient employees to complete the Services ordered within the applicable time frames established pursuant to this Agreement or as set forth in the Statement of Work. 1000 Englewood Pa rkway, Englewood , Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov .org 5 PSA # 16-53 Aud it ing Servi ce s During the course of performance of Services, City may, for any or no reason, request replacement of an employee or a proposed employee . In such event, Consultant shall, within five (5) working days of receipt of such request from City, provide a substitute employee of sufficient skill , knowledge, and training to perform the applicable Services . Consultant shall require employees providing Services at a City location to comply with applicable City security and safety regulations and policies. (d) Compensation and Benefits. Consultant shall provide for and pay the compensation of employees and shall pay all taxes, contributions, and benefits (such as, but not limited to, workers ' compensation benefits) which an employer is required to pay relating to the employment of employees. City shall not be liable to Consultant or to any employee for Consultant's failure to perform its compensation, benefit , or tax obligations . Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold City harmless from and against all such taxes, contributions and benefits and will comply with all associated governmental regulations , including the filing of all necessary reports and returns . 14. Indemnification. (a) Consultant Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its directors, officers, employees, and agents and the heirs, executors, successors, and permitted assigns of any of the foregoing (the "City lndemnitees") from and against all losses, claims, obligations, demands, assessments, fines and penalties (whether civil or criminal), liabilities , expenses and costs (including reasonable fees and disbursements of legal counsel and accountants), bodily and other personal injuries, damage to tangible property, and other damages, of any kind or nature, suffered or incurred by a City lndemnitee directly or indirectly arising from or related to : (1) any negligent or intentional act or om1ss1on by Consultant or its representatives in the performance of Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or (2) any material breach in a representation, warranty, covenant or obligation of Consultant contained in this Agreement. (b) Infringement. Consultant will indemnify , defend , and hold City harmless from all lndemnifiable Losses arising from any third party claims that any Work Product or methodology supplied by Consultant infringes or misappropriates any Intellectual Property rights of any third party; provided, however, that the foregoing indemnification obligation shall not apply to any alleged infringement or misappropriation based on: (1) use of the Work Product in combination with products or services not provided by Consultant to the extent that such infringement or misappropriation would have been avoided if such other products or services had not been used ; (2) any modification or enhancement to the Work Product made by City or anyone other than Consultant or its sub-consultants; or (3) use of the Work Product other than as permitted under this Agreement. (c) Indemnification Procedures. Notwith-standing anything else contained in this Agreement, no obligation to indemnify which is set forth in this Section 14 shall apply unless the party claiming indemnification notifies the other party as soon as practicable to avoid any prejudice in the claim, suit or proceeding of any matters in respect of which the indemnity may apply and of which the notifying party has knowledge and gives the other party the opportunity to control the response thereto and the defense thereof; provided, however, that the party claiming indemnification shall have the right to participate in any legal proceedings to contest and defend a claim for indemnification involving a third party and to be represented by its own attorneys , all at such party 's cost and expense; provided further, however, that no 1000 Englewood Parkway , Englewood , Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov.org 6 PSA # 16-53 Auditi ng Servic es • • • • • • settlement or compromise of an asserted third- party claim other than the payment/money may be made without the prior written consent of the party claiming indemnification. (d) Immunity. City, its officers , and its employees , are relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S . 24-10-101 et seq., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees. 15. Insurance. (a) Requirements. Consultant agrees to keep in full force and effect and maintain at its sole cost and expense the following policies of insurance during the term of this Agreement: (1) The Consultant shall comply with the Workers' Compensation Act of Colorado and shall provide compensation insurance to protect the City from and against any and all Workers' Compensation claims arising from performance of the work under this contract. Workers ' Compensation insurance must cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, as well as the Employers ' Liability within the minimum statutory limits. (2) Commercial General Liability Insurance and auto liability insurance (including contractual liability insurance) providing coverage for bodily injury and property damage with a combined single limit of not less than three million dollars ($3,000 ,000) per occurrence. (3) Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions Insurance covering acts, errors and om1ss1ons arising out of Consultant's operations or Services in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1 ,000 ,000) per occurrence . (4) Employee Dishonesty and Computer Fraud Insurance covering losses arising out of or in connection with any fraudulent or dishonest acts committed by Consultant personnel, acting alone or with others, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence. (b) Approved Companies. All such insurance shall be procured with such insurance companies of good standing , permitted to do business in the country , state or territory where the Services are being performed . (c) Certificates. Consultant shall provide City with certificates of insurance evidencing compliance with this Section 15 (including evidence of renewal of insurance) signed by authorized representatives of the respective carriers for each year that this Agreement is in effect. Certificates of insurance will list the City of Englewood as an additional insured. Each certificate of insurance shall provide that the issuing company shall not cancel, reduce, or otherwise materially change the insurance afforded under the above policies unless thirty (30) days' notice of such cancellation, reduction or material change has been provided to City . 16. Rights in Work Product. (a) Generally. Except as specifically agreed to the contrary in any Statement of Work, all Intellectual Property Rights in and to the Work Product produced or provided by Consultant under any Statement of Work shall remain the property of Consultant. With respect to the Work Product , Consultant unconditionally and irrevocably grants to City during the term of such Intellectual Property Rights, a non-exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, fully paid and royalty-free license, to reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform and publicly display by all means now known or later developed , such Intellectual Property Rights . 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org 7 PSA # 16-53 Auditing Service s (b) Know-How. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein , each party and its respective personnel and consultants shall be free to use and employ its and their general skills, know-how, and expertise, and to use, disclose, and employ any generalized ideas, concepts, know-how, methods, techniques, or skills gained or learned during the course of any assignment, so long as it or they acquire and apply such information without disclosure of any Confidential Information of the other party . 17. Relationship of Parties. Consultant is acting only as an independent consultant and does not undertake, by this Agreement, any Statement of Work or otherwise , to perform any obligation of City , whether regulatory or contractual , or to assume any responsibility for City's business or operations . Neither party shall act or represent itself, directly or by implication, as an agent of the other, except as expressly authorized in a Statement of Work. 18. Complete Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the matters covered herein. 19. Applicable Law. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws in performing Services but shall be held harmless for violat ion of any governmental procurement regulation to which it may be subject but to which reference is not made in the applicable Statement of Work. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Any action or proceeding brought to interpret or enforce the provisions of this Agreement shall be brought before the state or federal court situated in Arapahoe County, Colorado and each party hereto consents to jurisdiction and venue before such courts. 20. Scope of Agreement. If the scope of any provisions of this Agreement is too broad in any respect whatsoever to permit enforcement to its fullest extent, then such provision shall be enforced to the maximum extent permitted by law, and the parties hereto consent to and agree that such scope may be judicially modified accordingly and that the whole of such provision of this Agreement shall not thereby fail, but that the scope of such provision shall be curtailed only to the extent necessary to conform to law . 21. Additional Work. After receipt of a Statement of Work , City , with Consultant's consent, may request Consultant to undertake additional work with respect to such Statement of Work . In such event, City and Consultant shall execute an addendum to the Statement of Work specifying such additional work and the compensation to be paid to Consultant for such additional work. 22. Sub-consultants. Consultant may not subcontract any of the Services to be provided hereunder without the prior written consent of City. In the event of any permitted subcontracting, the agreement with such third party shall provide that, with respect to the subcontracted work, such sub-consultant shall be subject to all of the obligations of Consultant specified in this Agreement. 23. Notices. Any notice provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing to the parties at the addresses set forth below and shall be deemed given (1) if by hand delivery, upon receipt thereof, (2) three (3) days after deposit in the United States ma ils, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested or (3) one (1) day after deposit with a nationally-recognized overnight courier, specifying overnight priority delivery . Either party may change its address for purposes of this Agreement at any time by giving written notice of such change to the other party hereto . 24. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of City . Except for the 1000 Eng lewood Parkway , Eng lewood , Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org 8 PSA # 16-53 Auditing Service s • • • • • • prohibition of an assignment contained in the preceding sentence, this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 25. Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is entered into solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and shall not confer any rights upon any person or entity not a party to this Agreement. 26. Headings. The section headings in this Agreement are solely for convenience and shall not be considered in its interpretation. The recitals set forth on the first page of this Agreement are incorporated into the body of this Agreement. The exhibits referred to throughout this Agreement and any Statement of Work prepared in conformance with this Agreement are incorporated into this Agreement. 27. Waiver. The failure of either party at any time to require performance by the other party of any provision of this Agreement shall not effect in any way the full right to require such performance at any subsequent time; nor shall the waiver by either party of a breach of any provision of this Agreement be taken or held to be a waiver of the provision itself. 28. Force Majeure. If performance by Consultant of any service or obligation under this Agreement is prevented, restricted, delayed or interfered with by reason of labor disputes, strikes, acts of God, floods, lightning, severe weather, shortages of materials, rationing, utility or communications failures, earthquakes, war, revolution, civil commotion, acts of public enemies, blockade, embargo or any law, order, proclamation, regulation, ordinance, demand or requirement having legal effect of any governmental or judicial authority or representative of any such government, or any other act whether similar or dissimilar to those referred to in this clause, which are beyond the reasonable control of Consultant, then Consultant shall be excused from such performance to the extent of such prevention, restriction, delay or interference . If the period of such delay exceeds thirty (30) days, City may, without liability, terminate the affected Statement of Work(s) upon written notice to Consultant. 29. Time of Performance. Time is expressly made of the essence with respect to each and every term and provision of this Agreement. 30. Permits. Consultant shall at its own expense secure any and all licenses, permits or certificates that may be required by any federal, state or local statute, ordinance or regulation for the performance of the Services under the Agreement. Consultant shall also comply with the provisions of all Applicable Laws in performing the Services under the Agreement. At its own expense and at no cost to City, Consultant shall make any change, alteration or modification that may be necessary to comply with any Applicable Laws that Consultant failed to comply with at the time of performance of the Services . 31. Media Releases. Except for any announcement intended solely for internal distribution by Consultant or any disclosure required by legal, accounting, or regulatory requirements beyond the reasonable control of Consultant, all media releases, public announcements, or public disclosures (including, but not limited to, promotional or marketing material) by Consultant or its employees or agents relating to this Agreement or its subject matter, or including the name, trade mark, or symbol of City, shall be coordinated with and approved in writing by City prior to the release thereof. Consultant shall not represent directly or indirectly that any Services provided by Consultant to City has been approved or endorsed by City or include the name, trade mark, or symbol of City on a list of Consultant's customers without City's express written consent. 1000 Englewood Parkway , Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org 9 PSA # 16-SJ Auditing Services 32. Nonexclusive Market and Purchase Rights. It is expressly understood and agreed that this Agreement does not grant to Consultant an exclusive right to provide to City any or all of the Services and shall not prevent City from acquiring from other suppliers services similar to the Services. Consultant agrees that acquisitions by City pursuant to this Agreement shall neither restrict the right of City to cease acquiring nor require City to continue any level of such acquisitions. Estimates or forecasts furnished by City to Consultant prior to or during the term of this Agreement shall not constitute commitments. 33. Survival. The provisions of Sections 5, 8(g), 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 23, 25 and 31 shall survive any expiration or termination for any reason of this Agreement. 34. Verification of Compliance with C.R.S. 8-17.5-101 ET.SEQ. Regarding Hiring of Illegal Aliens: (a) Employees, Consultants and Sub-consultants: Consultant shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract. Consultant shall not contract with a sub- consultant that fails to certify to the Consultant that the sub-consultant will not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract. [CRS 8- 17. 5-102(2)( a)(I) & (II).] (b) Verification: Consultant will participate in either the E-Verify program or the Department program, as defined in C.R.S. 8- 17.5-101 (3.3) and 8-17 .5-101 (3.7), respectively, in order to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under this public contract for services . Consultant is prohibited from using the E-Verify program or the Department program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while this contract is being performed. (c) Duty to Terminate a Subcontract: If Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a sub-consultant performing work under this Contract knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, the Consultant shall; (1) notify the sub-consultant and the City within three days that the Consultant has actual knowledge that the sub-consultant is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and (2) terminate the subcontract with the sub-consultant if, within three days of receiving notice required pursuant to this paragraph the sub- consultant does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that the Consultant shall not terminate the contract with the sub-consultant if during such three days the sub- consultant provides information to establish that the sub-consultant has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. (d) Duty to Comply with State Investigation: Consultant shall comply with any reasonable request of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation by that the Department is undertaking pursuant to C.R.S. 8-17 .5-102 (5) (e) Damages for Breach of Contract: The City may terminate this contract for a breach of contract, in whole or in part, due to Consultant's breach of any section of this paragraph or provisions required pursuant to CRS 8-17.5-102. Consultant shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy the City may be entitled to for a breach of this Contract under this Paragraph 34. 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov .org 10 PSA # 16-53 Auditing Services • • • • •• • IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused it to be executed by their authorized officers as of the day and year first above written . This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO By:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Date:~~~~~ (Department Director) By: (Mayor) ATIEST: City Clerk PSA # 16-53 Auditing Services Date: Swanhorst & Company LLC (Consultant Name) 8400 E. Crescent Parkway. Suite 600 Address Greenwood Village. CO 80111 City, State, Zip Code By: t/,~~~ (Signature) Wendy Swanhorst (Print Name) Title: Partner Date: November 8 2016 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org II -L-~~.a:..i:.Jl..=:.!=L.._,,,....__, 20.J.k before me personally appeared \A l-?i:,J 1 ~ 1 "7"",llU'' of ~ _._.u.i..,.~~.u..u'"-'=Oi!"l.-.=;....i,..A;..u..:;~~~-==-----' the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledge the id instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned , and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written . ,.... My commission exp ires: ~6:12¥3 ( \ 12Plb Vt'GtnJ i tl A lJ fliAU! ) A«~(;;t NOTARY (_j PSA # 16-53 Auditing Servic es VICTORIA A. WAJNWRIGHT NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 20094004297 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES FEBRUARY 11, 2017 1000 Englewood Parkway , Englewood , Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org · 12 • • • • • • SCHEDULE A OUTLINE OF STATEMENT OF WORK 1. GENERAL City of Englewood, Finance and Administrative Services Department and Swanhorst & Company LLC Professional Services Agreement dated: November 7th, 2016 2 . NAMES OF PROJECT COORDINATORS Kathleen Rinkel -Director of Finance and Administrative Service Kevin Engels -Accounting Manager 3. SUMMARY OF PURPOSE FOR STATEMENT OF WORK 4 . Professional Auditing Services to include auditing services for the City, the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant, the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority, the Englewood Environmental Foundation and the Englewood Mclellan Reservoir Foundation. EQUIPMENT AND PROGRAMMING TO BE PROVIDED BY CITY (IF ANY) None 5. OTHER CONSUL TANT RESOURCES None 6. DESCRIPTION OF WORK PRODUCT AND DELIVERABLES The City requires the auditor to express an opinion on the fair presentation of its basic financial statements, including government-wide, fund financial statements and notes to the financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The auditor is not required to audit the supporting schedules contained in the comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR). However, the audit is to provide an "in-relation-to" report on the supporting schedules based on the auditing procedures applied during the audit of the general purpose financial statements. The auditor is not required to audit the introductory section or the statistical section of the CAFR. The Englewood Urban Renewal Authority (EURA) also requires the auditor to express a separate opinion on the fair presentation of the EURA's basic financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The City will type and reproduce the financial statements for the EURA. PSA # 16-53 Auditing Services 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov .org 13 The Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment (LEWWTP) also requires the auditor to express a separate opinion on the fair presentation of the LEWWTP's basic financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The City will type and • reproduce the financial statements for the LEWWTP. The auditor is not required to audit the schedule of federal financial assistance. However, the auditor is to provide an "in-relation-to" report on that schedule based on the auditing procedures applied during the audit of the financial statements. Reports to be issued: 1. A report on the fair presentation of the City's financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles . 2. A separate report (if required), including the required report(s) on internal controls and compliance, as required by the provisions of the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the provisions of the OMS circular A-133. 3. A report on the fair presentation of the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority's financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. 4. A report on the fair presentation of the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant's financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles . 7 . SPECIAL TERMS, IF ANY None 8. MODE OF PAYMENT Progress payments will be made via check or ACH per vendor's choice. 9. PAYMENT SCHEDULE City will pay Consultant for the work in accordance with the following payment schedule . All payments to Consultant are contingent on Consultant's satisfying the Deliverables/Milestones set forth in the Payment Schedule. Payments shall be made upon City's written confirmation to Consultant that the Deliverables-Milestones have been satisfied . For years 2016-2018 the City will pay $41,000 per year for the audit services For years 2019-2020 the City will pay $42,000 per year for the audit services PSA # 16-53 Auditi ng Services 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov .org 14 • • SCHEDULE AND PERFORMANCE MILESTONES • 10. This schedule sets for the target dates and performance milestones for the preparation and delivery of the Deliverables by Consultant. Performance Milestone Audit of City financial statements Responsible Party City and audit firm 11. ACCEPTANCE AND TESTING PROCEDURES None 12. LOCATION OF WORK FACILITIES Target Date Yearly by June 3Q1h City will provide the City office space and support as it agrees may be appropriate, at its Civic Center facility. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, pursuant and in accordance with the Professional Services Agreement between the parties hereto dated , 2016, the parties have executed this Statement of Work as of this day of , 2016. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO • By: _______ _ (Signature) • (Print Name) Date:-------------- Swanhorst & Company LLC Consultant Name By: l~§,u~ (Signature) Wendy Swanhorst (Print Name) Title: Partner Date: November 8, 2016 PSA # 16-53 Auditing Services 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org IS _ __,_3_,·~ &G-S~anhorst & Compal!_y_L_L_C ___ . C~n iJh.-d Publi c At:..:Ouma n1.o1 October 28, 2016 City Council City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 We are pleased to confirm our understanding of the services we are to provide to the City of Englewood (the "City"). We will audit the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate discretely presented component units and remaining fund information, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the basic financial statements of the City, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016. Also, the supplementary information and the local highway finance report will be subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements, upon which we will provide an opinion in relation to the basic financial statements. The management's discussion and analysis and the required supplementary information will be subjected to certain limited procedures, but will not be audited . Audit Objective The objective of our audit is the expression of an opinion as to whether your financial statements are fairly presented, in all material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and to report on the fairness of the additional information referred to in the first paragraph when considered in relation to the financial statements as a whole. Our audit will be conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted • in the United States of America. Our audit will include tests of the accounting records and other procedures we consider • necessary to enable us to express such an opinion. If our opinion on the financial statements is other than unmodified, we will fully discuss the reasons with you in advance . If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to form or have not formed an opinion, we may decline to express an opinion or to issue a report as a result of this engagement. Management Responsibilities Management is responsible for the basic financial statements and all accompanying information as well as all representations contained therein. You are also responsible for making all management decisions and performing all management functions; for designating an individual with suitable skill, knowledge, or experience to oversee our assistance with the preparation of your financial statements and related notes; and for evaluating the adequacy and results of those services and accepting responsibility for them . Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal controls, including monitoring ongoing activities; for the selection and application of accounting principles ; and for the fair presentation of the financial statements. Management is also responsible for making all financial records and related information available to us and for the accuracy and completeness of that information . You are also responsible for providing us with access to all information of which you are aware that is relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements, additional information that we may request for the purpos e of the audit, and unrestricted access to persons within the City from whom we determine it necessary to obtain audit evidence. PSA # 16-53 Au ditin g Services 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood , Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org • 16 • City Council City of Englewood Page2 Management's responsibilities include adjusting the fmancial statements to correct material misstatements and confirming to us in the written representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us during the current engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements as a whole . Management is responsible for the design and implementation of programs and controls to prevent and detect fraud, and for informing us about all known or suspected fraud or illegal acts affecting the City involving management, employees who have significant roles in internal control, and others where the fraud or illegal acts could have a material effect on the fmancial statements. Your responsibilities include informing us of your knowledge of any allegations of fraud or suspected fraud affecting the City received in communications from employees, former employees, regulators, or others. In addition, you are responsible for identifying and ensuring that the City complies with applicable Jaws and regulations. Management is responsible for the preparation of the supplementary information in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. You agree to include our report on the supplementary information in any document that contains and indicates that we have reported on the supplementary information. You also agree to include the audited fmancial statements with any presentation of the supplementary information that includes our report thereon or make the audited fmancial statements readily available to users of the supplementary information no later than the date the supplementary information is issued with our report thereon . With regard to using the auditors' report, you understand that you must obtain our prior written consent to reproduce or use our report in bond offering official statements or other documents. • Audit Procedures-General • An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Therefore, our audit will involve judgment about the number of transactions to be examined and the areas to be tested. An audit also includes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the fmancial statements. We will plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable rather than absolute assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether from errors, fraudulent financial reporting, misappropriation of assets, or violations of laws or regulations that are attributable to the City or to acts by management or employees acting on behalf of the City . Because of the inherent limitations of an audit, combined with the inherent limitations of internal control, and because we will not perform a detailed examination of all transactions, there is a risk that material misstatements may exist and not be detected by us, even though the audit is properly planned and performed in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In addition, an audit is not designed to detect immaterial misstatements, or violations of laws or regulations that do not have a direct and material effect on the fmancial statements . However, we will inform the appropriate level of management of any material errors or any fraudulent fmancial reporting or misappropriation of assets that come to our attention. We will also inform the appropriate level of management of any violations of laws or regulations that come to our attention, unless clearly inconsequential. Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to any later periods for which we are not engaged as auditors . PSA # 16-53 Auditing Services 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org 17 Our procedures will include tests of documentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the accounts, and may include direct confirmation of receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals, creditors, and financial institutions. We may request written representations from your attorneys as part of • the engagement, and they may bill you for responding to this inquiry . At the conclusion of our audit, we will also require certain written representations from you about the financial statements and related matters. PSA # 16-53 Auditing Services 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org • • 18 City Council City of Englewood • Page3 • • Audit Procedures-Internal Control Our audit will include obtaining an understanding of the City and its environment, including internal control, sufficient to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements and to design the nature, timing, and extent of further audit procedures. An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify deficiencies in internal control. However, during the audit, we will communicate to management and those charged with governance internal control related matters that are required to be communicated under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Audit Procedures--Compliance Identifying and ensuring that the City complies with laws, regulations, contracts, and agreements is the responsibility of management. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, we will perform tests of the City's compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the provisions of contracts and agreements. However, the objective of our audit will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance and we will not express such an opinion. Audit Administration, Fees, and Other Our fees for these services will be at our standard hourly rates plus out-of-pocket costs, except that we agree that our maximum fee, including expenses, will not exceed $41,000. These fees include audits of the City's financial statements in addition to the Englewood Urban Renewal Authority and the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant. If the City is required to perform a Single Audit, additional fees will not exceed $5,000. Our standard hourly rates vary according to the degree ofresponsibility involved and the experience level of the personnel assigned to your audit. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered each month as work progresses and are payable on presentation. The above fee is based on anticipated cooperation from your personnel and the assumption that unexpected circumstances will not be encountered during the audit. If significant additional time is necessary, we will discuss it with you and arrive at a new fee estimate before we incur the additional costs . We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the City of Englewood and believe this letter accurately summarizes the significant terms of our engagement. If you have any questions, please let us know. If you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter, please sign the letter and return it to us . Very truly yours, ~~~ Swanhorst & Company LLC RESPONSE This letter correctly sets forth the understanding of the City of Englewood. By: Title::------------ Date:: : ----------- PSA # 16-53 Auditing Services 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov.org 19 • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date: Agenda Item: Subject: November 21, 2016 9cii Rotolo Playground Renovation Initiated By: Staff Source: Department of Parks, Recreation & Library Dave Lee, Manager of Open Space PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION City Council previously approved Resolution No. 42, Series of 2012 supporting the Arapahoe County Open Space grant application for Playground Renovation at Northwest Greenbelt and authorized Arapahoe County Open Space grant funding for the Rotolo Park playground in 2016. RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommendation from the Parks, Recreation and Library Department to approve, by motion, a contract to the lowest bidder, Goodland Construction, Inc. for the renovation of Rotolo Park playground. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The City of Englewood will replace twenty-year-old outdated/non-ADA compliant playground equipment at Rotolo Park with modern, safe and ADA compliant playground modules. A new engineered fiber mulch fall zone surface and ADA accessible walkway will be included in the project. Playground equipment will be age appropriate for 2 to 5 year old and 5 to 12 year old age ranges . The new playground facility will benefit a greatly underserved area of Englewood . FINANCIAL IMPACT Total project costs are $393,590 for the playground and ADA access trail. Sources of funding will be provided by the 2016 grant award of $236,800 from Arapahoe County Open Space, $78,934 budgeted from Shareback funds in the City's 2016 Open Space Fund and $77,856 from the 2016 Public Improvement Fund . No Federal Funds are being used for the renovation of the playground at Rotolo Park. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Bid Tabulation Sheet Invitation to Bid-16-014 Rotolo Park Playground Design Contract #CFC/16-44 • • • City of Englewood Bid Tabulation Sheet Bid Opening Date: October 5th,, 2016 2:00 PM MDT I , Apparent Low Bidder I ITEM BID: ITB-16-014, Rotolo Park Playground Renovation Project - t;jlO tsond Receipt or Vendor YIN SOQY/N Addendum 1 YIN Total Bid Exceptions/Comments Enviromental Logistics 1101 East 64th Ave. Denver, CO 80229 Mike Mirowski 720-221-5271 y y y $ 473,331.00 Colorado Designscapes, INC 15440 East Fremont Drive Centennial, CO 80112 Philip E. Steinhalier 303-721-9003 y y y $ 416,000.00 Goodland Construction 760 Nile Street Golden, CO 80401 . Jim' Pokorny ... . 303-278-8100 .. .. y y y $. 393;590.00 • • • ~G EnY°Flewood i\\f gADMltllSlRATlVG SERVICES ITB-16-014 Rotolo Park Playground Renovation Project Bid Form Name of Contractor: Date: 101~/1r.o Item 1 Description Playground Renovation (Includes demolition, grading, flatwork, equipment, installation, irrigation retrofit and sod replacement, and ADA walk.) Unit LS Total Cost $ 3'13 I s:zo CJ{) I TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $ 313. s:/0.0D I Receipt of Addenda Nos. ____ jf-++_I.__ ______ is hereby acknowledged. One such bid for the Rotolo Park Playground Renovation Project. TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID / J. ~ //ft;jua;:t,Jtf ~nfe-e:E Jl!Eismo ffei: tt<wJD/1£1) This Contract will be awarded to the lowest reliable and responsible bidder. This offer shall be open to acceptance and is irrevocable for sixty (90) days from the bid closing date . The undersigned bidder hereby agrees to be ready and to appear at the office of the Department of Parks, Recreation & Library, to execute the attached form of Contract in conformity of this bid and also to have ready 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone (303)762-2412 www.enqlewoodgov.org 6 IT8-l6-01~ Ror.ola f'ura. pJ.a·1aruund R~nc•at1 o n rro1oct and furnish the required bond in the sum of the full amount of th is proposal, executed by a surety company acceptable to the City of Englewood, at any time within ten (10) days from the date of a written notice from the Director of Parks, Recreation & Library to do so, mailed to the address hereinafter given. This Proposal is made without any connection with any other persons, fi rms, or corporations making any other bid for this same work and is in all respects fa ir and without collusion or fraud. The Undersigned Bidder acknowledges the right of the City to reject any or all bids submitted and to waive informalities therein. I 2016 Signature of Bidder: If an individual:----------------doing business as If a partnership:----------------------- By: ___________________ member of firm Business address, name and phone number of Bidder: N11<E ST 6oLi)oJ Co The name and location of the last work of this kind herein contemplated upon which Bidder was engaged is as follow: ~ C. 1'l'1 cJf !fvv.eot?A= J.J€Lr1 tr?-PMk For information relative hereto please refer to: Title ---racs/<;tt- 69 LON , C.o fO!-fo l Name >\ 1 M f-Ow~ Address fe D Nt < ;r ST 1000 En g lewood Par k wa y , Englewood, Colorad o 80110 Phon e (3 0 3)76 2 -2 41 2 ww w .englewoodgov .org 7 tT B-Hi-0 14· ROtDl O f'n rt. Pla'.'Or o u nd Re n o v at.l.on Prn it!ct. • • • • • • • ---------------------------------::.-, ···.~ :-A ·• -·-~ CONTRACT# CFC/16-44 ($ 395,590) THIS CONTRACT and agreement, made and entered into this 25th day of October, 2016, by and between the City of Englewood, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado hereinafter referred to as the "City", and Goodland Construction, Inc., whose address is 760 Nile Street, Golden, CO 80401 ("Contractor"), commencing on the 24th day of October, 2016, and continuing for at least ten (10) days thereafter the City advertised that sealed proposals would be received for furnishing all labor, tools, supplies, equipment, materials and everything necessary and required for the following: PROJECT: Demolition and Installation of New Playground Equipment at Rotolo Park WHEREAS, proposals pursuant to said advertisement have been received by the Mayor and City Council and have been certified by the Director of Parks, Recreation & Library to the Mayor and City Council with a recommendation that a contract for work be awarded to the above named Contractor who was the lowest reliable and responsible bidder therefore, and WHEREAS, pursuant to said recommendation, the Contract has been awarded to the above named Contractor by the Mayor and City Council and said Contractor is now willing and able to perform all of said work in accordance with said advertisement and his proposal. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the compensation to be paid and the work to be performed under this contract, the parties mutually agree as follows: A. Contract Documents: It is agreed by the parties hereto that the following list of Instruments, drawings and documents which are attached or incorporated by reference constitute and shall be referred to either as the Contract Documents or the Contract and all of said instruments, drawings, and documents taken together as a whole constitute the Contract between the parties hereto and they are as fully a part of this agreement as if they were set out verbatim and in full: Invitation to Bid Contract {this instrument) Insurance .., Performance Payment Maintenance Bond 8 . Scope of Work: The Contractor agrees to and shall furnish all labor, tools, supplies, equipment, materials and everything necessary for and required to do, perform and complete all the work described, drawn, set forth, shown and included in said Contract Documents. 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone (303) 762-2412 www.englewoodgov.org 1 CFC/16 ·44 Demolition and Installation of New Playground Equipment at Rotolo Park C. Terms of Performance: The Contractor agrees to undertake the performance of the work under this Contract within ten (10) ·days from being notified to commence work by the Director of Parks, Recreation & library. · · · D. Indemnification:. The city cannot and by this AgreemenVContract does not agree to Indemnify, hold . harmless, exonerate or assume the defense of the Contractor or any other person or entity, ~or any purpose. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions or proceedings of any kind or nature including Worker's Compensation claims, in any way resulting from or arising . out of this Agreement/Contract: provided, however, that the Contractor need not indemnify or save hartnless the City, its officers, agents and employees from damages resulting from the sole negligence of the City's officers, agents and Employees. · ·' · E. Termination of Award for Convenience: The City may terminate the award at any tim~ by giving written notice to the Contractor of such termination and specifyina the effective date of such termination, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event all finished or unfinished service, reports, material (s) prepared or furnished by the C6ntractor after the aviard shall, at the option of the City, become its property. If the award is terminated by the City as provided herein, the Contractor will be paid that amount which bears the same ratio to the total compensation as the. services actually performed or material furnished bear to the total services/materials the · suceesSful firm agreed to perform under this award, less paym~nts of compensation previously made. If the award is terminated due to the fault of the Contractor the clause relating to termination of the aWard for cause shall apply. · F. Termination of Award for Cause : If, through any cause, the Contractor shall fail to fulfill In a timely and · proper· manner its obligations ·or if the . Contractor .shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or • ·. s~ipulations of the award, the City shall have the right to terminate the award by giving Written noti~ to the Contractor of such termination and specifying the .effective date of termination. in that event; all • furnished or unfinished services, at the option of the City, .become its property, and the Contractor shall be entitled · to receive just; equitable compensation for any satisfactory work documents, prepared completed or materials as furnished. · · · · Notwithstanding the above, the Contractor shall not be relieved of the liability to the City f()r damages sustained by the City by virtue of breach of the award by the. Contractor and the City may withhold any payments to the Contractor for the purpose of set off until such time as .the exact amount of damages due the City from the Contractor is determined.· G. Terms of Payment: The City agrees to pay the Contractor for the performance of all the work required under this contract, and the Contractor agrees to accept as his full and only compensation therefore, such sum or sums of money as may be proper in accordance with the price or prices set forth Jn the Contractor's proposal attached and made a part hereof, the total estimated cost thereof being Three Hundred Ninety Five Thousand and Five Hundred Ninety Dollars. ($395.590 ,). A 5% retainage of the awarded project amount will be withheld until final inspection and acceptance by the Project Manager. 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone (303) 762-2412 www .englewoodgov .org 2 CFC/16·44 Demolition and Installat ion of New Playground Equipment at Rotolo Parle • • • • . ' .. :: . . . , . . . ~. . . H. Appropriation of Funds: ·At present, $395,590. has been appropriatedfor the project NotWi~standing . anything _contaiqeidJn this .Ag~eement to the contrary, the parties understand and acknowledge ,that . each party is subjeCt to Article X, § 20 of tti'e Colorado· Constitution ("TABOR")i . ·the.parties do 'not ' intend to violate · the terms and requirements of TABOR by the· execution of this Agreement. It is u9derstood a.nd _agr~ed that this Agr~emeht does not create a multi-fiscal year direct or !nqir~ct debt , or obligation .wit~in the mea~ing cif TABOR and, notWiths~andirig anything in this Agreement/Contra9t to th~ contrary, all payment obligations of the City .are expressly dependent and .conditioned upon· the , continuing availability of funds beyond tne term of the City's current fiscal period ending .upon t.he . next . succeeding December 31 ... Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are ·. contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available In accordance with the rules; regulations, and resolutions of the City and applicable law; .Upon the failure to .appropriate such · funds, this Agreement . shall be deemed .terminated. The City shall . immediately notify the Contractor or its assignee of .such occurrence in the event of such termination.·· ' .. ,., '' I. Liquidated Damages: The City and Contractqr recognize that time is of the essence in this Agreement because of the public Interest in health and safety, and thatthe City will suffer financial loss, and incon_venience, if the Work isnot complete within the time specified in the bid d_ocuments, plus any extensions thereof allC>Wed In accordance with the General Conditions ~ They also recognize the delays,· expense and difficulties Involved in proving, in a Jegal proceeding, the .actual · loss suffered by the City if th.e Work is not complete oli time. Accordingly, Instead of requiring any such proof, the City and Contractor agree that as liquidated damages for delay, but not as a penalty, Contractor shall pay the City $0.00 for each day that expir.es after the time specified for substantial completion •until the Work is complete, and $0.00 for each day that expires after the time specified for final completion until the Work is finally complete. · · · · · i.' J . Assignment Contractor shall not, at any time, assign any interest in this Agreement or the other · ·Contract . Documents to any peraon or entity without the prfor written cons~n! of the _City specifically including, but without limitation, moneys that may become due and moneys that ar~ due may not be assigned without such consent ( e.xcept to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law). · Any attempted assignment which is not in compliance with the terms hereof shall be null and void . Unless specifically stated to the contrary in aliy Written consent to an Assignment, no Assignment · will release or discharge the Assignor from any dutY or responsibility under the Contract Doc.uments. K Contract Binding: It is agreed that this Contract shall be binding cin . and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto , their heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors. L State Statute: If this project is for a public works project or public project, as defined in Section 8-49-102(2) C.R.S. the contractor shall comply with 8-17-101 C.R.S. which requires the contractor to use at least eighty percent (80%) Colorado labor for any public works project financed in a whole or in part by State, counties, school districts, or municipal monies. M. Contractors Guarantee: The Contra~or shall guarantee that work and associated Incidentals shaU remain in good order and repair for a period of one (1) year from all causes arising from defective workmanship and materials, and to make all repairs arising from said causes during such period without further compensation. The determination of the necessity for the repair or replacement of said project, and associated incidentals or any portion thereof, shall rest entirely with the Director of Public Works whose decision upon the matter shall be final and obligatory upon the Contractor. 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone (303) 762-2412 www.englewoodgov.org 3 CFC/16·44 Demolition and Installation of New Playground Equipment at Rotolo Park VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH C.R.S. B-17.5-101 l:T.SEQ .. REGARDING HIRING OF ILLEGAL ALIENS (a} . Employees, Contractors and Subcontractors: Contractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien. to perform work under .this Contract. Contractor shall not contractwith a subcontractor that fails to certify to the Contractor that the. subcontractor will not knowingly employ or contract with an Illegal alien to perform work. under this Contract. [CRS 8-17.5-102(2)(a)(I) & (II).] . .· . (b) . Verification: Contractor will participate in either the E•Verify program or the Department program, as defined in C.R.S. 8-17.5-101 (3.3) and 8-17.5-101 (3.7) respectively, in order to confirm the employment eligibility of all employee5 who are newly hired for employment to perfonn work under thispublic contract. Contractor is prohibited from using the E-.Verify program or the Department program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while this .contract is being performed. (c} Duty to Terminate a Subcontract:· If Co.ntractor obtairis actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing VJork u.nder this Contract knowingly employs or contracts VJith an illegal alien, the Contractor shall: (1) notify the subcontractor and the City withil'! three days that the Contraclor has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; and • (2) terminate the sub-contract with the subcontractor if, within three days of receiving notice ;aquliad pu;suam to this paiagiaph the subccmtraotoi does not 5top employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that the Contractor shall not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides lhforn1ation .to establish that the subcontractor has not • knowingly employed or contracted with the illegal alien. (d) Duty to Comply with State Investigation: Contractor shall comply with any reasonable request of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made. in the course of an investigation by that the Department is undertaking pursuant to C.R.S. 8-17.5-102 (5). (e) Damages for Breach of Contract: The City may terminate this contract for a breach of contract, in whole or in part, due to Contractor's breach of any section of this paragraph or provisions required pursuant to C.R.S. 8-17.5-102. Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy the City may be entitled to for a breach of this Contract under this Paragraph. 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone (303) 762-2412 www.englewoodgov.org 4 CFC/lS-44 Demolition and lnstallatlon of New Playground Equipment at Rotolo Park • • • IN WITNESS WHEREO_F, the parties hereto have executed this 9ontfactth~ day and yej3r first V,.tritten · ··· above. · · ·· ·· .· · · .· · · CITY OF ENGLEWOOD By: ______________ Date: _______ _ (Director) By: ______________ Date: _______ _ (City Manager) By: ______________ Date: _______ _ · .· (Mayor) City Clerk Gwt>~ ~c;,T{Wc.:n.(~7,\.) I ( J1L' Contractor (print compan (Print name and Title) On this '-".)~ ~ "e day of Qe.+. , 2016, before me personally appeared Lov.tS , known to me -to_b_e_th_e-....,Qo:-~--lt.-t-~-e· of ~l-WO Co-J?T~( ( ~ • 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone (303) 762-2412 www.englewoodgov.org 5 CFC/16·44 Demolition and Installation of New Playground Equipment at Rotolo Park "-------_;...----""""-----------'the corporation .that executed the within and · foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and V()luntary act and deed of said corporation forthe uses and purposes therein mentioned , and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. · · -. IN WITNESS WHEREOF , I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first · above written . My commission expires: JIM POKORNY Notary Public Slate of Colorado NOT~ . . 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone (303) 762-2412 www.englewoodgov .org 6 CFC/16 -44 Demolition and lnstallatlon of New Playground Equ ipment at Rotolo Park • • • •• • -~. . 1. GENERAL Goodland Construction, Inc. 760 Nile Street Golden, CO 80401 November 21, 2016 SCHEDULt:A OUTLINE OF STATEMENT OF WORK 2. NAMES OF PROJECT COORDINATORS 3 . Ben Worland, VP/Superintendent . · Matt Worland, VP/Superintendent Dave Lee, Open Space Manager, Parks, Recreation & Library . SUMMARY OF PURPOSE FOR STATEMENT OF WORK Goodland Construction will demolish existing playground, construct sub-surface drainage, concrete curbing, ADA walk and install new playground equipment a~d engineered wood fiber at Rotolo Park. 4 ~ EQUIPMENT AND PROGRAMMING TO BE PROVIDED BY CITY (IF ANY) None 5 . OTHER RESOURCES See Goodland Bid Form. 6 . DESCRIPTION OF WORK PRODUCT AND DELIVERABLES 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone (303) 762-24U www .englewoodgov.org 7 ' .. ~ ·,~ .~ .. • CFC/16·44 Oemolltlon and Installation of New Playground Equipment at Rotolo Park '· .. ADA walkway to playground Concrete curbing around playground Subsurface drainage Engineered wood fiber for ADA access to playground and fall attenuation Various playground modules per the bid specifications Construction restoration to surrounding site 7. SPECIAL TERMS, IF ANY None 8. MODE OF PAYMENT Invoice and payment submitted monthly. 9. PAYMENT SCHEDULE City will pay vendor for the services in accordance with the following payment schedule. All payments to vendor are contingent on vendor's satisfying the Deliverables/Milestones set forth in the Payment Schegule. Payments shall be made upon City's written confirmation to vendor that the Deliverables-Milestones have been satisfied . 10. SCHEDULE AND PERFORMANCE MILESTONES This schedule sets for the target dates and performance milestones for the preparation and delivery of the Deliverables by vendor. · · Council Approval Notice Of Award Pre-construction Meeting Playground Construction Completion Performance Milestone November21, 2016 November 22, 2016 December 2, 2016 April 28, 2017 Responsible Party 11. ACCEPTANCE AND TESTING PROCEDURES Concrete testing to be completed by independent firm. 12. LOCATION OF WORK FACILITIES Target Date Substantially all of the work will be conducted by vendor at its regular office located in Rotolo Park 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone {303) 762 -2412 www.englewoodgov.org 8 CFC/16·44 Demolltlon and lnsta llatlon of New Playground Equipment at Rotolo Park ' .. • • • I • •• • i·;· City will p ~ovide the City office space and support a~ it agrees '~ay b~ appropri ~te, at its __ ..... N._/A __ _ ~~ . . . . . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, pursuant and In accordancewlth the .Services Agreement between the parties hereto dated 20_, the parties have executed this Statement of Work as of this __ _ day of , 20_. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO By:------,--...,--------(Signature) · (Print Name) Title :--'--------------- Date :--'-------------'--- Title: __ \'.._~:.;;;...:;;;C-.....,~ .... 'Oli..=· .... """'=._i ____ -.---- Date: _--->.:l~~/=-2h.;;... -1-/ ~ ........ --=--·· __ _ I ( 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone (303) 762-2412 www.englewoodgov.org 9 CFC/16-44 Demolltlo_n and Installation of New Playsround Equipment ilt Rotolo· Parle CFC/18-45 &idQe Repair Prcfael 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org ' .. 10 .; • • • • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Meeting Date: Agenda Item: Subject: November 21 , 2016 Parks Gateway 9ciii Enhancement Project Phase 2 Initiated By: Staff Source: Department of Parks, Recreation and Dave Lee, Open Space Manager Library PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION In 2015, Council approved both a Resolution supporting the City's Arapahoe County Open Space Grant Application and adopted a bill for an Ordinance for an Intergovernmental Agreement with Arapahoe County for the transfer and use of Open Space grant funding for the Parks Gateway Enhancements Phase I. RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommendation from the Parks, Recreation and Library Department to approve , by motion, a contract to the lowest bidder, Fast Signs of Englewood for the construction of Parks Gateway Enhancements Phase 2 . BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The Parks Gateway Enhancements demonstrate a much overdue need to replace 25 signs that are currently comprised of 50 year old hand made park identification signs with a more modern, updated design for park identification signage with additional landscaping surrounding the park signs. Replacement of the park identification signs will improve the image of the City of Englewood. Currently, 17 park identification signs have been replaced under phase 1 of this project. There are 8 parks signs due for replacement under the second phase, they include: Northwest Greenbelt, Southwest Greenbelt , Clarkson Park, Hosanna Athletic Complex, Depot Park , River Run Trailhead and Clayton Athletic Field. The proposed park signs will feature the City's newly branded logo, fonts and color schemes. FINANCIAL IMPACT Funding for the project is budgeted in the 2016 Open Space Fund. The funds come from the 2016 Arapahoe County Open Space grant award of $90,900 along with the required matching funds of $30,300. Fast Signs submitted a low bid of $83,343.04 . No Federal Funds are being used for the construction of the Parks Gateway Enhancements . LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Bid Tabulation Sheet Invitation to Bid-16-015 Small Park Sign Design Contract #CFC/16-46 • • • City of Englewood Bid Tabulation Sheet Bid Opening Date: October 13th, 2016 2:00 PM MOT I Apparent Low Bidder I ITEM BID: ITB-16-015 Englewood Parks Gateway Enhancement Project Phase II - Vendor Bid tsond TIN ;:,vu T/l'i 1ota1 tsla t=xcepr1onst1,ommenrs Fast Signs 5124 South Broadway Englewood, CO 80113 303-761-7212 Michele Harris y y $ 83,343.04 Ad Light Group 4150 Elati Street Denver, CO 80216 303-399-3334 x 208 Amanda Hurley y y $ 113,194.00 Bloom Floralscapes, LLC 3080 South Madison Street Denver, CO 80210 720-635-9011 Lauren Howell tUd includes 4"x 6" concrete curb around signs as shown m landscape plans-no rebar. Proposal is contingent upon the agreement of the City of Englewood to provide monthly progress payments to the Contractor y y $ 99,827.00 based on percent complete. • • • City of Englewood Parks Department Gateway Enhancement Monument Bid ITB-16-015 October 13th, 2016 / 2:00 PM Attn: Procurement Division FA5TSIGN5 More than fast . More than signs ~ Michele Harris Account Representative 303-761-7212 office 720-345-1142 cell ITB-16..015 Englewood Parks Gateway Enhancement Pr oject Phase II BID PROPOSAL FORM Name of Contractor: Fast signs of Englwood Date: 10-11 -2016 Cost per each sign type: Item #1 -Small sign (irrigated) (2 Sided): EA$ 10.417.88 Total for 7 signs$ 72.925.16 Item #2 -Small sign - {no plant material no irrigation) (2 sided): EA$ 10,417.88 Total for 1 sign $ 10,417.88 Lump Sum Total Bid 8 Signs: $ 83,343.04 Receipt of Addenda Nos .. _o _____________ is hereby acknowledged. TOT AL AMOUNT OF BID (2 sided) 8 Signs: __________________ ($ 83 343.04 ) One Such Bid for the Englewood Parks Gateway Enhancement Project Phase IL This Contract will be awarded to the lowest reliable, responsive and responsible bidder. This offer shall be open to acceptance and is irrevocable for ninety (90) days from the bid closing date. The undersigned bidder hereby agrees to be ready and to appear at the office of the Deparbnent of Parks and Recreation , to execute the attached form of Contract in confonnity of this bid and also to have ready and furnish the required bond in the sum of the full amount of this proposal , executed by a surety company acceptable to the City of Englewood, at any time within ten (10) days from the date of a written notice from the Director of Parks and Reaeation to do so, mailed to the address hereinafter given. 10 0 0 Englewood Parkway, Engle wood , Colorado 8011 0 Phone (303) 762 -2412 Fax (303) 78 3-6896 www .englewoodgov .org 6 ITB-16-015 Englewood Fdr>:s C:nt1ancement Project Phase !I • • • • This Proposal is made without any connection with any other persons, firms, or corporations making any other bid for this same work and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. The Undersigned Bidder acknowledges the right of the City to reject any or all bids submitted and to waive informalities therein. Dated at _______ this 11th day of_O_c_to_ber ____ _, 2016 Signature of Bidder: If an individual: _________________ doing business as If a partnership:------------------------ By:~ ____________________ member offirm If a corporation: MBM Business Services dba Fastsigns of Englewood a corporation By: Michele Harris Business address, name and phone number of Bidder: • Michele Harris (303-761-7212) 5124 South Broadway, Englewood, CO 80113 The name and location of the last work of this kind herein contemplated upon which Bidder was engaged is as follow: City of Commerce City custom fabricated park banner frames and park sjgnage 10/2016 For information relative hereto please refer to: Name Tony Jaramillo Title Parks Development Suoervisior Address 8602 East 881h Ave Commerce City. CO 80022 (303-289-8166) ... 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone (303) 762-2412 Fax (303) 783 -6896 www. e n glewood9.9_~_o r g .i'l'B-16-01~ E:nglewood ?ar:ks Enhancement: l'rnject Phase II. 7 Englewood STATEMENT OF QUALIIFICATIONS ITB-15-016 Englewood Parks Gateway Enhancement Project Date Submitted: October 11th, 2016 All questions must be answered and the data given must be clear and comprehensive. ff necessary, questions may be answered on separate attached sheets. The bidder may submit any additional information. This information will be used in the evaluation of your bid. 1. Name of Bidder 2. Fastsigns of Englewood 3. Permanent Main Office Address: 5124_ S Broadway Englewood CO 80113 4. When organized? 07 /1997 5. A. If a corporation, State incorporated in: Colorado B. Date of last filing with Secretary of State: July 20 l 6 5. How many years have you been engaged in this type of construction? Under what firm or trade names and how long under each? How long has each company been bonding work? 1997 MBM Business Services dba I Fastsigns of Englewood. 19 years 6. Major contracts on hand that parallel the proposed project (schedule these showing gross amount of each contract and the appropriate dates of completion) Please see attached Reference page. 7 . Are you licensed as municipal contractor or any other title? Yes, City of Englewood What class and number? E02 _Sign t 2173 8. General type of work performed by you: Commercial signage design, fubrication, installation, permitting 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303)762-2412 Fax (303)783-6896 ~-~~\~~.f!.£ll!\\nOd!!J]l;.9J1.1, • • 1 • • 9. Liquidated damages and/or disputes: List all government or agency projects in the last two (2) years where liquidated damages were or may be assessed, where substantial disputes or protests occurred or are currently occuning. Attach explanation in detail. None I 0. Have you ever failed to complete any work awarded you by a government agency? No If yes, where and why? 11. Have you ever defaulted or been terminated on a contract with a government agency? No If yes, where and why? Was the contract bonded? 12. List your major equipment anticipated for this contract Welder, router, paint-booth, bucket-truck with crane, bobcat 13 . Experience: On a separate sheet, list project name, location, date completed, bid value, final contract value, description of work completed, and contract name and phone number. Provide at least three project examples completed in the last five years. Attached. 14. Do you anticipate subcontracting work wider this contract? Yes If yes, what percent to total contract? 95% and to whom? O'Brian Pumping, Variety Landscaping, Prof ab 15 . Background and experience of the principal members of your organization who will be involved • in this project • Name: Michele Harris Title: Account Representative Experience 5 years Matt Metcalf Qwner 19years 16. Are any lawsuits pending against you, your finn, or the officers of the firm at this time? No Ifyes, detail: 17. Have any charges been filed against you or your finn or the bidding entity with the office of contract compliance, the Equal Opportunity Commission, a state government with the enforcement of anti-discrimination legislation or regulations? If yes, give details: No 18. Is your company currently insured? Yes If yes, with what company? The Hartford Company What are the limits of your public liability? 2 million / l million umbreHa 19. What are your company's bond limitations and with what bonding companies? Pending 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80 I I 0-2373 (303)762-24 J 2 Fax (303)783-6896 l.UUL.£.!!21c 1.\ nndg1n l'ig 2 20. Will you, upon request, fill out a detailed f"mancial statement and furnish any other infonnation that may be required by the City? Yes 21. The undersigned hereby authorizes and requests any person, form or corporation to furnish any infonnation requemd by the City in verification of1he recitals comprising this statement of bidder's qualifications. Please note, Engineer drawings are not included in this quote. Date at October l311i, 2016. By:'-""....,C6-0t: - / ( _: att Metcalf. Presi~' 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303)762-2412 Fax (303)783-6&96 • • 3 • • • • Oty of Commerce City Parks & Recreation Dept. More than fast. More than signs . Mr. Tony Jaramillo, Parks Development Supervisor 6060 East Parkway Drive Commerce City, CO 80022 303-289-8166 Current project: Custom park signs/ on going $31,816.00 Hercules Industries Mr. Rod Valdez, Facilities Manager 1310 West Evans Denver, CO 80223 303-345-8895 Project: 47,576.00 complete Value: 47,576.00 The Bluffs at Highlands Ranch Ms. Jennifer Minty, Property Manager 600 West County Line Road Littleton, CO 80129 303-791-4604 Project: 15,123.00 complete Value: 15,123.00 Littleton Capital Partners Steve Kuntz, Project Manager 2150 West 29th Avenue, Suite 40 Denver, CO 80211 303-797-9119 Current project: on going 27,153.00 Arcadis of New York Ms. Rebeka Young, Project Manager 630 Plaza Drive, Suite 200 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129 315-671-9474 Current project: on going 17,429.00 City of Englewood, Colorado 1000 Engle'INOOd Parkway, Englewood CO 80110-2373 Finance and Administrative SenAces Department TAXABLE TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY (Please use this folTTl or equhalent) Form FR39a INVOICE VENDOR'S NAME MATERIAL ONLY 3.5% ENGLEWOOD 3 .5% ENGLEWOOD .25% ARAPAHOE TYPE OF MATERIAL (Please list each separately) SALES TAX USE TAX COUNTY SALES (cement, re-bar, Number Date Cost (If paid) TAX structural steel, flooring, etc) . . .!J.-r.:.z .• (1;(1. t~U)J 11 ··-"'·:9"-t ~. ( <-~fJpit:""7' -.. ,,. '" I I ".2-i( '.)?,! 7 (:{) .l' (.; [:-;?,• ..;,. ... 2 t-f: :)?) .l..-/i •.)u .... ;r-. ' ·7 .· -· I I I , ii..-,., . -.1-: .,.... ;.-- { • ..) , {11 •. i<.'t'fli...t.v·,,_ 1-~u t- , 1J.,..• .. .,/L•1r' .L .. ,--. ,J,,,. '•·' t~ 1......\ .. ; • • r · f• ,,._~.i!'---""--(· r ~'::'( c·c-:..-1?:-~..--;:-: 1- 17~--;JJ;.:;?'V;:-::1:~ I ... r t 3 (;· (',: N v (}. y_()c.1d f!:Lf J) t.J / l.jr'f()' !..) 2> --·f j~; !.f~~~ --·····--~j,) ".i ~1--•• -----·-· ~· " --.}i 7/i ·:')-~P ,,.:7 -• · I ~k'-j__L f- -. ·' . /Id .. ,.; •• /·-i ( _.,U(t1V ~~-t. l It .-.. 1- .. J ... L naP-LR ------ /' . ~ \ c..:..-;-I 'J,-1.n:. /. t-/l~··1.h:> f. .. e;' • .. 2 .·--7 _f .. ~:J .:> 2z..-/1) ZI,53 22-.. 1/t;; --·------·-----···----·.----.,..-.-.. ·.·---·-··----·•-..•w---·--•-• //r) ,~1) :;;.:( -~-< _,,1, ... :;-,_,1 .~·12 ' ..:-.J .-.. /)"/) / '7. t/ z._. -· '"~·-·--~-..-----...,.~~-... _________ ,, .. ,,._ ... ~ ' ~ C--<J /' \ ·. \/ c..• / ··-;·r·, O, /cl<"_.'./ I/ J '-' · {,·1.,; ,.._ '·' 1-· ·' C' 7· ?'-''./ ·~----··~--~·-·--·---~ -·-- "J cl·.. u· (. ,;.,(.) / •'· ,J ; Tr....;1(J'-" 0 )!-;;~ . I J __ 20 • .~ 33-J ,-{.'-( / .. 'l '2-·· /'"/;! ::,c_p\'./. ;;.. • ·--·.> f ' (.) I 1_:y,,.,,,,:,. ? 2 ~./.4.:- !' 'cL .. ) r /. r.:,:,, 7£' .r r:..-.... Z ( ,·-') .· -J(. 7·· r:f_• f!.l1_ • .:.7 ~/L.~ .... ,rL....-~l-~~-· . • J C?q:L..-,__.,-·,,_;;_ ·..f--r~.c ,_,._._1. ·~~ (J 1 ) •) 2 ii ;£.it.v_.-o ·? t.-,.t...<<-4~,.,-. , /-l f'-' 'jh--·- 'I '7 I< j ii l.f-<'f.~· l:..v-•(/;f_,_..,._<..V1 "~ ...• r . --p C..>.-t.). f ' i . ' '/ ") /( ~.( /,...--"" ....... l.-"l<-V-;'-·• r v~ I I ~ . {Jl_.P.-"-~ r-:; t. • /Ci.~u.~7 llu-f..,.--- (_;,c.•->"7..£ ,...µ_,a..._ .... _1·· --~~---;;··-:-.. . : <.?' .._,+• .• .1~ ( ;<. ,; '.) f-"" • (' ,,,., I/ .. '· "·t .• u.-c.,.r • • • • City of Engle'INOOCI, Coforado 1000 Englewood Parkway. Englewood CO 80110-2373 Finance and AdministraU1.e Ser.ic~ Department TAXABLE TANGIBLE PERSONAl PROPERIY (Please use this fonn or equhalent) form FR39a INVOICE VENDOR'S NAME MATERIAL ONLY 3.5% ENGLEWOOD 3.5% ENGLEWOOD .25% ARAPAHOE TYPE OF MATERIAL (Please list each separately) SALES TAX USE TAX COUNlY SAtES (cement, re-bar, Number Date Cost (lfpald) TAX structural steel, Pl tA. tJ \-S YY\u\C~ ~8'~\ N s c~~h < ~ q. 'J~-t ~ ss-1.00 l () 0 ,oo I 5d$00 S-0. oO --~·---~----~-~~ ------~- 7 -) ''· c I (> ' (_•._-, \. /,..._ ,i\. . J .. /. _J/_. . .... /' ,, '.,,..1 ,. I . /,,,;.>I •c ........ ,,... l.n..:, \ q I ~1 (Cf/;).~ \o~7 3,s6 3,00 !JS" 6 . l ~'6d.. /. B;;A 0 l~ l o7S l.7S-0 12 -~. /~ -~:/:-~~7 -. iL3.'J-·-l8 --1-:.~,·~/,:r· ·x ,,. ~I.e.;• ... J1f:r . . .. _.) ' Q ·-.~ (,, ...... I -· ,. .. c;:-.f (.J~·::i () 2 tO . ~(: . I {-,q( ' VARIETY LANDSCAPE Dennis C. l'an 27'0 W. Union• Englewood, CO 80110 (303) 730-8380 20 _,:~ flooring, etc} f'lc:".\_ut-5 1{'1\Vl~~ Me.le,...\ e.4~ i 4 \)\, (" +- AC~ TLB I ;;~91 n°;;';~ .....___.. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE R022 • THIS CERTIFICATEIS ISSUED AS A MATIER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BEIWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER($), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If tho certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, th& pollcy(les) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsomcml A statement on this certificate does not confer rloht:s to the certificate holder In lieu of such endorsement(s) • .... """'-<ft .~ .. -· NAME COBIZ INSURANCE INC/PHS I'~'" (866) 467-8730 1~.NoJ ( 888) 443-6112 (I.JC, N~. Ell): 340725 p: (866) 467-8730 F: ( 888) 443-6112 E.MAI\. AOORES$ PO BOX 33015 ~EAlSl AFFOROINC ~?W'JE twCt SAN ANTONIO TX 78265 INSUR!.RA Hartford Ca>ualty Ins Co 29 424 INSURED INSUft.ER B ; Sen c inel Ins Co LT D 11000 MBM BUSINESS SERVICES INC DBA FAST WSURUC : Twi n City Fire Ins co 29459 SIGNS INSU!"fl\O· 5124 S BROADWAY tNS\Jf\EA E . ENGLEWOOD CO 80113 ............ COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: TH IS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED . NOTWTHSTANOING ANY REQUIREMENT , TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN , THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO All THE TERMS , EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICI ES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS . !.VSR. rrP!i Ul' INS VRA.NCE ADIJL ~!!!!.~ PUi..l('l'f'o'lJ°,\WER /'ULJCYE/"Y PUL/Cl"F...V U.V/U ... ..... IJfMtnM"'Y't1, l ,~ .............. n COMMERCIAL GENERAl. UAalUTV EACH OCCURRENCE ~l, 000, 000 1--D cl.AIMtl-MAOE [9occuR !WMGE TO RmraO ~300,000 1--PR9M6E.6 (Ea OCCU'Tel'ICle} A x General Li ab 34 SBI\ GH9398 08/04 /2016 08/04/20 17 MED f)(J> IAn>/ one l'<"O") ~10,000 1-- ·1,000,000 PERSOHAI. I Ar:JV tf\U URY 1-- :2,000,000 REN'!. AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER GENERAL ,liGQREG-\TE [TIPR0-o PROOIJC'TU ·COMP/OP ,\CC :2' 000, 000 POLICY JECT LO C OTHER ll AIJTOMOBILE LIABILITY COM:BINEO SINGLE U.\UT ;l,000,000 (Eaactid•l"I!) 1--• x ANY AUTO SOC.LY !!<JURY (Po< ponon) p L--01/\'NEO -SCHEOULED B 34 OEC ISC495 01/01/2016 01/01/2017 BODILY INJURY (Pe< acddenl) ' L--AUTOS ONLY .__ AUTOS x HIRED )\ !'ION-OWNED PROPERTY CWMGE AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY (P•r ac:Odent) 1$ 1--.__. s x UlllBREl.1.A UAB HOCCUR EA.CH OCCURRENCE ~1,000,000 A EXCESSUAS CLAIMs-MAOE 34 SBA GH9396 OB /OV20l6 08/04/~017 AGGP.EOATE sl, 000, 000 e<ol X IAET<N'llONI 10, 000 ~ rmsu:auttJ.IU'lf.~ Tl~ X l~~;;nm I lai" AND Dl!f.fJJ"EIU .. UAlfU.ffY AN'f PROPRIETOR/PAATNERIE)<ECUTIVE YIN E.L EACH llCCIOEW s1, 000, 000 OFFlCERME!IBER EXCLUOID'I D NIA -•1,000,000 c 1M•nrJJ1ory In NH/ 34 WEC JJ9 421 08/04/20lG 08/04/20 1 7 EL DISEASE· EA EMP LOYEE -u yes, deocroe IA1dor E.L DIS EASE -l'OUCV LIMIT sl, 000, 000 DESCRIPT ION OF OPEAATIONS below DESCRJPnON OF OPERATION$ I L.OCA TIOHS I VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additlon::il R~nuu11.1 5~adu1 .. 11'\ay 1M aU.ch~ ii more sp•co ls requlAd) Those usual to the Insured' s Operations. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED Management of Risk Administrator BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE \l'JILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE wrrH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. City of Englewood AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA 77vz: -1000 ENGLEWOOD PKWY 7t1l-z_ /?1.d~ ENGLEWOOD, co 80l10 IC 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All nghtll reserved. ACORD 25 (2016103) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD • • • NOTES sec L11go Pil!k klc111Jicntim Sign !OJ oimila1 details 5'·9" 1'-li" 5•4• 11/4" 2· s·-0· T 0.. MONTGOMERY 11 .. 1 ANDERSEN ! 5 314• PARK r 6 31!" u ~··,··-~-~-. \ ' 111.p.,ili\.c6;~,,;..1'i'Vif ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rli~~~~4if.!"'~~~~~~~~~""4~~~~~~d;J~fl'f~ ... ~lftll~~~lnl' • • ,,, 'iil'I'::-.;.• "' ,. Ill I W II 314' 6"-0" 1·-0· 6"·3" 1'-3. • • . r-.c1JO IHS ICH JN C llUWUU STUCT Sl.trtl:tl HtiVU, COl~MU HJtr l?JOOllU rt0•£J:1utlUt11f•tM'I -w1.ultll4ou1•"0.l'I UAl'IOCDtll!i!'I W'.\HIHOtrlG 1fCffA.tlSfl1UU ,ACUGl11& City of fnQltwood Dep.1trtmenr of Parks llRecrulion Small Park Id sntification Sign 112"·1'-0" PreNm11llfy Des1on 11 .0S .1 2 Ou19nOtv1lop1t11nt 11.15.12 Design Dovtlopmenl 12.14.12 final Oesi;n 12.20.12 ORAn 10.23.11 RnalD•SJ\ln 10.Jfl.15 ShHt nurnb.r 2.0 CONTRACT# CFC/16--46 ($83,343) THIS CONTRACT and agreement, made and entered into this 25th day of October, 2016, by and between the City of Englewood, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado hereinafter referred to as the "City•, and Fast Signs of Englewood whose address is 5124 South Broadway, Englewood CO 80113 ("Contractor"), commencing on the 24th day of October, 2016, and continuing for at least ten (10) days thereafter the City advertised that sealed proposals would be received for furnishing all labor, tools, supplies, equipment, materials and everything necessary and required for the following: PROJECT: Installation of Parle Identification Signs WHEREAS, proposals pursuant to said advertisement have been received by the Mayor and City Council and have been certified by the Director of Parks, Recreation & Library to the Mayor and City Council with a recommendation that a contract for work be awarded to the above named Contractor who was the lowest reliable and responsible bidder therefore, and WHEREAS, pursuant to said recommendation, the Contract has been awarded to the above named Contractor by the Mayor and City Council and said Contractor is now willing and able to perform all of said work in accordance with said advertisement and his proposal NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the compensation to be paid and the work to be perfonned under this contract, the parties mutually agree as follows: A. Contract Documents: It is agreed by the parties hereto that the following list of instruments, drawings and documents which are attached or incorporated by reference constitute and shall be referred to either as the Contract Documents or the Contract and au of said instruments, drawings, and documents taken together as a whole constitute the Contract between the parties hereto and they are as fully a part of this agreement as if they were set out verbatim and in full: Invitation to Biel Contract (this instrument) Insurance Performance Payment Maintenance Bond B. Scope of Work: The Contractor agrees to and shan furnish aU labor, tools, supplies, equipment, materials and evefYlhing necessary for and required to do, perform and complete all the work described, drawn, set forth, shown and included in said Contract Documents. 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org 1 • • • • • C. Terms of Performance: The Contractor agrees to undertake the performance of the work under this Contract within ten (10) davs from being notified to commence work by the Director of Parks, Recreation & Library. D. Indemnification: The city cannot and by this Agreement/Contract does not agree to indemnify, hold harmless, exonerate or assume the defense of the Contractor or any other person or entity, for any purpose. The Contractor shall defend, indemnify and save hannless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, demands, suits, actions or proceedings of any kind or nature including Worker's Compensation claims, in any way resulting from or arising out of this Agreement/Contract: provided, however, that the Contractor need not indemnify or save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from damages resulting from the sole negligence of the City's officers, agents and Employees. E. Termination of Award for Convenience: The City may tenninate the award at any time by giving written notice to the Contractor of such tennination and specifying the effective date of such tennination, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event au finished or unfinished service, reports, material (s) prepared or furnished by the Contractor after the award shall, at the option of the City, become its property. If the award is terminated by the City as provided herein, the Contractor will be paid that amount which bears the same ratio to the total compensation as the services actuaUy performed or material furnished bear to the total serviceslmaterials the successful firm agreed to perform under this award, less payments of compensation previously made. If the award is terminated due to the fault of the Contractor the clause relating to termination of the award for cause shaUappty. F. Termination of Award for Cause: If, through any cause, the Contractor shaU fail to fulfiD in a timely and proper manner its obligations or if the Contractor shaU violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of the award, the City shaD have the light to terminate the award by giving written notice to the Contractor of such termination and specifying the effective date of termination. In that event, all furnished or unfinished services, at the option of the City, become its property, and the Contractor shall be entitled to receive just, equitable compensation for any satisfactory work documents, prepared completed or materials as furnished. Notwithstanding the above, the Contractor shall not be relieved of the liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of breach of the award by the Contractor and the City may withhold any payments to the Contractor for the purpose of set off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Contractor is determined. G. Teuns of Pavment The City agrees to pay the Contractor for the performance of all the work required under this contract, and the Contractor agrees to accept as his full and only compensation therefore, such sum or sums of money as may be proper in accordance with the price or prices set forth in the Contractor's proposal attached and made a part hereof, the total estimated cost thereof being Eighty-Three Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Three Dollars ($83.343.). A 5% retainage of the awarded project amount will be withheld until final inspection and acceptance by the Project Manager. 1000 Englewood Parkway, EnglewoOd, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov .org 2 H. Appropriation of Funds: At present. $83,343. has been appropriated for the project. Notwithstanding • anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, the parties understand and acknowledge that each party is subject to Article X, § 20 of the Colorado Constitution ("TABOR•). The parties do not intend to violate the terms and requirements of TABOR by the execution of this Agreement It is understood and agreed that this Agreement does not create a multi-f1Scal year direct or indirect debt or obligation within the meaning of TABOR and, notwithstanding anything in this AgreemenUContract to the contrary, all payment obrigations of the City are expressly dependent and conditioned upon the continuing availability of funds beyond the term of the City's current fiscal period ending upon the next succeeding December 31. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted, and otherwise made available in accordance with the rules, regulations, and resolutions of the City and applicable law. Upon the failure to appropriate such funds, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated. The City shall immediately notify the Contractor or its assignee of such occurrence in the event of such termination. I. Liauidated Damages: The City and Contractor recognize that time is of the essence in this Agreement because of the public interest in health and safety, and that the City wiU suffer financial loss, and inconvenience, if the Work is not complete within the time specified in the bid documents, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with the General Conditions. They also recognize the delays, expense and difficulties involved in proving, in a legal proceeding, the actual loss suffered by the City if the Work is not complete on time. Accordingly, instead of requiring any such proof, the City and Contractor agree that as Rquidated damages for delay, but not as a penalty, Contractor shall pay the City $0.00 for each day that expires after the time specified for substantial completion until the Work is complete, and $0.00 for each day that expires after the time specified for final completion until the Work is finany complete. J. AssiQnment Contractor shall not, at any time, assign any interest in this Agreement or the other Contract Documents to any person or entity without the prior written consent of the City specifically including, but without Hmitation, moneys that may become due and moneys that are due may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this resbiction may be limited by law). Any attempted assignment which is not in compliance with the terms hereof shall be null and void. Unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an Assignment. no Assignment will release or discharge the Assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract Documents. K. Contract Binding: It is agreed that this Contract shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their heirs, executors, administrators, assigns, and successors. L State Statute: If this project is for a public works project or public project, as defined in Section 8-49- 102(2) C.R.S. the contractor shall comply with S-17-101 C.RS. which requires the contractor to use at least eighty percent (800k) Colorado tabor for any public works project financed in a whole or in part by State, cotmties, school disbicts, or municipal monies. M. Contractors Guarantee: The Contractor shaU guarantee that work and associated Incidentals shall remain in good order and repair for a period of one (1) year from aH causes arising from defective workmanship and materials, and to make all repairs arising from said causes during such period without further compensation. The detennination of the necessity for the repair or replacement of said 1000 Englewood Paltway, Englewood. Cororado 8011~2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org 3 • • project, and associated incidentals or any portion thereof, shall rest entirely with the Director of Public • Works whose decision upon the matter shall be final and obligatory upon the Contractor. • VERIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH C.R.S. 8-17.5-101 ET.SEQ. REGARDING HIRING OF ILLEGAL ALIENS (a) Employees, Contractors and Subcontractors: Contractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perfonn work under this Contract. Contractor shall not contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to the Contractor that the subcontractor will not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract. [CRS 8-17.5-102(2)(a)(I) & (U).) (b) Verification: Contractor will participate in either the E-Verify program or the Department program, as defined in C.R.S. 8-17.5-101 (3.3) and 8-17.5-101 (3.7) respectively, in order to confum the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perfonn work under this public contract. Contractor is prohibited from using the E-Verify program or the Department program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while this contract is being performed. (c) Duty to Tenninate a Subcontract If Contractor obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor perfonning work under this Contract knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien. the Contractor shall: (1) notify the subcontractor and the City within three days that the Contractor has actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an iltegat alien; and (2) terminate the sub-contract with the subcontractor if, within three days of receiving notice required pursuant to this paragraph the subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the iDegal alien; except that the Contractor shaD not terminate the contract with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with the Hlegal alien. (d) Duty to Comply with State Investigation: Contractor shaU comply with any reasonable request of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation by that the Department is undertaking pur.iuant to C.RS. 8-17.5-102 (5). (e) Damages for Breach of Contract The City may terminate this contract for a breach of contract, in whole or in part, due to Contractor's breach of any section of this paragraph or provisions required pursuant to C.R.S. 8-17.5-102. Contractor shall be fiable for actual and consequential damages to the City in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy the City may be entitled to for a breach of this Contract under this Paragraph. 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110.2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Contract the day and year first written above. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD By: ____________ Date: ______ _ {Directol) By: ____________ Oate: ______ _ (City Manager) By: ____________ Date: ______ _ (Mayor) ATIEST: _________ _ City CJett< Date: JO -zi7 · 1& STATE OF Qt\O\CM.lD ) r (A ) ss. COUNTY OF < ~)()'(.~ 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov .org • • s • • [fl On this ~th. day of ®c!rJOO--. , 2016, before me personally appeared /110...Jfhe.!O.) IJJ · 1 l t-co. (,\t:~m~wn to me to be the pce.5tclRAf of M,i'iffi bw>ifill6 Sto.!tfoA . jtJI\, , l\f,A @~~ltwao2, the corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, ~nd acknowledged · instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to e)(ecute said instrument. tN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. My commission expires: ~tM+-Zf.9, wti • JULIA KRUEGER d UOTARY PUBLIC .HATE •JF COtOR/IDO NOTARY 10 'tl14403J605 f.1Y C· '11.IP.\IS':ilOll EXPtllES/\UG~ w. ioili 1000 Englewood Partcway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org 6 SCHEDULE A OUTLINE OF STATEMENT OF WORK 1. GENERAL Fast Signs of Englewood 5124 South Broadway Englewood, CO 80113 November 21, 2016 2 . NAMES OF PROJECT COORDINATORS Michelle Hanis, Account Representative Fast Signs of Englewood 3. SUMMARY OF PURPOSE FOR STATEMENT OF WORK Construct and install 8 small paJk identification signs. 4. EQUIPMENT AND PROGRAMMING TO BE PROVIDED BY CITY (IF ANY) None 5. OTHER RESOURCES See Fast Signs Bid Proposal. 6. DESCRIPTION OF WORK PRODUCT AND DELIVERABLES Construct concrete base for signs Provide lettering and grant signage for concrete base 1000 Englewood Pasttway, Englewood, Colorado 8011 ~2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org • • 7 • • 7 . Construct aluminum sign on base Install landscaping surrounding the sign SPECIAL TERMS, IF ANY None 8. MODE OF PAYMENT Invoice and payment submitted monthly. 9. PAYMENT SCHEDULE City will pay vendor for the services in accordance with the following payment schedule. All payments to vendor are contingent on vendor's satisfying the Deliverables/Milestones set forth in the Payment Schedule. Payments shaU be made upon City's written confirmation to vendor that the Deliverables-Milestones have been satisfied. 10. SCHEDULE AND PERFORMANCE MILESTONES Council Approval Notice of Award Pre-construction Meeting Parle 10 Signage Construction Completion November 21, 2016 Novernber22,2016 December 2, 2016 April28,2017 This schedule sets for the target dates and performance milestones for the preparation and delivery of the • Deliverables by vendor. Perfonnance Milestone Responsible Party 11. ACCEPTANCE AND TESTING PROCEDURES 12. LOCATION OF WORK FACILITIES Target Date Substantially an of the work will be conducted by vendor at its regular office located in various park locations. City WJ11 provide the City office space and support as it agrees may be appropriate, at its ------ facility. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, pursuant and in accordance with the Services Agreement between the parties hereto dated , 2016, the parties have executed this Statement of Work as of this __ day of 2016. 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110.2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org 8 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO By: __________ _ (Signature) (Print Name) Title: ____________ _ Date: ____________ _ Company Name (Print Name) Date: 10 ·22 I (a fc l' .u [1"'1i ·~·.-J P ,~ .. ~;..1 :w ;, • r i.A:.11 1000 Englewood Parltway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org • • 9 • • City of Englewood AGENDA ITEM 10 (a) PUBLIC HEARING ROSTER DATE : November 21 , 2016 A public hearing regarding the proposed Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan Update. ~ Speakers must sign up for Public Hearing ~ at the beginning of the meeting. Please limit iour presentation to three minutes PLEASE PRINT NAME ADDRESS cCcf(O A public hearing for the resolution of the Iron Works Metro A public hearing regarding the proposed Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan Update. PLEASE PRINT NAME ADDRESS Colorado Community Media 9137 Ridgeline Blvd., Suite 210 .hlands Ranch, Co 80129 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Colorado )ss County of Arapahoe This Affidavit of Publication for the ENGLEWOOD HERALD , a weekly newspaper, printed and published for the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, hereby certifies that the attached legal notice was published in said newspaper once in each week, for 1 successive week(s), the last of which publication was made the 10th day of November A.O ., 2016, and that copies of each number of said paper in which said Public Notice was published were deliv~red by carriers or transmitted by mail to each of the subscribers of said paper, according to their accustomed mode of business in this office . For the Englewood Herald State of Colorado } County of Douglas } ss The above Affidavit and Certificate of Publication was subscribed and sworn to before by the above named Gerard Healey, publisher of said newspaper, who is personally known to me to be the identical person in the above certificate on the 10th day of November A.O., 2016. Gerard Healey has verified to me that he has adopted an electronic signature to function as his sigflature on this document. w~ Notary Public My commission ends December 18 , 2019 • HEATHER L. CROMPTON NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO NOT ARY ID 20154048391 Conmlssion expradon date: Oecembe.-18, 2019 Public Notice CITY OF ENGLEWOOD NOTICE OF PUBLIC,HEARING November 21, 2016 Notice Is hereby given thatthe City Council of the City of Englewood.- Colorado, has scheduled a Publlc Hearing at a Regular City Council. Meeting on NOVEMBER 21, 2016, at "1:00 p.m. In the City <:;ouncli Chambers of Englewood Civic Center, 1000 Englewood Parkway, regarding the proposed Englewood Forward ComprehenslVe Plan Update. A copy of the proposed plan Is available In the Community Development Department. Interested parties may express. opinions Irr person at the Publlc Hearing, a sign· up sheet will be av11i.lable at the door, or In writing to bit received by the City Clerk by 6:00 p.m. on NOVEMBER 21, 2016. By orde.r of. the Englewood Clty·Gouncll Loucrlshia A. Ellls, MMC City Clerk, City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Legal Notice No.: 58222 First Publication: November 10, 2016 Last publication: November 10, 2016 Publisher. The Englewood Heral<! and the· Littleton Independent • • • PROOF OF PUBLICATION City of Englewood , Colorado Official Website www.englewoodgov.org I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk, for the City of Englewood, do solemnly swear that the attached legal notice (Notice of Public Hearing on November 21, 2016 regarding the proposed Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan Update.) was published on the Official City of Englewood Website from November 10, 2016 through November 21 , 2016 . State of Colorado SS County of Arapahoe Subscribed and sworn to before me on this 21st day of November, 2016 . My Commission Expires: :[u /J ~2020 SEAL JACQUELINE McKINNON NOTARY PUBLIC STATE O~ COLORADO NOTAR Y 1;-. 2<" • ~ ':0""P6 7 MY COMMISSION CAP.0.E.... ...r,..,,., 9t;F Ad~ ary Public • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING November 21, 2016 Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, has scheduled a Public Hearing at a Regular City Council Meeting on NOVEMBER 21, 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of Englewood Civic Center, 1000 Englewood Parkway, regarding the proposed Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan Update. A copy of the proposed plan is available In the Community Development Department. Interested parties may express opinions in person at the Public Hearing, a sign- up sheet will be available at the door, or in writing to be received by the City Clerk by 5:00 p.m. on NOVEMBER 21, 2016. By order of the Englewood City Council Loucrishia A. Ellis, MMC City Clerk, City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 PUBLISHED: November 9, 2016 Official Website of the City of Englewood, Colorado • 'VTri-County r Health Department November 21, 2016 Harold Stitt City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110 RE: Englewood Forward TCHD Case No . 3689 Dear Mr. Stitt: Tri-County Health Department (TCHD) has been involved in the process of the Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan through a focus group and has followed the plan's progress. We are pleased to see that Englewood has embraced health in the plan and we have the following comments . TCHD commends Englewood for including elements throughout the plan that promote health and improve quality of life for community members . Housing, transportation, education and economic development all have a tremendous impact on the health of community members. The elements that promote health in the plan include: promoting a variety of high quality housing stock to fit the needs of families , singles, and seniors; encouraging economic opportunities for residents and businesses; improving access to services and healthy food; expanding pedestrian, bicycle, and transit connectivity; providing quality educational programs; and enhancing recreational opportunities. Housing TCHD commends the City for including goals and objectives in the "Live" section to address the quality and diversity of the housing stock. Having access to affordable, quality housing is extremely important to health . Due to the large population influx and rising housing prices, it is essential to have a quality, diverse housing stock to meet the needs of current and future residents . The plan addresses these concerns through encouraging diverse new housing developments and promoting the improvement of the current housing stock. Planning while keeping in mind the relationship between land use and transportation will allow for housing to be located in areas with better access to jobs, schools, transit, and commerce, thus reducing residents' reliance on automobiles and promoting walking, biking, or transit as alternate modes of transportation. Economic Opportunities TCHD supports the goals and objectives in the "Work" section that address workforce development, matching of workforce skills to available jobs, and promoting companies that offer living wages. Income level is one of the strongest social determinants of health, and ensuring that residents have access to quality jobs in their community that pay living wages will help to alleviate financial stressors and reduce commute times . Serving Adams , Arapahoe and Douglas Counties• www .tchd.org 6162 S . Wi ll ow Dr ., Suite 100 •Greenwood Village , CO 80 111 • 303-220-9200 "Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan November 21, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Healthy Eating and Active Living Because chronic diseases related to physical inactivity and obesity now rank among the country's greatest public health risks, TCHD encourages community designs that make it easy for people to include regular physical activity, such as walking and bicycling, in their daily routines. By including goals and objectives in the "Move," "Shop," and "Play" sections about multi-modal mobility and connectivity , Complete Streets, mixed use zoning, and access to healthy food, Englewood is promoting designs that encourage healthy eating and physical activity . Education TCHD commends the City for including "Learn" goals and objectives. Educational programs are extremely important for building capacity and improving health outcomes in the community. TCHD also supports the educational elements surrounding environmental concerns such as environmental stewardship, recycling and reuse of waste materials and structures, energy conservation, and water quality and conservation. These elements will allow for the community to protect their environment and will promote the sustainability and resilience of the City. We look forward to continuing to work with the City of Englewood on the implementation of the Englewood Forward goals and objectives to promote health for all Englewood residents. Please feel free to contact me at (720) 200-1585 or lbroten@tchd.org if you have any questions . Sincerely, Laurel Broten, MPH Land Use and Built Environment Specialist Tri-County Health Department CC: Sheila Lynch, Laura DeGolier, TCHD • • • TO: Mayor Jefferson and Councilmembers THRU: Eric Keck, City Manager Brad Power, Community Development Director FROM: Harold J. Stitt, Senior Planner DATE: November 16, 2016 SUBJECT: Englewood Forward Comprehensive Plan Public Hearing Background In 2003, the City of Englewood completed Roadmap Englewood : The 2003 Englewood Comprehensive Plan that laid out a three-part strategy for the growth and development of the city . Collectively, the strategies were formally entitled as The Three R's: Revitalization, Redevelopment, and Reinvention. In the years that followed, redevelopment projects in Englewood were few, and were further compounded by the financial crisis of 2008 and the Great Recession. The recession's impact on the Denver Metro economy was most noticeable on workforce and working neighborhoods, including Englewood. While the City is recovering, it has been at a slightly slower rate than the Denver Metropolitan Area as a whole . During this time of slow economic recovery, policy makers recognized that the City must take a bolder direction and initially called for a revamping of Roadmap Englewood, to reflect the changing environment. However, after consideration, City Council directed the development of a new and more robust Comprehensive Plan document as a starting point for charting future development and investment. The new comprehensive planning effort was joined with grant funded projects of the Englewood Light Rail Corridor Next Steps Study and the Englewood Walk and Wheel Master Plan and Program, to form the Englewood Forward planning process . The public outreach for these projects included 21,000 residents and businesses reached by Englewood's Citizen Newsletter, 600 postcards mailed to key businesses and residences near the light rail stations, 1, 700 residents notified through Nextdoor.com, 323 City of Englewood 's e-notifier contacts, and 570 interested stakeholders on the Englewood Forward mailing list. The Plan: Englewood Forward The Plan is divided into four parts. Part 1 introduces the plan and its goals, outlines the public process used to develop Englewood Forward , and provides the overall vision for each theme - Live, Work, Shop, Learn , Play, and Move. Part 2 provides the foundation for the Plan by analyzing the existing conditions (snapshots) and refining specific city-wide goals and objectives. Part 3, the neighborhood area assessments, depicts the characteristics and key projects that define each area. These character-oriented areas contribute to the overall vision and implementation of the Plan. By focusing on how to make change work at the neighborhood level , the City will ensure that preservation and development occur in the desired amount, location, and type throughout the community . Part 4 consists of an adaptive monitoring program and strategic plan that will be used to track progress towards meeting the vision and common themes . /Da 2 Part 1: The Importance of Englewood • Englewood Forward : The 2016 Englewood Comprehensive Plan has been developed to help guide the private development community to invest in and build appropriately-scaled projects in locations according to the existing layout of the City and the values of its citizenry. In order to realize the City's fullest potential , decision makers must be committed to the City 's role in planning for and investing in the quality and character of the public infrastructure . The strategies laid out in the Plan , are designed to assist decision makers in planning and implementation of community public investment. Englewood Forward establishes a vision for the City 's land use while also serving as a policy document containing direction for the development of Englewood over the next 10 plus years . The Plan sets forth broad principles to support six plan themes : Live , Work, Move , Shop , Learn, and Play . Based on these principles , detailed goals and objectives outline how the vision can be realized. Locations of stability , transition, and catalytic change are identified for 13 unique neighborhood areas within the City. Building on the City 's rich tradition of comprehensive planning , the Englewood Forward project was based on four key project goals : • Strengthen existing goals and object ives from Roadmap Englewood by incorporating sustainability , active daily living , and healthy eating principles. • Develop a menu of strategies des igned to address each comprehensive plan element. • Engage the community in evaluating the menu of strategies and making choices on which strategies the City should pursue. • Develop an implementation program based on the community 's adopted strategies. Part 2: Englewood's Framework The Plan outlines a direction forward that recognizes Englewood's h istory , preserves those elements that make Englewood a great place , and promotes actions to help the City thrive and strengthen in the coming years . The Goals and Objectives of the Plan are categorized into six themes: Live , Work, Shop, Learn, Play , and Move. The Goals and Objectives were developed through community input and extensive review by the Planning and Zoning Commission , as well as City Council. Live Maintaining a diversified housing stock is integral to any city 's livability. Available homes must be suitable for all life stages and lifestyles in order to attract and keep young adults as they progress through marriage , raising kids , downsizing , and transitioning to assisted living facilities . As a first-r ing suburb of Denver, Englewood has many smaller, affordable houses in older neighborhoods and a significant number of apartments . The City also has numerous urban amenities with a concentration of walkable businesses along Broadway and in CityCenter, the region's first transit-oriented development adjacent to light rail. As such, the City is particularly attractive to Millennials and Baby Boomers, both of whom have an affinity toward urban living , walkable areas, and transit options . However, the City must evolve its housing stock to accommodate families desiring larger houses . Work Recruiting a highly educated workforce is now crucial to business attraction and the economic health of cities. As Baby Boomers continue to retire, there will be opportunities for younger talent to seek good mid-to-high wage jobs . With educated Millennials choosing to live in more urban areas , Englewood can position itself to attract companies that are looking to locate near • • • • • 3 young talent. Lower than average incomes are prevalent in Englewood, however, and could be a deterrent to retaining mid-life residents seeking higher-paying job opportunities. Move Transportation preferences are shifting . Car ownership and vehicle miles traveled in the United States have decreased in recent years, while transit ridership has experienced a significant increase. This is especially true among Millennials and Baby Boomers, who prefer walkable urban environments and are forgoing automobile ownership in favor of transit , walking, and biking. Englewood's higher-than-average walkability , extensive bike network, and access to light rail can help the City further attract these demographic segments . Walkable communities experience economic benefits such as higher property values and higher net incomes for office, retail and industrial businesses. Englewood 's light rail stations provide an opportunity to expand transit oriented development that integrates housing, employment, and transportation options. Shop Today's consumers are seeking a variety of retail with a specific interest in local, independent businesses and places that provide experience shopping. This has influenced big box retail to re-examine their store fronts in urban contexts, in favor of smaller formats that fit within more compact, walkable environments. Technology also continues to influence retail space , with a growing number of online sales replacing in-store shopping in some instances. These changing consumer behaviors mean retail square footage is shrinking -even though consumer expenditures have risen to pre-recession levels . Learn Englewood and the Englewood School District have made significant investments in developing educational offerings in the City . However, underperforming schools are a problem, which Englewood must address in order to attract more families . Although environmental stewardship , water and air quality, and energy conservation are issues that are regional in scale, many solutions begin at the local level. The City 's land use and transportation systems, key elements of the comprehensive plan, can be designed in a way that reduces the impacts on the environment. By providing transportation alternatives within the City, promoting higher densities and pedestrian oriented commercial spaces to encourage walking and biking , and providing facilities and programs that help residents reduce their impact can increase the environmental quality. PLAY Recreational opportunities contribute to a community's quality of life and can help counter the obesity epidemic and rising health care costs . As such, they have become an increasingly important factor in determining where to live or locate a business. Cities are responding by looking at land use choices that support healthy lifestyles -including parks, open space and recreation facilities . Local policy makers are increasingly paying attention to the connection between health and the way communities are designed and branded . Cultural amenities and good schools are desirable as a service and resource to enhance quality of life for all residents . Part 3: Envisioning the Plan Englewood is made up of a series of connected neighborhood areas, which are used to tailor the Vision and opportunities to specific residential , retail, and employment centers of the community. A neighborhood area is a subarea of the City, made up of multiple unique neighborhoods with similar character and common goals that forms a community . These neighborhood areas are uniquely organized around public amenities such as schools, parks , or a civic center, and provide places to live , work, shop , play, learn , and move. Although all 4 neighborhood areas provide a mix of uses, each has a specific emphasis -residential, retail, or • employment. These character-oriented areas contribute to Comprehensive Plan's overall vision and implementation. Realizing the Vision of Englewood Forward requires a proactive approach . The desired character has been articulated through ongoing conversations with the community. Englewood's Vision includes a series of vibrant neighborhood areas connected to the City's central commercial cores and the Denver Metropolitan region . Development will be designed and appropriately located to enhance community character and preserve and protect Englewood's identity and history. Connected neighborhoods will be enhanced over time by new developments. Defining desired character for each unique neighborhood area provides predictability in planning and development. The neighborhood area assessments bridge the gap between our vision and individual site development so that all community members can understand how neighborhood enhancements or development projects should contribute to the achievement of our Vision. The desired character of potential catalytic areas will inform land development regulations that ensure that no policy of Englewood Forward is forgotten, and that all policies are implemented within the proper context. By defining the existing and desired character of each neighborhood area, we can quantify our progress and determine which policies/ strategies are appropriate by geographic location . This will enable the rigorous analysis needed to adapt implementation strategies, ensuring that preservation and development occur in the desired amount, location and type. Part 4: Realizing the Plan • An adaptive management program provides a structure to continuously verify the path that Englewood is on and correct course when necessary to ensure that our desired character is realized. The Plan should be flexible and allow changes to ensure that it is heading in the right direction. Englewood Forward includes the following adaptive management program that allows the City to annually review progress toward achieving the Vision, develop strategies for implementation, and prepare an annual work plan that is tied to the City Council's strategic goals and budget. Through the annual Community Profile, Englewood can compare measurements within the Plan's goals and objectives and will have the information needed to proactively review annual work plans to move Englewood forward. The Community Profile will be updated to follow the six plan element themes. A more extensive check-in should occur every 5 years with an update of the Indicators Report. The 5-year update should be an effort to build on lessons learned through the annual review of indicators. If at the 5-year check-in , there are drastic changes in the community, or indicators are not being met, the staff will recommend supplementary strategies in addition to the annual work plan or prepare a Comprehensive Plan Update . The strategic plan is the bridge between the vision and implementation . The strategic plan allows Englewood to be adaptive, flexible, responsible, and decisive in addressing the location and type of future development. Staff and civic leaders should draw on the following strategies to guide the economic development and growth within the City. The strategic plan consists of key strategies organized into potential projects, future plans or studies, and guidelines or regulations. Strategies suggest potential financing options, public/ private partnerships, business retention tactics, and housing solutions to help leverage city resources for improvements and to sustain long term economic development programming. • Date November21 , 2016 Initiated By COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item 11 bi De artment Of Finance and Administrative Services PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Subject Bill For An Ordinance Establishing The 2016 Mill Levy Collected in 2017-2nd Readin Staff Source Kath Rinkel , Director City Council and staff began the 2017 budget process at the April 18 , 2016 Study Session with an overview of the City 's F iscal Health and Wellness by means of the Center for Priority Based Budgeting 's Fiscal Health and Wellness Tool , General Fund Reserve Policy and preliminary budget discussion . The Proposed Budget was discussed with Council at the August 22 , Study Session. The Proposed Budget was reviewed again with Council and staff at the August 29 Study Session . On September 12, 2016 , the Budget Advisory Committee provided Council w ith an update of their activities and provided an Annual Report regarding their findings and recommendations. A public hearing to gather citizen input regarding the 2017 Proposed Budget was held on September 19, 2016 . Due to no public comment from the public hearing necessitating changes to the proposed budget, the "budget workshop " scheduled for the September 26 , 2016 Study Session was not held . • October 3, 2016 a first reading was conducted and the ordinance was passed 7-0 On October 17 , 2016 on second reading the motion failed on a 3-2 vote. The Englewood 's home rule charter, Article V , Section 37 requires that every ordinance shall require the affirmative vote of the majority of the membership of the entire council for final passage. This item was resubmitted as a first reading on November 7 , 2016 , and passed on a 5-2 vote. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends Council approve this bill for an ordinance , on 2nd reading , establishing the 2016 mill levy to be collected in 2017 . BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The City of Englewood assesses property tax for the general government operations and for the General Obligation Bonds Debt Service Fund . TABOR restricts the City from raising the mill levy without a vote of the citizens . The City's general mill levy has been unchanged since 1992. This year's General Fund mill levy remains unchanged at 5.880 mills ; however, the General Obligation Bonds Debt Service mill levy is 1.919. The 2016 mill levy total of 7.799 for collection in 2017 is certified to Arapahoe County by December 15 , 2016 . • FINANCIAL IMPACT Based on the assessed valuation for the City of Englewood as certified by the Arapahoe County Assessor, the estimated net assessed value of all properties in Englewood for 2016 is $575,373,717 compared to • $595,636,070 for 2015. The 2016 mill for General Fund operations is 5.880 mills and 1.919 mills for the General Obligation Bonds Debt Service Fund . The total mill levy is 7.799 for 2016 collected in 2017. The total amount budgeted for the General Fund is $3,356,000 (net of uncollectibles, abatements, etc.). The amount budgeted for the General Obligation Bonds Debt Service Fund is $1, 102,000 (net of uncollectibles, abatements, etc.). For example, a homeowner with a $200 ,000 dollar home in Englewood would pay the following to the City of Englewood: Market Value Assessment Ratio Assessed Value General Operations Mill Levy Taxes Paid For General Fund Operations Market Value Assessment Ratio Assessed Value Community Center Bond Fund Mill Levy Taxes Paid For General Obligation Bonds Market Value Assessment Ratio Assessed Value Total Mill Levy Total Taxes Paid To City Of Englewood LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Proposed bill for an ordinance $200,000 7.96% $15,920 5.88 $93.61 $200,000 7.96% $15,920 1.919 $30.55 $200,000 7.96% $15,920 7.799 $124.16 • • • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 31 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GILLIT AN ORDINANCE FIXING THE TAX LEVY IN MILLS UPON EACH DOLLAR OF THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF ALL TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. WHEREAS, it is the duty of the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado, under the Englewood Home Rule Charter and Colorado Revised Statutes, to make the annual property levy for City purposes; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered the estimated valuation of all the taxable property within the City and the needs of the City and of each of said levies and has determined that the levies as hereinafter set forth, are proper and wise; and WHEREAS, the following levies are permitted under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution without a vote by the citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That there be and hereby is levied for the year of 2016, due and payable as required by statute in the year 2017, a tax of 5.880 mills on the dollar for the General Fund of the City of Englewood, Colorado, and 1.919 mills on the dollar for the General Obligation Bond Debt Service Fund of the City of Englewood, Colorado. That the levy hereinabove set forth shall be levied upon each dollar of the assessed valuation of all taxable property within the corporate limits of the City of Englewood, Colorado, and the said levy shall be certified by law. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 6th day of October, 2016. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th day of October, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Read by title and defeated on final reading on the 17th day of October, 2016. Reintroduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 7th day of November, 2016 1 Published as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 10th of November, 2016. Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 9th day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 21st day of November, 2016. Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No._, Series of2016, on the 24th day of November, 2016. Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 23rd day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No ._, Series of 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis 2 • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date Agenda Item November 21, 2016 11 bii Initiated By Department of Finance and Administrative Services PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Subject Bill For An Ordinance Adopting The Budget For The Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant For Fiscal Year 2017 -2nd Readin Staff Source Kath Rinkel, Director City Council and staff began the 2017 budget process at the April 18, 2016 Study Session with an overview of the City's Fiscal Health and Wellness by means of the Center for Priority Based Budgeting's Fiscal Health and Wellness Tool, General Fund Reserve Policy and preliminary budget discussion. The Proposed Budget was provided to the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisory Committee at their August 18, 2016 meeting. The Proposed Budget was discussed with Council at the August 22, Study Session. The Proposed Budget was reviewed again with Council and staff at the August 29 Study Session. On September 12, 2016, the Budget Advisory Committee provided Council with an update of their activities and provided an Annual Report regarding their findings and recommendations . • ublic hearing to gather citizen input regarding the 2017 Proposed Budget was held on September 19, 2016. Due to no public comment from the public hearing necessitating changes to the proposed budget, the "budget workshop" scheduled for the September 26, 2016 Study Session was not held. On October 3, 2016 a first reading was conducted and the ordinance was passed 7-0 On October 17, 2016 on second reading the motion failed on a 3-2 vote . The Englewood's home rule charter, Article V, Section 37 requires that every ordinance shall require the affirmative vote of the majority of the membership of the entire council for final passage. This item was resubmitted for first reading on November 7, 2016, and passed on a 5-2 vote . RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends Council approve the proposed bill for an ordinance, on second reading, adopting the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget for fiscal year 2017. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The City Council of the City of Englewood acts as administering authority for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant, a part of the duties include adopting bills for ordinances for the 2017 Budget and Appropriation Ordinance no later than thirty days prior to the first day of the next fiscal year. FINANCIAL IMPACT The 2017 Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget indicates a beginning funds available • ance of $115,674, total sources of funds of $19, 155,242 and total uses of funds of at $19,155,242 leaving ending funds available balance at $115,674. The total appropriation (use of funds) for 2017 is $19, 155,242. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Proposed bill for ordinance • • • • • • BY AUTHORITY ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 COUNCIL BILL NO. 32 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GILLIT AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR THE LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WAS TEW ATER TREATMENT PLANT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017. WHEREAS, a public hearing on said budget was held by the City Council within three weeks after its submission on September 12, 2016. The hearing was held at the meeting of City Council on September 19, 2016, regular notice of the time and place of said hearing having been published within seven days after the submission of the budget in the manner provided in the Charter for the publication of an ordinance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of an agreement between the City of Littleton, Colorado, and the City of Englewood, Colorado, a budget for fiscal year 2017 was provided to the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisory Committee at their meeting; held on August 18, 2016; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood, as the administering authority for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant, has studied the budget on numerous occasions; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City Council to adopt the 2017 budget for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant as now submitted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That the budget of the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant for fiscal year 2017, as submitted by the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisory Committee and duly considered by the City Council after public hearing, is hereby adopted as the budget for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant for the fiscal year 2017, as follows: Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Fund Balance -January 1, 2017 Revenues Expenditures Fund Balance -December 31, 2017 1 $ $ $ $ 115,674 19,155,242 19,155,242 115,674 Section 2 . That the said budget as accepted shall be a public record in the Office of the City Clerk and shall be open to public inspection. Sufficient copies thereof shall be made available for the use of the City Council and the public, the number of copies to be determined by the City Manager. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 6th day of October, 2016. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th day of October, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Read by title and defeated on final reading on the 17th day of October, 2016. Reintroduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 7th day of November, 2016 Published as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 10th of November, 2016. Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 9th day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 21st day of November, 2016. Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No._, Series of2016, on the 24th day of November, 2016. Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 23rd day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A . Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No._, Series of2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis 2 • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date November 21 , 2016 Agenda Item 11biii Initiated By De artment of Finance and Administrative Services PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Subject Bill For An Ordinance Appropriating Funds For The Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant For Fiscal Year 2017 -2nd Readin Staff Source Kath Rinkel , Director City Council and staff began the 2017 budget process at the April 18, 2016 Study Session with an overview of the City's Fiscal Health and Wellness by means of the Center for Priority Based Budgeting's Fiscal Health and Wellness Tool, General Fund Reserve Policy and preliminary budget discussion . The Proposed Budget was provided to the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisory Committee at their August 18, 2016 meeting . The Proposed Budget was discussed with Council at the August 22 , Study Session . The Proposed Budget was reviewed again with Council and staff at the August 29 Study Session . On September 12 , 2016 , the Budget Advisory Committee provided Council with an update of their activities and provided an Annual Report regarding their findings and recommendations . A public hearing to gather citizen input regarding the 2017 Proposed Budget was held on September 19 , 2016 . • e to no public comment from the public hearing necessitating changes to the proposed budget, the "budget workshop " scheduled for the September 26 , 2016 Study Session was not held . On October 3 , 2016 a first reading was conducted and the ordinance was passed 7-0 . On October 17, 2016 on second reading the motion failed on a 3-2 vote . The Englewood 's home rule charter, Article V , Section 37 requires that every ordinance shall require the affirmative vote of the majority of the membership of the entire council for final passage . This item was resubmitted for first reading on November 7 , 2016 , and passed on a 5-2 vote . RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends Council approve the proposed bill for an ordinance , on second reading , appropriating funds for fiscal year 2017. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The City Council of the City of Englewood acts as administering authority for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant , a part of the duties include adopting bills for ordinances for the 2017 Budget and Appropriation Ordinance no later than thirty days prior to the first day of the next fiscal year. FINANCIAL IMPACT The 2017 Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Budget indicates a beginning funds available balance of $115 ,67 4 , total sources of funds of $19 , 155,242 and total uses of funds of at $19 , 155,242 leaving • ending funds avai lable balance at $115 ,674 . The total appropriation (use of funds) for 2017 is $19 , 155,242. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Proposed bill for ordinance • • • • • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 33 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GILLIT AN ORDINANCE APPROPRJA TING MONIES FOR THE LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PURPOSES IN THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2017, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2017, CONSTITUTING WHAT IS TERMED THE ANNUAL APPROPRJA TION BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017. WHEREAS, the Cities of Englewood and Littleton entered into a contract to build, maintain, and operate a joint Wastewater Treatment Plant facility; and WHEREAS, the operations, including budget matters, of this joint facility are overseen by the Supervisory Committee; and WHEREAS, the City of Englewood operates the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant under the control of the Supervisory Committee; and WHEREAS, the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant has its own fund for operations and maintenance; and WHEREAS, the Supervisory Committee was provided the following as the 201 7 appropriations at their meeting held on August 18, 2016. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That pursuant to the Littleton/Englewood Wast€water Treatment Plant agreement, there be and hereby is appropriated from the revenue derived from operation of the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant in the City of Englewood, Colorado, and from all other sources of revenue in the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Fund including available fund balance during the year beginning January 1, 2017, and ending December 31, 2017, the amounts hereinafter set forth for the object and purpose specified as follows: Total Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Fund $ 19,155,242 Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016 . Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 61 h day of October, 2016 . 1 Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th day of October, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Read by title and defeated on final reading on the 17th day of October, 2016. Reintroduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 7th day of November, 2016 Published as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 10 1h of November, 2016. Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 9th day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 21st day of November, 2016. Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No._, Series of 2016, on the 24th day of November, 2016. Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 23rd day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No._, Series of 2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis 2 • • • COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date November 21 , 2016 Initiated By Agenda Item 11 biv De artment Of Finance and Administrative Services PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Subject Bill For An Ordinance Adopting the Budget For Fiscal Year 2017 -2nd Readin Staff Source Kath Rinkel , Director City Council and staff began the 2017 budget process at the April 18, 2016 Study Session with an overview of the City 's Fiscal Health and Wellness by means of the Center for Priority Based Budgeting 's Fiscal Health and Wellness Tool , General Fund Reserve Policy and preliminary budget discussion. The Proposed Budget was discussed with Council at the August 22 , Study Session . The Proposed Budget was reviewed again with Council and staff at the August 29 Study Session . On September 12, 2016 , the Budget Advisory Committee provided Council with an update of their act ivities and provided an Annual Report regarding their findings and recommendations . A public hearing to gather citizen input regarding the 2017 Proposed Budget was held on September 19, 2016 . Due to no public comment from the public hearing necessitating changes to the proposed budget, the "budget workshop" scheduled for the September 26 , 2016 Study Session was not held . ~ October 3 , 2016 a first reading was conducted and the ordinance was passed 5-2 . ~October 17 , 2016 on second reading the motion failed on a 3-2 vote. The Englewood 's home rule charter, Article V , Section 37 requires that every ordinance shall require the affirmative vote of the majority of the membership of the entire council for final passage . This item was resubmitted for first reading on November 7 , 2016 , and passed on a 5-2 vote . RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends Council approve the proposed bill for an ordinance , on second reading, adopting the 2017 Budget. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The Charter of the City of Englewood requires the City Council to adopt next year's Budget and Appropriation Ordinances no later than thirty days prior to the first day of the next fiscal year to insure there is legal authority to expend funds : Due to limited growth in the revenue sources available to the City , the 2017 Budget limited expenditures increases as much as possible while limiting the impact on the citizens . C ity staff and Council worked together to hold expenditure increases in check as much as possible but some expenditures , mainly personnel-related , will continue to grow outside of the control of staff. FINANCIAL IMPACT The City of Englewood 2016 Budget for all funds provides for total sources of funds of $91,601,698 and total ~s of funds of $98, 718,882 . The below chart depicts at a fund level the Estimated Beginn ing Balance , •urces of Funds, Uses of Funds and Estimated Ending Balance for 2017 . Governmental Fund Types 't Estimated Estimated Estimated Beginning Sources of Uses of Ending Unappropriated • Balance Funds Funds Balance Reserves Balance General Fund 8,851 ,902 45 ,186,231 44,983,109 9 ,055,024 4,773 ,099 4,281,925 Special Revenue Funds Conservation Trust Fund 188,552 310,000 440,000 58,552 ,. 58,552 Community De-.elopment Fund 330 ,000 330 ,000 ,. Donors Fund 505 ,231 107,560 490,060 122,731 ,. 122 ,731 Malley Center Trust Fund 237 ,328 7 ,000 20 ,000 224 ,328 ,. 224 ,328 Parks & Recreation Trust Fund 459 ,278 15,000 320,000 154,278 ,. 154 ,278 Open Space Fund 234 ,367 811 ,427 912 ,000 133 ,794 ,. 133,794 Total Special Revenue Funds , 1,624 ,756 ,. 1,580,987 , 2,512,060 ,. 693,683 , , 693,683 Debt Service Fund General Obligation Bond Fund 64 , 135 1, 102,000 1, 110,713 55,422 ,. 55 ,422 Total Debt Service Fund , 64,135, 1, 102 ,000 , 1,110,713,. 55,422 , , 55,422 Capital Projects Funds Public lmpro-.ement Fund 1,693,001 2,998,356 4, 104 ,043 587,314 ,. 587,314 Capital Projects Fund 155,560 1,400 ,000 1,463,490 92 ,070 ,. 92 ,070 Total Capital Projects Funds 1,848 ,561 4,398,356 5,567 ,533 679,384 679 ,384 Total Governmental Funds 12 ,389 ,354 52,267 ,574 54,173,415 10 ,483,513 4 ,773 ,099 5,710,414 Proprietary Fund Types Estimated Estimated Estimated Beginning Sources of Uses of Ending Unreserved Balance Funds Funds Balance Reserves Balance Enterprise Funds 10,500,634. Water Fund 10 ,900 ,168 8 ,507,927 8,907,461 10 ,500,634 ,. Sewer Fund 3,467 , 126 16,225,259 17,854, 174 1,838,211 ,. 1,838,211 Stormwater Drainage Fund 1,222 ,343 332,514 379,085 1,175,772 ,. 1,175,772 Golf Course Fund 551 ,168 2, 115,300 2 ,078,625 587 ,843 587 ,843 Concrete Utility Fund 663 ,704 884 ,200 836 ,905 710,999 710,999 Housing Rehabilitation Fund 811 ,201 261 ,299 1,024 ,500 48 ,000 48,000 Total Enterprise Funds , 17 ,615,710 , 28 ,326 ,499 , 31 ,080 ,750 "14 ,861 ,459, , 14,861,459 Internal Service Funds Central Ser\1ces Fund 31,546 306,815 290,214 48,147 48,147 Ser\1Center Fund 1,540 ,324 2 ,263 , 151 3,635,504 167,971 167 ,971 Capital Equipment Replacement Fund 2,303,684 1,042,489 2,170,804 1,175,369 1, 175 ,369 Risk Management Fund 437,476 1,476, 156 1,433,645 479,987 479 ,987 Employee Benefits Fund 200 ,671 5,919,014 5,934 ,550 185 ,135 185,135 Total Internal Service Funds , 4 ,513,701 , 11 ,007,625 , 13,464,717 , 2 ,056,609 , , 2 ,056,609 Total Proprietary Funds 22, 129 ,411 39,334 ,124 44,545,467 16 ,918 ,068 16 ,918 ,068 Total All Funds 34,518,765 91,601,698 98,718,882 27,401,581 4,773,099 22,628,482 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Proposed bill for an ordinance • • • • BY AUTHORITY ORDINANCE NO . SERIES OF 2016 COUNCIL BILL NO. 34 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GILLIT AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE BUDGET OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Part I, Article X, of the Charter of the City of Englewood, Colorado, a budget for fiscal year 2017 was duly submitted by the City Manager to the City Council on September 12, 2016; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on said budget was held by the City Council within three weeks after its submission at the meeting of the City Council on September 19, 2016. Regular notice of the time and place of said hearing was published within seven days after submission of the budget in the manner provided in the Charter for the publication of an ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood has studied and discussed the budget on numerous occasions ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That the budget of the City of Englewood , Colorado, for fiscal year 2017 , as submitted by the City Manager, duly considered by the City Council and with changes made by the City Manager to reflect Council discussion after public hearing, is adopted as the budget for the City of Englewood for the fiscal year 2017. Section 2 . GENERAL FUND Total Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 Sales/Use Tax Property and Specific Ownership Tax Franchise/Occupation/Cigarette Tax/Hotel License/Permits Intergovernmental Revenue Charges for Services Cultural & Recreation Fines & Forfeitures Interest Contribution from Component Units 2017 BUDGET $ 8,851 ,902 Revenues 27,135 ,452 3,656,000 3,415 ,550 1,387 ,998 1,374,706 2,592 ,400 2,750,090 893,450 55 ,446 1,400,000 Other 408 106 • Total Revenues $ 45,069,198 Other Financing Sources 117 033 Total Sources of Funds $ 45,186,231 ExQenditures Legislation 406,616 City Manager's Office 6,391,949 Municipal Court 1, 100,207 City Attorney's Office 858,949 Finance and Administrative Services 2,582,592 Information Technology 1,759,062 Community Development 2,302,797 Public Works 6,325,495 Police Services 13,665,968 Parks, Recreation and Library Services 7,417,441 Communications 410,554 Contingencies 200,000 Debt Service 1,561,929 Total Expenditures $44,983,109 Other Financing Uses -0- Total Uses of Funds $44,983,109 Total Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 9,055,024 • Section 3. SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS Conservation Trust Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 188,552 Revenues $ 310,000 Expenditures $ 440,000 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 58,552 Communi!): DeveloQment Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ -0- Revenues $ 330,000 Expenditures $ 330,000 Fund Balance, December 31, 201 7 $ -0- Donors Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 505,231 Revenues $ 107,560 Expenditures $ 490,060 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 122 ,731 • 2 • Parks and Recreation Trust Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 201 7 $ 459 ,278 Revenues $ 15,000 Expenditures $ 320,000 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 154,278 Malley Center Trust Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 237 ,328 Revenues $ 7,000 Expenditures $ 20,000 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 224,328 Open Space Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 234,367 Revenues $ 811 ,427 Expenditures $ 912 ,000 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 133,794 Section 4 . DEBT SERVICE FUND • General Obligation Bond Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 64,135 Revenues $ 1,102 ,000 Expenditures $ 1,110,713 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 55 ,422 Section 5. CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS Public Improvement Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 201 7 $ 1,693,001 Revenues $ 2,998 ,356 Expenditures and Transfers $ 4 ,104 ,043 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 587 ,314 Capital Projects Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 155,560 Revenues and Transfers In $ 1,400,000 Expenditures $ 1,463,490 Fund Balance, December 31, 201 7 $ 92,070 • 3 Section 6. ENTERPRJSE FUNDS • Water Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 201 7 $ 10,900, 168 Revenues $ 8,507,927 Expenditures $ 8,907,461 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 10,500,634 Sewer Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 3,467,126 Revenues $ 16,225,259 Expenditures $ 17,854,174 Fund Balance, December 3 1, 201 7 $ 1,838,211 Storm Drainage Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 1,222 ,343 Revenues $ 332,514 Expenditures $ 379,085 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 1,175,772 Golf Course Fund • Fund Balance, January 1, 201 7 $ 551,168 Revenues $ 2,115 ,300 Expenditures $ 2 ,078 ,625 Fund Balance, December 31, 201 7 $ 587,843 Concrete Utility Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 201 7 $ 663 ,704 Revenues $ 884,200 Expenditures $ 836,905 Fund Balance, December 3 1, 2017 $ 710,999 Housing Rehabilitation Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 201 7 $ 811 ,201 Revenues $ 261,299 Expenditures $ 1,024,500 Fund Balance, December 3 1, 2017 $ 48,000 Section 7. INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Central Services Fund Fund Balance, January 1, 2017 $ 31 ,546 Revenues $ 306,815 • 4 • • • Expenditures $ 290,214 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 48,147 Servicenter Fund Fund Balance, January I, 2017 $ 1,540,324 Revenues $ 2,263, 151 Expenditures $ 3,635,504 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 167,971 Cagital Eguigment Reglacement Fund Fund Balance, January I, 2017 $ 2,303,684 Revenues $ 1,042,489 Expenditures $ 2,170,804 Fund Balance, December 3 I, 2017 $ 1,175,369 Risk Management Fund Fund Balance, January I, 20 I 7 $ 437,476 Revenues $ 1,476,156 Expenditures $ 1,433,645 Fund Balance, December 3 I, 20 I 7 $ 479,987 Emgloyee Benefits Fund Fund Balance, January I, 20 I 7 $ 200,671 Revenues $ 5,919,014 Expenditures $ 5,934,550 Fund Balance, December 31, 2017 $ 185,135 Section 8. That the said budget shall be a public record in the office of the City Clerk and shall be open to public inspection. Sufficient copies thereof shall be made available for the use of the City Council and the public, the number of copies to be determined by the City Manager. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 6th day of October, 2016. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the 5th day of October, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Read by title and defeated on final reading on the 17th day of October, 2016. Reintroduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 7th day of November, 2016 Published as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 10th of November, 2016. 5 Published by title on the City 's official website beginning on the 9th day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days . Read by title and passed on final reading on the 21st day of November, 2016 . Published by title in the City 's official newspaper as Ordinance No._, Series of 2016 , on the 24th day of November, 2016. Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 23rd day of November , 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson , Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No._, Series of 2016 . Loucrishia A. Ellis 6 • • • , COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date November 21, 2016 Initiated By Agenda Item 11 bv De artment of Finance and Administrative Services PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Subject Bill For An Ordinance Appropriating Funds For Fiscal Year 2017 -2nd Readin Staff Source Kath Rinkel , Director City Council and staff began the 2017 budget process at the April 18 , 2016 Study Session with an overview of the City's Fiscal Health and Wellness by means of the Center for Priority Based Budgeting 's Fiscal Health and Wellness Tool, General Fund Reserve Policy and preliminary budget discussion. The Proposed Budget was discussed with Council at the August 22, Study Session. The Proposed Budget was reviewed again with Council and staff at the August 29 Study Session . On September 12, 2016, the Budget Advisory Committee provided Council with an update of their activities and provided an Annual Report regarding their findings and recommendations . A public hearing to gather citizen input regarding the 2017 Proposed Budget was held on September 19, 2016 . Due to no public comment from the public hearing necessitating changes to the proposed budget, the "budget workshop" scheduled for the September 26 , 2016 Study Session was not held . • October 3, 2016 a first reading was conducted and the ordinance was passed 5-2 . On October 17, 2016 on second reading the motion failed on a 3-2 vote . The Englewood 's home rule charter, Article V , Section 37 requires that every ordinance shall require the affirmative vote of the majority of the membership of the entire council for final passage . This item was resubmitted for first reading on November 7 , 2016 , and passed on a 5-2 vote . RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends Council approve the proposed bill for an ordinance , on second reading, appropriating funds for2017. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The Charter of the City of Englewood requires the City Council to adopt next year's Budget and Appropriation Ordinances no later than thirty days prior to the first day of the next fiscal year to insure there is legal authority to expend funds. Due to limited growth in the revenue sources available to the City , the 2017 Budget limited expenditures increases as much as possible while limiting the impact on the citizens. City staff and Council worked together to hold expenditure increases in check as much as possible but some expenditures , mainly personnel-related , will continue to grow outside of the control of staff . • FINANCIAL IMPACT The City of Englewood 2016 Budget for all funds provides for total sources of funds of $91,601,698 and total • uses of funds of $98, 718,882. The below chart depicts at a fund level the Estimated Beginning Balance, Sources of Funds, Uses of Funds and Estimated Ending Balance for 2017. Governmental Fund Types Estimated Estimated Estimated Beginning Sources of Uses of Ending Unappropriated Balance Funds Funds Balance Reserves Balance General Fund 8,851,902 45, 186,231 44,983,109 9,055,024 4,773,099 4,281,925 Special Revenue Funds Conservation Trust Fund 188,552 310,000 440,000 58,552 ,. 58,552 Community De\elopment Fund 330,000 330,000 ,. Donors Fund 505 ,231 107,560 490,060 122,731 ,. 122,731 Malley Center Trust Fund 237,328 7,000 20,000 224,328 ,. 224,328 Parks & Recreation Trust Fund 459,278 15,000 320,000 154,278 ,. 154,278 Open Space Fund 234 ,367 811,427 912,000 133,794 ,. 133,794 Total Special Revenue Funds ,. 1,624 ,756 ,. 1,580,987 ,. 2,512 ,060 ,. 693 ,683 ,. ,. 693,683 Debt Service Fund General Obligation Bond Fund 64, 135 1, 102,000 1,110,713 55,422 ,. 55,422 Total Debt Service Fund ,. 64,135 ,. 1, 102,000 ,. 1,110,713 ,. 55,422 ,. ,. 55,422 Capital Projects Funds Public lmpro\ement Fund 1,693,001 2,998,356 4,104,043 587,314 ,. 587,314 Capital Projects Fund 155,560 1,400,000 1,463,490 92,070 ,. 92 ,070 Total Capital Projects Funds 1,848 ,561 4 ,398,356 5,567 ,533 679,384 679,384 Total Governmental Funds 12,389,354 52,267,574 54,173 ,415 10,483,513 4,773,099 5,710,414 . Proprietary Fund Types Estimated Estimated Estimated Beginning Sources of Uses of Ending Unreserved Balance Funds Funds Balance Reserves Balance Enterprise Funds Water Fund 10 ,900,168 8 ,507 ,927 8,907,461 10,500,634 ,. 10,500,634 Sewer Fund 3,467,126 16,225,259 17,854, 174 1,838,211 ,. 1,838,211 Stormwater Drainage Fund 1,222,343 332,514 379,085 1,175,772 ,. 1,175,772 Golf Course Fund 551, 168 2, 115,300 2,078 ,625 587,843 587,843 Concrete Utility Fund 663,704 884 ,200 836,905 710,999 710,999 Housing Rehabilitation Fund 811 ,201 261,299 1,024,500 48,000 48,000 Total Enterprise Funds "1 7,615,710 "28,326,499,. 31,080,750 "14,861,459 ,. ' 14,861,459 Internal Service Funds Central Ser"1ces Fund 31 ,546 306 ,815 290,214 48,147 48, 147 Ser"1Center Fund 1,540,324 2,263, 151 3,635,504 167,971 167 ,971 Capital Equipment Replacement Fund 2,303,684 1,042,489 2, 170,804 1,175,369 1,175,369 Risk Management Fund 437,476 1,476,156 1,433,645 479,987 479,987 Employee Benefits Fund 200,671 5,919,014 5,934,550 185,135 185,135 Total Internal Service Funds ,. 4,513,701 ,. 11,007,625 ,. 13,464,717 ,. 2,056,609 ' ' 2,056,609 Total Proprietary Funds 22 ,129,411 39,334,124 44,545,467 16,918,068 16,918,068 Total All Funds 34,518,765 91,601,698 98,718,882 27,401,581 4,773,099 22,628,482 LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Proposed bill for an ordinance • • ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2016 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 35 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GILLIT AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING MONIES FOR ALL MUNICIPAL PURPOSES IN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, FOR FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2017, AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2017, CONSTITUTING WHAT IS TERMED THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION BILL FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017. WHEREAS, a public hearing on the Proposed 2017 Budget was held September 19, 2016; and WHEREAS, the operating budgets and Multiple Year Capital Plan for all City departments and funds were reviewed at a budget workshop held on August 29; and WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Englewood requires the City Council to adopt bills for ordinances adopting the Budget and Appropriation Ordinance no later than thirty days prior to the first day of the next fiscal year. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF • ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. That there be and there hereby is appropriated from the revenue derived from taxation in the City of Englewood, Colorado, from collection of license fees and from all other sources of revenue including available fund balances during the year beginning January 1, 2017, and ending December 31, 2017, the amounts hereinafter set forth for the object and purpose specified and set opposite thereto, specifically as follows: Legislation City Manager's Office City Attorney's Office Municipal Court Finance and Administrative Services Information Technology Community Development Public Works Police Parks, Recreation and Library Services Communications Contingencies Debt Service -Civic Center Debt Service -Other Other Financing Uses GENERAL FUND $ 1 406,616 6,391,499 858,949 1,100,207 2,582,592 1,759,062 2,302,797 6,325,495 13,665,968 7,417,441 410,554 200,000 1,444,896 117,033 -0- Total General Fund $ 44,983,109 • CONSERVATION TRUST FUND Total Conservation Trust Fund $ 440,000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND Total Community Development Fund $ 330,000 DONORS FUND Total Donors Fund $ 490,060 PARKS AND RECREATION TRUST FUND Total Parks and Recreation Trust Fund $ 320,000 MALLEY CENTER TRUST FUND • Total Malley Center Trust Fund $ 20,000 OPEN SPACE FUND Total Open Space Fund $ 912,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND FUND Total General Obligation Bond Fund $ 1,110,713 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FUND Total Public Improvement Fund $ 4,104,043 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Total Capital Projects Fund $ 1,463,490 WATER FUND • 2 • • • Total Water Fund Total Sewer Fund Total Storm Drainage Fund Total Golf Course Fund Total Concrete Utility Fund $ SEWER FUND $ STORM DRAINAGE FUND $ GOLF COURSE FUND $ CONCRETE UTILITY FUND $ HOUSING REHABILITATION FUND Total Housing Rehabilitation Fund $ Total Central Services Fund Total ServiCenter Fund CENTRAL SERVICES FUND $ SERVICENTER FUND $ CAPITAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 8,907,461 17,854,174 379,085 2,078,625 836,905 1,024,500 290,214 3,635,504 Total Capital Equipment Replacement Fund $ 2,170,804 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND Total Risk Management Fund $ 1,433,645 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND Total Employee Benefits Fund $ 5,934,550 3 Section 2. The foregoing appropriations shall be considered to be appropriations to groups within a program or department within the fund indicated but shall not be construed to be appropriated to line items within any groups, even though such line items may be set forth as the adopted budget for the fiscal year 2017. Section 3. All monies in the hands of the Director of Finance and Administrative Services, or to come into the Director's hands for the fiscal year 2017, may be applied on the outstanding claims now due or to become due in the said fiscal year of 201 7. Section 4. All unappropriated monies that may come into the hands of the Director of Finance and Administrative Services during the year 2017, may be so distributed among the respective funds herein as the City Council may deem best under such control as is provided by law. Section 5. During or at the close of the fiscal year of 2016, any surplus money in any of the respective funds, after all claims for 2016 against the same have been paid , may be distributed to any other fund or funds at the discretion of the City Council. Introduced, read in full , and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of October, 2016. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City 's official newspaper on the 6th day of October, 2016. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City 's official website beginning on the 5th day of October, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Read by title and defeated on final reading on the 17th day of October, 2016. Reintroduced, read in full , and passed on first reading on the 7th day of November, 2016 Published as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City 's official newspaper on the 101 h of November, 2016. Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 9th day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 21st day of November, 2016. Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No ._, Series of 2016, on the 24th day of November, 2016. Published by title on the City's official website beginning on the 23rd day of November, 2016 for thirty (30) days. Joe Jefferson , Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk 4 • • • • • • I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No ._, Series of2016. Loucrishia A. Ellis 5 Date November 21, 2016 INITIATED BY Utilities Department Staff COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item 11ci Subject Allen Plant Alum Residuals Risk Assessment STAFF SOURCE Tom Brennan, Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION City Council requested a study be performed to access the potential risk of harm to plant workers and the adjacent neighbors from exposure to Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORMS) in the water treatment residuals generated at the plant, and to evaluate the Allen Water Treatment Plant's residuals management practices, from generation through processing, storage and disposal. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Englewood Water and Sewer Board, at their November 8, 2016 meeting recommended Council approval, by motion, of the proposal from Integral Consulting, Inc. for RFP-16-020, Risk Assessment for Allen Water Filter Treatment Plant Water Treatment Residuals and Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORMs) Management in the amount of $111,675.00 . BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED While the drinking water produced at the Allen Water Treatment Plant meets all drinking water standards, there are low levels of naturally occurring radionuclides in the source water that are removed through treatment and ultimately reside in the residuals generated at the plant. These residuals are considered Technologically-Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORM) and have additional disposal considerations based on the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) regulatory requirements. The proposal brings together a team of a scientist and engineers from three companies, Integral Consulting Inc., Dewberry Engineers Inc. and Two Lines Inc. to provide experience in performing risk assessments, evaluating radionuclide health effects and design and evaluation of water treatment processes and residuals handling and disposal. The Scope of Work will include : Task 1 -Risk Assessment using Dose Reconstruction from Historical Data Task 2 -Evaluate Residuals Management Practices, Including Risk Assessment Task 3 -Rough Order of Magnitude Estimates for Residuals Management Alternatives Task 4 -Final Report and Presentation Task 5 -Project Management FINANCIAL IMPACT Integral Consulting's total project cost is $111, 676.00 . The original proposal amount was more and was amended per additional scope clarification provided by the Utilities Department staff resulting in a 14% cost reduction ($17,865 .00). LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Contract Report -Revised Proposal for Services -RFP-16020, Risk Assessment for Allen Water Filter Treatment Plant Water Treatment Residuals and TENORMs Management. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Contract Number PSA/16-50 Integral Consulting Inc. (not to exceed $111 ,675) This Professional Services Agreement (the "Agreement ") is made as of this 3st day of November , 2016 , (the "Effective Date ") by and between Integral Consulting Inc . a Colorado corporat ion ("Consultant"), and The City of Englewood, Colorado , a mun icipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Co lorado ("City "). City desires that Consultant , from time to time, provide certain consulting services , systems integration services , data conversion serv ices , training services , and/or related services as described herein , and Consultant desires to perform such services on behalf of City on the terms and conditions set forth herein. In consideration of the foregoing and the terms here inafter set forth and other good and valuable consideration , the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged , the parties hereto , intending to be legally bound, agree as follows : 1. Definitions. The terms set forth below shall be defined as follows : (a) "Intellectual Property Rights " shall mean any and all (by whatever name or term known or designated) tangible and intang ible and now known or hereafter existing (1) rights associate w ith works of authorship throughout the universe, including but not lim ited to copyrights , moral rights , and mask- works , (2) trademark and trade name rights and similar rights , (3) trade secret rights , (4) patents , designs , algorithms and other industrial property rights, (5) all other intellectual and industrial property rights (of every kind and nature throughout the universe and however designated) (including logos , "rental " rights and rights to remuneration), whether ar ising by operation of law , contract, license, or otherwise, and (6) all registrations , initial applications, renewals , extensions , continuations , div isions or reissues hereof now or hereafter in force (including any rights in any of the foregoing). (b) "Work Product " shall mean all patents, patent applications , inventions , designs, mask works , processes , methodologies , copyrights and copyrightable works , trade secrets including confidential information, data, designs , manuals , training materials and documentation , formulas , knowledge of manufacturing processes , methods , prices , financial and accounting data , products and product specifications and all other Intellectual Property Rights created , developed or prepared , documented and/or delivered by Consultant, pursuant to the provision of the Services. 2. Statements of Work. During the term hereof and subject to the terms and conditions contained herein , Consultant agrees to provide , 1000 Eng lewood Parkway , Englewood , Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org PSA/1 6-50 Risk Assessment at WWTP on an as requested basis, the consulting services, systems integration services, data conversion services, training services, and related services (the "Services") as further described in Schedule A (the "Statement of Work") for City, and in such additional Statements of Work as may be executed by each of the parties hereto from time to time pursuant to this Agreement. Each Statement of Work shall specify the scope of work, specifications, basis of compensation and payment schedule, estimated length of time required to complete each Statement of Work, including the estimated start/finish dates, and other relevant information and shall incorporate all terms and conditions contained in this Agreement 3. Performance of Services. (a) Performance. Consultant shall perform the Services necessary to complete all projects outlined in a Statement of Work in a timely and professional manner consistent with the specifications, if any, set forth in the Statement of Work, and in accordance with industry standards. Consultant agrees to exercise the highest degree of professionalism, and to utilize its expertise and creative talents in completing the projects outlined in a Statement of Work. (b) Delays. Consultant agrees to notify City promptly of any factor, occurrence, or event coming to its attention that may affect Consultant's ability to meet the requirements of the Agreement, or that is likely to occasion any material delay in completion of the projects contemplated by this Agreement or any Statement of Work. Such notice shall be given in the event of any loss or reassignment of key employees, threat of strike, or major equipment failure. Time is expressly made of the essence with respect to each and every term and provision of this Agreement. (c) Discrepancies. If anything necessary for the clear understanding of the Services has been omitted from the Agreement specifications or it appears that various instructions are in conflict, Consultant shall secure written instructions from City's project director before proceeding with the performance of the Services affected by such omissions or discrepancies . 4. Invoices and Payment. Unless otherwise provided in a Statement of Work, City shall pay the amounts agreed to in a Statement of Work within thirty (30) days following the acceptance by City of the work called for in a Statement of Work by City . Acceptance procedures shall be outlined in the Statement of Work. If City disputes all or any portion of an invoice for charges, then City shall pay the undisputed portion of the invoice by the due date and shall provide the following notification with respect to the disputed portion of the invoice. City shall notify Consultant as soon as possible of the specific amount disputed and shall provide reasonable detail as to the basis for the dispute . The parties shall then attempt to resolve the disputed portion of such invoice as soon as possible. Upon resolution of the disputed portion , City shall pay to Consultant the resolved amount. 5. Taxes. City is not subject to taxation. No federal or other taxes (excise, luxury, transportation, sales, etc.) shall be included in quoted prices. City shall not be obligated to pay or reimburse Consultant for any taxes attributable to the sale of any Services which are imposed on or measured by net or gross income, capital, net worth, franchise, privilege, any other taxes, or assessments, nor any of the foregoing imposed on or payable by Consultant. Upon written notification by City and subsequent verification by Consultant, Consultant shall reimburse or credit, as applicable, City in a timely manner, for any and all taxes erroneously paid by City . City shall provide Consultant with , and Consultant shall 2 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov .org PSA/16-50 Risk Assessme nt at WWTP accept in good faith , resale, direct pay , or other exemption certificates , as applicable . 6. Out of Pocket Expenses. Consultant shall be reimbursed only for expenses which are expressly provided for in a Statement of Work or which have been approved in advance in writing by City, provided Consultant has furnished such documentation for authorized expenses as City may reasonably request. 7. Audits. Consultant shall provide such employees and independent auditors and inspectors as City may designate with reasonable access to all sites from which Services are performed for the purposes of performing audits or inspections of Consultant 's operations and compliance with this Agreement. Consultant shall provide such auditors and inspectors any reasonable assistance that they may require. Such audits shall be conducted in such a way so that the Services or services to any other customer of Consultant are not impacted adversely. 8. Term and Termination. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue unless this Agreement is terminated as provided in this Section 8 . (a) Convenience. City may, without cause and without penalty , terminate the provision of Services under any or all Statements of Work upon thirty (30) days prior written notice. Upon such termination , City shall , upon receipt of an invoice from Consultant , pay Consultant for Services actually rendered prior to the effective date of such termination. Charges will be based on time expended for all incomplete tasks as listed in the applicable Statement of Work, and all completed tasks will be charged as indicated in the applicable Statement of Work . (b) Work. No Outstanding Statements of Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing the other party with at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of termination if there are no outstanding Statements of Work. (c) Material Breach. If either party materially defaults in the performance of any term of a Statement of Work or this Agreement with respect to a specific Statement of Work (other than by nonpayment) and does not substantially cure such defau lt within thirty (30) days after receiving written notice of such default, then the non-defaulting party may terminate this Agreement or any or all outstanding Statements of Work by providing ten (10) days prior written notice of termination to the defaulting party . (d) Bankruptcy or Insolvency. Either party may terminate this Agreement effective upon written notice stating its intention to terminate in the event the other party: (1) makes a general assignment of all or substantially all of its assets for the benefit of its creditors ; (2) applies for, consents to, or acquiesces in the appointment of a receiver , trustee, custodian, or liquidator for its business or all or substantially all of its assets; (3) files , or consents to or acquiesces in, a petition seeking relief or reorganization under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws ; or (4) files a petition seeking relief or reorganization under any bankruptcy or insolvency laws is filed against that other party and is not dismissed within sixty (60) days after it was filed . (e) TABOR. The parties understand and acknowledge that each party is subject to Article X , § 20 of the Colorado Constitution ("TABOR"). The parties do not intend to violate the terms and requirements of TABOR by the execution of this Agreement. It is understood and agreed that this Agreement does not create a multi-fiscal year direct or indirect debt or obligation within the meaning of TABOR and , notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary , all payment obligations of City are 3 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org PSA/16-50 Risk Assess ment at WWTP expressly dependent and conditioned upon the continuing avai lability of funds beyond the term of City's current fiscal period ending upon the next succeeding December 31. Financial obligations of City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated , budgeted , and otherwise made available in accordance with the rules , regulations , and resolutions of City and applicable l2 w . Upon the failure to appropriate such funds , this Agreement shall be deemed terminated. (f) Return of Property . Upon termination of this Agreement , both parties agree to return to the other all property (including any Confidential Information , as defined in Section 11) of the other party that it may have in its possession or contro l. 9. City Obligations. City will provide timely access to City personnel , systems and information required for Consultant to perform its obligations hereunder. City shall provide to Consultant's employees performing its obligations hereunder at City 's premises , without charge, a reasonable work environment in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations , including office space , furniture, telephone service , and reproduction , computer, facsimile, secretarial and other necessary equipment , supplies , and services . With respect to all third party hardware or software operated by or on behalf of City , City shall , at no expense to Consultant , obtain all consents, licenses and sublicenses necessary for Consultant to perform under the Statements of Work and shall pay any fees or other costs associated with obtaining such consents, licenses and sublicenses. 10. Staff. Consultant is an independent consultant and neither Consultant nor Consultant's staff is, or shall be deemed to be employed by City . City is hereby contracting with Consultant for the Services described in a Statement of Work and Consultant reserves the right to determine the method , manner and means by which the Services will be performed . The Services shall be performed by Consultant or Consultant 's staff, and City shall not be required to hire , supervise or pay any assistants to help Consultant perform the Services under this Agreement. Except to the extent that Consultant's work must be performed on or with City 's computers or City 's existing software , all materials used in providing the Services shall be provided by Consultant. 11. Confidential Information. (a) Obligations. Each party hereto may receive from the other party information which relates to the other party 's business , research , development, trade secrets or business affairs ("Confidential Information "). Subject to the provisions and exceptions set forth in the Colorado Open Records Act , CRS Sect ion 24-72-101 et. seq ., each party shall protect all Confidential Information of the other party with the same degree of care as it uses to avoid unauthorized use , disclosure, publication or dissemination of its own confidential information of a similar nature , but in no event less than a reasonable degree of care . Without limiting the generality of the foregoing , each party hereto agrees not to disclose or permit any other person or entity access to the other party 's Confidential Information except such disclosure or access shall be permitted to an employee , agent , representative or independent consultant of such party requiring access to the same in order to perform his or her employment or services . Each party shall insure that their employees , agents , representatives , and independent consultants are advised of the confiden t ial nature of the Confidential Information and are precluded from taking any action prohibited under this Section 11 . Further, each party agrees not to alter or remove any identificat ion, copyright or other proprietary rights notice which indicates the ownership of any part of such Confidential Information by the other party. A party hereto shall undertake to 4 1000 Englewood Parkway , Englewood , Co lorado 80 11 0-2373 (303 ) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org PSA/ 16 -50 Risk Assessment at WWTP immediately notify the other party in writing of all circumstances surrounding any possession , use or knowledge of Confidential Information at any location or by any person or entity other than those authorized by this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement shall restrict either party with respect to information or data identical or similar to that contained in the Confidential Information of the other party but which (1) that party rightfully possessed before it received such information from the other as evidenced by written documentation; (2) subsequently becomes publicly available through no fault of that party; (3) is subsequently furnished rightfully to that party by a third party without restrictions on use or disclosure ; or (4) is required to be disclosed by law, provided that the disclosing party will exercise reasonable efforts to notify the other party prior to disclosure . (b) Know-How. For the avoidance of doubt neither City nor Consultant shall be prevented from making use of know-how and principles learned or experience gained of a non-proprietary and non-confidential nature . (c) Remedies. Each of the parties hereto agree that if any of them, their officers, employees or anyone obtaining access to the Confidential Information of the other party by, through or under them , breaches any provision of this Section 11 , the non-breaching party shall be entitled to an accounting and repayment of all profits, compensation, comm1ss1ons, remunerations and benefits which the breaching party, its officers or employees directly or indirectly realize or may realize as a result of or growing out of, or in connection with any such breach. In addition to, and not in limitation of the foregoing, in the event of any breach of this Section 11, the parties agree that the non- breaching party will suffer irreparable harm and that the total amount of monetary damages for any such injury to the non-breaching party arising from a violation of this Section 11 would be impossible to calculate and would therefore be an inadequate remedy at law. Accordingly, the parties agree that the non-breaching party shall be entitled to temporary and permanent injunctive relief against the breaching party, its officers or employees and such other rights and remedies to which the non-breaching party may be entitled to at law, in equity or under this Agreement for any violation of this Section 11. The provisions of this Section 11 shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement for any reason . 12. Project Managers. Each party shall designate one of its employees to be its Project Manager under each Statement of Work, who shall act for that party on all matters under the Statement of Work. Each party shall notify the other in writing of any replacement of a Project Manager. The Project Managers for each Statement of Work shall meet as often as either one requests to review the status of the Statement of Work. 13. Warranties. (a) Authority. Consultant represents and warrants that: (1) Consultant has the full corporate right, power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to perform the acts required of it hereunder; (2) the execution of this Agreement by Consultant, and the performance by Consultant of its obligations and duties hereunder, do not and will not violate any agreement to which Consultant is a party or by which it is otherwise bound under any applicable law, rule or regulation; (3) when executed and delivered by Consultant , this Agreement will constitute the legal, valid and binding obligation of such party, enforceable against such party in accordance with its terms ; and (4) Consultant acknowledges that City makes no representations, warranties or agreements related to the subject matter hereof that are not expressly provided for in this Agreement 5 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood , Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org PSA/16-50 Risk Assess ment at WWTP (b) Service Warranty. Consultant warrants that its employees and consultants shall have sufficient skill , knowledge , and training to perform Services and that the Services shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner. (c) Personnel. Unless a specific number of employees is set forth in the Statement of Work, Consultant warrants it will provide sufficient employees to complete t he Services ordered within the applicable t ime frames established pursuant to this Agreement or as set forth in the Statement of Work . During the course of performance of Serv ices , City may, for any or no reason , request re pl acement of an employee or a proposed employee . In such event , Consultant shall, w ithin five (5) working days of receipt of such request from City , provide a subst itute emplo yee of sufficient skill , knowledge , and training to perfo rm the applicable Services . Consultant shall require employees providing Services at a City location to comply with applicable City security and safety regulations and policies . (d) Compensation and Benefits . Consultant shall prov ide for and pay the compensation of employees and shall pay all taxes , contribut ions , and benefits (such as , but not limited to , wo rkers ' compensation benefits) which an employer is required to pay relating to the employment of employees. City shall not be liable to Consultant or to any employee for Consultant's failure to perform its compensation, benefit , or tax obligations . Consultant shall indemnify , defend and hold City harmless from and against all such taxes , contributions and benefits and will comply with all associated governmental regulations , including the filing of all necessary reports and returns . 14. Indemnification. (a) Consultant Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify , defend and hold harmless City , its directors , officers , employees, and agents and the heirs , executors , successors , and permitted assigns of any of the foregoing (the "City lndemnitees") from and against all losses, claims , obligations , demands, assessments , fines and penalties (whether civil or criminal), liabilities , expenses and costs (including reasonable fees and disbursements of lega l counsel and accountants), bodily and other personal injuries , damage to tangible property , and other damages , of any kind or nature , suffered or incurred by a City lndemnitee d irectly or indirectly arising from or related to : ( 1) any negligent or intentional act or omission by Consultant or its representatives in the performance of Consultant 's obligations under this Agreement , or (2) any material breach in a representation , warranty , covenant or obligat ion of Consultant contained in this Agreement. (b) Infringement. Consultant will indemnify , defend , and hold City harmless from all lndemnifiable Losses arising from any third party claims that any Work Product or methodology supplied by Consultant infringes or misappropriates any Intellectual Property rights of any third party; provided , however , that the foregoing indemnification obligation shall not apply to any alleged infringement or misappropriation based on : (1) use of the Work Product in combinat ion with products or services not provided by Consultant to the extent that such infringement or misappropriation would have been avoided if such other products or services had not been used ; (2) any modification or enhancement to the Work Product made by City or anyone other than Consultant or its sub-consultants ; or (3) use of the Work Product other than as permitted under this Agreement. (c) Indemnification Procedures. Notwith-standing anything else contained in this Agreement , no obligation to indemnify which is set forth in this Section 14 shall apply unless the party claiming indemnification notifies the other 6 1000 Englewood Parkway , Englewood , Colorado 801 10-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .o rg PSA/16-50 Risk Assessment at WWTP party as soon as practicable to avoid any prejudice in the claim, suit or proceeding of any matters in respect of which the indemnity may apply and of which the notifying party has knowledge and gives the other party the opportunity to control the response thereto and the defense thereof; provided , however, that the party claiming indemnificaticn shall have the right to participate in any legal proceedings to contest and defend a claim for indemnification involving a third party and to be represented by its own attorneys, all at such party's cost and expense ; provided further, however, that no settlement or compromise of an asserted third- party claim other than the payment/money may be made without the prior written consent of the party claiming indemnification . (d) Immunity. City, its officers, and its employees, are relying on, and do not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Agreement, the monetary limitations or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S . 24-10-101 et seq ., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its employees . 15. Insurance. (a) Requirements. Consultant agrees to keep in full force and effect and maintain at its sole cost and expense the following policies of insurance during the term of this Agreement: (1) The Consultant shall comply with the Workers ' Compensation Act of Colorado and shall provide compensation insurance to protect the City from and against any and all Workers' Compensation claims arising from performance of the work under this contract. Workers' Compensation insurance must cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, as well as the Employers' Liability within the minimum statutory limits . (2) Commercial General Liability Insurance and auto liability insurance (including contractual liability insurance) providing coverage for bodily injury and property damage with a combined single limit of not less than three million dollars ($3,000,000) per occurrence. (3) Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions Insurance covering acts, errors and omissions arising out of Consultant's operations or Services in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence . ( 4) Employee Dishonesty and Computer Fraud Insurance covering losses arising out of or in connection with any fraudulent or dishonest acts committed by Consultant personnel, acting alone or with others, in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence . (b) Approved Companies. All such insurance shall be procured with such insurance companies of good standing , permitted to do business in the country, state or territory where the Services are being performed . (c) Certificates. Consultant shall provide City with certificates of insurance evidencing compliance with this Section 15 (including evidence of renewal of insurance) signed by authorized representatives of the respective carriers for each year that this Agreement is in effect. Certificates of insurance will list the City of Englewood as an additional insured . Each certificate of insurance shall provide that the issuing company shall not cancel, reduce, or otherwise materially change the insurance afforded under the above policies unless thirty (30) days' notice of such cancellation, reduction or material change has been provided to City . 16. Rights in Work Product. 7 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood , Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org PSA/I 6-5 0 Risk Assess ment at WWTP (a) Generally. Except as specifically agreed to the contrary in any Statement of Work, all Intellectual Property Rights in and to the Work Product produced or provided by Consultant under any Statement of Work shall remain the property of Consultant. With respect to the Work Product , Consultant unconditionally and irrevocably grants to City during the term of such Intellectual Property Rights , a non- exclusive, irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide, fully paid and royalty-free license, to reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute , publicly perform and publicly display by all means now known or later developed , such Intellectual Property Rights. (b) Know-How. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein , each party and its respective personnel and consultants shall be free to use and employ its and their general skills, know-how, and expertise , and to use, disclose, and employ any generalized ideas , concepts, know-how , methods , techniques , or skills gained or learned during the course of any assignment, so long as it or they acquire and apply such information without disclosure of any Confidential Information of the other party . 17. . Relationship of Parties. Consultant is acting only as an independent consultant and does not undertake, by this Agreement, any Statement of Work or otherwise, to perform any obligation of City , whether regulatory or contractual, or to assume any responsibility for City's business or operations . Neither party shall act or represent itself, directly or by implication, as an agent of the other, except as expressly authorized in a Statement of Work. 18. Complete Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the matters covered herein . 19. Applicable Law. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws in performing Services but shall be held harmless for violation of any governmental procurement regulation to which it may be subject but to which reference is not made in the applicable Statement of Work. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado. Any action or proceeding brought to interpret or enforce the provisions of this Agreement shall be brought before the state or federal court situated in Arapahoe County , Colorado and each party hereto consents to jurisdiction and venue before such courts . 20. Scope of Agreement. If the scope of any provisions of this Agreement is too broad in any respect whatsoever to permit enforcement to its fullest extent , then such provision shall be enforced to the maximum extent permitted by law , and the parties hereto consent to and agree that such scope may be judicially modified accordingly and that the whole of such provision of this Agreement shall not thereby fail, but that the scope of such provision shall be curtailed only to the extent necessary to conform to law . 21. Additional Work. After receipt of a Statement of Work, City, with Consultant's consent, may request Consultant to undertake additional work with respect to such Statement of Work . In such event, City and Consultant shall execute an addendum to the Statement of Work specifying such additional work and the compensation to be paid to Consultant for such additional work. 22. Sub-consultants. Consultant may not subcontract any of the Services to be provided hereunder without the prior written consent of City . In the event of any permitted subcontracting, the agreement with such third party shall provide that, with respect to the subcontracted work, such sub-consultant shall be subject to all of the obligations of Consultant specified in this Agreement. 23. Notices. Any notice provided pursuant to this Agreement shall be in writing to the parties at the addresses set forth below and 8 1000 Englewood Parkway , Englewood , Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov .org PSNI 6-50 Risk Assess ment at WWTP shall be deemed given (1) if by hand delivery, upon receipt thereof, (2) three (3) days after deposit in the United States mails, postage prepaid, certified mail, return receipt requested or (3) one (1) day after deposit with a nationally- recognized overnight courier, specifying overnight priority delivery . Either party may change its address for purposes of this Agreement at any time by giving written notice of such change to the other party hereto. 24. Assignment. This Agreement may not be assigned by Consultant without the prior written consent of City . Except for the prohibition of an assignment contained in the preceding sentence , this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 25. Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is entered into solely for the benefit of the parties hereto and shall not confer any rights upon any person or entity not a party to this Agreement. 26. Headings. The section headings in this Agreement are solely for convenience and shall not be considered in its interpretation . The recitals set forth on the first page of this Agreement are incorporated into the body of this Agreement. The exhibits referred to throughout this Agreement and any Statement of Work prepared in conformance with this Agreement are incorporated into this Agreement. . 27. Waiver. The failure of either party at any time to require performance by the other party of any provision of this Agreement shall not effect in any way the full right to require such performance at any subsequent time ; nor shall the waiver by either party of a breach of any provision of this Agreement be taken or held to be a waiver of the provision itself. 28. Force Majeure. If performance by Consultant of any service or obligation under this Agreement is prevented , restricted , delayed or interfered with by reason of labor disputes, strikes , acts of God , floods , lightning, severe weather , shortages of materials , rationing, utility or communications failures , earthquakes , war, revolution, civil commotion , acts of public enemies , blockade , embargo or any law, order, proclamation , regulation , ordinance , demand or requirement having legal effect of any governmental or judicial authority or representative of any such government, or any other act whether similar or d issimilar to those referred to in this clause , which are beyond the reasonable control of Consultant , then Consultant shall be excused from such performance to the extent of such prevention , restriction , delay or interference. If the period of such delay exceeds thirty (30) days , City may, without liability , terminate the affected Statement of Work(s) upon written notice to Consultant. 29. Time of Performance. Time is expressly made of the essence with respect to each and every term and provision of this Agreement. 30. Permits . Consultant shall at its own expense secure any and all licenses, permits or certificates that may be required by any federal , state or local statute , ordinance or regulation for the performance of the Services under the Agreement. Consultant shall also comply with the provisions of all Applicable Laws in performing the Services under the Agreement. At its own expense and at no cost to City , Consultant shall make any change , alteration or modification that may be necessary to comply with any Applicable Laws that Consultant failed to comply with at the time of performance of the Services . 31. Media Releases. Except for any announcement intended solely for internal distribution by Consultant or any disclosure required by legal , accounting, or regulatory requirements beyond the reasonable control of 9 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood , Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org PSA/16 -50 Risk Assess ment at WWTP Consultant, all media releases , public announcements, or public disclosures (including, but not limited to , promotional or marketing material) by Consultant or its employees or agents relating to this Agreement or its subject matter, or including the name, trade mark, or symbol of City , shall be coordinated with and approved in writing by City prior to the release thereof. Consultant shall not represent directly or indirectly that any Services provided by Consultant to City has been approved or endorsed by City or include the name , trade mark, or symbol of City on a list of Consultant's customers without City 's express written consent. 32. Nonexclusive Market and Purchase Rights . It is expressly understood and agreed that this Agreement does not grant to Consultant an exclusive right to provide to City any or all of the Services and shall not prevent City from acquiring from other supplier 's services similar to the Services . Consultant agrees that acquisitions by City pursuant to this Agreement shall neither restrict the right of City to cease acquiring nor require City to continue any level of such acquisitions. Estimates or forecasts furnished by City to Consultant prior to or during the term of this Agreement shall not constitute commitments. 33. Survival. The provisions of Sections 5, 8(g), 10, 11, 13, 14 , 16, 17, 19 , 23 , 25 and 31 shall survive any expiration or termination for any reason of this Agreement. 34. Verification of Compliance with C.R.S. 8- 17.5-101 ET.SEQ. Regarding Hiring of Illegal Aliens: (a) Employees, Consultants and Sub-consultants: Consultant shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract. Consultant shall not contract with a sub- consultant that fails to certify to the Consultant that the sub-consultant will not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Contract. [CRS 8-17 .5- 102(2)(a)(I) & (II).] (b) Verification: Consultant will participate in either the E-Verify program or the Department program, as defined in C.R.S . 8- 17 .5-101 . (3 .3) and 8-17 .5-101 (3.7), respectively , in order to confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perform work under this public contract for services . Consultant is prohibited from using the E-Verify program or the Department program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening of job applicants while this contract is being performed . (c) Duty to Terminate a Subcontract: If Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a sub-consultant performing work under this Contract knowingly employs er contracts with an illegal alien , the Consultant shall; (1) notify the sub-consultant and the City within three days that the Consultant has actual knowledge that the sub-consultant is employing or contracting with an illegal alien ; and (2) terminate the subcontract with the sub-consultant if, within three days of receiving notice required pursuant to this paragraph the sub- consultant does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien; except that the Consultant shall not term inate the contract with the sub-consultant if during such three days the sub - consultant provides information to establish that the sub-consultant has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien . (d) Duty to Comply with State Investigation: Consultant shall comply with any 10 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov .org PSA/16-50 R isk Assessment at WWTP reasonable request of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation by that the Department is undertaking pursuant to C.R.S. 8-17.5-102 (5) ( e) Damages for Breach of Contract: The City may terminate this contract for a breach of contract, in whole or in part , due to Consultant 's breach of any section of this paragraph or provisions required pursuant to CRS 8-17 .5-102 . Consultant shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City in addition to any other legal or equitable remedy the City may be entitled to for a breach of this Contract under this Paragraph 34 . PSNI 6-SO Risk Assessment at WWTP 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood , Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www .englewoodgov .org II IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have caused it to be executed by their authorized officers as of the day and year first above written . This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO By: ________________ Date: ____ _ (Department Director) By: ________________ Date: ____ _ (City manager) RONDA HENKEL Notary Public State of Colorado Notary ID 20004006116 Commission Expires Mar 1, 2020 STATE OF C()/O r-~ 0 COUNTY OF Tuv (J. if ) ) SS. ) (Consultant Name) lo-J\ S'--i) \\o C 0 §0729 City, State, Zip Code By:Vv;o(N ~ -=:: ulSignatur (' u_ _i_ ,~ \ {),,-( °-°'-2--re.e n 8 Ci lf (Print Name) Title: 'j?( I Y\C.,1. f'O-\ Date: h \ I L.-i l l '2 4 ~ day of NFV~ , 20 /(;, before me personally appeared flltrll~ ~Uo?..u:iw..u<>.....1.-1-r----=-' known to me to be the ]>rinw' pPL/ of n ·-, C-fhe corporation that executed the within and foregoing instrument, nd acknowledged th' said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. l'SNI 6 -50 Risi: Ass essment nt \VWTI' 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762 -2300 www.englewoodgov .org 12 My commission expires : frluvh J. Jo)O I grJA lbtW PSA/16-50 Ris k Assess me nt at WWT P NO ARY 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org 13 1. GENERAL Integral Consulting Inc . City of Englewood Date of Execution : TBD SCHEDULE A OUTLINE OF STATEMENT OF WORK 2 . NAMES OF PROJECT COORDINATORS Integral Consulting Inc ., Alice Wood Conovitz City of Englewood, Tom Brennan 3 . SUMMARY OF PURPOSE FOR STATEMENT OF WORK Perform a study to access the potential risk of harm to plant workers and adjacent neighbors from exposure to TENORMS in the water treatment residuals generated at the plant, and to evaluate the Allen Water Treatment Plant's residuals management practices, from generation through processing , storage, and disposal. 4 . EQUIPMENT AND PROGRAMMING TO BE PROVIDED BY CITY (IF ANY) None 5. OTHER CONSUL TANT RESOURCES City will provide historical data. 6. DESCRIPTION OF WORK PRODUCT AND DELIVERABLES Task 1 -Risk Assessment Using Dose Reconstruction from Historical Data Task 2 -Evaluate Residuals Management Practices, Including Risk Assessment Task 3 -Rough Order of Magnitude Estimates for Residuals Management Alternatives Task 4 -Final Report and Presentation 7. SPECIAL TERMS , IF ANY 8. MODE OF PAYMENT 9. PAYMENT SCHEDULE City will pay Consultant for the work in accordance with the following payment schedule . All payments to Consultant are contingent on Consultant's satisfying the Deliverables/M ilestones set forth in the PSA/16-50 Risk Assessment at WWTP 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood , Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762 -2300 www .englewoodgov .o rg 14 Payment Schedule . Payments shall be made upon City 's written confirmation to Consultant that the Deliverables-Milestones have been satisfied. [Insert payment schedule] 10 . SCHEDULE AND PERFORMANCE MILESTONES This schedule sets for the target dates and performance milestones for the preparation and delivery of the Deliverables by Consultant. Performance Milestone Key Project Task Milestones Responsible Party 1 Conduct Risk Assessment with Dose Reconstruction 2A Evaluate Residuals Process fo r Regulatory Compliance and 8MPs 28 Conduct Risk Assessment for Current Residuals Plan 3A Evaluate Residuals Management Alternatives 38 Conduct Risk Assessment for Alternatives 4A Prepare Draft and Final Reports 48 Deliver Presentations to City Council and Plant Employees 11 . ACCEPTANCE AND TESTING PROCEDURES NIA 12 . LOCATION OF WORK FACILITIES Target Date Week 1thru8 Week 1thru8 Week 5 thru 13 Week 6 thru 16 Week 11 thru 20 Week 18 thru 24 Week 24 Substantially all of the work will be conducted by Consultant at its regular office located in Lou isville, CO . City will provide the City office space and support as it agrees may be appropriate , at its Allen Water Treatment facility . IN WITNESS WHEREOF , pursuant and in accordance with the Professional Services Agreement between the parties hereto dated , 20_, the parties have executed this Statement of Work as of this day of , 20_. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO (Print Name) PS.A./ l 6-50 Risk Assess ment at WWTP 1000 Englewood Parkway , Englewood , Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org 15 (Print Name) Title : Yrt~ l µv;, I Date: \ \ Wt>-.J )~ PSNl6-50 Risk Assessment at WWTP 1000 Englewood Parkway , Englewood , Colorado 80110-2373 (303) 762-2300 www.englewoodgov .org 16 TWO LINES, INC. Alice Wood Conovitz Managing Scientist Integral Consulting, Inc. 605 S. College Avenue, Suite 101 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Alice - As a subcontractor to Integral, I understand that I am subject to all obligations in the Professional Service Agreement between the City of Englewood and Integral, Contract Number PSA/16-50. I look forward to working with you. Best regards, Craig A. Little, President 896 Overview Rd. Grand Junction, CO 81506 Human Health and Environmental Radiation Risk Consulting PHONE (970) 260-2810 EFAX (309) 214-2569 E-MAIL twolines@bresnan.net ACORD® CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE I DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) ~ 11/16/2016 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER($), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER JL T S~ecialty USA CONTACT Nik Patel NAME: 1520 arket Street, Suite 300 PHONE 720-501-2805 I FAX Denver, CO 80202 /Al(' >Jn l'vtl· IAJC Nol: E-MAIL nik.patel@.iltus .com ADDRESS : INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# www.jitus.com INSURER A : Allied World Assurance Co (U.S.) Inc. 19489 INSURED INSURER B : Hartford Fire Insurance Company 19682 Integral Consultin~ Inc . INSURER c : Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company 22357 719 2nd Avenue, uite 700 Seattle WA 98104 INSURER D: Travelers Casualty and Suretv Co America 31194 INSURERE : INSURERF: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 32855132 REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED . NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN , THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES . LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL SUBR POLICY EFF POLICY EXP LIMITS LTR I "•en '"'"" POLICY NUMBER : IMM/DD/YYYYI IMM/DD/YYYYI A ...L COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 0310-2494 7/25/2016 11/1/2017 EAC H OCCURRENCE $ $1,000 ,000 D CLAIMS-MADE [L] OCCUR DAMAGE TO RENTED PREMISES IEa occurrence\ $ $300,000 ...L Contractual Liability included MED EXP (Any one person) $ $25,000 .__ for Railroads PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ $1,000,000 GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERALAGGREGATE $ $2 ,000 ,000 F1 POLICY D j~g: D LOC PRODUCTS -COMP/OP AGG $ $2,000 ,000 OTHER: $ B AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY 57UUNZM7329 7/25/2016 11/1/2017 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ $1 000 000 .__ IEa accidenll ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (P er person) $ .__ -OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY (P er accident) $ .__ A UTOS ONLY .___ AUTOS ...L HIRED J_ NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $ AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY (Per accident\ $ A UMBRELLA LIAB H OCCUR 0310-2497 7/25/2016 11/1/2017 EACH OCCURRENCE $ $10 000 000 ~ I EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ $10,000,000 OED I I I RETENTION s 10,000 $ B WORKERS COMPENSATION 1 OWEAR5003 (AOS) 11/1/2016 11/1/2017 I PER I I OTH-I STATUTE ER c AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY Y/N 1 OWEAR5005 (NY only) 11/1/2016 11/1/2017 ANYPROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE 0 E.L. EACH ACCIDENT $ $1,000 ,000 OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? N/A (Mandatory In NH) E L DISEASE -EA EMPLOYEE $ $1 000 000 ~m:~~~~~~ ~nFdOPERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT $ $1,000,000 B WC & EL all other states 10WEAR5003 11/1/2016 11/1/2017 See Additional Remarks Schedule c WC & EL (NY) 10WEAR5005 11/1/2016 11/1/2017 See Additional Remarks Schedule A Pollution & Professional Liability 0310-2499 7/25/2016 11/1/2017 See Additional Remarks Schedule D Manaaement Liabilitv 405652411 7/25/2016 11/1/2017 See Additional Remarks Schedule DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) WC : Stop Gap coverage is included for WA. WC coverage includes USL&H RE: C1651 . City of Englewood, Colorado is included as Additional Insured on the General Liability Policy if required by written contract or agreement subject to the policy terms and conditions. Subcontractor (Craig Little of Two Lines, Inc) is a covered entity as required by written contract. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION City of Englewood, Colorado SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN En81ewooa Civic Center ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 10 0 Englewood Parkway Englewood CO 80110 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ~ I Nik Patel ' © 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION . All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2016/03) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD 32855132 I 16 /17 Integral Liabil i ty Master 2 Nik Patel I 11 /16/2016 g,35,13 AM (MDT ) I Page 1 of 2 ADDITIONAL REMARKS SCHEDULE AGENCY JL T Specialty USA POLICY NUMBER 0310-2494 CARRIER I NAICCODE Allied World Assurance Co IU.S .\ Inc. 19489 ADDITIONAL REMARKS THIS ADDITIONAL REMARKS FORM IS A SCHEDULE TO ACORD FORM, FORM NUMBER: 25 FORM TITLE: Certificate of Liability (03/16) HOLDER : City of Englewood, Colorado Englewood Civic Center ADDRESS: 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood CO 8011 O NAMED INSURED lntel!Jal Consultin~ Inc. 719 nd Avenueb uite 700 Seattle WA 981 4 EFFECTIVE DATE: 7/25/2016 Workers Compensation and Employers Liability -NY State Policy # 10WEAR5005 Insurer: C Effective 11/1/16-11 /1/17 Page of Statutory limits and $1M for EL coverage. Additional limits available via Excess Liability policy. Includes coverage for all other states, except: ND , OH, WA, WY Workers Compensation and Employers Liability -All Other States Policy# 10WEAR5003 Insurer: B Effective 11/1/16-11/1/17 Statutory limits and $1M for EL coverage. Additional limits available via Excess Liability policy. Coverage for the following states: CA,CO,ME,MD,MA,MT,NH,NJ,NY,OR,TX,UT,VA,HI Coverage exists for all other states, including stop gap for WA and if any for ND ,OH,WY. Management Liability Coverage: Policy #105652411 Insurer: D Effective dates: 07/25/16-11/1/17 D&O $2,000,000 limit, $10,000 deductible, continuity date 7/25/07 EPL $2,000,000 limit, $10,000 deductible, continuity date 7/25/07 Fiduciary $2,000,000 limit, $0 deductible, continuity date 7/25/07 Crime $2,000,000 limit ($500,000 for Erisa Fidelity), $10,000 deductible Kidnap & Ransom $2,000,000 limit each insured event, no deductible Professional Liability Coverage: Policy #0310-2499 Insurer: A Effective dates : 07/25/16-11/1 /17 $1,000,000 each act limit: $2,000,000 aggregate limit; $25,000 deductible * Additional limits available via Excess Liability policy Retroactive date 07/22/02 Pollution Liability Coverage : Policy #0310-2499 Insurer: A Effective dates: 07/25/16-11/1 /17 $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 aggregate limit; $10,000 deductible * Additional limits available via Excess Liability policy Retroactive date 07/25/11 for waste disposal activities Maritime Employers Liability Coverage: Policy #B0901LH1619902000, Insurer : Lloyds of London Effective dates : 07/25/16-11/1/17, $1,000,000 E.L . each accident limit; $5,000 deductible Underwater Equipment Coverage: Policy #B0901LH1621577000 Insurer: Lloyds o f London Effective dates 11 /1 /16 -11 /1/17 , $265,275 each loss limit, $2500 deductible Cyber Liability Coverage: Policy #MTP903252401 Insurer : Indian Harbor Ins Co (XL Ins ) Effective dates: 07/25 /16-11 /1 /17 $2,000,000 limit; $15,000 deductible Retro date 07/25/14 Foreign Policy Coverage: Policy #PH16FPK025020NV Insurer : Navigators Insurance Co. Effective dates: 7/25/16-11/1/17 International Commercial General Liability ($1M/occurrence, $2M aggregate, $25K medical expense) International Business Auto (hired and non-owned auto for $1M limit) Employee Foreign Protection ($1M limit each for accident, disease (emp loyee and policy ) ACORD 101 (2008/01) © 2008 ACORD CORPORATION . All rights reserved. The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD ATTACHMENT 3 28551 32 I 16 /17 Integral Liabil i ty Master 2 I Nik Patel I 11/16 /2016 9,39,13 AM (MDT ) I Page 2 of 2 A~RD® CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE I DATE (MM/DDNYYY) 06/29/2015 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER{S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy{ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement{s). PRODUCER CONTACT MARSH USA , INC. NAME: PHONE I FAX 1050 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, SUITE 700 IAtr> J.1,,, c .. +\. IAIC Nol: WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5386 E-MAIL ADDRESS: Att n: TEL: (202) 263-7600 INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # J0859G-PROF-2.1 b-15-16 INSURER A : Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company 25615 INSURED DEWBERRY ENGINEERS INC. INSURER B : Travelers Indemnity Co 25658 8401 ARLINGTON BLVD. INSURER c : Travelers Property Casualty Company Of America FAIRFAX , VA 22031 INSURER D : Beazley Insurance Company, Inc. 37540 INSURER E : Lloyd 's Of London 1126623 INSURER F : Travelers Indemnity Co Of America 25666 COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: CLE-004542046-09 REVISION NUMBER:24 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT , TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN , THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS , EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES . LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR TYPE OF INSURANCE ADDL SUBR POLICY EFF POLICY EXP LTR ,.,en I WVD POLICY NUMBER IMM/DD/YYYYI IMM/DDNYYYI LIMITS A x COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 630-7792B312-COF-15 07 /0 1/2015 07/01 /2016 EACH OCCU RRENCE $ 1,000,000 ~ =:J CLAIMS-MADE 0 OCCUR DAMAGE TO RENTED PREMISES /Ea occurrence\ $ 1,0 00,000 MED EXP (Any one person) $ 10,000 ~ PERSON AL & ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 ~ GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: GENERALAGGREGATE $ 5,000,000 Pl DPRO-DLoc PRODUCTS -COMP/OP AGG 2,000,000 POLICY JECT $ OTHER: $ B AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY 810-6102A 19 A-IND-15 07/01/2015 07/01/2016 COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 1,000,000 <Ea accident\ -x ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person) $ >--ALL OWNED ~ SCHEDULED AUTOS AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per accident) $ >--f--NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE HIRED AUTOS AUTOS <Per accident\ $ >--f-- Comp/Coll Ded . $ 1,000 c x UMBRELLA LIAB ~OCCUR CUP-5872N131-TIL-15 07/01/20 15 07 /0 1/2016 EACH OCCURRENCE $ 10 ,000,000 >-- EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ 10,000 ,000 OED I I RETENTION$ $ F WORKERS COMPENSATION PH-UB-1722B67-3-15 07/0 1/2015 07 /0 1/2016 x I ~ffTUTE I I OTH- AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ER c Y/N PH-UB-1722867-3-15 (CA) 07/01 /2015 07/01/2016 1,000 ,000 ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE ~ E.L EACH ACCIDENT $ OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? N/A (Mandatory In NH) E.L. DISEASE -EA EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 ~~~~~ftf~8~ '(;'~~PERATIONS below E.L. DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 D Professional Liab . V11B5 E15060 1 07 /01/2015 07 /0 1/2016 Per Claim /Agg. 2,000,000 E Excess Prof. Liab. FINPA 1500084 07/01 /2015 07 /01 /2016 Per Claim /Agg . 11,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS I LOCATIONS I VEHICLES (ACORD 101 , Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space Is required) EVIDENCE ONLY CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION DEWBERRY ENGINEERS INC . SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE 8401 ARLINGTON BLVD . THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN FAIRFAX , VA 22031 ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE of Marsh USA Inc . I Manashi Mukherjee ~~......:.-~~ © 1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION . All rights reserved. ACORD 25 (2014/01) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD I Dewberry· November 16, 2016 Alice Wood Conovitz Managing Scientist Integral Consulting, Inc. 605 S. College Avenue, Suite 101 Fort Collins, CO 80524 Dear Alice, Dewberry Engineers Inc . 303 .825.1802 990 South Broadway, Suite 400 303 .825 .2322 fax Denver, CO 80209 www.dewberry.com Dewberry Engineers understands that as a subcontractor to Integral Consulting, Inc ., we will be subject to the terms and conditions in the Professional Service Agreement between the City of Englewood and Integral, Contract Number PSA/16-50. We look forward to working with you. Best regards, David C. Vidikan PE Associate Vice President Page 1of1 FINANCIAL IMPACT Integral Consulting's total project cost is $111, 676.00. The original proposal amount was more and was amended per additional scope clarification provided by the Utilities Department staff resulting in a 14% cost reduction ($17,865.00). UST OF ATTACHMENTS Contract Report-Revised Proposal for Services-RFP-16020, Risk Assessment for Allen Water Filter Treatment Plant Water Treatment Residuals and TENORMs Management. Allen Pl Residuals Risk Assessment 2017 ~ 1. CALL TO ORDER ENGLEWOOD WATER & SEWER BOARD Regular Meeting November 8, 2016 The regular meeting of the Englewood Water and Sewer Board was called to order at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, CO 80110 by Chairman Clyde Wiggins. e 2. ROLL CALL Members present: Burns, Jefferson, Wiggins, Oakley, Roth, Habenicht, Gillit, Yates, Moore Members absent : None Also present: Tom Brennan, Director of Utilities .~ 3. MINUTES The Board received a copy of the July 12, 2016 Water Board Minutes. Motion: To approve the July 12, 2016 Water and Sewer Board Minutes. Moved: Burns Seconded: Roth Ayes: Motion carried . ~ 4. PUBLIC FORUM None . ~ 5. NEW BUSINESS a. 2100 W. LITTLETON BLVD. -CITY DITCH -PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRICAL CONDUIT Public Service Company has requested a Grant of Temporary Construction Easement and a City Ditch Crossing License Agreement to install a buried electrical line encased in a conduit for The Grove at Littleton. It is located on the southeast corner of W . Littleton Blvd. and S. Bemis St. Englewood's City Ditch right-of-way runs through a portion of the property, requiring license agreements for crossing the City Ditch with a buried electrical line. The electrical conduit will be buried 30" deep and run to a transformer located next to the building. Motion: Moved : To recommend Council approval of the City Ditch Grant ofTemporary Construction Easement and a City Ditch Crossing Agreement for the Public Service Company of Colorado for an electrical conduit at 2100 W. Littleton Blvd. Habenicht Seconded: Gill it Ayes: All Motion carried . . ~ b. RITE-AID VACATION OF EXISTING SEWER EASEMENT AND GRANT OF SEWER EASEMENT. KRF965 LLC purchased the former Baily's property located at 285 and Clarkson St . A Rite-Aid store is being built and the existing 20' wide sewer easement was reconfigured for the most advantageous use of the site. Council approved the original Exchange of ROW, Grant of ROW and Grant of Temporary Construction License at their March 14, 2016 meeting. It was later discovered that the 20' easement must be shifted 1.2' to the south to prevent it from being in the building's foundation . Documents will be forthcoming and will be forwarded to Council, once finalized and approved by the City Attorney's office. Motion: Moved: To recommend Council approval of the Vacation of Sewer Easement, Grant of Sewer Easement Agreement and Grant of Temporary Construction Easement to KRF-965 LLC for the Rite-Aid store located at 285 and S. Clarkson St. Gill it Seconded: Burns Ayes : All Motion carried . ~ c. ALLEN PLANT ALULM RESIDUALS RISK ASSESSMENT City Council requested a study be performed to access the potential risk of harm to plant workers and adjacent neighbors from exposure to Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENO RM) in the water treatment residuals generated at the plant, and to evaluate the Allen Water Treatment Plant's residuals management practices, from generation through processing, storage and disposal. Integral's proposal brings together a team of scientist and engineers from three companies, Integral Consulting Inc., Dewberry Engineers Inc., and Two Lines Inc. to perform a health risk assessment, an evaluation of radionuclide health effects and an evaluation of the current treatment process and alternative treatment processes. Integral Consulting's proposal for its services is $111,675.00. Wayne Oakley commented that he supports the study and likes that the processes are being addressed. Don Roth believes that Integral Consulting will be a good team and he was impressed with the Allen Water Filter Plant informational video. Steve Yates discussed how the video can be used for recruiting . Motion: Moved: Recommend Council approval of the proposal from Integral Consulting, Inc . for RFP-16 -020, Risk Assessment for Allen Water Filter Treatment Plant Water Treatment Residuals and Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORMs) Management in the amount of $111,675.00. Burns Seconded: Roth Ayes : All Motion carried. ~ 6. STAFF'S CHOICE a. MEMO DATED OCTOBER 31, 2016 FROM COLORADO WATER TRUST. The Board received a memo thanking Englewood for their participation in the Colorado Water Trust's Flowing Waters Partnership. 7. ADJOURNMENT. The meeting adjourned at 5:23 p.m . The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be Tuesday, January 10, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room. Sincerely, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary Englewood Water and Sewer Board WATER AND SEWER BOARD PHONE VOTE November 10, 2016 A phone vote was conducted for the members of the Englewood Water and Sewer Board for the November 8, 2016 Water Board meeting. 1. MINUTES OF THE MAY, 2016 WATER & SEWER BOARD MEETING. Motion: Moved: Ayes: Members not reached: Nays: Motion carried. To approve the May 8, 2016 Water and Sewer Board Minutes. Habenicht Seconded: Roth Moore, Habenicht, Oakley, Gillit, Jefferson, Wiggins, Roth Yates None The next meeting will be held January 10, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary Englewood Water & Sewer Board October 26, 2016 Tom Brennan Director City of Englewood Utilities Department 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110-2373 Integral Consulting Inc. 285 Century Place Suite 190 Louisville, CO 80027 telephone : 303.404 .2944 facsimile : 303.404 .2945 www.integral-corp.com Subject: Revised Proposal for Services-RFP-16-020, Risk Assessment for Allen Water Filter Treatment Plant Water Treatment Residuals and TENORMs Management Dear Mr. Brennan: Integral Consulting Inc. (Integral) and its teammates are pleased to submit a revised proposal in response to the City of Englewood Utilities Department (CEUD) RFP No. RFP- 16-020, Risk Assessment for Allen Water Filter Treatment Plant Water Treatment Residuals and Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORMs) Management. We have updated our original cost proposal (submitted on September 22, 2016) based on additional scope clarification information provided by you via a telephone call on October 6, 2016, and a follow-up email on October 18, 2016. These scope changes resulted in a 14% ($17,865) cost reduction relative to our original proposed budget. The new estimated cost is $111,675. Based on the information you provided that a meeting with the Allen Water Filter Treatment Plant staff will not be part of the project scope, Integral reduced the cost estimate for Task 4B (Presentation to City Council and Public) and removed the anticipated labor and travel costs for Barbara Trenary, a Certified Industrial Hygienist experienced with worker communications and radioactive materials. Ms . Trenary is available to provide a supporting role for the Integral project team if such an individual is needed for this project. Torn Brennan City of Englewood October 26, 2016 Page2 Thank you for this opportunity to present our project team and approach to the CEUD, and to refine our proposal to best meet the goals and expectations of the CEUD. If you have additional questions, please contact me at 970-682-2184 extension 113 or awconovitz@integral-corp.com. Sincerely, Alice Conovitz Managing Scientist Enclosure www.integral-corp.com Risk Assessment for Allen Water Filter Treatment Plant Water Treatment Residuals and TENORMs Management RFP-16-020 Proposal for Serv;ces Prepared for City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110-2373 Prepared by Integral Consulting Inc. 285 Century Place, Suite 101 Louisville, CO 80027 Dewberry Engineers 990 S. Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80209 October 26, 2016 Two Lines, Inc. 896 Overview Road Grand Junction, CO 81506 Health \ll Environment !ii Technology 111 Sustainability Allen Water Treatment Plant Oty of Englewood, RFP-16-020 Contents 1 Project Understanding ..................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................. 3 Summary of Technical Approach .......................................................... 4 2 Project Team ................................................................................ 5 Roles and Responsibilities .................................................................. 6 Key Personnel ................................................................................ 6 3 Scope of Work and Execution Plan ...................................................... 9 Task 1-Risk Assessment Using Dose Reconstruction from Historical Data ........ 10 Task 2-Evaluate Residuals Management Practices, Including Risk Assessment .. 13 Task 3-Rough Order of Magnitude Estimates for Residuals Management Alternatives ................................................................................. 14 Task 4-Final Report and Presentation ................................................. 16 4 Cost Proposal .•.....••..................•........•...........................•............. 18 5 Descriptions of Previous Work .......................................................... 18 Risk Assessment Services for the Northeast Church Rock Site, New Mexico ...... 19 Risk Assessment Services for a Former Uranium Mine, Alaska ...................... 21 Work Plan for Streamlined Human and Ecological Risk Evaluations, Arizona ..... 21 Rueter·Hess Water Purification Facility, Parker Water and Sanitation District, Colorado .................................................................................... 21 Bealeton Water Treatment Plant, Fauquier County Water and Sanitation Authority, Virginia ......................................................................... 22 6 Conclusion .................................................................................. 22 7 References ...•......•..•.•.........................•...•...•.........................•..... 23 Attachment A. Resumes for Key Project Staff Attachment B. Integral Staff Work Product Example -Work Plan Memorandum for the Preparation of the Refined Human Health Risk Assessment to Support the EE/CA of the Northeast Church Rock Mine Site, Church Rock, New Mexico p(!r~c ~ Allen Water Tre atm ent Pl ant City of Englewood, RFP-16-020 1 Project Understanding In troduction This proposal responds to the City of Englewood Utilities Department's (CEUD's) request for proposal (RFP) for a worker and residential health assessment and treatment plant residuals management evaluation for the Allen Water Treatment Plant (RFP-16-020). We appreciate the opportunity to respond to this request and believe that our team offers the City an unmatched set of qualifications based on extensive technical expertise and a strong commitment to service. We understand that the City of Englewood operates the Allen Water Treatment Plant to provide clean drinking water to the more than 55,000 residents and businesses in the surrounding community. At the Allen Water Treatment Plant, raw water is treated with addition of alum to enhance coagulation and precipitation of fine particles and dissolved constituents, then filtered through granular activated carbon for finishing. Residual solids from the water treatment process are stored temporarily as sediments under water in a small, onsite outdoor reservoir. When sufficient amounts of treatment residuals have accumulated, they are removed from the outdoor reservoir and the damp residuals are spread within a walled, open-topped concrete storage pad onsite for drying. The dried residuals are disposed at a Subtitle C hazardous waste facility approximately 80 miles from the treatment plant. Allen Water Treatment Plant (Photo Credit: City of Englewood) The Allen Water Treatment Plant's primary raw water source is the South Platte River, which is mainly fed by releases from Chatfield Reservoir and tributaries flowing from mineralized areas west of the City. The Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMs) present in the intake water at low levels are concentrated in the waste residuals produced by the treatment process. The waste residuals contain Technologically Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (TENORMs), which can expose workers and the public to small increases of radiation and which require handling and disposal as hazardous waste . As is typical for a surface water source with NORM, the radiological chemical levels in the source water vary over time, which in turn affects the levels of TENORMs in plant residuals, as does variations in the treatment processes (USEPA 2005, 201 la). The Allen Water Treatment Plant's treatment residuals are routinely analyzed for toxicity characteristic leaching procedure metals, uranium, radium-226, radium-228, gross alpha emissions, and gross beta emissions. The radiological results for the treatment residual samples collected in 2011, 2014, and 2016 are summarized below, based upon the reports from ACZ Laboratories (Englewood City Council Request Update dated July 28, 2016): Allen Water Treatment Plant Oty of Englewood, RFP-16-020 • Gross alpha: 48 to 140 pCi/g (mean: 94 pCi/g) • Gross beta: 91 to 250 pCi/g (mean: 142 pCi/g) • Radium-226: 2.4 to 6 .1 pCi/g (mean: 4.3 pCi/g) • Radium-228: 0.71 to 6.8 pCi/g (mean: 3.3 pCi/g). These records show that the concentrations in the plant residuals have varied by a factor of 2 to 3 (except for radium-228) over these three sampling events. The radium levels are consistent with what has been reported in drinking water treatment solids from other facilities (e.g., USEPA 2005). Recent media coverage (e .g., CBS News 4 television reports aired on June 6 and July 5, 2016, and an article in the Highlands Ranch Herald on August 1, 2016) and a denied worker's compensation suit filed by a plant worker have raised concerns about possible health risks to workers and local residents from exposures to TENORMs during residuals processing and handling. This proposal was developed to address the need by the CEUD to assess the potential risk of harm to plant workers and the public from exposure to TENORMs in water treatment residuals, and to evaluate the Allen Water Treatment Plant's residuals management practices, from generation through processing, storage, and disposal, for compliance with state regulations and best management practices (BMPs). This proposal also summarizes how we will evaluate alternatives to the current residuals handling practices. Summary of Tech nical Approa c h Our proposal brings together a team of scientists and engineers from three companies, Integral Consulting Inc . (Integral), Dewberry Engineers Inc. (Dewberry), and Two Lines Inc. (Two Lines), to provide exemplary experience in performing risk assessments, evaluating radionuclide health effects, and design and evaluation of water treatment processes and residuals handling and disposal. In addition to an applied knowledge of relevant science and engineering skills, effective communication of complex issues to plant managers, concerned workers, and the general public is essential. Effective risk communication fosters transparency and builds trust by informing community members about the process of risk assessment and management so that they can develop a realistic understanding of possible hazards . At the heart of our approach is an expert technical analysis of the data that have been compiled or are otherwise available, coupled with a data-driven assessment of potential historical and future TENORM e xposures and health risks within the context of regulatory and regional/background levels. We apply our expertise in health assessment modeling and dose reconstruction to first assess the likelihood of worker or residential injury. Our technical analyses will provide a solid understanding of the potential TENORM exposures and risk consequences for workers and residents, the implications of any key uncertainties in the assessments, and compliance with state regulations . Based on the results of our technical analyses, we will identify residuals best management practices, and develop preliminary recommendations of alternatives to the current residuals management practices that include consideration of resulting changes in TENORM exposures and risks . As described in this proposal, we --.. ~·~··---·-·-.... -·--·---·-.. ---·-·---·-.,,·----·---------· Allen Water Treatment Plant City of Englewood, RFP -1 6-020 offer a technically sound approach, depth of experience, and a fresh, external perspective to support the CEUD with their residuals risk evaluation. 2 Project Team Our proposed team of scientists and engineers provides a multidisciplinary yet streamlined team that combines extensive experience with radionuclide health effects along with in-depth knowledge of risk assessment models (including RESRAD), water treatment processes, residuals handling and disposal, and the Colorado regulatory framework. The collaboration of Integral, Dewberry, and Two Lines staff provides the CEUD with an unmatched team that furnishes the breadth and depth of knowledge and expertise necessary to complete a comprehensive evaluation of the potential for human health risk associated with the Allen Water Treatment Plant residuals, as well as residuals management compliance and alternatives. Alice Conovitz, who recently worked with the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant, will lead the collaborative project team and will serve as a key liaison with the CEUD to facilitate communication of project status and timely completion of analyses and deliverables. This sensible approach leverages the project team's existing knowledge to maximize productivity and cost- effectiveness. Integral offers a full range of scientific and engineering consulting for industry, the public sector, utilities, nonprofits, and law firms. Since our founding in 2002, we have helped clients solve their specific environmental, health, technology, and sustainability challenges while developing and maintaining effective relationships with regulators and the public. Many of our staff are recognized leaders in their fields, serving as resources for reviews of government policies and as expert witnesses for law firms . Technical specialties include toxicology, ecology, aquatic science, biomonitoring, environmental and atmospheric chemistry, geology and hydrogeology, and data management and statistics, as well as civil, geotechnical, environmental, hydrologic, and geologic engineering. We are known for providing cost- effective solutions to the complex technical challenges faced by our clients across a wide variety of public and private sectors, assisting them in project planning and management, regulatory strategy development, technical peer review, and expert services for litigation. Dewberry is a national engineering firm with a proven history of providing professional services to a wide variety of public-and private-sector clients. Recognized for combining unsurpassed commitment to client service with deep subject matter expertise, Dewberry is dedicated to solving clients' most complex challenges and transforming their communities. Established in 1956, Dewberry is headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia, with more than 40 locations and 2,000 professionals nationwide. The key project staff for this proposal are located in Dewberry's Denver office. Dewberry's steady growth and ability to provide the capabilities, capacity, and geographic presence to serve a diverse client base has made the company an industry leader, as demonstrated by the latest Engineering News-Record rankings as a top firm in multiple categories. Two Lines was founded by Dr . Craig A . Little in 2006. Two Lines specializes in working with organizations with difficult radiation protection, characterization, or remedial action problems . Dr. Little builds on his experience as the former head of the Environmental Technology Section of the Department Allen Water Treatment Plant City of Englewood, RFP-16-020 of Energy's Grand Junction office of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory to solve complex problems in timely and budget-sensitive manners. Roles and Re spon sibiliti es Our proposed project team (see Figure 1) will be led by Dr. Marcia Greenblatt as Principal-in-Charge and Alice Conovitz as Project Manager . We have grouped our services into three categories, risk assessment, process evaluation, and risk communication, each with a dedicated and experienced task leader to coordinate activities in those areas-respectively, Dr. John Samuelian, Michael Lutz, P .E., and Dr. Craig Little. These individuals will be assisted in turn by Integral's technical support staff who will provide both additional technical specialties and cost-effective staffing for labor-intensive activities such as data management and analysis and deliverables preparation. Biographical information and experience for the key project team members is provided below; complete resumes are available in Attachment A. Key Personnel Marcia Greenblatt, Ph.D., P.E., PrincipaJ-;n-Charge Dr. Marcia Greenblatt is the proposed principal-in-charge for the project team. In this role, Dr. Greenblatt provides ultimate coordination and oversight of all members of the proposed project team, to ensure the achievement of all project needs and quality assurance . Dr. Greenblatt is a water resources engineer with 18 years of specialized experience in hydrodynamic, water quality, and sediment investigations. Dr. Greenblatt has managed or served as senior technical reviewer on several large sediment investigation and modeling projects for potentially responsible party groups, the U .S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and individual parties in the mining, steel, and other industrial sectors. Dr. Greenblatt specializes in designing and managing site investigations and feasibility studies, and has directed multidisciplinary projects pertaining to soil, sediment, solid waste, surface water, and groundwater quality and on developing remedial strategies for such sites . Dr. Greenblatt has designed and performed several modeling studies, applying both simple and complex numerical models, to predict hydrodynamic flows , sediment erosion, transport and deposition, chemical fate and transport, and water quality . Recently, Dr. Greenblatt led the e xpansion and recalibration of a water quality model to support assessment of total maximum daily load alternatives for the Barr Lake and Milton Reservoir Watershed Association, a watershed stakeholder organization based in Brighton, Colorado. Alice Conovitz, Project Manager Ms . Alice Conov itz is the proposed project manager for the Allen Plant risk assessment project. As project manager, Ms . Conovitz will be the primary point-of-contact for the City of Englewood and will ov ersee the project budget and schedule. Ms. Conovitz is a consultant in watershed, aquatic chemistry, and mining-and nutrient-related watershed issues. She has more than 12 years of experience in watershed sciences, including project management, discharge permit compliance evaluation, asse ssment of contaminant transport through groundwater, estimation of loading to streams, and analysis of contaminant sorption on sediments. Ms. Conovitz has dev eloped mine permit application packages, coordinated watershed stakeholder organizations, authored multidimensional watershed management plans, and written winning proposals for multiple federal and state watershed grants. She has also Allen Water Treatment Plant City of Englewood, RFP-16 -020 ----------·---· analyzed large, multi year data sets in support of human health and ecological risk assessment development at a former wood treatment site. Ms. Conovitz has successfully managed multiple complex and time-sensitive projects. Her recent work includes managing water quality analysis, reporting, and support for two different mine exploration projects in Alaska, as well as data analysis, testimony preparation, and site-specific water quality standards proposals for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant in Colorado . She managed technical staff located in five Integral offices in a large, multiyear data quality assurance effort for marine water, oil, sediment, and biota data collected following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. This project involved frequent public data posting deadlines and continuous collaboration between several consulting firms. Recently, she served as project manager and technical lead for an Integral team that provided extensive third-party review of analytical chemistry data records to identify and evaluate the impacts of improper laboratory practices for ultimate disclosure to the Office of Inspector General for three federal agencies. Ms. Conovitz is a recipient of the Environmental Protection Agency National Notable Achievement Award for her role in development of a watershed management plan for the Lefthand Watershed oversight group. She has also served as coordinator of a nonprofit watershed stakeholder association and was author of The Barr Lake/Milton Reservoir Watershed Management Plan, which was selected by the Denver Regional Council of Governments as the Gold Winner in the 2008 Local Governments Innovations Awards Program category of "Planning with Vision." Craig Little, Ph.D., Two Lines, Inc., Health Physidst Dr. Little has been professionally involved in radiation health physics, chemical site assessment, risk assessment, and remedial action for over 35 years. Dr. Little will serve as a senior technical advisor to risk assessment analyses and risk communication activities including public meetings. He has had considerable experience in assessing environmental contamination and potential human health risk from facilities such as uranium mills. Since 2006, Dr. Little has been Principal of Two Lines, Inc., which specializes in environmental radiation protection services and health risk assessments. Two Lines performs risk assessments and dose calculations for a wide variety of clients, many of which are involved in uranium recovery operations. He has contributed to publication of technical basis documents for development of historical dose reconstructions for the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Act for the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health. In 2010, Dr. Little led a team that developed and performed a 4-week training course for staff of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and regulated uranium industry staff. In 2012, Dr . Little led a multidisciplinary team that advised the Virginia Department of Health and developed a regulatory framework for uranium mining and milling in the state . Dr. Little was head of the Environmental Technology Section (ETS) of Oak Ridge National Laboratory for 18 years, managing as many as 65 staff. ETS staff completed radiation surveys on over 12,000 public and private properties nationwide under the Department of Energy's Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project. In addition, staff of the section evaluated and summarized the efficiency of numerous novel remediation technologies for radiological and chemical contamination at over a dozen Department of Defense and Department of Energy sites. As Manager of Western Operations of the Advanced Infrastructure Management Technologies organization, Dr. Little was responsible for the performance of Allen Water Treatment Plant City of Englewood, RFP-16-020 approximately 25 project managers and technical staff located in Sacramento, California, and Grand Junction, Colorado. Dr. Little served as an adjunct professor in the Department of Radiological Health Sciences of Colorado State University from 1988 until 1995. He is Editor-in-Chief of Operational Radiation Safety, an Associate Editor of Health Physics, and served a member of the Board of Directors of the Health Physics Society. He has authored and coauthored over 70 publications on environmental health and safety, environmental transport modeling, and risk assessment, and has taught short courses on environmental radiation and radiation biology. John Samuelian, Ph.D ., Lead Risk Asses sor Dr. John Samuelian is the proposed risk assessment lead for the Allen Water Treatment Plant residuals evaluation. He brings 29 years of experience in environmental consulting, environmental and analytical chemistry, database development and management, human and ecological risk assessments, quality assurance, site investigation design, and remedial alternatives evaluation. He has served as environmental chemist, senior task leader, project manager, senior technical reviewer or QA/QC officer for a number of remedial investigations and feasibility studies; remedial designs; remedial action construction projects; human and ecological risk assessments; commercial product risk assessments; aquatic ecology studies; manufactured gas plant sites; abandoned mine sites; and private well surveys. Several of these projects have included presenting at public meetings. He has worked on projects with a wide variety of recalcitrant and non-recalcitrant chemicals, including PCBs, PCDD/Fs, PCNs, heavy metals, volatile and semivolatile organics, pesticides, petroleum products, energetic compounds, pharmaceuticals, and radionuclides. His focus on human health risk assessments is principally related to exposure assessment and probabilistic risk assessment. His background in environmental chemistry has played a significant role in exposure assessment, particularly in regards to product stewardship. He is familiar with standard risk assessment software such as the RESRAD model, which is used to assess potential human health and ecological risks at radiological waste sites. Dr. Samuelian has provided support for projects throughout the U.S. for public and private sector clients . Michael Lutz, Professional Engineer , Dewberry Engineers Mr. Mike Lutz is the proposed leader of the evaluation of the Allen Water Treatment Plant alum residuals generation, handling, and disposal process, as well as process alternatives review. Mr. Lutz's varied career brings unparalleled experience with water and wastewater facilities in Colorado and beyond, and includes planning, pilot studies, design, and construction engineering services. He has a proven track record of out-of-the-box thinking and analysis that has enabled him to design unique treatment processes to handle unusual treatment issues. He led the evaluation and design of the first ceramic membrane drinking water system in the U.S., for the Parker Water and Sanitation District in Colorado. Mr. Lutz also designed one of the first few ballasted sedimentation processes in the U.S. He has designed unique multistage odor control systems for severe odor sources. He designed one of the first systems to heat and cool buildings using wastewater as the heat source and heat sink. Mr. Lutz served on committees that revised the Colorado Design Criteria for Wastewater Facilities adopted in 2002 and 2012. He served as the primary author of the Solids Treatment section of the Design Criteria developed in 2012. His project designs have been awarded two Engineering Excellence Awards and a Grand Conceptor Award from the ··-·----···----·----·-------·----------------------·-·-··---------------- Allen Water Treatment Plant City of Englewood, RFP-16-020 American Consulting Engineers Council and the 2016 Grand Prize for Environmental Sustainability from the American Academy of Environmental Engineers & Scientists for design of the Rueter-Hess Water Purification Facility. Mr. Lutz served as project manager for several projects for the City of Englewood including work on the forebay reservoir at the Allen Water Treatment Plant, and for a major upgrade and expansion of the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant in Colorado. James Lape, Senior Science Advisor Mr. James Lape has more than 25 years of experience in the health risk assessment and environmental science fields . His expertise in human health risk assessment includes fate and transport modeling, exposure assessment, risk characterization, and uncertainty analysis. Mr. Lape has served as an expert in several cases involving emissions, dispersion, and deposition of air toxics. He serves as the technical lead in negotiations with regulatory agencies on behalf of clients and provides risk communication to scientific and layperson audiences . During his career, he has worked in the areas of risk assessment, environmental modeling, litigation support, environmental health and safety, and product stewardship. His modeling experience includes air dispersion modeling for a proposed uranium enrichment plant, development of exposure point concentrations for biosolids application, and emissions and dispersion modeling for the Rocky Flats facility in Colorado . Mr. Lape will support risk assessment activities including dose reconstruction and exposure pathway analysis. Barbara Tren a ry, C!H , Certified Industria l Hygienist Ms. Barbara Trenary is a Certified Industrial Hygienist with 37 years of experience in the fields of comprehensive industrial hygiene, hazardous materials, indoor air quality, ambient and indoor air monitoring, environmental and structural remediation, training, and program development and evaluation. She has created and managed health and safety policies and procedures at four Fortune 400 companies and at numerous project sites. Ms. Trenary's technical experience includes comprehensive industrial hygiene assessments of individual and community exposure, microbial growth, asbestos, volatile organic compounds, fire odors and residues, accidental releases, methamphetamine contamination, sewer backups, tear gas residues, heavy metals, contamination of shipments, and tobacco smoke residues. She has managed demolition and remediation projects at radioactively contaminated sites in Colorado and New York, and served as a subject matter expert for public and occupational health at an in situ uranium recovery site. Ms . Trenary is available to provide a supporting role for the Integral project team on an as-needed basis . Detailed resumes for the staff described above are provided in Attachment A. 3 Scope of Work and Execution Plan To evaluate the potential for human health risks from TENORMs and the Allen Water Treatment Plant residuals process from generation to disposal, the project team will perform the tasks listed below. These tasks are consistent with those presented in RFP-16-020 (dated September 1, 2016) and the responses to bidder questions, which were received on September 20 and 21, 2016, as Addendums 1and2 to the RFP . Further clarification on scoping uncertainties was provided via email from Utilities Director Tom Brennan on October 18, 2016. The RFP did not specify a timetable for these efforts, but it is anticipated Allen Wate r Treatment Plant City of Englewood, RFP-16 -020 that this scope of work will require 6 months to complete following receipt of the treatment solids TENORM data from the CEUD . Table 1 presents the key project task milestones. The project team is prepared to begin work immediately after a contract is in place and authorization to proceed has been received from the CEUD. We recommend frequent communications between the CEUD and the project team to support open dialogue on project status and to solicit client input. We propose an onsite project kick-off meeting and facility tour to be attended in person by Integral project manager Alice Conovitz, Dewberry lead engineer Mike Lutz, and health phy sicist Dr. Craig Little. Integral will provide regular monthly project status updates to CEUD; additionally, we recommend a conference call between CEUD and the project team following completion of analyses for Tasks 1, 2, and 3, described below . Task 1-Risk Assessment Us i ng Dose Reconstruction from Historical Data This task has two main subtasks: 1) preparation of risk assessments, and 2) contribution to the final report. The proposed approach and key assumptions for each subtask are discussed individually below. Subtask 1.1: Risk Assessments We will conduct human health risk assessments for site workers and nearby residents from potential exposures to TENORMs present in the treatment plant residuals. This information will be conveyed in a report to the CEUD and also as a presentation to the facility workers and a separate presentation to the Englewood City Council and public. The risk assessment results will provide the information needed to understand the potential for adverse health effects based on the TENORM exposure pathways identified for historical and current facility practices. The worker and off-facility resident risk assessments will be prepared in accordance with relevant portions of The U.S . Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) radiological risk assessment guidance, which was developed to support radiological risk assessments of Superfund sites (USEP A 2014a,b).1 The primary components are briefly discussed below: l. Conceptual Site Model (CSM): Review available information to ensure that it is adequate to complete the risk assessments; identify contaminant sources, transport mechanisms, potentially impacted media, receptors that could come into contact with those media, and complete exposure routes for each of those receptors . In Addendum 1 to the RFP, the CEUD defines the area of adjoining residential neighborhoods as 500 feet from the plant solids storage area. In cases where an area is not explicitly defined, a surrogate value of 0.5 mile (2,500 feet) from a sludge disposal area is often used (e.g., ISCORS 2005). The relative distance from the treatment solids handling and staging areas at the facility is important to estimate the TEN ORM concentrations that may be present in the residential areas . i These represent the most recent updates to earlier EPA radiological risk assessment guidance, such as that presented in Chapter 10 of the Risk Assessment Guidance for Sup erfund , Part A (USEP A 1989). -------------·------ Allen Water Treatment Pla n t City of Englewood, RFP-16-020 2 . Data Processing and Analysis : Input historical TENORM data into Microsoft Excel or Microsoft Access; data are available in nine analytical reports for a period of record from 2005 to 2016.2 Statistically analyze the available analytical data to derive appropriate exposure concentrations and/or emissions modeling inputs. 3 . Exposure Assessment: Select appropriate equations and exposure parameters in order to estimate reasonable maximum exposure (RME) daily chemical intakes for all complete exposure pathways for each of the evaluated receptors. 4. Toxicity Assessment: Ionizing radiation can cause other detrimental health impacts, but only radiogenic cancer risk is normally considered in CERCLA radiological risk assessments (USEP A 2014a). Integral has assumed that non-cancer effects will not be evaluated as part of this project. 5. Risk Charact erization : Calculate cancer risks for each evaluated receptor using average daily chemical intakes and appropriate toxicity metrics for each radiological parameter. 6. Uncertainty Analysis: Conduct a semi-quantitative uncertainty analysis for each component of the risk assessments in order to provide proper perspective to risk management decision-makers. Integral proposes to use the computer model RESRAD (version 7.2) to assess potential human health radiological risks.3 The RESRAD computer model is a suite of programs designed by Argonne National Laboratory (on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy) to estimate radiation doses and risks from residual radionuclides (Yu et al . 2001; Yu 2012). The program is flexible, allowing adjustments for specific exposure situations, and can be used to perform probabilistic and uncertainty analyses . Radiological risk assessments are complicated by the need for the dose calculation to account for decay products and ingrowth (i.e., increasing levels of daughter products as source material decays) and resulting changes in exposure over time. Decay and ingrowth are accounted for in the RESRAD dose calculations . RESRAD has been used for many years to assess radiological risks by the Department of Energy, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, EPA, state agencies, and the international community (Yu 2012). Although these applications have generally focused on nuclear facilities, facilities that have handled radiological materials, and mine sites, there are examples where it has been used to assess low level NORM or TENORM evaluations. ISCORS (2005) used RESRAD to estimate potential risks to workers handling sewage sludge and residences from land applications of sewage sludge containing radioactive materials . Kleinschmidt and Akber (2008) used RESRAD to estimate potential risks to residences from beneficial re- use of drinking water treatment solids (e .g ., as soil amendments) or landfill disposal in Australia. 2 We assume that the data provided will not need an y additional data quality review by Integral staff . 3 RESRAD does not calculate non-radiological ri sks of radionuclides (e.g ., uranium). The latter was not included in this proposal. The RESRAD suite of programs can be accessed from this URL: https ://web .evs .anl .gov/resrad/RESRAD_Family/ Allen Water Treatment Plant City of Englewood, RFP-16-020 There are other models available to assess radiological risks, including PRESTO CLNCPG, GENII, and DandD, but these are not available in the public domain, do not address as many exposure pathways as RESRAD, and are not as widely used and accepted (ISCORS 2005). Figure 2 shows the main components of the RESRAD suite of programs. The RESRAD main program, RESRAD-BUILD, and RESRAD-OFFSITE are the primary components proposed for use in this project. The RESRAD main program will be used to assess exposures via multiple exposure routes (ingestion, dermal contact, and dust inhalation) of the treatment solids in the outdoor environment. RESRAD-BUILD assesses radiological risks to workers exposed in buildings, and will be used if there is handling of the sludge in confined spaces. RESRAD-OFFSITE assesses radiological risks to humans from soils and other environmental media. It includes pathways such as incidental soil ingestion and ingestion via the consumption of plants grown in gardens. The default assumptions in the RESRAD programs will be adjusted to reflect location-specific information on worker or residential exposure assumptions . For example, RESRAD assigns a default dust concentration of 200 µg/m3, which may be modified if location- specific information is available . Table 2 outlines the potential exposure pathways that are anticipated for this proposed project. For site workers, the key exposure pathways that will be assessed include those related to residuals handling following water treatment, during storage, and preparation for transport. For nearby residents, the key exposure pathways are all indirect-i.e., they require migration of sludge material from the facility to the off-facility properties . The primary pathways for nearby residents are inhalation exposures to wind- borne dusts released from the residuals storage area and incidental contact (dermal and ingestion) with wind-borne dusts that deposit in the residential areas. Depending upon the characteristics of the TENORM present (likely related to uranium), external gamma radiation effects will also be evaluated. The exposure scenarios presented in Table 2 may be updated following review of information regarding standard worker activities at the facility and discussions with the CEUD, as well as common residential practices near the facility . The media concentrations for the direct (worker) or indirect (residential) exposures will be based on the review of historical and current treatment solids TEN ORM data, and other relevant monitoring data (if available). Although the treatment solids data was not made available for review in the RFP, it is anticipated that these concentrations have varied over time from natural variations in the surface water NORM concentrations in the supply water from the South Platte River, and potentially changes in the treatment processes that have occurred over time. The project team will review the available data to develop appropriate input concentrations for the risk calculations. RESRAD has default exposure assumptions, many of which are comparable to those used in USEP A's Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 2011b). These default assumptions can be used, but Integral also recommends developing location-specific assumptions, at the very least for the worker exposure assumptions. For other worker risk assessments, these exposure assumptions were developed based on information compiled by the facility's human resources department. Integral assumes that we would be able to use this information to support the worker risk assessments. The residential risk assessments can -·--·---·---·-·-------- Allen Water Treatment Plant City of Englewood, RFP-16-020 be based on default values from the Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 2011b), which can also be supplemented with location-specific residence time derived from U.S. Census data. Integral also recommends incorporation of an evaluation of background/regional exposures into the two risk assessments. This helps to build a robust and compelling analysis of risk rooted in the context of expected exposures. This approach of grounding the risk results refines the analysis and supports effective, understandable risk communications to workers and off-facility residents. Subtask 1.2: Reporting The risk assessment results from the analyses conducted under Task 1 will be incorporated into the single project report described under Task 4. We anticipate summarizing the analysis approach and results in the main report, and providing relevant details as a detailed appendix. The Task 1 summary will describe the potential risks related to residuals handling, and incidental exposure to facility workers and nearby residents will be prepared for this subtask. Risks will be summarized for all years where adequate data is available (2005 to 2016), as well as specific time intervals 4 and important exposure periods, and an overall average. Although not specified in the RFP, we recommend developing separate summaries for the worker and nearby residents risk assessments. Although these will overlap in many components, the plant employee risk assessment would focus more on OSHA-related components while the nearby residents risk assessment would focus more on EPA-related risk components . Separate reports will also help frame the risk communications to these two receptor groups. Task 2--Evaluate Residuals Management Practices , Including Risk Assessment This task has three main subtasks: 1) evaluation of residuals management practices; 2) preparation of risk assessments for plant employees and the public based on the current radioactive residuals management plan; and 3) contribution to the final report. These are discussed individually below. Sub ta sk 2. 1: Residuals Management .4ssessment We will evaluate current disposal practices for compliance with the State of Colorado Department Residuals Handling at Allen Water Treatment Plant (Photo Credit: CBS News) of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) statutes, regulations, guidelines, and/or Best Management Practices for treatment residuals generation, handling, and disposal. 4 The determination of the appropriate time intervals will be based on the underlying data as well as changes in sludge handling practices . Allen Wa t er Treatment Plant City of Englewood , RFP-16-020 Currently, residuals generated by an enhanced coagulation process are stored in a small outdoor reservoir. Residuals are periodically removed from the reservoir and are dewatered by a belt press inside a building. A frontend loader is used to spread dewatered residuals onto a concrete pad enclosed by 3-to 4-foot concrete walls for additional drying. Dried residuals are covered by tarps to prevent airborne dust prior to loading into trucks and transport to a Subtitle C landfill for disposal. Movement of airborne dust from the residuals dewatering, drying, and loading operations could increase offsite TENORM exposure risk to the public. We will document each of the regulations, guidelines, and best management practices evaluated; the final report will include a succinct summary of the current residuals management plan and practices in the context of these regulations. If any deficiencies are identified, we will provide additional detail to CEUD about the type of issue and the observed or anticipated level and frequency of impact. This evaluation of current management practices establishes the foundation for the evaluation of residuals handling alternatives performed under Task 3. Subtask 2.2: Risk Assessments This subtask is conceptually similar to that presented under Subtask 1.1, but will use the information presented in the current residuals management plan to develop the exposure inputs. For example, the current radioactive residuals management plan may have a firm upper limit for the volume of spent treatment residuals, rather than the actual values used in Subtask 1.1. This analysis will establish a baseline condition for assessment of alternative treatment or handling options evaluated under Task 3 . In addition, an evaluation of the risk-and exposure-related components of the residuals management plan (e .g., use of certain types of personal protective equipment) will be performed as part of this subtask. Subtask 2.3: Reporting The process evaluation, compliance review, and risk assessment results from the analyses conducted under Task 2 will be incorporated into the single project report described under Task 4 . We anticipate summarizing the analysis approach and results in the main report, and providing relevant details in appendices. The Task 2 summary will provide an overview of the Allen Water Treatment Plant's current residuals management plan and process, compliance with relevant rules and regulations, and assessment of risk for current and future exposure to radiation for plant employees and the public based on the current radioactive residuals management plan. Task 3-Rough Order of Magnitude Estimates for Residuals Management Alternatives This task has two main subtasks: 1) evaluation of alternative residuals management practices, and 2) contribution to the final report. These are discussed individually below. Subtask 3.1: Residuals Management Alternatives If exposure to radioactive residuals creates a significant health risk to employees at the Allen Water Treatment Plant or to the public near the facility, alternative treatment or handling of the residuals may be required. We will evaluate alternatives to modify the existing treatment and residuals handling Allen Water Treatment Plant City of Englewood, RFP-16-020 processes to minimize TENORM exposure to employees and the public. To determine feasible treatment or handling alternatives, we will review published technical reports of TENORM management practices at other drinking water treatment facilities. We will consult with CDPHE staff to identify other Colorado drinking water treatment systems that currently manage TENORM residuals and identify feasible treatment or handling alternatives. In addition, we will conduct a telephone survey and/or site visits of other drinking water treatment systems to evaluate recent TENORM residuals management practices and trends. We will evaluate pre-treatment technologies that can remove radium, uranium, and other radionuclides from the raw intake water prior to the existing enhanced coagulation process . Radionuclides could be removed from the intake water by adsorption or ion exchange. These technologies have been used successfully to remove radioactive contaminants from groundwater. We will evaluate adsorption media including Mn02, geothite, BaS04-loaded activated alumina, activated carbon, and proprietary media as well as ion exchange resins. An example of TENORM exposure risk mitigation via management practices could be onsite containment of residuals handling operations. A containment building could virtually eliminate airborne TENORM contamination offsite but would increase airborne TENORM dust concentrations inside the containment building and would require a ventilation system with HEP A filtered exhaust air. Employees would need to wear respiratory protective equipment when working inside the containment building. Employees and transport equipment would exit the containment building through a decontamination zone to remove residuals dust and prevent inadvertent transport of residuals outside the containment building. Dried residuals would need to be contained in large bags or other containers prior to movement outside the building for loading and disposal. Fugitive airborne TENORM dust from the Allen Water Treatment Plant could be largely eliminated by relocating the residuals handling operations to a remote location. Liquid or dewatered residuals could be loaded directly into containers or enclosed trucks for transport to a remote site where residuals handling operations could be conducted with reduced potential for exposure of the public. Pre-treatment to remove radionuclides from the intake water would reduce the radionuclides in the residuals from the enhanced coagulation process to non-hazardous concentrations, eliminate the need to dispose of the coagulation process residuals to a Subtitle C landfill, and reduce potential TENORM exposure of employees and the public. The radionuclides accumulated in the pre-treatment system would still need to be transported to a Subtitle C landfill for disposal. However, fugitive TENORM dust would be eliminated and the volume of TENORM waste would be greatly reduced by separating the radioactive contaminants from the alum residuals. Suppliers of radionuclide adsorption equipment offer long-term service contracts to replace spent media and transport and dispose of spent treatment media. These service contracts eliminate handing of radioactive materials or media by utility staff, which protects City employees and the public from TEN ORM exposure . ......... -... ·-·~·---·-·-·_,,,,_, ___ ,._ .. --..... -·-···---~~-----____ ,. __ , ____ , ______ ,,,...,..,.._. ____ . ___ _ Allen Water Treatment Plant (;ty of Englewood, RFP -16-020 Many industrial and manufacturing activities generate TENORM wastes, which present handling and disposal issues similar to those for drinking water treatment residuals. The oil and gas industry is actively developing treatment alternatives for TENORM-contaminated produced water from hydraulic fracturing sites . We will evaluate alternative radionuclide pre-treatment technologies developed for industries and manufacturing that might be applied to drinking water treatment residuals. We will develop Order of Magnitude cost estimates for the radionuclide pre-treatment alternatives and for potential modifications to the existing drinking water treatment processes at the Allen Water Treatment Plant. The economic evaluation will include capital and operation and maintenance cost estimates that will be used to develop recommendations for treatment process modifications, if needed or desired. Subtask 3.2: Risk Assessments for Alternatives This subtask is conceptually similar to that presented under Subtasks 1.1 and 2.2, but will entail a simple assessment of risk for up to five selected residuals management alternatives developed under Subtask 3.1. Exposure inputs may be based on literature values, best professional judgement, or existing data. This analysis can be used by CEUD for comparison to the historical and baseline risk conditions, to support selection of individual alternative management options that may be evaluated in more detail in the future . Subtask 3 .3: Reporting The alternative residuals management review and Order of Magnitude cost estimates developed under Task 3 will be incorporated into the single project report described under Task 4. We anticipate summarizing the analysis approach and results in the main report, and providing relevant details in appendices. Task 4 -Final Report and Presentation Risk communication is an integral element of risk assessment. As discussed by EPA 5, " ... the purpose of risk communication is to help residents of affected communities understand the processes of risk assessment and management, to form scientifically valid perceptions of the likely hazards, and to participate in making decisions about how risk should be managed ." It is also important to put the risks into perspective to best inform the public, which is why we included an evaluation of background or regional exposures in the risk assessments (Subtask 1.1). The proposed project team members are well versed in risk communications to decision makers, regulators, workers, and the general public. Our team includes risk assessors with extensive experience in public, regulatory, and litigation settings, as well as a Certified Industrial Hygienist, if such services are required. In addition, Dr. Craig Little of Two Lines brings a "neutral party" radiological expertise to s See https ://www .e pa .gov /risk/risk-cornmunication. [11/1.',•.;r!?l C1 1 11s1ilfill/~ }rJc. Allen Water Treatment Plant Ci ty of Eng l ewood, RFP-16 -02 0 assist with communications, if such an individual is needed for this project. Mike Lutz of Dewberry has a demonstrated ability to, as needed, clearly describe water treatment processes and alternatives . Subtask 4 . 1: Final Report The project team will prepare a final report that summarizes the results of the risk assessments and residuals management evaluations described under Tasks 1, 2, and 3. Specifically, the final report will include: • Assessments of potential risks to facility workers and nearby residents based on historical data, the current residuals management plant, potential residuals management alternatives, and local/regional background exposures • An overview of the Allen Water Treatment Plant's current residuals management plan and process for compliance with relevant regulations and BMPs • A succinct review of residuals management alternatives, including a rough-order-of-magnitude estimate of cost for each alternative. The final report will build on the individual analyses developed under Tasks 1, 2, and 3 to construct and convey a complete understanding of the potential for human health risks associated with the past, current, and alternative future residuals generation and handling processes . The report will distill all of the pertinent data, analytical approaches, and results in a manner that is informative and comprehensive, yet understandable to a non-technical audience. Effective graphics and tabular summaries will be key elements of the report and critical tools to explain complex technical topics. Detailed content necessary to support the report conclusions will be presented as appendices. We assume that one draft and one final report would be prepared . An in-person meeting or webinar (or a combination) with the CEUD (and other designees) is recommended following the submission of the draft report and review by the CEUD to expedite the preparation of the final report. Integral will provide to CEUD one printed hardcopy of the final report, as well as an electronic PDF deliverable. Subtask 4 .2: Final Presentation Project team representatives (Dr. Samuelian, Dr. Little, and Mr. Lutz) will deliver an in-person presentation of the final report to the Englewood City Council and public attendees at a City Council meeting, and will be prepared to respond to questions from the Council members and public. The presentation will highlight the key findings of the risk assessment and residuals process evaluations. Whenever possible, the presentation will utilize report graphics, tables, and key statements to foster cohesion, transparency, and technical understanding. As discussed under Subtask 1.2, although the plant worker and residential risk assessments will overlap in many components, the presentation will include EPA-related risk elements to address re sidential concerns and OSHA-related elements related to plant employee risk. We anticipate that the presentation to City Council will be 20 minutes in length, followed by an open question and answer session of approximately 1 hour in length. We assume that a draft of the Allen Water Treatment Plant City of Englewood, RFP-16-020 presentation will be provided to the CEUD (and other designees) for review and revision prior to the public presentation, and a dry-run practice presentation will be delivered to CEUD via webinar. Dr. Samuelian, Dr. Little, Mr. Lutz, and Ms. Conovitz will attend the meeting in person. Travel cost assumptions are detailed in the cost estimates and notes presented in Table 3. 4 Cost Proposal The scope described in Section 3 was developed based on our current understanding of the project and CEUD's needs as described in RFP-16-020 and addenda. Our task-by-task breakdown of the project budget is summarized below. Table 3 presents staff rates and level of effort estimates for each task. Task 1 Risk Assessment with Dose Reconstruction; $ 25,287 Project Kick-off Meeting Task2A Residuals Process Evaluation $ 15,060 Task2B Risk Assessment for Current Residuals Plan $ 7,700 Task3A Residuals Management Alternatives $ 11,760 Task3B Risk Assessment for Alternatives $ 5,396 Task4A Draft and Final Report $ 28,044 Task4B Presentation to City Council and Public $ 14,648 Tasks Project Management $ 3,781 Total: $ 111,675 Integral reviewed the insurance requirements and example professional services agreement and found no exceptions to or issues with these guidelines. 5 Descriptions of Previous Work The proposed project team brings decades of highly pertinent previous experience to support a technically robust human health risk assessment and residuals management process and alternatives evaluation. We build on our sound science and engineering analyses to deliver clear presentations, reports, and communication tools that are accessible to the public, onsite workers, and regulators. We are also adept at third-party reviews and conducting technical evaluations within limitations of confidentiality and attorney-client privilege. The project team brings local expertise and established relationships with staff from the CEUD and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Dewberry Engineers, represented on the project team by Mr. Mike Lutz, designed and oversaw construction of a hydraulic structure at the outlet ........ __,.., ..... ~--·-----~--... -------------·-------·----------------· f u/r5 :ral Ccn.~u!turg Jnr. Allen Wate r Treatment Pla nt Oty of Englewood, RFP-16-020 to the North Reservoir operated by the Allen Water Treatment Plant, and in a separate project evaluated aqueduct lining alternatives for transport of source water to the Plant via the City Ditch. Integral staff have performed risk assessments, radionuclide dispersion modeling, litigation support, and risk communication at sites in Denver and the Colorado Front Range. Additionally, Alice Conovitz and Marcia Greenblatt supported the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant on a multiyear project to evaluate downstream compliance with water quality standards and develop proposed site- specific standards for water temperature; this work involved extensive regulatory negotiations and collaboration with other consultants and legal counsel. Dr. Craig Little of Two Lines served as adjunct Professor in the Department of Radiological Health Sciences at Colorado State University for 11 years and continues to serve on the Colorado Radiation Advisory Committee as a governor-appointed member. Our capabilities are best showcased through descriptions of work the project team members have performed at locations throughout the U.S., Canada, and in South America. The matrix presented in Table 4 and brief project descriptions below describe the risk assessment, TENORMs, and water treatment engineering services the proposed project team has conducted for a variety of clients. A work product examples is included as Attachment B to this proposal. Attachment B, Work Plan Memorandum for the Preparation of the Refined Human Health Risk Assessment to Support the EE/CA of the Northeast Church Rock Mine Site, Church Rock, New Mexico, showcases work completed by proposed risk assessment lead John Samuelian (under previous employment). Risk Assessment Services for the Northeast Church Rock Site, New Me x ic o Current Integral technical staff members were involved in several human health risk assessment activities associated with assessing surface deposits from the Northeast Church Rock (NECR) mine operation. NECR is a former uranium mine located at the northern end of State Highway 566, approximately 17 miles northeast of Gallup, New Mexico, in the Pinedale Chapter of the Navajo Nation. Integral staff completed the following tasks on behalf of the United Nuclear Corporation (UNC): • Prepared a summary of the derivation of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) criteria for radium-226 in surface and subsurface soils, which included an evaluation of its risk basis • Developed a Work Plan Memorandum for the preparation of the Refined Human Health Risk Assessment to support the engineering evaluation and cost analysis (EE/CA) at this site • Evaluated potential transportation risks based on EE/CA alternatives • Participated in agency meetings on behalf of the client with USEPA (Region 9), Navajo EPA, and NM Environment Department. Allen Water Treatment Plant City of Englewood, RFP-16-020 Project History and Scope NECR operated from 1967 to 1982 as a uranium mine under regulation by the New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division . The uranium ore body is located nearly 2,000 feet below grade at the NECR Mine Site . Support structures, waste rock piles, and related features were located on the ground surface . Portions of the site are located within an arroyo. Uranium ore from the UNC mine was processed at the adjacent UNC Mill Site, located on private property. Physical conditions at the NECR Mine Site present potential risks due to the lack of an engineered containment system for the mine waste and the wind and water transport mechanisms that have previously contaminated the NECR Mine Site and the residential areas located north of the mine. Integral staff members were originally retained to evaluate the risk basis of the UMTRCA criteria for radium-226 in surface and subsurface soils. This evaluation concluded the "risk-basis" for the radium- 226 surface soil benchmark (5 pCi/g) is based on conservative exposure assumptions (e.g., 30-year onsite residents). This value has been attributed to either gamma or potential radon exposure risks. Although alternate soil benchmarks are available for radium in surface soils, these are generally near the UMTRCA value, or are for soils that are from areas where physical features limit removal or engineered caps have been installed . Alternate values could be derived based on the use of site-specific exposure assumptions . Subsequently, Integral staff were asked to develop a Work Plan Technical Memorandum that outlined an alternate Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) to support the EE/CA. The original HHRA work plan included conservative assumptions regarding current and future land uses. The alternate HHRA Work Plan developed site-specific exposure assumptions, which included use of the site by members of the Navajo Nation for growing crops and grazing. Ultimately, the more conservative approach was used to support the EE/CA. A separate evaluation of potential transportation risks associated with offsite removal of the mine wastes was performed to support the assessment of sev eral of the proposed EE/CA alternatives . This assessment looked at: 1) potential accidents resulting in fatalities or injuries during transportation of media to the offsite disposal area; and 2) potential health risks and risk mitigation practices for any residents adjoining the transportation route. The latter included the evaluation of spills of contents during truck accidents, incidental releases of excavated materials during transport, and exposure to diesel particulates during transport. EPA used these results to conclude that offsite transport of mine waste solids would result in undue risks and therefore the alternative that excluded offsite transportation was retained for the site remediation. Integral staff completed the following key project accomplishments for the NECR site: • Provided technical basis for developing alternate radium-226 criteria for surface soils • Developed an alternate set of exposure assumptions to more realistically assess potential human health risks to support the EE/CA • Results from the transportation risk assessment of the proposed EE/CA alternatives were used to conclude that offsite disposal was not risk-effective . Allen Water Treatm ent Plant (;ty of En glewood, RFP-16-020 Risk Assessment Services for a Former Uranium Mine, Alaska Integral provided community relations support and expert review of site characterization, ecological inventory, and risk-screening at a former uranium mine located in southeast Alaska. Significant issues concerned fate and transport of trace elements and radiochemicals from upland source areas to forested, stream, and marine habitats; bioaccumulation potential and risk to local flora and fauna; and potential impacts to natural resources that are culturally important to the Native American community. Following the site characterization and risk screening, Integral managed a spatially explicit approach for the ecological risk assessment in support of an EE/CA that was being conducted pursuant to a removal action. These spatially explicit results allowed the removal action to focus on areas and chemicals that could be realistically managed to meet risk-based remedial action objectives. These tasks were completed on time and on budget. Work Plan for Strea ml ined Human and Ecological Risk Evaluations, Arizo na Integral staff, under prior employment, developed work plans for s treamlined evaluations of human health and ecological risks to support an EE/CA for the Orphan Mine Site, a former copper and uranium mine on the rim of the Grand Canyon. In addition to the risk assessment elements, technical support was provided for developing field sampling approaches, which included the use of the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual. Developing the field collection m e thod was particularly challenging because of the proximity of the rim of the canyon and scree along the canyon wall. Both radionuclides and non-radionuclides (predominantly metals) were planned to be included in these assessments. The U .S. Department of Energy RESRAD model was proposed to be used to assess potential human health radionuclide risks, while non-radionuclide human health risks and all ecological risks were proposed to be evaluated using conventional EPA Superfund approaches. Rueter-Hess Water Purification Facility, Parker Water and Sanitation District, Colorado f!t/1 ·5;ml Co n ~iillill\ inc. To reduce reliance on non-renewable groundwater aquifers, the Parker Water and Sanitation District (PWSD) contracted Dewberry to develop the Rueter-Hess Water Purification Facility (RHWPF). Completed in 2015, the RHWPF treats surface water from the Cherry Creek bas in and reclaimed effluent for indirect potable reuse for drinking water supply. The innov ative treatment process includes enhanced coagulation with ferric chloride; ballasted sedimentation (ACTIFLO®); an innovative recirculating powdered activated Allen Water Treatment Plant City of Englewood, RFP-16-020 carbon (PAC) process (ACTIFLO® Carb) for removal of organics and emerging contaminants; ceramic membrane microfilters that remove particulate material larger than 0.1 micron; and hypochlorite disinfection. The RHWPF is the first large-scale drinking water facility in the U.S . to utilize ceramic membrane filters. The ACTIFLO® Carb treatment process installed at the RHWPF is also one of the first few systems installed in the U.S . The RHWPF is also the first facility in the world to combine recirculating PAC with ceramic membrane filters. The reclaimed effluent and surface water sources for the RHWPF contain high concentrations of dissolved organic compounds (DOCs). The reclaimed water also contains residues of synthetic chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs). The organic compounds in the raw water need to be reduced by as much as 70 percent to comply with disinfection byproduct limits for drinking water. The recirculating PAC treatment process used at the RHWPF removes a high degree of DOCs. Full scale operation of the RHWPF showed that recirculating PAC at concentrations up to 1,500 mg/L (and equivalent PAC dose of 25 to 35 mg/L) in the ACTIFLO® Carb process achieved over 70 percent DOC removal. Treated water DOC concentrations of less than 2 mg/L ensure compliance with disinfection byproduct limits using conventional chlorine disinfection. The ceramic membrane filters operate at flux rates of 90 to 100 gfd and have an expected useful life greater than 20 years. The unique combination of new technologies used for the first time at the RHWPF provides a robust treatment system that has enabled PWSD to develop a sustainable indirect potable reuse system. The project was awarded the Grand Prize for Environmental Sustainability in 2016 by the American Academy of Environmental Engineers and Scientists. Bealeton Water Treatment Plant, Fauquier County Wate r and Sanitation Authority, Virginia Dewberry prepared a detailed preliminary engineering report and design drawings and specifications for a 1.0 million gallons per day (mgd) microfiltration facility (expandable to 2 mgd) to eliminate bacterial contamination of groundwater under the direct influence of surface water and to remove arsenic, IDS, radium, and nitrate . The new facility treats groundwater from existing wells in Bealeton subject to potential surface water contamination. The arsenic removal process consists of a ferric chloride metering system and in-line rapid mixing for coagulation-adsorption of arsenic followed by microfiltration to remove the adsorbed arsenic. The design includes a new treatment building sized for four membrane units and a future reverse osmosis unit, a laboratory, chemical feed equipment, flow metering, a clearwell, a finished water pump station, site work, emergency generator, instrumentation, and controls . 6 Conclusion Each member of our proposed project team appreciates the complexity and sensitivity of risk assessment work in general, and specifically the potential for worker and residential risks associated with low levels of radioactive materials . Our approach relies on a thorough understanding of the technical, political, regulatory, and business contexts involved. We believe that with our combined expertise in risk Allen Water Treatment Plant C;ty of Englewood, RFP-16-020 assessment, health physics, and water treatment engineering, and our extensive experience with risk communications to workers and the public, we can provide the City of Englewood with the support to identify and quantify potential vulnerabilities associated with residuals management and human health risks, as well as recommend effective strategies to achieve a satisfactory outcome. 7 References ISCORS. 2005. ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge: Modeling to Assess Radiation Doses . Final. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, U.S. Department of Energy, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ISCORS Technical Report 2004-03. NUREG-1783, EPA 832-R-03-002A, and DOE/EH- 0670 . Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards. February. Available at: https ://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-05/documents/832-r-03-002a.pdf Kleinschmidt, R., and R. Akber. 2008. Naturally occurring radionuclides in materials derived from urban water treatment plants in southeast Queensland, Australia. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 99:607-620 . USEP A. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). Interim Final. EPA/540/1-89/002. U .S . Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. December. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015- 09 /documents/rags a.pdf USEP A. 2005. A Regulators' Guide to the Management of Radioactive Residuals from Drinking Water Treatment Technologies. EPA 816-R-05-004 . U.S . Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. July. Available at: https ://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files /2015-05/documents/816 -r-05-004.pdf USEP A. 201 la. Drinking Water Treatment Plant Residuals Management Technical Report. Summary of Residuals Generation, Treatment, and Disposal at Large Community Water Systems . EPA 820-R-11-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September. Available at: h ttps://www .epa.gov/s i tes /prod uction/files /2015-11/ documents/ d w-treatmen t-resi d uals-mgmt-tech- report-sept-2011. pdf USEPA. 2011b . Exposure Factors Handbook: 2011 Edition. EPA/600/R-09/052F . U.S . Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development. September. Available at: http://ofmpub .e pa.gov /e ims/eimscomm .getfile?p download id=522996 USEPA. 2014a . Distribution of the "Radiation Risk Assessment at CERCLA Site: Q&A". OSWER 9285 .6 - 20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response . 13 June. USEP A. 2014b. Superfund Radiation Risk Assessment: A Community Toolkit. Directive 9230 .1-48, EPA- 540-R-012-015. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. May. Available at: https://e pa-prgs.ornl.gov/radionuclides/RadRiskCommunityGuide.pdf. Allen Water Treatment Plant City of Englewood, RFP-16 -020 Yu, C., A.J. Zielen, J.-J. Cheng, D.J. LePoire, E. Gnanapragasam, S. Kamboj, J. Amish, A. Wallo III, W.A. Williams, and H. Peterson. 2001. User's Manual for RESRAD Version 6. June. ANL/EAD-4. Environmental Assessment Division. Argonne National Laboratory. Available at: http://web.ead .anl.gov/resrad/documents/resrad6.pdf Yu, C. 2012. RESRAD Family of Codes -A Suite of Tools for Environmental Radiological Dose Assessment. Presented at Environmental Radiological Assistance Directory Web Conference, June 27 . Available at: http ://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f14/resrad codes erad june 2012- Charlie%20Yu .pdf Figures inte )@J .. (({needed for tf~e pro}ec tf Technical Support Staff Integral Consulting Figure 1. Project Team for the Allen Water Filter Treatment Plant Water Treatment Residuals Risk Assessment and TENORMs Management inte )L~. .~~ ;. :J tt >t"• CJ ,. }{EM ;:'E!-~AD­ 'IH\MUN$ ··.<"1.;{,""<•·<"'·=l•>•-··'w:-•l".-. ;, 'fH•,p;.o. l . { C. \.~•J.lt:.K i -. .. ..,._....,,.,_ ......... '!.,..,,,,..~--.. ·-r'!"'-~ ... ~-~-,.;-' :';; "!,} t~{;'. ,... ,._,."'1';',·-·-r--··--*' Figure 2 . RESRAD Model Components Tables Allen Water Treatment Plan t City of Engl ewood, RFP -16-020 2 2A Evaluate Residuals Process for Regulatory Compliance and 8MPs 28 Conduct Risk Assessment for Current Residuals Plan 3 3A Evaluate Residuals Management Alternatives 38 Conduct Risk Assessment for Alternatives 4 4A Prepare Draft and Final Reports I ---· -----------·------• 48 Deliver Presentations to City Council and Plant Employees l n!<'gJa l (~111 ~u !tr.1 1 s l it1· P1.1,gc 1 uf7 Allen Water Treatment Plant City o f Eng!edOOd, RFP · 16 ·020 Table 2. Potential Exposure Pathways of Plant Residuals to Facility Workers and Nearby Residents Allen Water Treatment Plant , Englewood , Colorado '.JICJ;:~[~;::~frJl~-e~:;eL_~:=:~:~x:!~~:~~~:_:·]~2~~:~~!!~n~2~2;~A~:c~i!~o~~:· ... -:~~;~~-=~==-:"~~---::l::~e~-. -~~---·~~=:~-~:~~8!~ ~~!::;~!~~~!:usl~:-·: ~ -•· Plant Residuals Plant Residuals Plant Residuals Plant Residuals Plant Residuals 11!!1·.~:r,tf (cm.'>u!ti ns fl!r. Plant Residuals Facility Workers ··-· - Plant Residuals Facil ity Workers -· .. ~.---. .. ~ - Plant Residuals Facil ity Workers Plant Residuals Facility Workers Adult Adult Adult Adult treatment residual •... J:!an.cl_li~g . treatment res idual • H~~~i 11_g treatment residual tlandli.ng treatment residual Handling Incidental ingestion Incidental dermal contact Incidental inhalati on External rad iation Subactivities may be developed based upon review ··of treatment residua l handling processes and worker activities Pl ~nt R_es i ~_l!.'!I S .. -·· . _._.f'.Jci!i!x_ _. _ _ • Offi c:_E!Y'{_o_r~e!_ •. -· ____ l\d.l;l l!__ _____ J n.~~~t_c~n!§I_~ -·· .. _ •• 1!13de_!.l~!J~~!!?n. ___ ·-Unlikely exposure pathway but may require Plant R_e.5-idua!s .. _. _ • F_ac ~lity • . . _ .9f!!ce_.YVErke_r .• ft..d ~lt . • ..... ln~ire_ct ~O l].t~9 . . ln.c!den.!<!1 9~mal !=0 n~s_t__ -qualitative assessment (e .g., potential for office Plant Residuals . F~~ity ____ .•..•. .9tf~t:l.YY ~rk_er.__ .~!!~I !···-.... ln~ir(l~t -~.~r:i_tact __ . _ _lr:i_c_~!!~.~!.!f.1.h!l l ~~o_n . -. workers to be near treatment residual handling area). • Pl an t Res.iduaTs ·-·-·-Facility Office Worker Adult Indirect contact External rad1at1on . Off-Facility . Surface Soils N b R .d Nearby Residents ..• _e ~ _y . e_s1 __ e_nc~s Adult Indirect contact Off-Facility . Nearby Residences Nearby Residents . · -·oti-'Faciiity • -. Surface Soils Nearb Residences Nearby Residents Adult • • .. . . . ........... __ y -. ---.••. --· . • . • •. ·-· ..•.•. ···----- Surface Soils Adult Indirect contact Indirect contact Off-Facil ity . Garden plants Nearb Residences Nearby Residents ··-·----Y. ·----.... Adult Indirect contact Surface Soils Off-Facility . Nearby Residences Nearby Residents Adult Indirect contact Off-Facility Nearby Residents Surface Soils Nearby R e_~i~_nce_~ . _ ....... • •• Adolescent . (10 _ 18 ears old) Indirect contact __ . -· • · -·-· -• · • Otl.:F acility Surface Soils Nearby_ '3_e~ct_e_11~e_~ ··-·-·-_y ____ --.•. -- . Adolescent . N_ earby Residents 10 _18 years old Ind irect contact • ·• .. ·-··-O ff-Facil ity . ·-... . . . .... . c_ ..... ·-· _J .,.. ..... ....... .. . Adolescent . Nea rb:.~e~1 ~=~t~ .• _.(1 9:.~.Ye.!lr5-_9.l~L Indirect contact Surface Soils Nea_!Ey_R_e ~~en_t::e!. Adolescent . •.• • ----•· · -·• • ---Off-Facility Nearby Residents __ (1_Q:1_8_y~~~ 9!91 ... Garden plants Nearby Res1de12c~~ ... .. . · ·· -·· •• ·· ··-· Adolescent •• •· --··-c>ff:Facility Nearby Residents ( 1 0-18 years old) Surface Soils Surface Soils Surface Soils Surface Soils Garden plants Surface Soils Nearby Residences Off-Facility _flJ_e._l!r!>.Y _f3.esidences Nearby Residents Off-Faci litY -· 1'!.e.~rl:>Y .Re_sidences Nearby Res idents Off-Facilii}. · · · ~~<i..rt.>.Y_~icsidences Nearby Res idents Off-Fa cilitY ·-·---.• -·· -· -·-·- ~_a rby Re sidences Nearby Res idents Off-Facility. • · · • · · · · .. · Nearby Residences Nearby Residents Child Child Child Child Child Pi•::J l 1.•.f".~ Ind irect contact Indirect contact Ind irect contact Indirect contact Indirect contact Indirect contact Indirect contact Incidental ingestion Incidental dermal contact 1 'd 1. h 1 . Dependent on migration potential of treatment plant .. ri_:1_ e~~~. 1 ~_:-~~~n-residuals from facility to adjoining properties . Ingestion of garden plants External radiation Incidental ingestion Incidental dermal contact Incidental inhalation Ingestion of garden plants External radiation Incidental ingestion Incidental dermal contact Incidental inhalation Ingestion of garden plants External radiation Dependent on migration potential of treatment plant res iduals from facility to adjoining properties . Dependent on migration potential 'of treatment plant res iduals from facility to adjoin ing properties. Allen Water Treatment Plant City o( Eng/eV<ood, RFP-16--020 Table 2. Potential Exposure Pathways of Plant Residuals to Facility Workers and Nearby Residents Allen Water Treatment Plant, Englewood, Colorado Plant Residuals Surface Soils Off-Facility Residents Adult Indirect contact Incidental ingestion Recreational Areas " -. ··-. -· . Surface Soils Off-Facility Residents Adult Indirect contact Incidental dermal contact Recreational Areas --- Surface Soils oo:l'acility -- Residents Adult Indirect contact Incidental inhalation Recreational Areas , -~ -· ----·· ~~-~ ,.. ~~ ~. -~- Surface Soils Off-Facility Residents Adult Indirect contact External radiation Recreational Areas Surface Soils Off-Facility Residents Adolescent Indirect contact Incidental ingestion Recreational Areas (10-18 ye_ars ()let) _ --- Plant Residuals Surface Soils Off-Facility Residents Adolescent Indirect contact Incidental dermal contact Recreational Areas (1_0-18yea_rs old) Surface Soils Off-Facility Residents Adolescent Indirect contact Incidental inhalation Recreational Areas (10-18 years ()Id)_ Surface Soils Off-Facility Residents Adolescent Indirect contact External radiation Recreational Areas (10-18 ~ears old) Surface Soils Off-Facility Residents Child Indirect contact Incidental ingestion Recreational Areas Plant Residuals --·--~ --------------·---------------·-· Surface Soils Off-Facility Residents Child Indirect contact Incidental dermal contact Recreational Areas -olt-l'aC::mt}i -~--" Surface Soils Residents Child Indirect contact Incidental inhalation Recreational Areas , -· -- Surface Soils Off-Facility Residents Child Indirect contact External radiation Recreational Areas Notes : Although not shown on this table, the potential risks from exposure to media from regionaVb ackground areas will also be evaluated in the risk assessments . Surface water-based exposure pathways are not recommended for evaluation at this time. Transportation risks for off-facility disposal will not be evaluated. f:tf ,·.~:rni '.:-ou.~ri!lin:; in.• Pr ;:-;, 2 ,.f} Dependent on types of historical uses of treatment plant residuals off-facility (e _g ., ballfield)_ Dependent on types of historical uses of treatment plant residuals off-facility (e .g_, ballfield). Dependent on types of historical uses of treatment plant residuals off-facility (e.g ., ballfield). Allen 'rVat.er Treatment Plant inle)~J. Tabte 3, City of Englewood RFP-16-020 -Risk Assessment for Allen Water Filter Treatment Plant Residuals and TENORMs Management Integral Project No. P1651 Greenblatt, Marcia Lape, James Samuelian, John Conovitz, Alice t--i.Jiskamp , Stephanie Mendelsohn, Emma Shonka, Nicholas Byrd, Debora Kershaw, Ua Lehmer, Leanna Sub-total Labor Subcontractors Lutz, Michael Little, Craig Other Direct Costs Unit Costs TOTAL BUDGET Notes: POV = privately owted vehicle OOCs = other direct costs Travel costs assume the following : Title/Role Principal Senior Science Advisor Senior Managing Scientist Managing Scientist Scientist Scientist Associate Scientist Document Prod.Jction Specialist Technical Editor Project Coordinator Devd>erry Engineers, Inc. Twin line, Inc. Burden Subtotal Subcontractors Direct Project Expenses (5.5% of Rate $235 $235 $220 $180 $110 $126 $94 $98 $95 $88 10% • • Labor Cost) 5.5% Library Travel (airlare) Lodging Meals and incidentals Car rental Airport parking POV miles ($0.54/mile) Burden I • $0.54 100;. Subtotal OOCs GIS Burden $12.0' ) Production Copying (B&W $0.10 pp) $0 .1 ) Production Copying (color $1 .00 pp) $ I Fiek1 Health & Safety fee {$50/day) $5 ) Subtotal Units Task 1 Task 2A Task 28 Risk As Dose R Proj Total I 6 $1,410 32 $7,520 78 $17,160 70 $12,600 6 $660 92 $11,592 32 $3,008 12 $1,176 20 $1,900 3s: $57~i~: Total $32,000 $12,000 ~ $48,400 Total $3,175 $0 $200 $600 $450 $225 $200 $150 0 $200 ~ $5,403 Quant;ty Cost 6 $72 200 $20 50 $50 0 $0 ---256 $142 256 $142 0 $0 0 612 $111,675 368 $25,287 4 $15 060 « Or. John Samuelian ....;11 travel by air to Englewood for the City Council meeting; this will include car rental for !'NO days, one over-night stay In a hotel , and 1 day of meals at $75/day. $0 $7 700 Or. Craig Little will use a personal vehicle to travel from Grand Junction to Englewood for the City Council meeting; this travel ....;11 \nclude one over-night stay in a hotel and 1 day of meals at $75/day. Mike Lutz will use a personal vehicle to travel from Denver to Englewood for the City Council meeting; no over-night stay ....;11 be required . hsk 3A Task 38 --0 $0 0 $0 4 $11,760 28 $5 396 AJice Conovltz, Mike Lutz, and Craig little ,,..;11 use personal vehicles lo travel to Englewood from Fort Collins, Denver, and Grand Junction, respectively, to attend one on-site project meeting v.1th Allen Water Treatment Plant staff. No over-night stay will be required for Ms. Conovitz or Mr . Lutz. Mr . Little's travel will include one over-night stay in a hotel and 1 day of meals at $75/day . ;,:~ ·_u;i! ,_.,.::··di"'.~ !h" ''".\"·····i "J Ci ty of Eilil.:wt•.x!. IU'11. u:•-0:'0 Task 4A Task 48 Task 5 ----0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 102 $28 044 38 $14,548 24 $3 781 Allen Water Treatment Plant City of Englewood. RFP-16-020 Table 4. Matrix Overview of Selected Staff Projects Streamlined Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment I • I • I • Work Plans, Orphan Mine Site, Grand Canyon, AZ. Refined Human Health Risk Assessment for Northeast Church 1 Rock, Gallup, NM • I • Radioactive Waste Remediation Management, Dust Control, Air Monitoring, and Construction Safety Education , Denver I I • I I I • I I I • I • Radium Superfund Site, CO Human Health Risk Assessment for Multiple Exposure I • I I I I I I I • Scenarios, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO Air Emissions and Dispersion Modeling for Dose I Reconstruction, Rocky Flats Plant, CO • I • I I • I • I I I I I • Emissions and Dispersion Modeling to Support Litigation Involving Exposures to Biosolids, Ohio I • I I I I • I • I I I I • Rico Blood Lead Study, CO • Human Health Studies, Tennessee Department of Health, Oak • Ridge, I_N Human Heaiih.Risk Assessment, Lower Fox River, WI • I I I I I I • wafor auaiity sianciards Evaluations 'tor i'em.perature a·nd Arsenic, Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant. CO I I I I I I I I • Two Lines .Inc. Dose Estimation for Radiation Exposure to Municipal Employees from Radium-bearing Materials in Water I I • I I • I I I I • _Tre_atn,iellt. TaJ1kS,f'.f'la.da, C_9 Technical Litigation Defense Support for Former Uranium L _J -I ___ I L L. I J ____ I I • PiodLJc~~on _F a.i:;ili!}'., _U.r:idlscl9-sesJ Loca_!ion Human Health Risk Assessment of Uranium.and Metal:· -- bearing Materials at a Former Uranium Concentration Facility, I • I • I I • OK irll:'.~rni Cm::1;/tirv Ii<~· P1 ::?!' 1 ,~r __:_ Allen Water Treatment Pl ant Table 4. Matrix Overview of Selected Staff Projects Water Treatment Plant Design and Engineering Report, VA ·--·-~~·-· ... ·-.. -_. ~ -··---....... -- Drain Modifications for Allen Water Treatment Plant, CO Linfrig -Alter.naffve-s -EvaTua tion and Reronsiruction of Raw -·-· Water Transport System to the Allen Water Treatment Plant, co waler f r eaiment i:>ia.rifOp9rades:·A.1 1e1-riatives E"V:a1uat ian:·:a;.;ci Hydraulic Model Development, Centennial Water & Sanitation District, CO cer amic .Me mbrane Filter water Purificaticin -FacilitY Design_ and Construction Oversight, Parker Water and Sanitation District. CO irdt·.~ral C. •n:.:u f tin~:~ fw:. • P11tl' 2 ·f: City of Englewood, RFP -16-020 • • • • • • • • • Attachment A Resumes for Key Project Staff Marcia Greenblatt, Ph.D., P.E. Principal Engineer/Hydrologist PROFESSIONAL PROFILE Integral Consulting Inc. 285 Century Place Suite 190 Louisville, CO 80027 telephone: 303.404.2944 facsimile: 303.404.2945 mgreenblatt@integral-corp .com Dr. Marcia Greenblatt is a water resources engineer with 18 years of specialized technical and project management experience in hydrodynamic, water quality, and sediment investigations. She has extensive involvement in CERCLA remedial investigations and feasibility studies (RI/FSs) at large sediment sites. Her responsibilities have included design of sediment, water column, and bathymetric data collection programs and field sampling plans. In addition, she has integrated data analyses within a geographic information system (GIS) to support site conceptualization, characterize and evaluate fate and transport processes, identify data gaps, parameterize and apply numerical models, and evaluate remedial alternatives. Dr. Greenblatt has designed and performed several modeling studies, applying both simple and complex numerical models, to predict hydrodynamic flows, sediment erosion, transport and deposition, chemical fate and transport, and water quality. She has performed numerous modeling studies for mixing zone evaluations to support NPDES renewals as well as operational evaluations, with several of these studies focused on thermal discharges. Dr. Greenblatt has managed or served as senior technical reviewer on several large sediment investigation and modeling projects for PRP groups, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and individual parties in the mining, steel, and other industrial sectors. CREDENTIALS AND PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Ph.D., Water Resources Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1997 M.S., Water Resources Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, 1993 B.S., Forestry, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 1989 Professional Engineer, Massachusetts (License No. 48975) CONTINUING EDUCATION AND TRAINING "The Transport of Sediment and Contaminants in Surface Waters," a short course taught by Dr. Wilbert Lick of University of California, Santa Barbara SELECTED RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Lower Passaic River RIIFS, New Jersey-Manages the feasibility study to evaluate and compare remedial alternatives, developing and managing sediment and water column field Marcia Greenblatt, Ph.D., P.E. Page 2 investigations; interpreting and analyzing data; developing the site conceptual model and sediment stability analysis of the tidal Passaic River; and combining multiple lines of evidence (bathymetry, grain size, channel slope, and radiochemistry data) to support system understanding. Served as technical manager for the feasibility study evaluations . Works closely with the project coordinators supporting project strategy development, technical review, and coordination of the project consulting team. Big River Sediment Feasibility Study, Missouri-Served as project manager for feasibility study of a 50-mile reach of a mining-impacted river. The project included collecting sediment, soil, porewater, and tissue data to support a supplemental remedial investigation; developing a site conceptual model; updating the ecological risk assessment; performing a human health risk assessment; and identifying and evaluating remedial options . Developed and directed field investigations to support development of site- specific preliminary remediation goals to support evaluation of potential remedial options. Barr Lake and Milton Reservoir Nutrient Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Water Quality Model, Colorado-Served as project manager for the expansion (including new input data) and recalibration of a water quality model to support assessment of TMDL alternatives for the Barr Lake and Milton Reservoir Watershed Association Technical Committee. The linked watershed/in-lake model simulated flows and nutrients in a complex system with an extensive canal system, numerous irrigation inputs and withdrawals, and two water supply reservoirs . The EPA models SWAT and WASP were applied to ultimately predict present and potential future in-lake nutrient systems in a severely eutrophic system. Risk Charact erization and Sampling Plan Design, Various Sites, United States-Performed a geostatistical analysis to predict soil concentrations across a site. Confidence bounds were determined to assist the client with an internal risk characterization. A sampling plan was designed to increase certainty in the predicted concentrations. At the completion of the sampling program, the new data were incorporated into the historical data and the geostatistical analysis was repeated . Results indicated an acceptable level of risk before the liquidation of the property. Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Modeling Study, Florida-Served as project manager and senior model reviewer for the development of a numerical model used to predict the potential impacts of pipeline construction on water quality and benthic habitat. Applied the ECOMSED model to evaluate jetting and sidecasting operations associated with tunneling construction, and to predict tidally varying currents and transport and deposition of sediments potentially suspended from the construction activities. Several sediment classes were parameterized in the model based on field studies . Water column suspended solids and sediment deposition were predicted based on construction activity. Model predictions were mapped on sensitive benthic resources to evaluate potential bottom impacts from sediment deposition, including the extent and depth of potential deposition. The model results were used to support a turbidity variance application before project implementation. 06 116 Marcia Greenblatt, Ph.D ., P.E. Pa ge3 Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) at a Former Chemical Manufacturing Facility, Portland, Oregon-Supported the EE/CA for sediment remediation at the site in Portland Harbor, including evaluating potential recontamination of remedial alternatives and application of a cap model to support development conceptual design parameters and cost estimates . Thermal Discharge Analysis, Michigan-Evaluated the potential impact of increased thermal blowdown from the addition of a new unit at an existing nuclear power facility. Served as senior reviewer of the CORMIX model, which was used to predict the thermal mixing zone under typical and extreme monthly conditions, as well as rare events. The thermal discharge analysis also included data collection and review and statistical analysis of flow conditions . Presented the results on two occasions to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic and Sediment Transport Modeling Study, Gulf of Mexico-Set up and applied the EPA-supported EFDC model to evaluate potential water quality and benthic habitat impacts associated with proposed construction of a pipeline from Tampa Bay through the Gulf of Mexico. Applied the model to predict tidally varying currents and sediment transport and deposition potentially resulting from pipeline construction activities. Modeling activities included application of the USACE ADDAMS models DREDGE and STF ATE to estimate sediment resuspension rates from dredging and sidecasting operations, and mapping model-predicted suspended sediment concentrations and sediment deposition extents and depths over sensitive habitat areas . Industrial Effluent Modeling in Tidal Estuary, Nova Scotia, Canada-Modeled nearfield and farfield dilution and mixing of an industrial effluent discharge into a tidal estuary to support the identification of alternate locations for relocating an existing outfall. Used the 3-dimensional hydrodynamic and water quality model HEM3D to simulate a conservative tracer and predict the extent of the visible plume. A number of locations and discharge scenarios (continuous, hold-and-release) were investigated. Calibrated the farfield model by using measurements taken during a synoptic field survey specially designed to support the modeling task. Conducted nearfield mixing modeling to evaluate alternative diffuser designs. Nonpoint Source Modeling for Nutrient TMDL Study, Massachusetts-Modeled hydrology, water quality, and biology in a eutrophic river system in support of the TMDL process . Project included several rounds of field data collection and analysis, model selection, setup, and development. Set up an application of the HSPF watershed and instream numerical to simulate point and nonpoint source flow and nutrient loads into the river, as well as instream nutrient and biomass interactions. Set up the model based on GIS data, and calibrated and validated the model using several sets of field data. Once calibrated, applied the model to assess several alternative management scenarios . Water Supply and Discharge Design and Permitting, Rensselaer, New York-Evaluated siting intake and discharge locations to avoid recirculation on the tidally reversing river for a proposed newsprint facility on the Hudson River. The potential to entrain fish larvae at the intake was evaluated on a seasonal basis for the vulnerable life stages of each species. The 06116 Marcia Greenblatt , Ph .D., P.E. Page4 mixing zone of the effluent was evaluated for various times during the tidal cycle under a range of freshwater inflow conditions. The optimal diffuser design was developed to meet the mixing requirements and the physical constraints within the river (including rapidly changing bathymetry and the proximity to a shipping channel). Ev aluation of Watershed Loadings on In-lake Water Quality, Taunton , Massachu setts-Led a field program to assess water quality and biota in the lake and tributaries, and to characterize the watershed. Analyzed the laboratory results and applied results to estimate nutrient loadings to the pond. Developed a series of possible future loadings scenarios resulting from management techniques. Evaluated the practicality of cons tructing a small beach and swimming area in the lake . Developed an Arc View application to graphically display the results . SELECTED PUB LI CA TIO NS/PRESENT A TIO NS Greenblatt, M ., and J. Connolly. 2015 . Lower Passaic River (RM 10 .9) early action : Evaluation of remedial design data and implications for river-wide remedy development. Battelle 8th International Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. January 12-15 . New Orleans, LA. Gerath, M., and M . Greenblatt. 2008 . Evaluation of hydrologic disturbance frequency and duration in western ephemeral streams . In : Relevance of ambient water quality criteria for ephemeral streams and effluent-dependent watercourses of the arid western United States. R.W . Gensemer, RD . Meyerhoff, K.J . Ramage, and E.F. Curley (Eds .). Pensacola, FL. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 268 pp. Ruffle, B., M. Greenblatt, and D . Reid-Green. 2007 . Application of geostatistics and risk assessment to property divestitures . University of Mass achusetts Annual Conference on Soils, Sediments, Water, and Energy . October 15-18. Amherst, MA. Greenblatt, M. 2003. Modeling aquatic biology: A TMDL challenge . 27th Annual Meeting of the New England Association of Environmental Biologists. March 26-28. Wachusett, MA. Greenblatt, M ., K. Hickey, and K. Heim. 2001. Riverine nutrient TMDL allocation: overview of the field program and modeling application . In: Proc. of the 2nd ASCE Wetlands Engineering and River Restoration Conference . Reno, NV. American Society of Civil Engineers . Gilman, J, J. San Antonio, M . Greenblatt, and S. Emmons . 2010. Application of RMA2 for design and construction of the inner harbor navigation canal hurricane surge barrier. In: 83rd Annual Water Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference; WEFTEC. New Orleans, LA. Greenblatt, M.S., and R.J. Sobey. 1999. Subsurface flow and transport in tidal wetlands: Marsh plain equations. J. En g in . Mech . 125(8):971-974 . 06 11 6 Alice R.W. Conovitz Managing Scientist PROFESSIONAL PROFILE Integral Consulting Inc. 605 S. College A venue Suite 101 Fort Collins, CO 80524 te lephone: 970.682 .2184 awconovitz@integral-corp .com Ms. Alice Conovitz is a consultant specializing in environmental investigations; watershed, aquatic chemistry, and mining-and nutrient-related issues; data quality review; and management of complex and time-sensitive environmental projects. With 15 years of experience, she has a broad background in watershed sciences, including assessment of contaminant distribution, fate, and transport of chemicals in groundwater and surface water. Ms . Conovitz also has experience assessing contaminant sorption on sediments and mass loading to environmental systems . In addition to her strong data analysis background, she has e xpertise in environmental sample collection, processing, and reporting. Ms . Conovitz has coordinated watershed stakeholder organizations, authored multidimensional watershed management plans, and written winning proposals for multiple federal and state watershed grants. She has worked with federal, state, and local agencies on diverse sites, including nonpoint source, CERCLA, and total maximum daily load (TMDL) projects . CREDENTIALS AND PROFESSIONAL HONORS M.S ., Environmental Studies, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, 2004 B.S ., Environmental Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, 2000 Environmental Protection Agency National Notable Achievement Award, 2006 CONTINUING EDUCATION AND TRAINING Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response 40-Hour Certification (2005) Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response 8-Hour Refresher (2006-2015) Colorado Water Leaders Program (2012) A/EiC Project Management Bootcamp (2014) RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Third Party Analytical Data Quality Review, Confid ential Location-Serves as project manager and technical lead for an Integral team that is providing extensive third party review of eight years of analytical chemistry data records from three laboratory instruments to identify and evaluate the impacts of improper laboratory practices . Examined raw Alice R.W. Conovitz Page 2 instrument files, laboratory data packages, hard copy documentation, and the laboratory's information management system database to assess conformity with analytical methods, laboratory standard operating procedures (SOPs), and best laboratory practices. Developed and documented a specialized methodology that utilized a database approach to review records and tabulate impacted records for ultimate disclosure . Using this database approach, Integral was able to efficiently review over 103,000 sample records for a suite of potential issues. Led preparation of technical reports and prepared and delivered presentations to legal counsel; prepared senior chemist for expert presentation to representatives of the Office of Inspector General for three federal agencies . Also led preparation of specific recommendations for improved laboratory practices and SOP revisions and collaborated with laboratory staff to identify immediately implementable corrective actions. Temperature Regulation Development for a Wastewater Treatment Plant, Littleton, Colorado- Led a team that developed site-specific temperature standard proposals for the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission triennial review process for Regulation #38, South Platte River. Presented hearing testimony to the Colorado Water Quality Control Division. Wrote hearing testimony and rebuttal documents, participated in negotiations with EPA and Colorado regulatory agencies, and led the technical analyses for a critical review of the scientific basis of proposed statewide changes to water temperature criteria. Analyzed a large, in-stream data set of upstream and downstream water temperatures to determine compliance, conducted a reasonable potential analysis for compliance, evaluated fish condition relative to temperature, and developed reasonable and attainable temperature criteria alternatives . Successfully negotiated a site-specific, temporary modification to the temperature standard. CERCLA RIIFS, Portland, Oregon-Co-led the multimedia loading calculation and reporting effort associated with the preparation of the draft and final remedial investigation reports for the Portland Harbor Superfund site, which encompasses a 9-mile stretch of the Willamette River . Represented Integral in multiple meetings with EPA project managers to negotiate draft remedial investigation revisions. Evaluated multiple lines of evidence to assess several groundwater plume transport pathways. Prior to the development of this report, contributed to the collection and synthesis of groundwater, sediment, and surface water chemistry information. Also contributed to the completion of numerous supporting RI/FS documents, including groundwater field sampling plans, data reports, and interim groundwater and surface water site characterization summary reports. Responsibilities included surface water, groundwater, and sediment field sampling, data analysis, and report development. Site contaminants of interest include PCBs, dioxins, pesticides, P AHs, and metals in surface and subsurface sediments and water. Deepwater Horizon, Gulf of Mexico-Working in conjunction with the consulting team responding to the Deepwater Horizon accident and oil spill, served as task manager and provided technical expertise to develop and implement quality assurance measures for a large and complex multimedia data set. Led the Integral staff team on all aspects of 09116 Alice R. W. Conovitz Page3 metadata verification for analytical chemistry samples, in support of public data releases . Wrote standard operating procedures for data verification, contributed to the environmental data quality plan and other project quality assurance procedure guidance documents, and led data verification methodology trainings. The project team applied manual and database-supported research techniques to identify and populate missing sample metadata information for 1.5 million records; this effort resulted in a substantially larger set of usable data results and reduced client financial loss related to unusable data. Water Quality Monitorin g, Permitting, and Site-Specific Criteria Evaluation for a Mine Exploration Project, Ketchikan, Alaska-Served as project manager and senior technical reviewer for water quality monitoring and reporting for metals in surface water and groundwater at a mining exploration site. Led the effort to update and revise site documents, including the water quality monitoring plan, quality assurance project plan, reclamation and closure plan, and plan of operations. The project has also involved working with the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to streamline a natural conditions-based, site-specific water quality evaluation tool, evaluating the performance and potential longevity of the current land application water disposal system, developing site-specific water quality criteria, and analyzing and reporting water quality data over a 10-year period. Most recently, this project has involved providing support in obtaining an Alaska Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit for marine discharge of mine waters . Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting for a Mine Exploration Project, Haines, Alaska- Manages the Integral team that collects, manages, and evaluates baseline surface water quality data at a mining exploration project site. Oversees planning and implementation of field efforts, database development and updates, analytical laboratory coordination, and water quality screening against aquatic life standards. Prepared the project quality assurance project plan. Impacts from a Remediated Wood Treatment Facility, Confidential Site-Analyzed large, multi year water, sediment, and biological tissue chemical data sets in support of human health and ecological risk assessment development for a former wood-treating site . Site contaminants of interest include furans, PAHs, PCBs, and metals. Analy ses included statistical comparisons and summaries, as well as compilation of and comparison to local and regional background data. Authored portions of the ecological and human health risk assessments . Barr Lake /Milton R eservoir Watershed Association, Denver, Colorado-Served as coordinator of nonprofit watershed stakeholder organization focused on development of a pH TMDL and nutrient standards for two high-plains reservoirs and associated streams and canals. Tasks included facilitating board, stakeholder, and committee meetings; meeting with State regulators; developing public outreach materials and programs; coordinating team development of a watershed management plan; coordinating data requests and database updates; and overseeing financial and grant management activities. The Barr Lake/Milton Reservoir Watershed Management Plan was selected by the Denver Regional Council of 09116 Alice R. W. Conovitz Governments as the Gold Winner in the 2008 Local Governments Innovations Awards Program category of "Planning with Vision." Page4 Lefthand Creek Watershed Abandoned Mines Metal Loading Analysis, Boulder County, Colorado- Designed and implemented a comprehensive, multi year study of metal loading from numerous abandoned mines to more than 30 km of streams. This project involved metal-loading tracer tests paired with synoptic water sampling; benthic macroinvertebrate collection, community analysis, and digestions for analysis of metal content in body tissues; stream-bed sediment collection, partial digestion, and metals analysis; and metals leachate tests of mine waste rock and tailings piles. PRESENT A TIO NS/POSTERS Conovitz, A.R.W., and M. Gardner. 2015. A temperature tale: Water temperature patterns and policy in the South Platte River . Oral presentation at the South Platte Forum Conference, October 28, Loveland, CO. Jones, L., W . Locke, A.R.W. Conovitz, J. Gasper, and C. Hawley . 2011. Determining background surface water concentrations for the Portland Harbor remedial investigation . Oral presentation at the Sixth International Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments, New Orleans, LA. Conovitz, A.R.W., and J.N. Ryan. 2010 . Collaborative efforts to characterize a watershed impacted by abandoned mines using multiple sampling techniques: A case study for Lefthand Creek watershed, CO. Oral presentation at the National Water Quality Monitoring Council Conference, April 27, Denver, CO. Conovitz, A.R.W., M. Gardner, D. Rudnick, R. Wexler, and L. Williams. 2010. Using long-term ambient water quality data to inform thermal criteria revisions : A case study on the South Platte River, CO. Poster presentation at the National Water Quality Monitoring Council Conference, April 26, Denver, CO. Locke, W., C. Hawley, and A. Wood. 2007. Source determination for chemicals in transition zone water-Upland plume groundwater discharge vs. legacy sediment contamination. 2007 Washington Environmental Cleanup Conference, Environmental Law Education Center, Seattle, WA. Wood, A. 2007. BMW Association: 2006 Barr Lake and Milton Reservoir watershed management plan . Invited presentation to the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission, May 14, Denver, CO. Wood, A. 2007. BMW Association: 2006 Barr Lake and Milton Reservoir watershed management plan. Invited presentation to the Denver Regional Council of Governments Water and Environmental Planning Committee, February 23, Denver, CO. Wood, A. 2005 . Finding the money at the Lefthand watershed . Oral presentation at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Collaborative Cleanups Meeting, May 24, Keystone, CO. 09116 John Samuelian, Ph.D. Senior Managing Scientist PROFESSIONAL PROFILE Integral Consulting Inc. 45 Exchange Street Suite 200 Portland, ME 04101 telephone : 207.874.9000 facsimile : 207 .874.7800 jsamuelian@integral-corp.com Dr. John Samuelian brings 29 years of experience in environmental consulting, environmental and analytical chemistry, database development and management, human and ecological risk assessments, quality assurance, site investigation design, and remedial alternatives evaluation. He has served as environmental chemist, senior task leader, project manager, senior technical reviewer or QA/QC officer for a number of RI/FSs; remedial designs; remedial action construction projects; human and ecological risk assessments; commercial product risk assessments; aquatic ecology studies; manufactured gas plant (MGP) sites; building investigations, municipal and industrial landfills, arsenals, a lead shot site, pulp and paper mill sites, contaminated sediment sites, and solvent waste sites abandoned mining sites; and private well surveys. Several of these projects have included presenting at public meetings . He has worked on projects with a wide variety of recalcitrant and non-recalcitrant chemicals, including PCBs, PCDD/Fs, PCNs, heavy metals, volatile and semivolatile organics, pesticides, petroleum products, energetic compounds, pharmaceuticals, and radionuclides . His focus on human health risk assessments is principally related to exposure assessment and probabilistic risk assessment. His background in environmental chemistry has played a significant role in exposure assessment, particularly in regards to product stewardship . Dr. Samuelian has provided support for projects throughout the U.S . for public and private sector clients. CREDENTIALS AND PROFESSIONAL HONORS Ph.D., Environmental Health Science, New York University, 1990 M.Ph., Environmental Health Science, New York University, 1985 M.S., Ecology/Environmental Toxicology, University of Tennessee, 1981 B.S., Biology, Union College, Schenectady, New York, 1979 CONTINUING EDUCATION AND TRAINING Project Managers Training Course (1991and1996) Expert Witness Training Course (1990) Certified Organic Data Validator, EPA Region 2 (1989) Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response 40-Hour Certification (1987 and annual refreshers) John Samuelian, Ph .D. Page 2 REL EV ANT EXPERIENCE Streamlined Human and Ecological Risk Evaluations, Former Uranium Mine, Grand Canyon, Arizona -Prepared human and ecological streamline risk evaluation work plans in support of the development of an EE/CA work plan for a former copper and uranium mine on the rim of the Grand Canyon. Both radionuclides and non-radionuclides (predominantly metals) were included in these assessments. Human health radionuclide risks were evaluated using the RESRAD model, while non-radionuclide risks and all ecological risks were evaluated using conventional EPA Superfund approaches . Human Health Risk Evaluations to Support Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analys is (EE/CA) of a Former Uranium Min e, Southwestern U .S . -Developed a human health risk assessment work plan to support the evaluation of multiple remedial alternatives developed as part of an EE/CA at a former uranium mine. Both radionuclides and non-radionuclides (predominantly metals) were included in these assessments. The potential risks associated with transportation of materials off-site was also be assessed as part of this effort. The results were used to assess suitability of the remedial alternatives. It was concluded that off-site transport of mine waste solids would result in undo risks and therefore the alternatives which excluded off-site transportation were retained for the site remediation. Developed a Microexposure Event Risk Model to Assess Potential Residential Risks n ear an Industrial Site, Confidential Location -Developed a 2-dimensional microexposure event risk model that concurrently quantifies uncertainty and variability and estimates potential human health risks for residents near an active industrial facility. Exposure routes included incidental soil ingestion, soil dermal contact, and dust inhalation. Developed age- and gender-specific exposure assumptions. Census data were used to define the gender- specific age distribution of the local population and to calculate location-specific exposure durations based on net migration and mortality rates . Both site-specific and generic exposure assumptions were incorporated into the model. Enhancements to Model to Predict Environmental Concentrations of Pharmaceuticals, Nationwide-Part of the technical team that developed a fate model that predicted environmental concentrations of pharmaceuticals . Model enhancements that were planned included the addition of a biosolids module, which would assess the fate and disposition of pharmaceuticals that may accumulate in POTW sludge and then be used as organic material for biosolids application. An additional model enhancement is the use of alternate xQy flows to be more representative of chronic exposures to aquatic organisms. Risk Assessment from Expo s ure to Vapors Released from Soils and Groundwater, Phoenix, Arizona-Providing senior review and strategic support for an assessment of potential human health risks associated with exposure to residual chlorinated organic compounds from contaminated soils and groundwater and an active facility . The Johnson & Ettinger vapor intrusion model was used to estimate worker exposures based on measured soil vapor concentrations . An indoor air sampling program is under development to confirm the estimated indoor air concentrations from the Johnson & Ettinger model. 09 116 John Samuelian, Ph.D . Page3 Assessment of Emerging Chemicals and Wastewater Treatment, Nationwide-Ecological impact technical lead for the preparation of a technical brief for member companies of Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) and other interested parties, concerning the issues and implications of trace organic compounds (TOrCs) for wastewater treatment. The technical brief summarized the scientific data related to how TOrCs are identified and measured in the environment and wastewater streams; described the removal of TOrC in typical wastewater treatment processes; and then discussed the potential human health and ecological effects of TOrC that may be discharged to surface waters and/or taken up in public water supplies. The brief identified management strategies along with future research needs. This technical brief was published by WERF (stock no. CEC3R07) in 2008. Risk Assessment, Active Manufacturing Facility, Chicago, Illinois-For an active apparatus service center with historical PCB contamination in soils adjacent to the operations area, integrated multiple investigation phases into a single database; performed data evaluation; conducted an exposure assessment for onsite workers, construction workers, and trespassers; and calculated potential risks to these receptors. Public Communications, Various Clients-As part of Rl/FS projects, served as principal speaker at public information meetings and public hearings to discuss results of studies and proposed remedial actions . These efforts included working with client and agency community relations staff, as well as preparation of community relations work plans. Fate and Transport Summary, Colorado-Prepared a fate and transport summary in support of chemistry results from field investigations at Basin F at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado . This effort included an evaluation of existing physico-chemical parameters for standard and exotic chemicals present in the soil, surface water, and groundwater at the site. Also performed limited predictions of ultimate fate of some of the chemicals of interest. Data Validation Activities, Various Clients-Versed in CLP and non-CLP organic, inorganic, and radionuclide data validation. Data validation activities have included in-house projects, contracting with other consulting firms, and supporting a mixed waste site RI/FS in Idaho and South Dakota. Developed data validation protocols for non-CLP procedures (e .g., SW-846 methods). Prepared data validation standard operating procedures for a U.S . Department of Energy contractor for its mixed-waste site RI/FS in Idaho and for private client investigations. Performed validation of organic and inorganic chemical data for EPA (Regions 1-4 and 10), New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Massachusetts Department of Environment Protection, and New Jersey Department of Environment Protection. SELECT PUBLICATIONS Magee, B., J. Samuelian, K. Haines, M. Chappel, I. Penn, D. Chin, D. Anders, and J. Hinz. 2010. Screening-level population risk assessment of nasal tumors in the US due to naphthalene exposure. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 57(2-3):168-180 . 01115 John Samuelian, Ph.D . Page4 Hannah, R., V.J . D' Aco, P.O. Anderson, M.E . Buzby, O.J. Caldwell, V.L. Cunningham, J.F. Ericson, A.C. Johnson, N.J. Parke, J.H. Samuelian, and J.P. Sumpter. 2009 . Exposure assessment of 17a-ethinyl estradiol in surface waters of the United States and Europe. Environ. Toxicol. Chem . 28(12):2725-2732. Keenan, R.E., P .O . Anderson, W.R. Alsop, J.H. Samuelian. 1999. Risk-based management principles for evaluating sediment management options. Sediment Management Work Group. 23 pp . TECHNICAL COMMITTEES/PEER PANELS Maine Pulp and Paper Association, Solid and Hazardous Waste Committee . September 1999 EPA Ecological Soil Screening Levels (Eco-SSLs) Work Group: Member of Task Group 3- Soil Chemistry, Washington, DC, June and September 1998 . EPA National Center for Environmental Research and Quality Assurance: Peer Review Panel for Hexavalent Chromium Risk Reduction. Washington, DC, August 12-13, 1998. PRESENT A TIO NS/POSTERS Lape, J., and J. Samuelian. 2013 . The risk side of vapor intrusion: Refined methods to evaluate exposure and inhalation risks. Platform presentation, 29th Annual International Conference on Soils, Sediments, Water and Energy, Amherst, MA. October 21-24. Groff, K, P. Anderson, M. Hoyt, J. Samuelian, and B. Pugh. 2008. The measurement and fate of trace organic compounds in municipal wastewater treatment plant effluents . Fifth Annual Conference on Integrating Water Resources Management, Amherst, MA. April 8. Samuelian, J., B.H . Magee, W.R. Alsop, A.L. Nightingale, and P .S. Price . 2000 . Application of a 2-0 linear model to assess uncertainty and variability in potential carcinogenic risks from combustion facilities : Direct and indirect exposure routes. ISEA Conference, Monterey, CA. October 25. 09116 James F. Lape, Jr. Senior Science Advisor PROFESSIONAL PROFILE Integral Consulting Inc. 200 Harry S. Truman Parkway Suite 330 Annapolis, MD 21401 telephone: 410.573 .1982 facsimile : 410.573 .9746 jlape@integral-corp.com Mr. James Lape has more than 25 years of experience in the health risk assessment and environmental science fields. His expertise in human health risk assessment includes fate and transport modeling, exposure assessment, risk characterization, and uncertainty analysis. Mr. Lape has served as an expert in several cases involving emissions, dispersion and deposition of air toxics. He serves as the technical lead in negotiations with regulatory agencies on behalf of clients and provides risk communication to scientific and layperson audiences. During his career, he has worked in the areas of risk assessment, environmental modeling, litigation support, environmental health and safety, and product stewardship. CREDENTIALS AND PROFESSIONAL HONORS M .S., Air Pollution Meteorology, minor in Computer Science, North Carolina State University, 1987 B.S., Physics, with honors, minor in Mathematics, Ohio University, 1983 REL EV ANT EXPERIENCE Superfund Risk Assessment, United States-Principal investigator for numerous baseline risk assessments conducted for Superfund or other hazardous waste sites . Tasks involved all aspects of the risk assessment process including selection of sampling media and locations, quantitative prediction of fate and transport of chemicals of concern, and formal presentation of results to state and federal agencies and interested private citizens. Litigation Support for DOE Rocky Flats Facility, Colorado-Project manager and principal atmospheric scientist for Dow and Rockwell International in defense of class action suit stemming from operations at the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado. Activities included evaluation of historical effluent and ambient monitoring programs for radionuclides and hazardous air pollutants to characterize emission sources . Conducted emissions and dispersion modeling of process emissions under routine and upset conditions, and dust emissions generated from handling and storage of radionuclides in process waste streams . Estimated exposure concentrations for on-site workers and nearby residents for relevant exposure periods based on modeling historical emission scenarios. Developed and presented strategy and position papers for exposure portion of dose reconstruction used in James Lape defense. Assisted in preparation of expert witnesses, all phases of fact and expert depositions, and review of expert reports. Page 2 Modeling to Support Litigation Involving Exposures to Biosolids, Ohio-Conducted emissions and dispersion modeling to develop exposure point concentrations used to assess the applicability of medical monitoring as part of a toxic tort case . Used information on application of municipal biosolids to several agricultural fields to develop spatial and temporal emissions estimates. Developed the meteorological database needed to support modeling based on information from several distant observation stations. Conducted air dispersion modeling in complex terrain to determine acute air concentrations at relevant plaintiff locations based on spatial and temporal emissions estimates. Air concentrations were used as part of an odor analysis and in chemical and microbiological risk assessments. Modeling to Support EIS for Proposed Uranium Enrichment Facility, Louisiana-Conducted emissions and dispersion modeling to support an EIS for proposed uranium enrichment plant in Louisiana. Tasks included developing applicable meteorological database from three distant meteorological observation sites and coding, debugging, and validating a hybrid version of DOE' s XOQDOQ air model, which was used to predict air concentrations and deposition rates for chemical and radionuclide releases . Conducted modeling and analysis to support a safety and analysis report regarding consequences from upset and catastrophic releases. Developed long-term monitoring program, including specification of required instrumentation and QA/QC procedures, for collecting and archiving meteorological data at the site. Litigation Support for Toxic Tort Case, Iowa-Provided litigation support for defendants in a worker claim arising out of air release from a storage tank of sodium bisulphite . Tasks included modeling of potential emissions and resulting air concentrations for alleged worker exposure scenario. Also provided support for discovery and deposition activities. Litigation Support for Cost Recovery Case, Montana-Provided technical support to expert representing W.R. Grace in litigation with EPA regarding cost recovery for cleanup at the Libby, Montana, Superfund site. Specific roles included performing detailed review of asbestos removal activities conducted by EPA for the purpose of evaluating reasonableness for protection of human health. Focus of effort was an exposure assessment, including fate and transport analysis, to determine the potential for human exposure had remediated material been left in place. Expert Report and Litigation Support for Contract Suit, Louisiana-Provided expert opinion and litigation support on the personal protective equipment (PPE) for onsite workers during emergency response to spill at bulk liquid storage terminal. Evaluated hazards and exposure routes to cleanup workers for products identified in discharge resulting from flooding caused by hurricane. Reviewed Health and Safety Plan to determine PPE requirements for various cleanup activities conducted at site . Reviewed air monitoring data collected during cleanup operations to determine temporal and spatial aspects of conditions requiring respiratory protection for onsite cleanup workers. 04116 fames Lape Page3 Expert Report and Deposition for Superfund Site, Utah-Provided expert report and litigation support for the U.S. Department of Justice and EPA at Superfund site. Subjects for testimony included emissions modeling of fugitive dusts, air dispersion modeling in complex terrain, particle deposition modeling, and ambient air monitoring. Provided estimates of air and soil concentrations for use in human health risk assessment. Product Safety-Conducted risk evaluations of product safety to address liability concerns and labeling requirements. Tasks included identifying chemicals of potential concern, design and analysis of laboratory testing for product emissions, emissions and fate modeling, estimations of dose, risk characterization and communication, and strategic planning with manufacturing representatives . Products evaluated have included medical devices and water treatment products. Regulatory Review-Provided technical review and comment on proposed regulations and guidance . Work included technical reviews and written comments on the EPA Region 6 Multi-pathway Risk Guidance, EPA' s Mercury Study Report to Congress, the Hazardous Waste Combustor MACT Standards, and EPA's reports on exposures to dioxin-like compounds. Ambient Monitoring, United States-Designed and/or evaluated numerous air monitoring programs for indoor and outdoor environments. Targets of monitoring programs included fugitive dusts, radionuclides, and hazardous air pollutants. PUBLICATIONS Reiss, R., E.L. Anderson, and J.F. Lape. 2003. A framework and case study for exposure assessment in the voluntary children's chemical evaluation program. Risk Anal. 23(5):1069-1084 . Lape, J.F . 1994. Air dispersion and deposition modeling. pp. 226-240 . In: Toxic air pollution handbook. D.R. Patrick (ed). Van Nostrand Reinhold, NY. PRESENTATIONS/POSTERS Chrostowski, P.C., S.A . Foster, and J.F. Lape . 1999 . Integrated multipathway exposure model for volatile organic compounds. Presented at Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA. December 7, 1999. Chrostowski, P .C., S.A. Foster, and J.F. Lape. 1997. The impact of EPA's dioxin reassessment on waste-to-energy risk assessment. Proceedings of the 90th Annual Meeting and Exhibition of Air and Waste Management Association, June 8-13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Foster, S.A., P .C. Chrostowski, D.C. Smegal, J.F. Lape., and D. Preziosi. 1997. Stochastic odor impact analysis for a hazardous waste landfill. Proceedings of the 90th Annual Meeting and Exhibition of Air and Waste Management Association, June 8-13, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 04116 James Lape Page4 Chrostowski, P.C., S.A. Foster, and J.F. Lape. 1994. Screening health risk assessment of flammable materials fires . Paper presented at 1994 International Incineration Conference, Houston, TX. 04 116 Barbara A. Trenary, CIH Associate of Integral Certified Industrial Hygienist PROFESSIONAL PROFILE Integral Consulting Inc . 719 2nd A venue Suite 700 Seattle, WA 98104 telephone : 206 .230 .9600 facsimile : 206.230 .9601 btrenary@integral-corp .com Ms . Barbara Trenary is a Certified Industrial Hygienist with 37 years of experience in the fields of comprehensive industrial hygiene, hazardous materials, indoor air quality, ambient and indoor air monitoring, environmental and structural remediation, training, and program development and evaluation. She has created and managed health and safety policies and procedures at four Fortune 400 companies and at numerous project sites . Ms . Trenary's technical experience includes comprehensive industrial hygiene assessments of individual and community exposure, microbial growth, asbestos, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), fire odors and residues, accidental releases, methamphetamine contamination, sewer backups, tear gas residues, heavy metals, contamination of shipments, and tobacco smoke residues . CREDENTIALS AND PROFESSIONAL HONORS B.S., Industrial Hygiene/Chemistry (with honors), Colorado State University, Env . Sci ., 1979 CONTINUING EDUCATION AND TRAINING Certificate: Management, Business Skills for Software Professionals, University of Washington, 1999 Certificate: Finance for Non-Financial Managers, University of Washington, 1999 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS American Industrial Hygiene Association American Board of Industrial Hygiene Indoor Air Quality Association RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Ambient and Indoor Air Quality Asses sments, Nationwide-Performed more than 2,100 indoor air quality and contamination assessments for commercial, industrial, multi-family, developer, and residential parties. Worked with building envelope engineers and architects to investigate cause and origin of building contamination, and design and ~~!~~~~-_!!enary __________________________________ ·-·····--·-·------.. ____ Pag!._3 _ implement sampling and verification strategies. Prepared remediation protocol for mold, fire residues, asbestos contamination, and other contaminants. Subject Matter Expert, Ross In Situ Recovery Project, Crook County, Wyoming-Served as subject matter expert for air quality, noise, and public and occupational health in authorship of the environmental impact statement for the Ross In Situ Recovery Project for in situ uranium recovery. Work completed for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2014. Radioactive Waste Remediation, Denver Radium (Shattuck Chemical), Denver, Colorado-Served as project manager and health and safety manager for the Denver Radium remedial construction site. Took over management and execution of a $5 million lump sum radioactive waste soil solidification/stabilization of project at a mid-city Superfund site. Managed dust control within tight allowances, ensured regulatory compliance, performed air monitoring, and taught construction safety. Demolition of Radioactively Contaminated Structure, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Islip, New York-Project oversight for decontamination and demolition of 1.8-million-pound internally contaminated ventilation ducts at a Brookhaven National Laboratory research reactor. Assigned to turn around project from significant loss to a profitable position. Course-adjusted work approach under numerous changed conditions and managed recovery through mediation. Risk Assessment, Shell Oil Company, Denver, Colorado-Performed alternate human health risk assessment under several exposure scenarios at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City, Colorado. Various chemical agents (sarin, VX, mustard), solvents, metals, and pesticides were evaluated. Coauthored paper accepted for publication in the Journal of Risk Analysis. Exposure Assessment Strategies, Dade Moeller, Richland, Washington-Coordinated multiple stakeholder inputs and authored the comprehensive exposure assessment strategy for tank farm vapor exposures at Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Soil Remediation, Burlington Northern Railroad, Salt Lake City, Utah-Health and safety manager for large release at a large aboveground storage tank farm. Activities included characterization, and design and installation of a trench system to collect fuel oil. Soils at the site included imported uranium mill tailings fill; low levels of radioactivity were detected at numerous investigatory borings around the 200-acre site. The rail yard remained in full operation during the remediation. Human Health Risk Assessment, Dow Chemical, Freeport, Texas-Risk assessor for human health risk assessment at a site with buried drums and percent organic soil contamination. Modeled soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment contamination. Activities included research of toxicity values, exposure assessment for multipathway analysis of industrial and residential receptors, risk characterization, and uncertainty analysis. 08116 Barbara Trenary Page3 Reklaim Carbon Black Plant Health and Safety Support, Boardman, Oregon-Reviewed plant operations for health and safety best management practices. Collected three annual carbon black sampling rounds for compliance with the consent order. Authored three safety data sheets for company products. Expert Witness, Nationwide-Provided litigation support and acted as consulting and/or testifying expert for more than 60 lawsuits or legal disputes involving construction defects, "toxic torts" (e.g ., mold, heavy metals, voes, asbestos, lead, carbon monoxide, fibrous glass, pesticides, particles), or water/sewerage intrusion that resulted in property damage or alleged health effects. Health and Safety Program Development, Morrison Knudson (now URS), Hewlett Packard, Fluor Daniel and Dow Environmental, Boise, Idaho-Established company-wide health and safety programs, policies, and procedures at four Fortune 400 companies in disparate fields. Trained middle managers and site health and safety personnel in implementation. Audited programs for relevance, currency, and compliance . Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Instruction, Morrison Knudson (now URS), FMC, Fluor Daniel, Dow and companies too numerous to mention, Boise, Idaho-Created course materials, reference library, personal protective equipment (PPE) bank and hands-on exercises in response to 24-and 40-hour HAZWOPER requirements. Taught more than 1,000 students in HAZWOPER and annual refreshers . Health and Safety Plans (HASPs), Nationwide-Authored numerous project HASPs, ranging from clean construction to remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater. Remediation Health and Safety, More Than 90 Projects Nationwide-Provided health and safety support for 20 years for hazardous waste remediation projects encompassing remedial investigations and feasibility studies, removal actions, facility demolition and destruction, underground tank removal, bioremediation, groundwater contamination, equipment decontamination, and clearing and grubbing. Contaminants included lead and other heavy metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), pesticides, asbestos waste, poison gases, organic solvents, explosives, and chemical and biological agents. Groundwater Remediation, Lockheed Martin, Burbank, California-Health and safety manager for the construction and operation of a 9,000-gpm groundwater treatment plant, and the 2-mile, seven-wellhead underground pipeline installed to supply groundwater to the plant. Investigated cause of carbon bed fire (6 months into operations) and oversaw confined space entry requirements for its repair. RCRA Evaluation and Corrective Actions, Liquid Air Products, Tacoma, Washington-Project manager for gas manufacturer. Project work included various RCRA compliance issues, water discharge quality to publicly owned treatment works and storm sewers, feasibility analysis for handling waste streams designated as "Dangerous Wastes" in Washington, PCB evaluation and cleanup of concrete surface and PVC drain contamination, and soil remediation. Extensive negotiation of cleanup levels. 08116 CRAIG A. LITTLE 896 Overview Rd. Grand Junction, Colorado 81506 970-260-2810 (cell) 309-214-2569 ( efax) twolines@bresnan.net Dr. Little has been professionally involved in radiation health physics, chemical site assessment, risk assessment and remedial action for over 35 years. He has had considerable experience in assessing environmental contamination and potential human health risk from facilities such as uranium mills. Since 2006, Dr. Little has been Principal of Two Lines, Inc. which specializes in environmental radiation protection services and health risk assessments. Two Lines performs risk assessments and dose calculations for a wide variety of clients, many or which are involved in uranium recovery operations. He has contributed to publication of technical basis documents for development of historical dose reconstructions for the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Act for the National Institute of Occupational Safety.and Health. In 2010, Dr. Little led a team that developed and performed a 4-wk training course for staff of the Texas Commission on Environmental Qualtiy and regulated uranium industry staff. In 2012, Dr. Little led a mult- disciplinary team that advised the Virginia Department of Health and developed a regulatory framework for uranium mining and mlling in the state. Dr. Little was head of the Environmental Technology Section (ETS) of Oak Ridge National Laboratory for 18 years, managing as many as 65 staff. ETS staff completed radiation surveys on over 12,000 public and private properties nationwide under the Department of Energy's Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project. In addition, staff of the section evaluated and summarized the efficiency of numerous novel remediation technologies for radiological and chemical contamination at over a dozen Department of Defense and Department of Energy sites. As Manager of Western Operations of the Advanced Infrastructure Management Technologies organization, Dr. Little was responsible for performance of approximately 25 project managers and technical staff located in Sacramento, CA and Grand Junction, CO. Dr. Little served as an adjunct professor in the Department of Radiological Health Sciences of Colorado State University from 1988 until 1995. He is Editor-in-Chief of Operational Radiation Safety, an Associate Editor of Health Physics, and served a member of the Board of Directors of the Health Physics Society (HPS). He has authored and co-authored over 70 publications on environmental health and safety, environmental transport modeling and risk assessment and has taught short courses on environmental radiation and radiation biology. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2014 -pres. Serves as Federal Agency Liaison for the Health Physics Society. Maintains contact with and visits staff members ofNRC, EPA, DOE, and other agency that enact and enforce radiation protection regulations. 2006 -Pres Two Lines, Inc. Conduct radiation risk assessments, dose calculations, historical dose reconstructions, and radiation safety audits for a variety of clients. Teach technical training courses for radiation safety professionals. 2002 -2006 Sr. Scientist, MFG, Inc. Conduct radiation risk assessments, dose calculations and field assessments of radioactivity for a variety of clients nationwide. Write project proposals, develop work plans and cost estimates, produce site investigation reports, and write monthly reports. Manage projects. Serve at leader of the Natural Resources and Environmental Assessment Group. 2000 -2001 Manager, Western Operations, Advanced Infrastructure Management Technologies, a division of the Department of Energy 's Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge , Tennessee. Responsible for twenty-five project managers in offices in Grand Junction, Colorado; Sacramento, California; and Lancaster, California. Projects included a variety of site assessment, risk analysis, and infrastructure improvements at numerous federal facilities nationwide. Projects were funded by Dept. of Energy, Dept. of Defense, Env ironmental Protection Agency, and others . I 983 -2000 Leader, Environmental Technology Section (ETS), Life Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory located in Grand Junction. Originally established the group to support USDOE Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project (UMTRAP). Staff developed and applied innovative technologies and methodologies to remedy chemical and radiological pollution at numerous locations nationwide. Projects were funded by Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Energy, and other agencies . I 987 -1998 Adjunct Professor, Department of Radiological Health Sciences, Colorado State University. Served on graduate research committees . Fall 1979 Guest scientist, Federal Health Office, Munich, Federal Republic of Germany. Assisted in planning and implementing a monitoring system for actinides released from nuclear power plants in the Federal Republic . 1976 -1982 Research Staff, Health and Safety Research Division, ORNL. Developed and applied computer codes to predict transport of nuclear and non-nuclear pollutants through the environment and subsequent impacts on ecosystems and human systems . Conducted research to assess the accuracy of environmental transport models. Fall 1976 Environmental Research Assistant, Department of Radiology and Radiation Biology, Colorado State University. Collected environmental samples of plutonium for analysis ; analyzed, reduced and summarized subsequent data for publication. 1976 1971 1970 1996 1993 1990 1989 1987 1986 1980 EDUCATION AND TRAINING Ph.D ., Radioecology. Department of Radiology and Radiation Biology, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO. Dissertation title: Plutonium in a Grassland Ecosystem . M.S ., Radiation Biology/Health Physics . Department of Radiology and Radiation Biology, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins , CO. B . A ., Biology. McPherson College, McPherson, KS . Leading Out Loud . TPG/Learning Systems. Knoxville, Tennessee . The Effective Executive. American Management Association, New York, NY Strategic Planning. American Management Association, New York, NY. Senior Project Management. American Management Association, New Your, NY. Cost and Schedule Control Systems Criteria (C/SCSC). Humphreys and Associates, Santa Clara, CA. Included project planning, work breakdown structures , and control systems . The Management Course . American Management Association, New York, NY. Four week course covering all aspects of management including financial analysis of businesses , human resource management, and business simulation . Modeling of Groundwater Flow. Holcomb Research Institute, Butler University, Indianapolis, IN. Two week course on computer models of groundwater flow . SELECTED PROJECTS Potential Impacts from Proposed Uranium Recovery Facilities • Energy Fuels Resources Inc. 2013. Modeled potential doses to members of the public for the proposed Sheep Mountain uranium recovery project, Wyoming. • Virginia Department of Health. 2012 . Assembled and managed a team to develop recommendations for necessary regulations should the Commonwealth of Virginia permit mining and milling of uranium . • AUC LLC. 2012. Modeled potential dose to members of the public for the proposed Reno Creek in situ recovery facility, Wyoming • Titan Uranium. 2011. Conducted public dose modeling of proposed heap leach uranium recovery facility . Application to US Nuclear Regulatory Commission pending. • Energy Fuels Resources, Inc. 20 l 0. Modeled potential dose to members of the public for the proposed Pinon Ridge Uranium Milling Facility, Paradox CO. Energy Fuels Resources was awarded a license for the first commercial uranium milling facility in 30 yrs . • UR Energy, Inc. 20 l 0 . Developed public dose estimates to support application for Nuclear Regulator Commission license for Lost Creek In Situ Uranium Recovery Facility, Wyoming Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessment. • Iron Mountain. 2013. Consulted regarding potential methods to reduce radon gas concentrations in underground document repository near Pittsburgh, PA . • Sequoyah Fuels Corporation. 2007. Performed a human health risk assessment of uranium and heavy metal-bearing materials leaching from a former uranium concentration facility . • Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS). 2005 . Conducted a review of potential radiation doses and dose limits to terrestrial biota resident on the site. Compared existing dose limits in use at the site with approaches published for other facilities. Environmental Radiation Surveys • U.S. Forest Service. 20 l 0. Conducted radiological characterization and verification surveys at abandoned uranium mines on US Forest Service land in North Cave Hills area of South Dakota. • Cotter Corp. 2009. Developed 3-dimensional estimate of potential contamination using surface gamma scanning and bore hole sampling to support revision of financial surety bond. Training Courses Developed and Conducted • Waste Control Specialists . 2011. With two others, developed and delivered 80-hr radiological protection course to satisfy specific requirements of State of Texas for Waste Control Specialists low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. • Texas Commission for Environmental Quality. 2011. With two others, developed and delivered 160-hr specialized radiological protection course to satisfy requirements of State of Texas for Radiation Safety Officers of uranium recovery facilities. • Uranium recovery facilities . Annually. Team-teach Radiation Safety Officer courses for uranium workers for a variety of facilities in western US. Most recent course in Fort Collins, CO, March 17 -21, 2014. Dose Modeling and Dose Reconstruction • Paul Hastings, LLP. 20I2-20I3. As a member of the Risk Assessment Corp ., team, helped provide technical litigation support to defend a lawsuit professing that a now-defunct uranium production facility had resulted in cancer to a group of former residents. Case was thrown out of federal court. • Cotter Corp. Annually. Develop estimates of potential public dose from uranium mill operations for Canon City Milling Facility. • Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Act Dose Reconstruction Project/Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), Cincinnati, Ohio. 2006 -2009. Research, review and document technical bases for worker radiation exposure at former weapons manufacturing facilities. • Water Remediation Technology, Arvada, Colorado. 2005 . Developed spreadsheet-based dose estimation software to calculate radiation exposure and dose to municipal employees from radium- bearing materials in water treatment tanks . Audits of Radiation Protection Programs • Cameco Resources. 2014. Conducted ALARA and corporate compliance audit of Crow Butte uranium production facility . • Uranium Energy Corp. 20I l. ALARA audit of Hobson and Palangana in situ recovery projects. • Molycorp Minerals LLC. 20 I I. Performed audit of radiation safety program for Mountain Pass rare earth mine, Mountain Pass , California. • Sandia National Laboratories. Member of20IO-20I I advisory committee for Global Threat Reduction Initiative at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM. • Los Alamos National Laboratory . 2009 . Conducted audit ofRad-NESHAPS program at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos , NM. • Bureau of Land Management. 20 I 0. Served as advisor to third party oversight contractor for cleanup of abandoned uranium mines in Utah. • Exxon/Mobil. Conducted ALARA audits of 2005 -2009 radiation safety programs for the Highlands, Wyoming and Felder, Texas uranium recovery facilities. 20I4-pres. 2013 -pres. 20I2-pres . 20I3 -20I4 2005 -pres. 2003 -20IO I999-20I2 2000-2003 1998-2001 OTHER ACTIVITIES Federal Agency Liaison for Health Physics Society Government Relations Program . Member, Radiation Advisory Committee of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Member, Board of Directors of Riverview Technology Corp. President of Environmental/Radon Section of the Health Physics Society . Editor-in-Chief, Operational Radiation Safety a quarterly supplement to Health Physics, the radiation protection journal published by Lippincott Williams and Wilkins for the Health Physics Society. Member, Board of Directors, Marillac Clinic . Provides low-cost medical, dental and vision care to uninsured , low-income patients. Previously served as board president in earlier term. Member, Board of Trustees, McPherson College, McPherson, Kansas Member, Board of Directors, Health Physics Society Member, Board of Directors, Joint Utilization Commission and Riverview Technology 1991 -pres. 1996 -2001 1997 -1999 1996-1999 1995 -1999 1994-1996 1991 -1996 1990-1996 1989 -1995 1987 -1990 1988 -1991 1987 -1991 1986-1987 Corp.; groups founded to negotiate and receive the DOE/Grand Junction property into private, non-for-profit ownership . Associate Editor, Health Physics journal. Member, Victim-Witness/Law Enforcement Board, Mesa County District Court. Provide court-raised funds to victim advocacy/services organizations. Member, Environmental Pathways Modeling Working Group of Health Physics Standards Committee Member, Program Committee, Health Physics Society. Member, Program Advisory Board of Foster Grandparents, Inc . Served as Chair. Member, Board of Directors, Environmental Radiation Section, Health Physics Society . Member, Board of Directors, Public Radio of Colorado, Inc., operator of Colorado Public Radio network. Member, Nominating Committee, Health Physics Society. Chair, 1994-1996. Member, Board of Directors, Mesa County United Way. President, 1993-1994. Chair, Public Information Committee, Environmental Radiation Section, Health Physics Society. Member, Board of Directors, Chemrad Tennessee, Inc., manufacturer of ultrasonic-based system for transmitting environmental data to computers in the field. Chairman, Board of Directors, Western Colorado Public Radio, Inc., operator of public radio station KPRN. Development and Planning chairman. Member, Mesa County (CO) Task Force to Evaluate the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program . Edited final report of task force . EDUCATION: BS, Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, 1982 REGISTRATIONS: PE: CO (25753) YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: Dewberry: 20 Prior: 13 AFFILIATIONS: American Water Works Association Water Environment Federation ACEC Colorado Tau Beta Pi Chi Epsilon PRESENTATIONS & PUBLICATIONS: "Treatment Trio", Civil Engineering, January 2016. "First In Nation Technology Taps Renewable Water Supply in Parker", Rumbles , January 2016 . "Closer to Sustainable -Reuse and Energy Efficiency of Rueter Hess Reservoir and WTP". presented at the AWWA 2014 Sustainable Water Management Conference, Denver, CO, March 2014 "Rueter-Hess Reservoir and WTP Promote Water Conservation and Reuse", Rumbles, July 2013 "Treatment of Reclaimed Water For Drinking Water Supply Using Powdered Activated Carbon and Ceramic Membrane Filters", presented at the South Carolina Environmental Conference, Myrtle Beach, SC, March 2013 I Dewberry· Michael P. Lutz PE Principal Engineer Mike's varied career has focused on water and wastewater facilities and includes planning, pilot studies, design, and construction engineering services . Mike has a proven track record of out of the box thinking and analysis which has enabled him to design unique treatment processes to handle unusual treatment issues. He led the evaluation and design of the first ceramic membrane drinking water system in the U.S. He designed one of the first few ballasted sedimentation processes in the U.S. Mike has designed unique multi-stage odor control systems for severe odor sources. He designed one of the first systems to heat and cool buildings using wastewater as the heat source and heat sink. Mike served on committees which revised the Colorado Design Criteria For Wastewater Facilities adopted in 2002 and 2012. Mike served as the primary author of the Solids Treatment section of the Design Criteria developed in 2012. Mike's project designs have been awarded two Engineering Excellence Awards and a Grand Conceptor Award from the American Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC) and the 2016 Grand Prize for Environmental Sustainability from the American Academy of Environmental Engineers & Scientists (AAEES) for design of the Rueter-Hess Water Purification Facility. WATER Rueter-Hess Water Purification Facility, Parke.r Water & Sanitation District, CO . Planning and design for a new 10 mgd (expandable to 40 mgd) drinking water treatment facility to treat water reclaimed from the new 70,000 acre-foot Rueter-Hess Reservoir. Conducted pilot tests ofMIEX magnetic ion exchange process and Actiflo-Carb (PAC contactor) for DOC reduction. Conducted bench scale tests ofTi02 catalyzed UV oxidation of DOC. Conducted pilot tests of NGK ceramic membrane filters and immersed polymeric membrane filters. Obtained regulatory approval of NGK ceramic membrane filter technology in Colorado, granted by CDPHE in October 2007. Conducted pilot tests of dissolved air flotation pretreatment. Tested enhanced coagulation using alum, PACI , ACH, and FeCl3 and oxidation by chlorine dioxide. Tested DBP formation potential of raw and pilot treated water. Evaluated potential impacts and treatment requirements for unregulated organic contaminants in reclaimed water. The highly innovative treatment facility is the first of its kind in the nation, and is designed to address high source water organic levels and emerging contaminants. Hydraulic Capacity and Performance Evaluation, Blake Water Treatment Plant, Centennial Water and Sanitation District, CO. Evaluated historical data and operating trends to determine when treatment process loading parameters approach or exceed critical capacity limits. Evaluated impacts of algae in the raw water supply on WTP capacity and alternatives to increase capacity by removing algae more effectively upstream of the filters. Developed a hydraulic profile Michael P. Lutz, PE I Resume I 1 Michael P. Lutz PE Principal Engineer "Treatment of Reclaimed Water For Drinking Water Supply Using Powdered Activated Carbon and Ceramic Membrane Filters", presented at the 92nd AWNA-WEA Annual Conference, Raleigh, NC, November 2012 "Treatment of Reclaimed Water Using Recirculating PAC and Ceramic Membrane Filters at the Rueter-Hess Water Treatment Plant", presented at the WateReuse Conference, Miami, FL , November 2011 "Treatment of Reclaimed Water Using Ceramic Membrane Filters and Recirculating PAC at the Rueter-Hess WTP", presented at the AWNA Membrane Technology Conference and Exhibition, Memphis, TN, March 2009 "Odor Control Fundamentals ", presentation at the annual Leadville Operator's School , Rocky Mountain Water Environment Association, Leadville, CO, August 2006 "Impact of Water Treatment Plant Residuals on Fixed Film Wastewater Treatment", presented at the 77th Annual Water Environment Federation Conference, New Orleans , LA, October 2004 "Optimizing the Trickling Filter Solids Contact Process for Nitrification", presented at the RMWEA I RMSAWNA Joint Annual Conference, Grand Junction, CO, September 2004 "Nitrification in Aerated Lagoons Coupled with Denitrification in Subsurface Flow Wetlands'', presented at the Montana Water Environment Association Annual Conference, Butte, MT, April 2001 "Nitrification and Denitrification in Aerated Lagoons Coupled with Artificial Wetlands ", presented at the 73rd Annual Water Environment Federation Conference, Anaheim, CA, October 2000 "Pulling Double Duty , A Colorado Plant's Trickling Filters Treat Odors while Reducing Wastewater Nitrogen Content", Operations Forum, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria , VA, July 1999 through the existing facility to determine the hydraulic capacity of each hydraulic element and identify physical structures which limit capacity and where modifications might be needed to achieve the full rated capacity of the WfP. Evaluated expansion of the existing coagulation-sedimentation process and additional filters. Evaluated replacement of existing tube settlers with new inclined plate settlers in the sedimentation basins. Evaluated a new ActifloCarb process parallel to the existing sedimentation basins to increase hydraulic capacity and reduce PAC consumption in the existing process. Evaluated replacing existing sand and anthracite media with new engineered ceramic media to improve filtration performance, efficiency, and dampen the effects of variations in raw water quality. Marcy Gulch WWTP Effluent Reuse Treatment Alternatives Evaluation, Centennial Water and Sanitation District, CO. Project Manager for an evaluation of the potential to augment the drinking water supply through the development of a side-stream treatment process to reclaim 300 to 500 acre-feet per year which is discharged into Marcy Gulch. The side-stream treatment process effluent would be blended with other raw water sources and the blended water would be treated at the Blake WfP to produce drinking water. Evaluated side-stream treatment alternatives to produce reclaimed water that would be chemically and biologically safe for the intended use, while meeting regulatory requirements. Evaluated the capacity and performance capabilities of each treatment process in the existing 40-mgd J.B. Blake Water Treatment Plant (Blake WfP). Evaluated long term trends on algae concentrations in the raw water sources and the observed capacity reduction of the existing sedimentation and filtration processes caused by seasonal high algae concentrations in the raw water. Developed a new hydraulic profile model of the Blake WfP to verify that the observed seasonal capacity reductions were not caused by hydraulic constraints in the existing facility. Evaluated effluent treatment technologies capable of removing a broad array of regulated organic chemicals and unregulated emerging contaminants . The effluent treatment alternatives evaluated included inclined plate settlers, dissolved air flotation, Actiflo ballasted sedimentation, filters with engineered ceramic media, the ActifloCarb process, GAC filters, biofiltration, ion exchange systems, advanced oxidation systems, and reverse osmosis. Also evaluated the combined capabilities of the wastewater, reclaimed water, and drinking water treatment systems to achieve water quality goals. Developed capital and life cycle cost estimates for the treatment alternatives. Emergency Chlorine Scrubber, Blake Water Treatment Plant, Centennial Water and Sanitation District, CO. Designed a new emergency chlorine gas scrubbing system to contain and neutralize a potential chlorine gas leak from a 1- ton storage cylinder at the 40 mgd Blake WTP. Evaluated existing chlorine storage room for compliance with current standards, codes, and CDPHE design M i chael P. L utz, PE Resume 2 Michael P. Lutz PE Principal Engineer "Concurrent Nitrification and Biological Odor Control'', proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 68th Annual Conference & Exposition , Miami , FL , October 1995 "Making Less Scents with Good Reason", Water Environment and Technology , Water Environment Federation, Alexandria, VA, June 1995 "Effect of Operating Variables on Nitrification Rates in Trickling Filters", proceedings of the Water Environment Federation 67th Annual Conference & Exposition, Chicago, IL, October 1994 "Control of Odor Emissions at the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant", proceedings of the Control of Odors and VOC Emissions Conference, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria , VA, April 1994 "Separate Stage Nitrifying Trickling Filters in Cold Climates", presented at the Water Environment Association of Ontario annual conference, Winsor, Canada , April, 1994 "Liquid Chemical Disinfection : A Cost- Effective Alternative to Toxic Gases", proceedings of the Control of Odors and VOC Emissions Conference, Water Environment Federation, Whippany, NJ , May 1993 "High Rate Nitrifying Trickling Filters, Water Science and Technology", Vol. 29, Number 10-11 , presented at the Second International Specialized Conference on Biofilm Reactors, Paris, France, October 1993 "New Trickling Filter Applications in the U.S .A.", Water Science and Technology, 1990 "Full Scale Performance of Nitrifying Trickling Filters", presented at the 63rd Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Association, Washington, D .C., October 1990 "Evaluation of a Municipal Laboratory's Computer Needs", Water Environment and Technology, Water Environment Federation , Alexandria, VA, February 1990 "Enhancing Reaction Rates in Nitrifying Trickling Filters Through Biofilm Control", Journal of the Water f::j Dewberry· guidelines. Designed modifications of existing facilities, exhaust fans, ductwork, and modifications to existing ventilation system. Developed engineered drawings, specifications, and contract documents, provided bid phase assistance, and construction engineering support. Disinfection Process Evaluation, Blake Water Treatment Plant, Centennial Water and Sanitation District, CO. Evaluated chlorine contact time for the 40 mgd WfP using baffling factors of 0 .1 and 0.3 in the existing clear well. Developed disinfection profiles and graphs for Giardia and viruses. Calculated disinfection benchmarks for Giardia and viruses based on operating data for an 8-year period. Evaluated disinfection credits through the Wf P to verify compliance with disinfection concentration-time (CT) requirements at peak flows . Filter Underdrain Failure Evaluation, Lone Tree Creek Water Reuse Facility, CO . Evaluated a structural failure of a Triton filter media underdrain system consisting of hemispherical perforated PVC drain installed on the filter floor. The underdrains in Filter Basin 2A had deflected upward and were bent vertically up to 3 inches above the filter floor between the hold down anchors. Deformation of the underdrains compressed the width of drain slot in concave areas and expanded the slot width in convex areas. The varying slot width along the length of the underdrains changed the flow and air backwash distribution over the filter surface area. Calculated the potential underdrain deflection using the beam equation for a uniform load due to excessive internal pressurization of the underdrains. Determined that excessive internal pressurization of the underdrains during filter backwashing caused uplift of edges of the underdrain flat bottom plate which allowed filter media to migrate under the underdrains and cause progressive uplift of the underdrains. Bealeton Regional Water Supply Plan, Fauquier County Water &Sanitation, VA. Following an earthquake in August 2011, the primary well (Well B3) which supplied groundwater for the Bealeton Regional water system exhibited elevated numbers of total coliform and E.coli bacteria. The earthquake created new fractures in the sandstone and siltstone bedrock and new direct paths for surface water flow into the well, resulting in bacterial contamination of the groundwater at this site. In addition, other wells in the Bealeton system were also highly susceptible to contamination from surface sources. To address these issues, we developed a Water Supply Plan to evaluate public health issues, source water quality and availability, future water demands, contamination potential, and treatment alternatives to remove microorganisms, arsenic, TDS, radium and nitrate. Evaluated treatment alternatives including microfiltration, chemical oxidation, enhanced coagulation, ion exchange, activated alumina adsorption, reverse osmosis, and electrodialysis reversal. Evaluated hydraulic capacities of well pumps and pipelines. Developed a site plan for a centralized groundwater treatment system and capital, O&M, and life cycle cost estimates, and an Mi c hael P. Lutz, PE I Resume I 3 Pollution Control Federation, Washington, D.C., May 1989 Dewberry· implementation plan for improvements. We recommended construction of a 1.0 MGD central water treatment facility with microfiltration to eliminate bacterial contamination and ferric chloride addition for arsenic removal. Reverse osmosis was recommended as a potential future upgrade if needed to remove dissolved contaminants and radionuclides . Bealeton Regional Microfiltration Facility, Fauquier County Water &Sanitation, VA. Designed a new i.o MGD microfiltration facility to eliminate bacterial contamination of groundwater under the direct influence of surface water. Designed ferric chloride metering system and in-line rapid mixing to remove arsenic. The facility includes two 0.5 MGD skid mounted microfilter units. Designed a new wet well and pump station to convey filtered water to an elevated storage tank. Designed precast concrete building to house the microfiltration units, chemical storage and metering equipment, and laboratory and office space. The filter building was sized for two future microfilter units to provide up to 2 .0 MGD total capacity and for one future reverse osmosis unit to remove dissolved solids and radioniclides. Water Treatment Plant Master Plan, City of Thornton, CO. Evaluated condition and upgrade of an existing 20 mgd water treatment facility and expansion to 35 mgd. Many structures were over 50 years old and most of the chemical equipment, electrical system, and HVAC equipment were obsolete. Identified deficiencies of existing equipment and facilities and modifications needed for reliable operation, improved efficiency, minimum operating costs, and compliance with building codes and future regulations. Evaluated raw water sources including impacts of metals (cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc) draining from historic mining sites, urban storm water runoff, nutrient loads from upstream wastewater treatment facilities, bacteria, and organic sediment. Evaluated Standley Lake reservoir water quality including contamination sources in the watershed, radionuclidesfrom the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons site, seasonal algae blooms, dissolved iron and manganese, turbidity, TDS, DOC and taste and odor in the drinking water. Evaluated new treatment alternatives including MIEX, ozone with biologically active GAC filters, advanced oxidation processes (AOP), ballasted sedimentation, PAC, membrane filtration, emergency chlorine gas scrubber, conversion to hypochlorite, UV disinfection, and new micro-hydropower generators. Prepared cost estimates for alternatives and developed CIP plan to upgrade facility to meet stricter future regulations. Water Treatment Plant Improvements, City of Longmont, CO. Evaluated performance of water treatment facilities at 3 water treatment plants with capacities of 10 mgd, 15 mgd, and 25 mgd. Analyzed microscopic particulate data, Cryptosporidium and Giardia, manganese, aluminum, total and assimilable organic carbon, and trihalomethane precursors. Evaluated regulatory trends concerning backwash water recycling and researched the effects of recycling settled backwash water on finished potable water quality. Evaluated treatment alternatives to minimize impact of recycling settled backwash water to the Michael P. Lutz, PE I Resume I 4 Michael P. Lutz PE Principal Engineer ff Dewberry· treatment system, including constructed wetlands, drying beds, infiltration galleries, package filtration systems, and automatic backwashing filter screens. Summit Ridge District Cost of Service Evaluation, Montezuma Water Company, CO. Evaluated the cost of service for Montezuma Water Company to provide drinking water on a wholesale basis to the Summit Ridge District. Developed an inventory of 2.19 million linear feet of existing water distribution pipelines. Estimated distribution pipeline replacement costs of $39-7 million for the MWC system. Evaluated Summit Ridge water consumption, which accounted for 10.3 percent of total water production capacity. Evaluated Summit Ridge average and peak hour demands. Evaluated treatment, conveyance, and storage facilities that were used jointly by MWC and the Summit Ridge District including the MWC high service pumps, transmission mains, the Summit Ridge Pump Station, and Tanks 1 and 7. Developed a cost of service which accounted for the capital and O&M costs of all facilities needed to serve the Summit Ridge District. Participated in arbitration hearings and negotiations to establish equitable billing rates for the District. As a result of this project, the Summit Ridge District was subsequently dissolved and became part of the MWC service area. Water Treatment Plant Improvements, City of Northglenn, CO. The Design/Build project upgraded and expanded the existing laboratory, operations control area, and filter gallery piping. Designed modifications to add filter to waste capability and capability to isolate filters. Conducted ultrasonic testing of existing steel piping to identify structural defects and corrosion. Conducted full scale tests of air bubbles in filter backwash supply due to valve cavitation. Designed new pressure regulating valves to eliminate cavitation. Designed a laboratory expansion including new steel casework, fume hoods, and fixtures . Tested existing laboratory ventilation systems including capture efficiencies, airflow velocities, and flow volume to determine upgrade requirements consistent with the NFPA 45 laboratory standard, and ASHRAE and OSHA standards. Designed modifications to existing ductwork to improve air distribution, provide NFC recommended air exchange rates, and isolate laboratory exhaust air from the operations area. Designed plumbing systems, emergency showers, eyewash, basins, floor drains, and cup sinks. Designed electrical system modifications to provide power to new and modified equipment. Hidden Valley Water Treatment Plant, City of Black Hawk, CO. Assisted design of a new 0.5 mgd water treatment plant with conventional coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation, followed by pressure filters with proprietary media to remove iron and manganese as well as turbidity. Chemical systems included alum, chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, lime, polymers, soda ash, and sodium hydroxide. North Reservoir Outlet Structure, City of Englewood, CO. Designed an outlet structure for the So mg North Reservoir at the Allen Filter Plant. Directed evaluation of system hydraulics, backwash pump station capacity, and design of Michael P. Lutz, PE I Resume i 5 Michael P. Lutz PE Principal Engineer ft Dewberry· the outlet structure modifications , control gates, and reservoir control valve vault . The structure was constructed inside an existing outlet headwall and provided a new manual gate to allow water drained from the reservoir to discharge to Big Dry Creek or be diverted to the existing in-plant wastewater pumping station. The structure allows filter residuals and recycle backwash water that had been stored in the reservoir to be transferred to a wastewater storage reservoir, avoiding discharge of residuals to the creek. Constructed a new 6-foot diameter access shaft and operator extension over the existing buried reservoir drain valve vault. Obtained a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to construct the structure in a wetland. Evaluated impacts on habitat for the endangered Preble's Meadow Jumping Mouse. Raw Water Aqueduct Improvements, City of Englewood, CO. The Englewood raw water supply system has four elevated aqueducts with semi-circular channels 6.33 feet in diameter constructed in 1945. The aqueducts had corroded and developed leaks at panel seams and channel bottoms. Evaluated several lining materials including replacement with welded steel, cured-in-place pipe, polyethylene pipe, polypropylene membranes, and spray applied coatings . Selected a spray applied polyurea coating based on aesthetic quality, cost, tensile strength, adhesion, and resistance to moisture, abrasion and corrosion. The new lining system retains the aesthetic quality of the historically significant aqueduct structures while achieving reliable operation as transmission facilities for the municipal water supply. EXPERT TESTIMONY Arsenic Standard Expert Testimony, Parker Water & Sanitation District, CO. Provided expert testimony to the Colorado Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) at the rulemaking hearing for adoption of a temporary modification to reduce the chronic arsenic standard to 3.0 ug/L for new discharges. Evaluated the performance of several arsenic removal alternatives including Coagulation/Filtration, Oxidation/Filtration, Ion Exchange, Activated Alumina Adsorption , Reverse Osmosis, and Electrodialysis Reversal. Testified that existing arsenic removal technologies were developed to achieve compliance with the drinking water MCL of 10 µg /L and that the 3 .0 ug /L chronic arsenic standard may be technically and financially unachievable for wastewater systems . Endorsed an a rsenic limit of 7.6 µg /L as a reasonable performance expectation for most drinking water systems which was based on the current fish consumption standard and supported by analysis of da ta provided in the WQCD Prehearing Statement. Testified that arsenic removal fro m drinking water may allow downstream wastewater systems to also achieve compliance with an arsenic limit of 7.6 µg /L without having to apply additional drinking water arsenic removal technologies at the wasterwater treatment facilities. Phosphorus Removal Expert Testimony, Parker Water & Sanitation District, CO. The Colorado Water Quality Control Division (WQCD set effluent phosphorus limits of 0 .05 mg /L for wastewater discharges to Cherry Creek. Mic hael P. L utz, PE I Resume 6 Michael P. Lutz PE Principal Engineer tt Dewberry· WQCD contended that to reduce the effluent phosphorus concentration from 0.1 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L, the aluminum sulfate (alum) dose required would be directly proportional to the amount of phosphorus removed and would therefore have minimal impacts on O&M costs. Provided expert testimony that the coagulant dose is not stoichiometric at low phosphorus concentrations, and higher alum doses are required for successively lower phosphorus residuals. An alum dosage test at the Parker facilities demonstrated that reducing the phosphorus concentration from 0.1 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L required a 43 percent increase in the alum dose. We testified that the high alum dose needed to reduce the phosphorus concentration from 0.1 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L increased O&M costs significantly due to increased chemical use, more frequent filter backwashes, and increased quantity of filter residuals for disposal. Disinfection Impacts of Reduced Pathogen Limits, City of Englewood, CO. Provided expert testimony to the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission (1990) on the impact of proposed reduction of pathogen standards for the South Platte River, Segment 14. PUBLIC AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE Colorado Design Criteria for Wastewater Treatment Facilities, CO. Participated in development of updated and revised design criteria adopted by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission which became effective May 31, 2002. Served as the primary author of the Solids Treatment section of the design criteria and technical reviewer of the revised criteria which were developed in 2012. Michael P. Lutz, PE I Resume I 7 Attachment B Integral Staff Work Product Example v;a EmaH and US Ma;[ January 28, 2008 Andrew Bain U.S. EPA, Mail Code SFD-8-2 75 Hawthorne St. San Francisco, CA 94105 Lance Hauer Remedial Project Manager Corporate Environmental Programs GE 640 Freedom Business center King of Prussia, PA 19406 T 610 992 7972 F 610 992 7898 lance. hauer@ge .com Re: Northeast Church Rock Mine, McKinley County, NM Revised Human Health Risk Assessment Work Plan Memorandum Dear Mr. Bain: On December 17, 2007, representatives of United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) met with EPA and the Navajo Nation to discuss EPA's analysis of removal alternatives at the Northeast Church Rock Mine (NECR) site. Given the substantial scope and costs of the removal alternatives under consideration, one of the topics discussed at the meeting was the need for further risk assessment efforts to assess the relative benefits of the various alternatives. Toward this end, UNC has prepared the enclosed Work Plan Memorandum to conduct a detailed, site-specific human health risk assessment (HHRA) for each removal alternative to allow an informed remedy decision to be made. As referenced in the Work Plan Memorandum, the cultural practices of the Navajo will be considered with respect to the development of exposure scenarios as well as the effect of regional conditions specific to the site. This will be done in consultation with Navajo and EPA representatives. To minimize the overall time frame to complete this work, we have begun preparation of the revised HHRA and plan to submit the report presenting the results to EPA and the Navajo in March 2008. To that end, we would appreciate receipt of any EPA comments or questions of the enclosed Work Plan as soon as possible. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions on this letter or the enclosed work plans. Sincerely yours, Mr. Andy Bain January 28, 2008 Page 2 of 2 Lance Hauer Remedial Project Manager cc: Harrison Karr, EPA Mike Montgomery, EPA Keith Takata, EPA David Taylor, Navajo Nation Department of Justice Roger Florio, GE ame c!3 WORK PLAN MEMORANDUM FOR THE PREPARATION OF THE REFINED HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT TO SUPPORT THE EE/CA OF THE NORTHEAST CHURCH ROCK MINE SITE, CHURCH ROCK, NEW MEXICO Prepared on behalf of: United Nuclear Corporation Church Rock , New Mexico 87305-3077 Prepared by: AMEC Earth & Environmental 15 Franklin Street Portland , Maine 04101 28 January 2008 ame& TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 SITE LOCATION AND SETTING ................................................................................ 1 1.2 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND ANALYTICAL RESULTS ............................................ 2 1.3 EE/CA ALTERNATIVES .............................................................................................. 2 1.4 SUMMARY OF EXISTING HUMAN HEAL TH RISK ASSESSMENT .......................... 2 2.0 REFINED HUMAN HEAL TH RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................ 5 2.1 CONCEPTUAL SITE MODEL ..................................................................................... 6 2.1.1 Receptors ........................................................................................................ 7 2.1.2 Exposure Pathways ......................................................................................... 7 2.2 IDENTIFICATION AND REFINEMENT OF COPCS ................................................... 8 2.3 EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS FOR THE EE/CA RHHRA ....................... 8 2.4 EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ....................................................................................... 9 2.4.1 Chemical Uptake Factors .............................................................................. 11 2.4.2 COPC Food-Chain Uptake Models ............................................................... 11 2.5 ASSESSING POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION RISKS ........................................... 13 2.6 TOXICITY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ 14 2 .7 RISK CHARACTERIZATION .................................................................................... 14 2.7 .1 Probabilistic Risk Modeling ............................................................................ 16 2.8 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 16 3.0 DATA INTERPRETATION, REPORTING AND PROJECT SCHEDULE ........................... 17 4.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 19 Page i ame& LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Site Location and Topographic Map Figure 1-2 Local Land Use Figure 1-3 Site Layout Figure 1-4a Summary of Evaluated Exposure Pathways from the RSE Human Health Risk Assessment for CurrenUFuture On-Site Maintenance Workers. Northeast Church Rock Mine Site, Church Rock, New Mexico Figure 1-4b Summary of Evaluated Exposure Pathways from the RSE Human Health Risk Assessment for Future On-Site Livestock Grazers , Northeast Church Rock Mine Site , Church Rock, New Mexico Figure 1-4c Summary of Evaluated Exposure Pathways from the RSE Human Health Risk Assessment for Future On-Site Resident, Northeast Church Rock Mine Site , Church Rock , New Mexico Table 1-1 a Table 1-1b Table 1-1c Table 2-1a Table 2-1b LIST OF TABLES Summary of RSE Human Health Risk Assessment Results for CurrenUFuture On-Site Maintenance Workers , Northeast Church Rock Mine Site, Church Rock, New Mexico Summary of RSE Human Health Risk Assessment Results for Future On-Site Livestock Grazers, Northeast Church Rock Mine Site, Church Rock , New Mexico Summary of RSE Human Health Risk Assessment Results for Hypothetical Future On-Site Resident, Northeast Church Rock Mine Site, Church Rock , New Mexico Summary of Proposed Non-Radiological Toxicity Benchmarks for the Refined Human Health Risk Assessment , Northeast Church Rock Mine Site, Church Rock , New Mexico Summary of Proposed Rad iological Toxicity Benchmarks for the Refined Human Health Risk Assessment, Northeast Church Rock Mine Site , Church Rock , New Mexico Page ii AAD bgs COPC CSM CSF CTE EE/CA EPC RHHRA RSE HHRA HI HQ ILCR LADD NECR NNEPA PR Gs RfD RME SF 95th% 95UCL UNC USEPA VMT WPM LIST OF ACRONYMS Average Daily Dose Below Ground Surface Chemical of Potential Concern Conceptual Site Model Cancer Slope Factor (used for non-radiologicals) Central Tendency Exposure Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Exposure Point Concentration Refined Human Health Risk Assessment Removal Site Evaluation Human Health Risk Assessment Hazard Index Hazard Quotient Incremental Lifetime Cancer Risks Lifetime Average Daily Dose Northeast Church Rock Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency Preliminary Remediation Goals Reference Dose Reasonable Maximum Exposure Slope Factor (used for radiologicals) 95th percentile 95 1h% Upper Confidence Limit of the mean United Nuclear Corporation US Environmental Protection Agency Vehicle Miles Traveled Work Plan Memorandum ame& Page iii Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 1.0 INTRODUCTION ame& AMEC Earth & Environmental has prepared this Work Plan Memorandum (WPM) to perform a Refined Human Health Risk Assessment (RHHRA) to support the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) plan for the former United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) Northeast Church Rock (NECR) Site, located near Gallup, New Mexico. The primary objectives of the RHHRA are twofold : First, to assess the potential residual risks associated with each of the EE/CA remedial alternatives. This information can be used to determine the relative benefits of each of the EE/CA alternatives in terms of risk reduction-to-cost comparisons and to support the development of appropriate risk management decision(s) within the EE/CA framework. Second, the RHHRA can assess the residual risks associated with Ra-226 soil levels that can safely remain on-Site in light of future grazing, maintenance (site worker) activities at the mine site, and current/future residential use of the nearby areas on the Navajo reservation . This WPM presents the overall approach and major steps that are proposed for this risk assessment. The remainder of Section 1 provides additional background information concerning the site. Section 2 provides a summary of the RHHRA approach, including the initial screening of chemicals of concern and exposure scenarios. Section 3 provides a summary of the project schedule and project deliverable formats . 1.1 Site Location and Setting The NECR Mine is an inactive uranium mine site located near Gallup, New Mexico. The Site location, local land use, and Site layout are presented in Figures 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3, respectively. The bulk of the mining lease is located on Navajo Nation surface trust lands that are administered by the Navajo Regional Office Bureau of Indian Affairs. UNC owns the remaining portion of the Site in fee . Following UNC 's 2003 and 2004 submissions of site characterization and reclamation plans pursuant to the reclamation requirements administered by the New Mexico Mining and Minerals Division, the U.S. EPA, at the request of the Navajo Nation, assumed the lead for oversight of future site activities. UNC subsequently agreed to conduct a Removal Site Evaluation (RSE) and MWH (2007) prepared a RSE report that summarized the results of field investigations performed in 2006 and 2007. Additional detail concerning the NECR Site background and regulatory history is presented in the RSE Report, which also included an initial screening-level and also a baseline Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) based on these results. Page 1of23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 1.2 Field Investigation and Analytical Results ame & The RSE Report presented a detailed summary of the field investigations and the analytical results (see Section 3 of MWH, 2007). The on-Site field program , performed in 2006 , cons isted of an initial screening of areas using gamma measurements, the collection of surface and subsurface soils for non-radiological chemicals and Ra-226 , analysis of select soil samples following the Toxic ity Characteristic Leaching Procedure and Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure , and test pits to characterize soil lithology . The analytical results from the surface and subsurface soil sampling, and the gamma measurements were the primary datasets used for the HHRA. 1.3 EE/CA Alternatives At a meeting held in December 2007 between USEPA and their consultants, Navajo Nation EPA and their consultants , and representatives of UNC , the following preliminary EE/CA alternatives were identified based on EPA 's assessment of the RSE Report and HHRA (MWH , 2007): • Alternative 1: No Action • Alternative 2: Excavation and Disposal Off-Site Of All Wastes • Alternative 3: On-Site Consolidation of Mine Wastes with Permanent Cover • Alternative 4 : Lined and Capped Repository on the NECR Mine Site • Alternative 5: Above-Ground , Capped Repository on the UNC NPL Site These five alternatives have not yet been finalized (with the exception of the "No Action" alternative) and may be further refined or modified prior to issuance of a draft EE/CA. Given the substantial scope and costs of the removal alternatives under consideration , a detailed, site- specific risk assessment is warranted for each alternative . The remainder of this WPM discusses the overall approach, project activities, anticipated deliverables , and approximate schedule for completing the risk assessment. 1.4 Summary of Existing Human Health Risk Assessment The HHRA was prepared to support the RSE for the NECR Mine Site (MWH , 2007). The NECR Mine Site was initially divided into eleven individual survey areas for the RSE , which included NECR-1 , NECR-2 , Ponds 1 and 2 , Pond 3/3a , Sandfill 1, Sandfill 2, Sandfill 3, Sediment Pad, Boneyard , Non-Economic Material Storage Area (NEMSA), and the Unnamed Arroyo (Figure 1- 3). Two additional areas were added during the field investigation based on preliminary Page 2 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame& radiological scans (Vent Hole 3/8 and Trailer Park). Additionally, nine Home Sites located northeast of the NECR Site were also investigated as part of the RSE and a soil removal action was subsequently carried out at five of these home sites (comprising three residences) based on the results from field sampling in these areas. These home sites are located between NECR and the Quivera Mine and are situated on the Quivera mine lease. The HHRA was conducted in accordance with methods described in Section 6.0 of the approved Removal Site Evaluation Work Plan (MWH, 2006). In addition, at the request of EPA and the Navajo Nation, an HHRA was conducted for a hypothetical future on-site resident. The RSE HHRA was based on the laboratory analysis results from surface soils [defined as those less than 0.5 feet below ground surface (bgs)], and subsurface soils to a depth of 10 feet bgs. The RSE HHRA for the off-Site Home Sites 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9 where EPA conducted removal actions was based on the post-removal confirmation sampling at these Home Sites. Food chain models were used to estimate potential risks from pathways other than direct contact with soils (e.g ., consumption of beef from cattle grazing on vegetation in the evaluated areas). The screening for the Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) was performed as part of the RSE HHRA (MWH , 2007). Based on that assessment, the following COPCs were evaluated in the HHRA: • Arsenic • Molybdenum • Radium-226 • Selenium • Uranium • Vanadium In addition, potential risks associated with external gamma radiation exposure were assessed. The following three groups of receptors were evaluated in the HHRA: • On-Site Maintenance Workers -evaluated under present-and future-use conditions . • On-Site Livestock Grazers -evaluated under future-use conditions. • On-Site Hypothetical Residents (adults and young children) -evaluated under hypothetical future-use conditions. The exposure pathways that were evaluated for each of these three receptor groups are summarized in Figures 1-4a , 1-4b and 1-4c, respectively. The RSE HHRA represented a Page 3 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame& quantitative evaluation of potential impacts of Site-derived contaminants on human health , in the absence of reclamation or institutional controls . Therefore, it is analogous to the "No Action" alternative in the EE/CA process. The key HHRA results from each of the evaluated areas are summarized below and in the referenced tables : • Potential non-cancer risks for the individual COPCs and combined COPCs for Current/Future Use On-Site Maintenance Worker (Table 1-1 a) and Future Use On-Site Livestock Grazers (Table 1-1b) were all less than one. This indicates no significant non- cancer risks for these receptors and exposure pathways. • Potential non-cancer risks were greater than one for the Future Use On-Site Hypothetical Resident Table 1-1 c) for nine of the 13 evaluated locations. These included NECR-1, NECR-2, Ponds 1 &2, Pond 3/3a, Sediment Pad, Sandfill #3 , NEMSA , Boneyard , Vents 3&8, and Trailer Park. These were attributable to the incidental ingestion of soils containing uranium. Non-cancer risks were determined to be insignificant at Sandfill #1, Sandfill #2, and Boneyard . • Potential cancer risks for the on-Site maintenance worker were within or below the regulatory range (1 E-06 to 1 E-04) for the direct contact pathways (ingestion or dust inhalation) for shallow and subsurface soils (Table 1-1 a). When the indirect pathways were added , the potential risks for the on-Site maintenance worker were above the regulatory range (1 E-06 to 1 E-04) at five areas (Ponds 1 &2 , Pond 3/3a, Sediment Pad, Sandfill #3, and Vents 3&8) when exposures were based on the shallow soil samples (Table 1-1a). For the subsurface soil samples, the potential risks for the on-Site maintenance worker were above the regulatory range (1 E-06 to 1 E- 04) at four areas (Ponds 1 &2, Sediment Pad , Sandfill #1 and NEMSA). The principal risk driver for all locations was external gamma radiation. • Potential cancer risks for the on-Site livestock grazer were within or below the regulatory range (1 E-06 to 1 E-04) for the direct contact pathways (ingestion or dust inhalation) for shallow and subsurface soils (Table 1-1b). When the indirect pathways were added, the potential risks for the on-Site livestock grazer were above the regulatory range (1 E-06 to 1 E-04) for all 12 on-Site areas (background location was below the regulatory range) when exposures were based on the shallow soil samples (Table 1-1 b). For the subsurface soil samples, the potential risks for the on-Site livestock grazer were above the regulatory range (1 E-06 to 1 E-04) at nine locations (NECR-1 , NECR-2 , Ponds 1 &2, Pond 3/3a, Sediment Pad, Sandfill #1 , Page 4 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame& Sandfill #3, NEMSA, and Boneyard). The principal risk drivers for all locations were Ra- 226 (meat ingestion exposure) and external gamma radiation (external radiation exposure). • Only exposures to shallow soils were evaluated for the Hypothetical Future-Use On-Site Residential exposure pathway. Although exposure assumptions were developed for adults and young children, the calculated risks were summed in the RSE HHRA. Potential cancer risks for the Hypothetical Future-Use on-Site Resident were within the regulatory range (1 E-06 to 1 E-04) for the direct contact pathways (ingestion or dust inhalation) at 11 of the evaluated locations (Table 1-1 c). The two locations where potential cancer risks were greater than the regulatory range were Ponds 1 &2 and Pond 3/3a. The principal risk driver at these two areas was Ra-226 (soil ingestion exposure). When the indirect pathways were added, the potential risks for the Hypothetical Future- Use on-Site Resident were above the regulatory range ( 1 E-06 to 1 E-04) for all 12 on- Site areas and also the background location. The principal risk driver for all locations was Ra-226 (meat ingestion exposure) and external gamma radiation (external radiation exposure). For all locations, the relative contribution of the risk pathways to overall estimated cancer risks were in the following order of importance: External radiation > Meat ingestion > Produce ingestion > Egg Ingestion > Soil ingestion The RSE HHRA also evaluated several off-property "Home Site" areas. The specific Home Site areas where EPA conducted removal actions are not subject to further evaluation in the EE/CA. The potential risks associated with the post-removal soil concentrations are presented in the RSE HHRA (MWH, 2007) for these locations . However, the off-property "step out" area within the Navajo Reservation will be assessed as part of the RHHRA. 2.0 REFINED HUMAN HEAL TH RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The refined Human Health Risk Assessment (RHHRA) will be performed to support the evaluation of the EE/CA alternatives. The RHHRA will quantitatively assess the potential risks associated with each of the EE/CA alternatives to support the most appropriate risk management decision for the Site. As with the RSE HHRA (MWH, 2007), the RHHRA will include the following six components: 1. Conceptual Site Model (CSM): Review available information to ensure that it is adequate to complete the HHRA ; identify contaminant sources, potentially impacted Page 5 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame& media, receptors that could come into contact with those media, and complete exposure routes for each of those receptors. 2. Data Analysis -statistically analyze appropriate analytical data, screen the analytical results to identify COPCs for human receptors, and calculate appropriate exposure point concentrations (EPCs) for the COPCs. The screening for the COPCs was performed and completed as part of the RSE HHRA (MWH , 2007). 3. Exposure Assessment -estimate the intensity, frequency, and duration of human exposure to the COPCs identified and retained for analysis. The RHHRA will identify potentially exposed populations, develop exposure scenarios, analyze the exposure pathways, and select appropriate equations and parameters in order to estimate average daily intakes of COPCs for all complete exposure pathways under current and reasonably anticipated uses of the NECR Site. Navajo cultural practices will be considered when estimating intake of COPCs . 4. Toxicity Assessment -identify dose-response relationships and daily intake levels for COPCs at which no adverse effects or unacceptable cancer risks can reasonably be anticipated to result. As part of this step , appropriate toxicity metrics are selected for each COPC. 5. Risk Characterization -evaluate average daily intakes using the appropriate toxicity metrics (i.e., Reference Doses for non-cancer effects and Cancer Slope Factors for potential cancer effects) for each COPC . 6. Uncertainty Analysis -qualitatively identify uncertainty inherent in each component of the HHRA in order to provide proper perspective to risk management decision makers. The approach for each of these six components is further discussed in the remainder of this WPM. 2.1 Conceptual Site Model The CSM is a formal process for outlining preliminary hypotheses about risk resulting from site activities. It uses previously collected information to identify complete exposure pathways. Only complete pathways provide a route of exposure, and therefore a potential risk . Complete pathways are defined by four components. If any one of the components is missing, the pathway is not considered complete and, therefore, no risk is associated with that pathway. These components are: Page 6 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church M ine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame & 1. A source and mechanism of chemical release (e.g., spills , waste disposal); 2. A retention or transport medium (e.g ., soil , wind entrainment); 3. A point of potential contact with the impacted medium , referred to as the exposure point (e .g ., exposed soils); and 4. An exposure route (e .g., dermal contact with sediments). Identification of complete exposure pathways for each receptor will be determined as part of the CSMs that are developed for each evaluated EE/CA alternative. These will be formatted to be similar to those used in the RSE Report [Figures 4-1 and 4-2 of MWH (2007)]. 2.1.1 Receptors As discussed previously, the three receptor groups that were evaluated in the RSE HHRA were the following : • On-Site Maintenance Worker -evaluated under present-and future-use conditions . • On-Site Livestock Grazers -evaluated under future-use conditions . • Off-Site Reservation Residents (adults and young children) -evaluated under current and future-use cond itions . According to the RSE Report (MWH , 2007) hypothetical on-Site residential receptors were evaluated at the request of the Navajo Nation EPA (NNEPA), and for consistency with EPA Superfund HHRA guidance. While it is reasonably anticipated that the off-property "step out" area located on the Navajo Nation reservation may be used for residential purposes in the future , the reasonably anticipated future use of the on-site areas is for grazing . There are several off-property Home Sites (Home Sites 1, 2, 3, 5) that are present in the "step out" area within the Navajo Reservation that will be assessed as part of the RHHRA. 2.1.2 Exposure Pathways The Removal Site Evaluation Report HHRA (MWH , 2007) divided the HHRA into the following two principal scenar ios : • Scenario 1: Direct Exposure pathways , which included soil ingestion , soil dermal contact and dust inhalation ; and • Scenario 2: The aforementioned three direct exposure pathways , plus additional indirect pathways depending upon the evaluated receptor . An indirect exposure occurs when Page 7 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame& the COPEC is transferred from the originally impacted medium to another medium (e.g., soil to plants to grazing animal) and, subsequently, to a human receptor (e.g., consumption of meat from grazing animal). As noted earlier, the complete exposure pathways for each receptor will be determined as part of the CSMs that are developed for each evaluated EE/CA alternative. Both direct and indirect exposure pathways will be identified for each of the EE/CA alternatives, where appropriate. 2.2 Identification and Refinement of COPCs Data analysis is necessary to focus the risk evaluation on chemical stressors that have the potential to cause unacceptable health hazards at a site. The screening for the Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPCs) was performed as part of the RSE HHRA (MWH, 2007) and identified seven COPCs. As discussed earlier, uranium, Ra-226 and external radiation were the principal COPCs that yielded potential risks above regulatory thresholds for some of the exposure pathways and evaluated areas. Therefore, the RHHRA will primarily focus on these agents. 2.3 Exposure Point Concentrations for the EE/CA RHHRA The Exposure Point Concentrations (EPCs) used in the RSE HHRA (MWH, 2007) represented the upper 95th confidence limit (95UCL) of the mean concentration. These were calculated using USEPA-developed ProUCL 1 software, and used either (1) the UCLs recommended by the software, or (2) used the maximum observed value if the recommended 95UCL was greater than the maximum positive result. Tables provided in Appendix E to the RSE (MWH, 2007) summarize the results for each of the evaluated areas and provide key outputs (distribution type, recommended 95UCL) from the ProUCL software. ProUCL [version 4; Singh et al. (2007), USEPA (2007)) will be used to derive the EPCs for the EE/CA RHHRA, but additional review of the data may be performed in those cases where the software indicates that the data distributions are non-parametric (i.e ., do not fit a normal, log- normal, or gamma distribution). In these cases the ProUCL software often recommends a higher percentile Chebyshev UCL (e.g., 99 1h% Chebyshev) that results in an overly precautionary estimate of an upper bound of the mean concentration. If this occurs during EPC development for the RHHRA, the data distributions will be evaluated more closely to determine an appropriate alternative value . This evaluation will be performed in accordance with the peer- reviewed literature and relevant EPA guidance (USEPA , 2002a). 1 Version 3 of the ProUCL software was used for the RSE HHRA. ProUCL was recently updated to version 4 in 2007 (Singh et al., 2007; USEPA, 2007). Page 8 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum ame& Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 In addition, due to the large areal coverage of the evaluated areas , spatial averaging methods may be used to better represent the area-wide average concentrations . Thiessen polygons or geostatistical methods (e .g., kriging) may be employed in such cases, as needed . This analysis will be performed consistent with recommendations in USEPA (2001 b; 2002b) and relevant ASTM guidance (e.g., ASTM D5923 ; ASTM , 2004). One or more of the EE/CA alternatives may include removal of soils . To calculate the EPCs in these cases the soil samples that are included in the removed volume will be replaced with non- detect results or a suitable surrogate value, such as site-specific background or the targeted cleanup value for the COPC. 2.4 Exposure Assessment The objective of the exposure assessment is to estimate the type, magnitude , frequency , and duration of exposures for complete exposure pathways via intake equations . If the exposure occurs over time, the total exposure can be divided by the time period of interest to obtain an average exposure rate (e .g., mg/Kg-day). The general equation for estimating a time-weighted average intake is : whe re: EPC = IR = EF = ED = Bf = BW = AT = Intake= EPC x IR x EF x ED x Bf BWxAT chemical concentration at the exposure point (e .g., milligrams per kilogram [mg/Kg] sediment) intake rate (e.g., milligrams per day [mg/day]) exposure frequency (days/year) exposure duration (years) bioavailability factor body weight of exposed individual (Kg) averaging time (period over which exposure is averaged, usually measured in days) US EPA (1991) defines two types of exposure estimates for baseline risk assessments : a reasonable maximum exposure (RME) and a central tendency exposure (CTE). The RME case is defined as the highest reasonable exposure that could be expected to occur for a given exposure pathway at a site and is intended to account for both uncertainty in the contaminant concentration and variability in the exposure parameters. It is an upper-bound estimate, and Page 9 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame& was used for the RSE HHRA (MWH, 2007). The CTE case is based on central tendency (i.e., average or median) exposure parameters, except for the EPC term, where the 95UCL is used as with the RME case. Both the CTE and RME case will be evaluated for the RHHRA, since this provides a bounding estimate of the potential risks to facilitate risk management decisions. As indicated by the above intake rate equation , risk assessments often apply point estimates of key parameters in calculating exposure, an approach that was originally outlined in its Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (USEPA, 1989). This practice requires that variability within the population under study be reduced to a single value for each exposure parameter. Since the time of USEPA's original risk assessment guidance, however, USEPA has further revised and clarified its policies for performing exposure and risk assessments . These revisions and clarifications, which are set forth in the Final Guidelines for Exposure Assessment (USEPA 1992) and in the Guidance for Risk Characterization (USEPA 1995a), are said to provide a basis for consistency and comparability in risk assessment and to increase confidence in professional scientific judgment. Under these guidelines, probabilistic methods (such as Monte Carlo analysis) are endorsed as an appropriate means of determining individual exposures and population risks when sufficient information is available concerning variability in lifestyles and other factors. Both deterministic and probabilistic approaches will be used for the RHHRA and this will be done using a phased approach. The first phase will provide a deterministic assessment of the residual risks associated with each EE/CA alternative. If that deterministic calculation indicates potential for an unacceptable level of risk and does not adequately discriminate between EE/CA alternatives as to their effectiveness at reducing risks, then a more refined, probabilistic evaluation of the potential risks associated with the alternatives may be conducted to identify the range of potential risks associated with them and to better inform the selection of risk management options. Exposure assumptions for the following receptors will be developed as appropriate in the RHHRA for the particular EE/CA alternative that is being evaluated: • CurrenUFuture-Use On-Site Maintenance Worker: This receptor was also evaluated in the RSE HHRA. This receptor is representative of current typical site maintenance activities and does not represent the potential risks to reclamation workers. The latter is generally addressed by health and safety plans prepared for the reclamation activities. • Future-Use On-Site Grazer: This receptor was also evaluated in the RSE HHRA and represents a reasonable future-use for the Site following reclamation activities. Page 10 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 amecfi • Current/Future-Use Reservation Resident: At EPA's direction on-site residential use was evaluated in the RSE HHRA as a potential future-use activity . For the RHHRA this receptor will include assessing the so-called 'step-out' area on the Navajo Nation reservation as potential Home Site areas. As with the RSE HHRA, standard data sources will be identified for this information (e.g ., USEPA, 1991, 1997a; NMED , 2006) as well as other relevant literature sources and site- specific and regionally relevant information, including relevant information on Navajo cultural practices . These will be evaluated and appropriate exposure assumptions developed consistent with end-uses for the different EE/CA alternatives that are evaluated. 2.4.1 Chemical Uptake Factors The RSE HHRA (MWH, 2007) assumed 100% uptake efficiency for the evaluated exposure routes. For the EE/CA RHHRA, chemical-specific uptake factors will be applied. The non- radiological values will be obtained from an on-line database maintained by ORNL (2008), which in turn refers to standard sources such as USEPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Part E -Dermal Guidance (USEPA, 2004c). For the radiologicals, USEPA (2001) indicates that this correction is not required since it is already accounted for in the toxicity benchmarks . 2.4.2 COPC Food-Chain Uptake Models The body burden of the Ra-226 in grazing animals used as food was estimated in the RSE HHRA (MWH, 2007). The remaining COPCs were not evaluated in the grazing animals. MWH (2007) used the following transfer factors from the environmental media for Ra-226: • Soil-to-plant uptake of 0.1 for Ra-226; and • Plant-to-meat uptake factor of 0.0068. These were obtained from a study by Watson et al (1984)2 , as reported in ATSDR (1990). The soil EPCs were used to first estimate the potential COPC concentration in the plant and then in the meat of the grazing animal. This was a conservative approach since it used both conservative estimates of the soil concentrations (i.e., the UCLs) and also assumed 100% use of each of the evaluated areas. The approach that will be used in the RHHRA to assess potential risks for each of the EE/CA alternatives from the ingestion of meat from grazing animals , and eggs from family chicken flocks will include the following key elements : Page 11of23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame& • Estimating the COPC transfer from soil to the dietary items of grazing animals (e.g ., plants); • Using meat-, or egg-biotransfer coefficients (Bameat . or Bae 99 , respectively) that reflect the uptake potential of the COPC from the dietary item to the tissues (meat, milk or egg) of the grazing animal ; and • A factor that weights the use of the evaluated area and the grazing area of the animal. Bameat. or Bae 99 have units of day/Kg, and represent the ratio of the concentration in the beef, milk or egg (mg/Kg) and the daily intake of the chemical (mg/day) by the grazing animal. This approach was developed chiefly to assess the tissue levels in cattle (e.g., Baes et al., 1984; Travis and Arms, 1988), and has the advantage that it can be used within a dose calculation framework. The following equation, modified from the typical equation used for dose calculations in ecological risk assessments, will be used to estimate the grazing animal meat concentrations of the COPCs (Cmea1): Cmeat (mg/Kg) = [(Csw x IRsw) + (Cp1ant x IRtood) + (Csoi1 x IRsou)] x AUF x SUF x Babeet + BW where : Csw = Concentration of COPC in surface water (mg/L) Csoil = Concentration of COPC in soil (mg/Kg dry weight) Cplant = Concentration of COPC in plant (mg/Kg dry weight) IRtood = Ingestion rate of food (dry weight) (Kg/day) IRsw = Ingestion rate of surface water (L/day) IRsoil = Incidental ingestion rate of soil (Kg/day) AUF = Area use factor (unitless) SUF = Seasonal use factor (unitless), and Ba meat = Meat transfer coefficient (day/Kg) BW = Body weight (Kg). A similar calculation to that used to estimate meat concentrations will be used to estimate the poultry egg concentrations of the CO PCs (Cmilk), and is shown in the equation below: Ce 99 (mg/Kg) = [(Csw x IRsw) + (C9 rain x IRtood) + (Csou x IRsoi1)] x AUF x SUF x Bae 99 + BW where : 2 This study was a summary of the results reported in an earlier ORNL document (Watson et al ., 1983). Page 12 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 Cgrain = Bae 99 = Estimated concentration of the COPC in grain Egg transfer coefficient (day/Kg) ame& Principal sources for the input values for each of these parameters are summarized below : • Dose calculations: These will be obtained from standard sources (e.g., Beyer et al., 1994; Sample et al, 1996; RTI, 2005; USEPA, 2005), as well as from site-specific information. • Plant Uptake Factors: The RSE HHRA assumed an uptake factor of 0.1 for forage materials (e.g., grains). For the RHHRA, the plant uptake factors will be obtained from the on-line ORNL RAIS website (ORNL, 2008) and from Staven et al (2003). • Biotransfer Coefficients: Values for Bameat and Bae 99 will be obtained from the on-line ORNL RAIS website (ORNL, 2008) and from Staven et al (2003). These sources will be reviewed and the most up-to-date and relevant information from these sources or the published literature will be used when the RHHRA is prepared . 2.5 Assessing Potential Transportation Risks Potential transportation risks were not evaluated in the RSE HHRA (MWH, 2007) but off- property transportation of soils is included as part of certain EE/CA alternatives. The assessment of the potential transportation risks associated with the EE/CA alternatives will be divided into two broad categories: • The assessment of potential accidents during transportation of media to the off-Site disposal area; and • The assessment of potential risks and risk mitigation practices for any residents adjoining the transportation route . Estimating the risk of fatality associated with the transport of contaminated media by trucks is based on risks of fatalities per vehicle miles traveled (VMT). These frequencies will be obtained from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (e.g., NHTSA, 2003), which provides information for each state. For example, NHTSA (2003) reports a combined fatality rate for all Page 13 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 amecfJ vehicles types in New Mexico of 1.99 per 100 million VMT 3 , which is higher than the national average (1.51 per 100 million VMT). Comparable values for states where the vehicles may traverse to the disposal location will also be included in this evaluation. The VMTs will be weighted by the relative distance traveled within each of the states. The hypothetical scenarios for residential exposures during truck transportation are the following: • Spills of contents during truck accidents ; and • Incidental releases of excavated materials during transport. These will be examined for each of the EE/CA alternatives that include off-property transport of soils. 2.6 Toxicity Assessment The Section 4.3.1.3 of the RSE HHRA (MWH, 2007) summarized the non-radiological and Ra- 226 toxicity benchmarks used for the prior risk assessment. Standard data sources (e.g., IRIS on-line database for non-radiological COPCs) were used for the prior HHRA, and it is anticipated that the same values will be used for the RHHRA. These are compiled in Table 2-1a and 2-1 b for the non-radiological CO PCs and Ra-226, respectively. The reference dose (RfD) and cancer slope factors (CSFs) used to assess the non-radiological COPCs, and the slope factors (SFs) are used to assess Ra-226 and external gamma , will be re-examined at the time of the preparation of the RHHRA to ensure that they are as up-to-date as possible. 2. 7 Risk Characterization Risk characterization is the step in the risk assessment process that combines the results of the exposure assessment and the toxicity assessment for each COPC to estimate the potential for cancer and non-cancer human health risks from chronic exposure to that constituent. The methodology to estimate potential cumulative non-cancer and cancer risks to human health from Site-related COPCs is summarized below. The same methodology presented in the RSE HHRA will also be used for the EE/CA RHHRA. For COPCs that are evaluated for non-carcinogenic effects, the estimated average daily doses 3 The latest report from NHSTA (2007), which reports the 2006 statistics , is preliminary and does not include more recent VMT data for New Mexico or the other US states. If this information is available when the RHHRA is prepared it will be included in the risk assessments. Page 14 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame & (ADDs) calculated for each exposure route considered for each COPC are compared to RfDs. The following formula is used to estimate the potential non-carcinogenic risk for each COPC : where : HQ = ADD = RfD = HQ= ADD+ RfD hazard quotient (unitless); average daily dose of COPC (mg/Kg-day); and reference dose (mg/Kg-day). When the · HQ for a given constituent and pathway does not exceed 1, the RfD has not been exceeded , and no adverse non-cancer health effects are expected to occur as a result of potential exposure to that constituent via that pathway. The HQs for each constituent are summed to yield the Hazard Index (HI) for that pathway. A Total HI is then calculated for each exposure medium by summing the pathway-specific HI values . A Total HI value that does not exceed 1 indicates that no adverse non-cancer health effects are expected to occur as a result of that receptor's potential exposure to CO PCs in the environmental medium evaluated. For the evaluat ion of the potential cancer risk associated with exposure to a COPC , the toxicity factor [Cancer Slope Factor (CSF) for non -radiologicals and the Slope Factor (SF) for radiologicals] is multiplied by the lifetime average daily dose (LADD) calculated for that chem ical through each exposure pathway, as shown in the equation below. where: ILCR = CSF = LADD= ILCR = CSF x LADD incremental lifetime cancer risk (no units); cancer slope factor [1 /(mg/Kg-day)]; and calculated potential lifetime average daily dose of COPC (mg/Kg-day). For potential excess lifetime cancer risks , USEPA 's acceptable risk range is between one-in- ten-thousand and one-in-a-million (1 x 10-4 to 1 x 1 o-6). For exposures to multiple carcinogens , USEPA (1989) has requ ired that the upper bound cancer risks for all COPCs in all exposure pathways for a given receptor be summed to derive a total cancer risk : Total cancer risk= :L cancer risk for each COPC USEPA recognizes that it is not technically appropriate to sum UCLs of the risk to produce a total probability , but still requires that this approach be used. In this assessment, this method Page 15 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame& will be followed, but the uncertainties associated with this approach will be discussed and alternative methods may also be employed and discussed. 2.7.1 Probabilistic Risk Modeling The preceding discussion summarizes a deterministic risk evaluation, where the risk assessor assigns point estimates to each of the parameters in a dose rate equation (USEPA, 1989). This method can result in subjective estimates of risk for "typical" and "high-end" exposed individuals. Through the use of a probabilistic Monte Carlo Analysis (MCA), the same basic exposure equation is used, but the point estimate for each parameter is replaced by a distribution of values . Each distribution expresses the probability that the value for a specific parameter will occur for an individual in the exposed population. Distributions reflect either empirical or site- specific modeled data, thus providing the basis for an objective analysis. The end results of a Monte Carlo analysis are then used to estimate potential risks for the typical person (50th percentile) and for the high-end exposed individual (e.g., 90 1h percentile or above). Thus, the estimated risks for the typically exposed (CTE) and for the highly exposed (RME) person are extracted from the MCA risk distributions. This approach would be useful for risk management decisions related to comparisons of the different EE/CA alternatives since it allows a more direct comparison of the risk reductions afforded by the different alternatives. As part of the MCA portion of the RHHRA, distributions can be developed for each of the inputs in the exposure assessment calculations, including the estimated concentrations used for the indirect exposure pathways, to the extent possible. Some of these are already available in EPA guidance such as the Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA, 1997) or can be developed using site-specific data (e.g., bootstrap distribution of potential mean soil concentrations from each evaluated area). At this time, a probabilistic approach will not be used for refining the toxicity benchmarks. Due to the compressed schedule for conducting the RHHRA and the limited relevant information that is available in the published or public domain literature, the probabilistic assessment will be limited to the exposure assessment component of the RHHRA. The MCA analysis will follow the methodologies outlined in USEPA (2001 b) and other relevant literature (e.g., Burmaster and Anderson, 1994). These will be presented with the deterministic analyses of each of the EE/CA alternatives. 2.8 Uncertainty Analysis An uncertainty analysis was not performed as part of the RSE HHRA (MWH, 2007). However, since there is uncertainty inherent in all aspects of the risk assessment process, it would be Page 16 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame& prudent to assess the potential to over-or under-estimate the potential human health risks for the different EE/CA alternatives . These uncertainty analyses will be developed as the RHHRA is prepared. 3.0 DA TA INTERPRETATION, REPORTING AND PROJECT SCHEDULE The RHHRA will be developed in accordance with current EPA guidance , including , at a minimum , the following: • USEPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I. Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A); • USEPA. _1991 . Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance : Standard Default Exposure Factors ; • USEPA. 1992a. Exposure Assessment Guidelines ; • USEPA. 1994a. Estimating Radiogenic Cancer Risks ; • USEPA. 1995a Guidance for Risk Characterization ; • USEPA. 1995b. Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Process; • USEPA. 1997a. Exposure Factors Handbook; • USEPA. 1997c. Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination; • USEPA. 1999a. Federal Guidance Report No . 13 : Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides; • USEPA. 2000 . Risk Characterization Handbook; • USEPA. 2002a. Calculating Upper Confidence Limits For Exposure Point Concentrations At Hazardous Waste Sites ; • USEPA. 2003. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. Page 17 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame& • USEPA. 2004c. Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance: Dermal Risk Assessment Interim Guidance; • USEPA. 2004d. An Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices • USEPA. 2005b. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (Final), EPN630/P- 03/001 B. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, D.C.; • USEPA. 2006a. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS; online); • USEPA. 2006b . Guidance on Systematic Planning using the Data Quality Objectives Process (QNG-4) EPN240/B-06/001, February; and • USEPA. 2007. ProUCL software. The RHHRA Report will consist of the following elements: • Hazard Identification : This element includes a summary of potential human health hazards from chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) present at the site; • Exposure Assessment: This element includes the development of potential exposure pathways ; • Dose-Response Assessment: This element will include (1) developing streamlined toxicity profiles for the key chemicals of concern; (2) preparing a table of all current cancer and non-cancer toxicity values evaluated in the HHRA; and (3) presenting the dose calculations for the different exposure pathways. • Risk Characterization: This element will include (1) a summary of potential risks; and (2) discussion of the risk assessment uncertainties. Proposed Project Schedule Following submission of this RHHRA Work Plan Memorandum to USEPA and Navajo Nation EPA , work will begin on the RHHRA. It is anticipated that the draft RHHRA will be available for review by the agencies in March 2008. Page 18 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 4.0 REFERENCES ame& American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2004. ASTM 05923-96(2004): Standard Guide for Selection of Kriging Methods in Geostatistical Site Investigations. ASTM International , West Conshohocken , PA. [http ://www.astm.org] Burmaster , D.E. and P.O. Anderson. 1994 . Principles of Good Practice for the Use of Monte Carlo Techniques in Human Health and Ecolog ical Risk Assessments. Risk Analysis. 14(4): 477-481 . Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). 2006. On-line database maintained by USEPA. [http ://www.epa.gov/iris/] Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC). 2002 . Technical and Regulatory Document, Determining Cleanup Goals at Radioactively Contaminated Sites: Case Studies. April. 85p + app. [http ://www.itrcweb .org/Documents/RAD-2. pdf] MWH . 2006 . Northeast Church Rock Removal Site Evaluation Work Plan. Report prepared for United Nuclear Corporation. June . MWH . 2007. Removal Site Evaluation Report, Northeast Church Rock Mine Site . Final. Report prepared for United Nuclear Corporation. October . National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2003 . Traffic Safety Facts 2001 : State Traffic Data . US Department of Transportation . DOT HS 809 482 . [http ://www-nrd .nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2001/2001statedata.pdf] National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). 2007 . Traffic Safety Facts 2006 . US Department of Transportation . Early Edition . December. [http://www.nhtsa .dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/ NCSA/Content/TSF/TSF2006EE .pdf] New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). 2006. Technical Background Document for Development of Soil Screening Levels, Revision 4.0 . Hazardous Waste Bureau and Ground Water Quality Bureau , Voluntary Remediation Program. June. [ftp ://ftp .nmenv.state .nm .us/hwbdocs/HWB/guidance_docs/NMED_June_2006_SSG.pdf] Page 19 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame & Oak Ride National Laboratory (ORNL). 2008 . Risk Assessment Information System : Chemical- Specific Parameters. On-line database maintained by ORNL on behalf of the Department of Energy. [URL: http://risk .lsd .ornl.gov/cgi-bin/tox!TOX_select?select=csf] Research Triangle Institute (RTI). 2005 . Methodology for Predicting Cattle Biotransfer Factors. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Solid Waste . 5 August. [URL : http ://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/combust/finalmact/ssra/btfreportfull05.pdf] Sample, B.E ., D.M Opresko , and G.W Suter II. 1996. Toxicological Benchmarks for Wildlife : 1996 Revision. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ES/ER/TM-86/R3 . June. [http ://www .hsrd .ornl .gov/ecorisk/tm86r3 .pdf] Singh, A., R. Maichle , A.K. Singh , S.E. Lee, and N. Armbya. 2007. ProUCL Version 4.0.01 User Guide. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Env ironmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-07/038. July. [http://www. epa . gov I esd/tsc/i ma ges/pro ucl-4-0-01-user. pdf] Staven, L.H ., K. Rhoads , B.A. Napier and D.L. Strenge. 2003. A Compendium of Transfer Factors for Agricultural and Animal Products. PNNL-13421. June. [http ://www. pnl .gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-13421 . pdf] Travis , C.C . and A.O . Arms . 1988. Bioconcentration of organics in beef, milk and vegetation . Environmental Science and Technology . 22(3): 271-274 . USEPA. 1989 . Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I, Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA/540/1-89/002 . USEPA . 1991 . Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance "Standard Default Exposure Factors". OSWER Directive 9285.6-03, June USEPA. 1992a. Final Guidelines for Exposure Assessment. U.S . Environmental Protection Agency , Washington , D.C . Federal Reg ister 57(104): 22888-22938 . May 29. USEPA. 1992b. Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. USEPA , Risk Assessment Forum, EPA/630/R-92/001 . Page 20 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 amecG USEPA. 1993b. Federal Guidance Report No . 12: External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water and Soil, EPA-402-R-93-081, September. [http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/federal/402-r-93-081. pdf] USEPA. 1994a. Estimating Radiogenic Cancer Risks, EPA 402-R-93-076, June. [http ://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/assessment/402-r-93-076.pdf] USEPA, 1995a. Guidance for Risk Characterization. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Science Policy Council. February. USEPA. 1995b. Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process . OSWER Directive No. 9355 .7-04. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response . 25 May. [http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/landuse.pdf] USEPA. 1997a. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volumes 1, II and Ill. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment, Washington, D.C. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa,b,c. August. [http ://cfpub .epa . gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay. cfm ?deid= 12464] USEPA. 1997b. Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, FY 1997 Update. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA-540- R-97-036. July. USEPA. 1997c. Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER Directive No. 9200.4-18. August. USEPA. 1999a . Federal Guidance Report No . 13: Cancer Risk Coefficients for Environmental Exposure to Radionuclides, EPA 402-R-99-001, September. [http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/federal/402-r-99-001.pdf] USEPA. 2000. Risk Characterization Handbook. Office of Science Policy. EPA 100-8-00-002. December. [http ://www.epa.gov/osa/spc/pdfs/rchandbk.pdf] USEPA. 2001a. Radionuclide Table: Radionuclide Carcinogenicity -Slope Factors (Federal Guidance Report No. 13 Morbidity Risk Coefficients, in Units of Picocuries). [http://www.epa .gov/radiation/heast/docs/heast2_table _ 4-d2_ 0401. pdf] Page 21 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame & USEPA. 2001 b . Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume 2, Part A -Process for Conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessment, Appendix D: Advanced Modeling Approaches for Characterizing Variability and Uncertainty. December [http ://www.epa .gov1oswerlriskassessmenUrags3alpdflAppendixD.pdf] USEPA. 2002a. Calculating Upper Confidence Limits for Exposure Point Concentrations at Hazardous Waste Sites. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER 9285 .6-10 . December. USEPA. 2002b . RCRA Waste Sampling Draft Technical Guidance . Planning, Implementation, and Assessment. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response . EPA530-D-02-002. [http ://www.epa.gov1SW-8461pdfslrwsdtg.pdf] USEPA. 2003. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. OSWER Directive 9282 .7-53. 5 December. [http ://www.epa .govloswerlriskassessmenUpdflhhmemo.pdf] USEPA. 2004a . Region 9 PRGs Table , 2004 Update. October 1. [http://www.epa .gov1region091wastelsfundlprg/] USEPA. 2004b. Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) Table Users Guide/Technical Background Document, October 1. [http :llwww.epa .gov1Region91wastelsfundlprglfilesl02userguide .pdf] USEPA. 2004c. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation , Washington, DC. EPA/5401Rl991005. July. [http ://www.epa.gov loswerlriskassessmenUragse/] USEPA. 2004d. An Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices. Staff paper prepared by members of the Risk Assessment Task Force. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Office of the Science Advisor. TEPA/10018-041001 . Washington , D.C . March. Page 22 of 23 Work Plan Memorandum Northeast Church Mine Site EE/CA RHHRA 28 January 2008 ame& USEPA. 2005a. Human Health Risk Assessment Protocol for Hazardous Waste Combustion Facilities, Appendix C: Risk Characterization Equations . Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. EPA530-R-05-006. Final. September. [http://www.epa .gov/combustion/risk.htm] USEPA. 2005b. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (Final), EPA/630/P-03/0018. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, D.C. USEPA. 2006 . Guidance on Systematic Planning using the Data Quality Objectives Process (QA/G-4) EPA/240/8-06/001, February. USEPA. 2007. ProUCL Version 4. [http://www.epa .gov/nerlesd1/tsc/software.htm] USEPA. 2008 . Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). On-line database. [http ://cfpub .epa.gov/ncea/iris/index.cfm] Watson A.P., E.L. Etnier, and L.M. McDowell-Boyer. 1983. Radium-226 in Drinking Water and Terrestrial Food Chains : A Review of Parameters and an Estimate of Potential Exposure and Dose. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. ORNL/TM-8597 . April. 41p. [http://fipr1 .state. fl. us/FIPR/FIPR 1.nsf/9bb2fe8f45c4945e85256b58005abaec/56358f8b 76eb 196 485256b2f0057eb1 f /$Fl LE/05-dfp-006Final. pdf] Watson A.P., E.L. Etnier, and L.M. McDowell-Boyer. 1984. Radium-226 in drinking water and terrestrial food chains : Transfer parameters and normal exposure and dose. Nuclear Safety. 25 : 815-829. [As cited by ATSDR, 1990] Page 23 of 23 ) . SITE LOCATION 8 ~\ ~~- ( North'!t Church ® Rock lviine Gallup_.__ ® I Mc K inley County COLORADO li m I ('JU<-U r ,,,.. , r 11 il u l :'/f ~ ''· / p...:aGra11t fffi ~ ....._ . ••n••-••,_",.... .. •r-... ~ ® ® __ ...., ~ I r...t.MM I ~ ~~-AEVIS10f<s DATE I 0!51QH SY I Di\AWH llY I ne~&Wi,O e"v'HO MOJ!CT No.a IOO!Ufl (D)) MWH "'ibCAD RL5 I SITE t.OCA nDN.lfrl SCM.E: I FtGURE "°" #bl to Sc.,• f-f '<: !<':. Cl "'1 .... ~ '<: ~ CarubtUi @ '"~\ Lu Cmm TEXAS ~MEXICO ~ @REMOVAL SITE EVALUATION REPORT SITE LOCATION -r-· I . .'·H;;.~t) .!:•l"h'' ;.;,,~~i-'O:"'~.~~---!..';u,J.''J ;· '">-... ~-I • ,, ·-:.<:-. --1/ • \ r-=<Y i ...._~)..-1 ~ ..... ~~:?--...(. t .l,~r~1o:."-J I •-·-,---'' ·1 . . ' _ --""~ t.,-r-'~\: aUIVERAMINE ! !·: ".'~.!P· {j • ~:~ • ,,,, I I . ) .•.. . ' J ' ' I· . ' '-, [,._ I , .i' ' "·' .. LEGEND ROADS l"''"''·"'''''·i MINE PERMIT AREA ~ FORMER NRG REGULATED AREA C=:::J C=:::J C::::J LAND OWNERSHIP -NAVAJO INDIAN RESERVATION LAND OWNERSHIP -UNC LAND OWNERSHIP -INDlllN TRUST I '·· ,,!· /: r ·; 1'' . f' ,I ,' ( -")•/·[,,..-':( ;~·1,'f '! '.11 ' -. .·1 <'(··-I 'I -·1 I /.-rtAVNOINOIAN / --'/ ( j ') I -. • 1,..-/ \ 'l - 1 · .-·I -. I \ ·' ' . . --, I I RESERV ATION-L-{ . ' ' I/--· \ I /-"IJ --·. I .. vi.Ir.I.",~~) (vi l .. j --"<. r ·. _.· J ,'.J.~I :_/-/ / J _I ,/ If!\ I } / .'' -' -' --! // ' /'\ 1/ --. 1 ~ . ' I -/ I ' I I ' ' 1 \ ----;:-i.L-;h, _/.)-"\:--~,-_)~-~---!~z:J'-·r_,;__1-r -~t_:___-ts-,L, <-, _ _,_)_ ~--·-·_•!<l_NG_•_,•EA•-·1 __ .' ___ :_ -~) , .... ,,,., .. / ' /SECTIO M 1·r ii!\·':: " '\ ~x ;·I NT ·~)t«:C~~t ,--.,,.-.. --. ___ . _._. ---.... ~---:;-----;'" ... .;,_ I 'ORNERITYI:/ ·1,\1 \ --/! c '--... ' I ' I --( )' ' ( -1 ·, ' .//..'-~ .-..· ·;. -.... _ .. . _:::_ i ,, ,_ . -\ .·. P" ! )) / s-J •·• .r_'.'\ ·, ,~· \ "(;l"'"ru~". • 1 \ , • / /. "--X ~,----~?i-.Yf '; :.,_~;· · -/ _ _.~· ·-_ :: \-----.~,~> NO'TES: 1. SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY GENERATED FROM AERIAL rHOTOGRAPliS DATED MAY 2007 BY COOPER AERIAL SURVEYS CO. NEVI 'AEXICO WEST STATE PLANE COOKOINA TES, NAO BJ . 2 NOT ALL AREAS IDENTIFIED DURNG THE RSE ARE SHOWN ON THIS FIOURE. '---i f ,' c ,' ' >1 , SURFACE y" ' .;I ', " ' ~-: .' .. ' y ;_ -,-:_ -,\ --- ,/." / ,::_./{, \' f _ ;.' ' ' DfAINA ~E~ :-i_ /': .. ~>'.;'.',/---:--;;.' 1' / MINEEITTRACE ;/ \ Cl l / Jr I\ I ) .. .. '-_,. / , P<IHO ~ -· ·' . ->:' _ , : /i-· ·· •-, '., ( 1 \:::::-} , .-l'.17( ', ~\) ,-r'\ .> -(-,·' =' < 1 '_ .. --'/',' "· .• -· F,UELOll / , \ \ ·'1,Zk(Jr~'.~ 1'----~ )1 .. _. .'(-·) ____ --·_,G :·--,s,TclJIAl3E "· \ ). •\ I Ii! , ( · I , ...-\ •m,•9LE ' ,r.;: _ I J c J,. · 11 i •1 ' \ , '". • ! • ) 11f ' • c.'' ' . \ --.. ,"~ PO"!JJI, ''. r,/ /:='..{--... /• < •· , , \ _, /'/-~'/1 > J• , ,'-.. ,/ \ _/' .--~-~-~,.,....-:;'./, _._·_<4;(1'{(( 1J 1 \ _TRAllfhPARk · ,' \\ i_\ p()· ,..-/ _../'-\. __ ,,f ' ---1 1SED)w{N r--· --·_, __., \ :l ' •J r.. ' . -/' ' ' -J! 'l Ai' li ( • -' .. --•";_:__~::.<l\:· ' ( ~;:,,'· 11 -----~;~_PAD ,-~~--l" ~-,i ···it:·i+ ~01 . ' , I ~ " ·-, ,I 1 _: \ i/) /' 1 1/)J -J 'l ;/ !."\" .. <: .-... ---... ·~ , .. 1'-..-·'" :;? 1\'( ~''/!\;I \,-'-1/ ,1 1 ·, --·-.. \\/ f I l !-' (" > -~ ;:, .. -y;.'-/ --' ,,-~;-"";';)-~ .).-) 1' ,·I \•(, i;r..., ) ,-fi -,._I I J / -. ·_. ... J' 1 ,/JI r: _,,r:~-z~~~ ,.-:'~J : , • :----,,...i,,:~-J >" ~ , f,o \ 11 / r · /// \ (! t-::-\jl:~.,, :-' -, )N~J ANTR 1 f:J"~~-:' , \ ; / i·"f; }>--~~-/\ ;1~~0~,'." r;''; h 'J -~b!fJ_i/ j".!'ijof·,::::::?1. ',,~1-:'(irJ?r~.',1 " ,,r:,_')! -/ \j r. / , 7 _ _.NoN-EC0Noc 1 -., .. ,s,llDF~c ·w0 , /·. ,,1 ; _1 1 r:::::::J.f----t~ -'-"'i --,1 1, 1 .£1, .. -· \· '',l~"f"'-jd\_. __ ,,-·.,c\'::~·~~ ·:·7r '.( ,J\\. -I I -I r I J ---· _! . -,,,,.,,' \ g;::_:._)' / . i 1 ,;(J()~'/. "i'./1._..-\1 ,r ·)·: I :\';-.,,·\~: /.);--.( ,..... ., \\ ( ,-.·-~,·~!:' -.-· -(/··if~_I 1_11 ,·, '· \ ~ --_,_ 1 .;.~.J/'4 -·}1!r-"·/1}•'-'f r -·1\ I · J I r ~---·------..Y.-_wm~•s :~i -. '·,r:, 1 , \ t , "1 / ' > 8 ,'.~~~~ ,' 'j ll,_,_,..'::;· 0, ((""-,· '1 "·---~-/,1 -:..··--:-:: .. ~ ... ___ >.' -~-1----:·," \ \ ~ '>'v1 ··:·S1 ·Y. ____ .5:-.:·1J1j 1 \~--J1"l :·:._1 >::,_NEb~J , .><---L~i:----.,f:?-·'-~-~~·~\r-,·, ,_, ___ ,·,,,)I( , \ r ''(""'--/;:,,;.: .. / ';Y\,h _,·',\' \ \ .. ;-·"--', :~/ ,._ ___ --(-:-·.," -1 ~' '/-~"'i..7;-,-, __ r•--::'·:.;:.~i ,. \ a _;.,; r' ,,/-·1 , , ,~,1 ,01 .· },--· .c --,~-· / r ._._,,,_ __ ... ,._, 1 -, -) /-;;{, ) ..--?: .. · \/ I ~--~-u --:,. . .L.,C: I I -I I --, I / : , ' /'./--7"1 ./-" . ;r· '!'1Llc , ;..-~I -<~). --n~~""t;i-;-7·-f-.. --· f''--1 d -------+--\ 1 \t.' I i ·~'A I ' I ,.,, ' .~ .. -(''' ]'~\ ~(---...!-~-----L l I / . I 35.1 311 '-;/ \~<-· (Ir' i -G ~ ...._11.b , I /''Ii ,_..." f I I,.-n° .. -·-~ I ',/·, _ _; ;' .-, ' ~ r·-/ )! • /! VENTHCJL;e' i( I ' ~)", ·~" ~ "-,)J '/ ') \~~ \~',--, --t- o: ~, l~., r '7\ '\ ) ! i -~-, 11 . . . / ; :--~ "~ 1 ---,. · .. u , .. _; · '1!1 C-'i ~L:"f lJ ! r'~"' c": i ~ · 1 ---<' I J . THE AP.EA BOUNDARIES SHOWN HERE ARE THE ORJGINAL BOUflCIARIES. WHICH WERE ADJUSTED SLIGHTLY DURING THE RSE. (SEE SUBSEQUENT i=IGURES) //t.ftH.!hlfi l--------------------1 "'•.tJ .:~i(I SCALE 600 ' 0 600' ------~ CONTOUR INTERVAL SFT . """·'·' i::::1 .+1 ::___=:::---tl-;;;;;-il--;;;;;;;11~1::'.!:I ~I I '!!-~.~ P.0.B0Xl077 GiAlp.NM"l.ftm 11D>3017 ~ • :t:( f J --u+:O, I~ ~\ u 2 ~l ' ""·/,!/ ; ' ' r; --: ~]'t_·c~;--.~: ')::;.,__. i. / / \ • (J'/' • ~),'/ "; \-~-'<' /, ,!.--' cf" • r 1~ I •l\.[1,, I j ' Ii. _ ~ ,'. ' g --: i ) --r-: )' s_(c\l'ioARY ;M•NE \ ' ? '<; ' I --~ • ..rf:~ '."·~ '· '-. -) ) ) I ! l)IECR,(JlJ_tjC 0 FICE~ ; ' . \ . a , , v:· _ __,...--~· 1 OAOITYPI ~_..;.,--' /'-t,---.-1 _./'. . :.--· --·>.,. a:...--1 / / ~~=-~, i · --1 () ~ . .J :? /<~-~'.,;:.------' __ .----"-_..-I-__..---.... ----i·· / ff( __)--·~:=1t:1 I . I ~ (: .---:~~/ , J!/_.-:AY ·_,, .-==~-,r"--"-r -~~.::::._:::::;~_'.)_/ ' , , I . .--.. / -t-;oQ.B;r:---------------1 i / ,,,· .fVE~THOLEO • /---: I -"~.~ ,~--::::_-:::=:::;'./ r· ---------' ··1·· .__ .---1PAOJE:Cf, d -~-,,-f~ ·~,/ r :~/ ~;_::/':..____ • ;----~, ,· ! , ---\ ' \ }/ '.' .. 1-------------REMOVAL SITE EVALUA rtON REPORT ~ ~It ,•/,~(-;:&~:--.,,- 1 ,I f') _.« /jJ~;;:__,._./ '', ( 1 /•' / " ·) ·; , 1 ,, ) OAAWING TITLE i 1 ,L:::Jt~·---l i ,..-- 1 _) r _-J..~-i)Ji!z:.~:_:__,:_:----:,-!/-..,j J I. ' CHURCHROKMllLUNC LOCAL LAND USE ~ ·I ____ 'I El~'~.t,{---{--/ ft~5l~.J \. --.--:--~~-::----~~---Ull0",.;1---:::;;;---------,-,:;------l @ · ' _,;.<lir ' , .-· '''-'"·"" .,,,,_,;,;· _., / ' ;1D\ M o-• 1 oLLs•ee11 .~· '···'n~ · 1:. ~:oco:i 1 ;t.'5Mi \WI WH CAlJ!, ROLR 11 ' "'•Poo-1-2 --,-- /}!d !'•.t;.!-... •· } !~'Ylll!>:J ,/.~ - :,-::''' I .'i f f i;1 .. '1 -1 . J .;: ~:.~'!I-:t;."• .::::.:;_ ... 1_ .• ~::;-·, I ··,,.,[ ;t;~r/ .~ /.i J"'. ·"'/:'""~. / .··· /..· :······ / ( ;-- 11 ,''\:/ i ( , \ i l\1 i/ i / ,t~~ ( ( .I I ~I ,-· 1 ~ I = ll I.<· ~-"· \ · ..... j- ( ',.,/, l \. ' -~r.·',. ~>'· .. \ . ,,. _:~ __ , ... ~"'·? f / " ,/'--.. ~, .. ~·~ \· . • ·.::.?' r ., i j -. ... .).;;·,_:: r·r r , .. '• .;.· ' '! ~~ '~-:·-~!' l:! 1 .~l ,') .~// ,. i' '-::_ ~ \. 1-\ I I < i ii . ),., .--.·,I . ..- "] ... : l ·.f .• ;1.1 •N .~ ... //F ,1'· , i. ;;~ •. ·1.::i'i . f ·' i'· ·;; .i /_,' (.··· ,. />" , ~,r:.~ ,7 ,.. ,..NECR-1 L, ·}/ ' ',( { ,/ . I. ( f.'} '· -~;r, !•' I•-... I ·1/;k ! ~!· ,-·• J //is<.· I:· , ,. -~~-··;Jr ,-~;-~-',~ f ' I I .\ ·~ ·i.· ,. ! ~ --c. .; ; I; ! ~ I \!t·· ~-··': r · ) ./ ·1-:~ f~~t ~: .. ·., !, / • r ;011000 ' ·e·~~ C.".t:i i " • ~ ... r .• ··,•. ;'~ ·t'···· '· •~':?J m:1 ' '!J.. l ,. :·~·:i.: •' ~ .. ,\ .,1.c ·; - l ...,_.,....- l ... , ·:'"·"'". I ) _I J ' ; ) . ] .. ·. ,_,. . . ... ~ ' i I _J ;· f i ·;\ MOME SITES .. :"..! .· •' ~ ,-·-··' \;·\ .'/ .... _ .-··" i ._ ··,lj ,;_ · ... 1: .. i' f ., I i ~ I ' ) Ti . ." '... ::. . ..--· 'i ,, ,, .!"'-· ( ···: :·-· ~,. .. .I; ; . __ ;, I r . .__: "'-:-N r,r,i;;''.K'l'J .. , . 't 1 -~- /)r ;.,1!U;~ •. 1 i / ,· (!~~c-,,. LEGEND PERMIT BOUNDARY FACILITY OR FEATURE BOUNDARY (Appmx.) NRC REGULATED AREAS RECLAIMED ~ UNDER JURISDICTION OF NRC RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL LISCENSE SUA-1475. >-·--< CUL VERT i I SlRUCnJRE NOTES: 1. SURFACE TOPOGRAPHY GE.NffiATEO FROM AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS DATED MAY 2007 BY COOPER AERIAL SURVEYS CO . NEW MEXICO \'VEST STATE PlMIE COOROl-JA. TES . NAO 83 . -.,[. f-· '.!------------; \ .,. ... /.~/ . .--·. . ~:>~·/""'""~' -·'/· i. " .. :~".:';~·A"';' J.:""". / (> •• , \ •• ~'; l ~-.-:_.' (~! .. ~---}~; l I I I I . ,.,.. .! ! t · } f (~ <-1 ·',r;~< ': \ f '.:.Yl~ ·~,:. / ,,....,,.~ ' I :' ... .\ ( / ~!-~';!fl) t i'.!•;'.~1'-l! .··,, I 0 ,.. ,·I / .l_i / ,.'/ / ; / .' / , \ I f'.' rrS i•.1.-· .. . /~· .// ./~/ 500' SCALE 0 000' liiii w-m-l , , ~"""'' I 1 CONTOUR 1 ~TERVA~ 1 5FT. 1 1 I 11;_6fl,'.m '!!.'.· @ PROJECT: P.o.eoxxm G>hp.Hew-!llJ5.3077 ~ll~ REMOVAL SITE EVALUA T/ON REPORT DRAWING Tin£, SITE LAYOUT S~cl I 01 1 SN•ll ({ID MW H ,FllV'IEN._ ~3 Figure 1-4a. Summary of Evaluated Exposure Pathways from the RSE Human Health Risk Assessment for Current/Future On-Site Maintenance Workers Northeast Church Rock Mine Site, Church Rock, New Mexico INECR-1 Shallow soils • • • • • • • iNECR-1 Subsurface soils • • • • • • • NECR-2 Shallow soils • • • • • • • NECR-2 Subsurface soils • • • • • • • Ponds 1&2 Shallow soils • • • • • • • Ponds 1&2 Subsurface soils • • • • • • • Pond 3/3a Shallow soils • • • • • • • Pond 3/3a Subsurface soils • • • • • • • Sediment Pad Shallow soils • • • • • • • iSediment Pad Subsurface soils • • • • • • • isandfill #1 Shallow soils • • • • • • • ISandfill #1 Subsurface soils • • • • • • • 1Sandfill #2 Shallow soils • • • • • • • !Sandfill #2 Subsurface soils • • • • • • • Sandfill #3 Shallow soils • • • • • • • Sandfill #3 Subsurface soils • • • • • • • NEMSA Shallow soils • • • • • • • NEMSA Subsurface soils • • • • • • • Bonevard Shallow soils • • • • • • • Bonevard Subsurface soils • • • • • • • Vents 3&8 Shallow soils • • • • • • • Trailer Park Shallow soils • • • • • • • BackQround Shallow soils • • • • • • • BackQround Subsurface soils • • • • • • • Notes : A solid diamond indicates an evaluated pathway and an empty cell indicates the pathway was not evaluated. Pathways codes: SI = soil ingestion, DI = dust inhalation , XE = External exposure Only Ra-226 was evaluated for the Ml pathway. Figure 1-4b. Summary of Evaluated Exposure Pathways from the RSE Human Health Risk Assessment for Future On-Site Livestock Grazers Northeast Church Rock Mine Site, Church Rock, New Mexico ~ .. ~··~· 1it.;c1,i re~t:~eo.s "r'_..M."!: ~~ :~~~~ .... ~.\;,;.i>!~i\lll'~~,.,~~ 8&ti181,{i~N8ri;.~ • '-c ·~ . (~ . ' Iii ·. . ~ !\;•: .,\~,.:; ' ~~$l~ ~!;),~~ @i§J~ ·-1:01 NECR-1 Shallow soils • • • • • • • • NECR-1 Subsurface soils • • • • • • • • NECR-2 Shallow soils • • • • • • • • NECR-2 Subsurface soils • • • • • • • • Ponds 1&2 Shallow soils • • • • • • • • Ponds 1&2 Subsurface soils • • • • • • • • Pond 3/3a Shallow soils • • • • • • • • Pond 3/3a Subsurface soils • • • • • • • • Sediment Pad Shallow soils • • • • • • • • Sediment Pad Subsurface soils • • • • • • • • Sandfill #1 Shallow soils • • • • • • • • Sandfill #1 Subsurface soils • • • • • • • • Sandfill #2 Shallow soils • • • • • • • • Sandfill #2 Subsurface soils • • • • • • • • Sandfill #3 Shallow soils • • • • • • • • :sandfill #3 Subsurface soils • • • • • • • • NEMSA Shallow soils • • • • • • • • NEMSA Subsurface soils • • • • • • • • Shallow soils • • • • • • • • Bonevard Subsurface soils • • • • • • • • !Vents 3&8 Shallow soils • • • • • • • • Trailer Park Shallow soils • • • • • • • • Background Shallow soils • • • • • • • • Backqround Subsurface soils • • • • • • • • Notes: A solid diamond indicates an evaluated pathway and an empty cell indicates the pathway was not evaluated . Pathways codes : SI = soil ingestion, DI = dust inhalation, Ml = meat ingestion, XE = External exposure Only Ra-226 was evaluated for the Ml pathway . Figure 1-4c. Summary of Evaluated Exposure Pathways from the RSE Human Health Risk Assessment for Future On-Site Resident Northeast Church Rock Mine Site, Church Rock, New Mexico • • • • NECR-2 Shallow soils • • • • • Ponds 1&2 Shallow soils • • • • • Pond 3/3a Shallow soils • • • • • Sediment Pad Shallow soils • • • • • Sandfill #1 Shallow soils • • • • • Sandfill #2 Shallow soils • • • • • Sandfill #3 Shallow soils • • • • • NEMSA Shallow soils • • • • • Bonevard Shallow soils • • • • • :Vents 3&8 Shallow soils • • • • • Trailer Park Shallow soils • • • • • Backaround Shallow soils • • • • • Notes: A solid diamond indicates an evaluated pathway and an empty cell indicates the pathway was not evaluated . Pathway codes : SI = soil ingestion, DI = dust inhalation, Ml = meat ingestion, Pl = Produce Ingestion, El = Egg Ingestion, XE = External exposure. Only Ra-226 was evaluated for the Ml , Pl, and El pathways . Table 1-1a . XE Ra -226 Subsurface soils 1E-06 0 .01 NA NA 1E-04 0.008 XE Ra -226 Shallow so ils 1E-06 0.008 NA NA 9E-05 0.008 XE Ra-226 Subsurface soils 3E-07 0.005 NA NA 2E-05 0.005 XE Ra-226 Ponds 1&2 Shallow soils 4E-06 0.02 NA NA '~~4E,-0;4 i'" 0.02 XE Ra-226 Ponds 1&2 Subsurface soils 8E-06 0.03 NA NA "'t,ae :o4 ~"" 0.03 XE Ra-226 Pond 3/3a Shallow soils 6E-06 0 .09 NA NA " 6E ~04 '" 0.09 XE Ra -226 Pond 3/3a Subsurface soils 4E-07 0.01 NA NA 2E-05 0.008 XE Ra-226 Sediment Pad Shallow so ils 2E-06 0.04 NA NA "\.'2E:!0.4 '~; 0.04 XE Ra -226 Sediment Pad Subsurface soils 2E-06 0.02 NA NA · -2e::o4··. 0.02 XE Ra-226 Sandfill #1 Shallow soils 4E-07 0 .003 NA NA 3E-05 0.002 XE Ra -226 Sandfill #1 Subsurface soils 3E-06 0.006 NA NA } 2E-0:41,t' 0.006 XE Ra -226 Sandfill #2 Shallow soils 6E-07 0.002 NA NA 4E-05 0.003 XE Ra-226 Sandfill #2 Subsurface soils 2E-07 0.003 NA NA 7E-06 0.003 XE Ra -226 Sandfill #3 Shallow soils 2E -06 0.02 NA NA ··2E-O~-~ 0.02 XE Ra-226 Sandfill #3 Subsurface soils 1E-06 0.03 NA NA 1E-04 0.03 XE Ra-226 NEMSA Shallow soils 1E-06 0.007 NA NA 9E-05 0.02 XE Ra -226 NEMSA Subsurface soils 2E-06 0 .02 NA NA ' 2E.:04 0.02 XE Ra -226 Boney a rd Shallow soils 1E-06 0.002 NA NA 1E-04 0 .02 XE Ra-226 Boney a rd Subsurface soils 9E-07 0 .01 NA NA 8E-05 0.01 XE Ra-226 Vents 3&8 Shallow soils 2E-06 0.02 NA NA ., 2E~~4 0.02 XE Ra -226 'Trailer Park Shallow soils 8E-07 0.02 NA NA 7E-05 0.02 XE Ra-226 Backqround Shallow soils 1E-07 0.02 NA NA 3E-06 0.001 XE Ra-226 Backqround Subsurface soils 1E-07 0.02 NA NA 3E-06 0.001 XE Ra -226 Notes : Values shown are sum of potential cancer and non-cancer risks across the evaluated pathways. See Tables 4 .9 through 4 .12 of the SRE report (MWH , 2007) for detailed results . US EPA risk range for cancer effects is 1 E-06 to 1 E-04 ; risk threshold for non-cancer effects is 1. Values shown in bold are above a cance r risk of 1 E-04 or a non-cancer risk of 1 . Key pathways codes : SI = soil ingestion, DI =dust inhalation , XE = external exposure NA: Not applicable . Subsurfa ce soils were evaluated in select exposure areas. Th is table does not include a summary of the Home Site risk results since they are not evaluated as part of the EE/CA . NECR-1 NECR-1 NECR-2 NECR-2 Ponds 1&2 Ponds 1&2 Pond 3/3a Pond 3/3a Sediment Pad Sediment Pad Sandfill #1 Sandfill #1 Sandfill #2 Sandfill #2 Sandfill #3 Sandfill #3 NEMSA NEMSA Boney a rd Boney a rd Vents 3&8 !Trailer Park Notes: Table 1-1b. Summary of RSE Human Health Risk Assessment Results for Future On-Site Livestock Grazers Northeast Church Rock Mine Site, Church Rock, New Mexico ~~t~w~~.' Shallow soils 2E-06 0 .02 NA NA 2E-03 0.02 Ml ,XE Subsurface soils 2E-06 0 .02 NA NA 2E-03 '.. 0 .02 Ml .XE Shallow soils 2E-06 0 .02 NA NA 2E-03 -. 0 .02 Ml, XE Subsurface soils 7E-07 0 .01 NA NA '4E-04'' 0 .01 Ml ,XE Shallow soils 9E-06 0 .04 NA NA 7E:o3 •· 0 .04 Ml ,XE Subsurface soils 2E-05 0 .07 NA NA 1E-02 '{ 0 .07 Ml.XE Shallow soils 1E-05 0 .2 NA NA ., 1E-02 0 .2 Ml ,XE Subsurface soils BE-07 0 .02 NA NA 4E•04 0.02 Ml ,XE Shallow soils 5E-06 0.09 NA NA 4E-03'' . 0 .09 Ml.XE Subsurface soils 5E-06 0.04 NA NA ., 4E -03 ·0~· 0.04 Ml .XE Shallow soils 1E-06 0 .005 NA NA 6E ~04 0 .005 Ml XE Subsurface soils 5E-06 0 .01 NA NA •"4E-03 " 0 .01 Ml ,XE Shallow soils 1E-06 0 .006 NA NA SE-04 'r 0 .006 Ml,XE Subsurface soils 4E-07 0 .006 NA NA 1E-04 0 .006 NA Shallow soils 4E-06 0 .03 NA NA 3E-03 ' 0 .03 Ml ,XE Subsurface soils 3E-06 0 .06 NA NA ·· 2E-03 . · 0 .06 Ml ,XE Shallow soils 2E-06 0.02 NA NA 2E-03 0 .02 Ml ,XE Subsurface soils 4E-06 0 .05 NA NA ·• 3E-03 .· 0 .05 Ml XE Shallow soils 2E-06 0 .005 NA NA ~t'. 2E-03 ~ 0 .005 Ml ,XE Subsurface soils 2E-06 0 .02 NA NA , ·1E ~03 ,. 0.02 Ml ,XE Shallow soils 5E-06 0 .04 NA NA '.: 4E-03 ;.,,'l 0 .04 Ml.XE Shallow soils 2E-06 0 .04 NA NA · 1E-03 0 .02 Ml.XE Shallow soils 3E-07 0 .002 NA NA 4E-05 0.002 NA Subsurface soils 3E-07 0 .002 NA NA 4E-05 0 .002 NA Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra -226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 NA Ra-226 Values shown are sum of potential cancer and non -cancer risks acros s the evaluated pathways . See Tables 4.13 through 4 .16 of the SRE report (MWH , 2007) for detailed results . US EPA risk range for cancer effects is 1 E-06 to 1 E-04 ; risk threshold for non-cancer effects is 1. Values shown in bold and highlighted are above a cancer risk of 1 E-04 or a non-cancer risk of 1. Key pathways are those were those whe re the cumulat ive cancer or non-cancer risks were greater than 1e-04 or 1, respectively . Key pathways codes : SI = soil ingestion , DI = dust inhalation , Ml = meat ingestion , XE =external exposure NA : Not applicable . Subsurface soils were evaluated in select exposure areas. This table does not include a summary of the Home Site risk results since they are not evaluated as part of the EE/CA. Ponds 1&2 Shallow soils Pond 3/3a Shallow soils Sediment Pad Shallow soils Sandfill #1 Shallow soils Sandfill#2 Shallow soils Sandfill#3 Shallow soils NEMSA Shallow soils Shallow soils Shallow soils Shallow soils Shallow soils Notes : Table 1-1c. Summary of RSE Human Health R isk Assessment Results for Hypothetical Future On.Site Resident 2E-04 ' 5 SI 2E-04 -''f1 25 SI 1E-04 12 SI 2E-05 1 NA 3E-05 1 NA ?E-05 4 SI 5E-05 2 SI 5E-05 1 NA 9E-05 5 SI 4E-05 3 SI 1E-05 0 .3 NA Northeast Church Rock Mine Site, Church Rock, New Mexico -~~ -= ·~-''"·-·-~~----·L--·-·orricfa···,,_.t ~·-..... ,;f~~ 1aH .ey;f!!\IJ.'w! Pl, Ml,XE 2 Pl, Ml ,XE Ra-226 , Uranium 1 '' 2E:02lf 5 Pl , El Ml XE Ra-226, Uranium ,.. 3E-02· 25 SI , Pl, El, Ml, XE Uranium 1E-02 12 Pl, Ml ,XE NA 2E-03. •·• 1 Pl , Ml .XE NA 2E-03'"\ 0.8 Pl , Ml,XE Uranium i''9E.0'3r 4 Pl, Ml .XE Uranium 11-:_5E-03 . 2 Pl, Ml , XE NA , ·•: 6E-03:r••· 1 Pl Ml,XE Uranium ··"·1E-0:.r '·· 5 Pl, Ml ,XE Uranium 4E-03 3 Pl , Ml .XE NA 2E-04''f:~ 0.3 NA(a) Ra-226 ' _5E-03 ·,;' Ra-226 ·SE-03 :' Ra-226 ·~ 2Eio2k·O;· Ra-226 ,,,.3E-02 :, Ra-226 '"1E:.02 f Ra-226 '2E-.:03 ' l' Ra-226 -2E-03 . Ra-226 !IE-03 ·ii Ra-226 5E;Q3 • Ra -226 .. , '6E:03 ,;i• Ra-226 ifl!l'1E.:02 '" Ra-226 4E;o3 ';. NA 2E'°4 h Values shown are sum of potential cancer and non-cancer risks across the evaluated pathways . See Tables 4.17 through 4.19 of the SRE report (MWH , 2007) for detailed results . 3 Pl , Ml,XE 2 Pl Ml,XE 5 Pl , El, Ml XE 25 SI , Pl , El , Ml , XE 12 Pl , Ml ,XE 1 Pl, Ml .XE 0.8 Pl , Ml .XE 4 Pl , Ml .XE 2 Pl, Ml XE 1 Pl , Ml.XE 5 Pl, Ml .XE 3 Pl, Ml ,XE 0.3 NA la\ USEPA risk range for cancer effects is 1 E-06 to 1 E-04 ; risk threshold for non-cancer effects is 1. Values shown in bold and highlighted are above a cancer risk of 1 E-04 or a non-cancer risk of 1. Key pathways are those were those where the cumulative cancer or non-cancer risks we re greater than 1e-04 or 1, respectively . Key pathways codes : SI = soil ingestion, DI =dust inhalation, Ml = meat ingestion, Pl = Produce Ingestion, El = Egg ingestion , XE =external exposure NA : Not applicable . Subsurface so il s were evaluated in se lect exposure areas . This table does not include a summary of the Home S~e risk results since they are not evaluated as part of the EE/CA . (a) The individual pathways were all less than 1 E-04 but their sum exceeded 1 E-04 . Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra -226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 Ra-226 NA Selenium Uranium Vanadium Notes : Table 2-1 a. Summary of Proposed Non-Radiological Toxicity Benchmarks for the Refined Human Health Risk Assessment Northeast Church Rock Mine Site, Church Rock, New Mexico NA na NA NA na NA NA (a) Data from IRIS on-line database (accessed 4 January 2008). (b) Calculated using route extrapolation . NA : Not applicable. Table is similar to Table 4 .8 of Removal Site Evaluation Report HHRA (MWH , 2007). Notes : Table 2-1 b. ·Summary of Proposed Radiological Toxicity Benchmarks for the Refined Human Health Risk Assessment Northeast Church Rock Mine Site, Church Rock, New Mexico ,~~~~~~JcfpQ!1F~ct0.r~(S.11l (a) Data from USEPA (2001 ). NA: Not applicable . Table is similar to Table 4 .8 of Removal Site Evaluation Report HHRA (MWH , 2007). Ra-226 is cons idered a Class A carcinogen . SFs shown include the short-lived (less than 6 months) daughter products.