HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-08-09 WSB AGENDA...
WATER & SEWER BOARD ..
' AGENDA
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
5:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM
ENGLEWOOD CITY HALL
1. MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 2011 MEETING. (ATT. 1)
2. AGREEMENT WITH CENTENNIAL FOR TEMPORARY LEASE AND/OR
RE-DIVERSION OF REUSABLE RETURN FLOWS OF WATER. (ATT. 2)
3. LITTLETON/DENVER AGREEMENT TO USE CITY DITCH TO FILL
GENEVA PARK LAKE. (ATT. 3)
4. RESPONSE TO CAMERA PLACEMENT AT 780 W. OXFORD AVE. AT THE
CITY DITCH. (ATT. 4)
5. RESPONSE TO COUNCIL REQUEST #11-151. (ATT. 5)
6. INFORMATIONAL ARTICLE FROM TO THE DENVER POST, "LA WYER
HAD DUAL ROLE IN DEAL THAT COST WELD." (ATT. 6)
7. OTHER.
WATER AND SEWER BOARD
t MINUTES
July 12, 2011
The meeting was called to order at 5:06 p.m.
Members present: Burns, Clark, Olson, Wiggins, Woodward
Members absent: Higday, McCaslin, Habenicht
Mr. Fonda noted that Mr. Cassidy has resigned from the Water and Sewer Board as of
July 11, 2011.
Also present: Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities
John Bock, Admin. Manager of Utilities.
Tom Brennan, Utilities Engineer
Steve Yates, Mathew Crabtree, Lorraine
Barentine, Joseph Barentine, unknown
person who did not wish to be identified,
Ryan Laird, Randy Penn
1. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 14, 2011 MEETING.
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received the minutes of the June 14, 2011
meeting. Mr. Burns noted some corrections.
Mr. Wiggins moved;
Mr. Clark seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Motion carried.
To approve the minutes of the June 14, 2011
meeting, as amended.
Burns, Clark, Olson, Wiggins, Woodward
None
Higday, McCaslin, Habenicht
Mr. Bums moved;
..
Mr. Woodward seconded:11
Ayes :
Nays :
Absent:
Motion carried.
To declare an executive session to discuss
legal matters.
Bums, Clark, Olson, Wiggins, Woodward
None
Higday, McCaslin, Habenicht
EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS DECLARED AND ALL NON-ESSENTIAL
PERSONNEL WERE ASKED TO LEA VE.
2 . GUEST -DAVID HILL, WATER ATTORNEY.
Mr. David Hill of Berg, Hill and Greenleaf, appeared before the Board in executive
session to discuss legal water litigation matters.
Mr. McCaslin entered at 5:30 p .m.
Ms . Olson moved;
Mr. Wiggins seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Motion carried.
Mr. Woodward moved;
To direct David Hill, Englewood's water
attorney, to file comments on a legal matter
discussed in executive session.
Bums, Clark, Olson, Wiggins, Woodward,
Mc Caslin
None
Higday, Habenicht
I .. 2
Ms. Olson seconded :
Ayes :
Nays:
Absent:
Motion carried.
To close the executive session.
Bums, Clark, Olson, Wiggins , Woodward,
Mc Caslin
None
Higday, Habenicht
EXECUTNE SESSION WAS CONCLUDED AT 5:45. THE PUBLIC WAS INVITED
BACK TO THE REGULAR WATER AND SEWER BOARD MEETING.
3. RECORDING WATER BOARD MEETINGS .
The Board discussed recording the Water and Sewer Board meetings . Mayor Woodward
recommended that the first portion of the meetings be reserved for executive sessions, if
necessary. The Board concurred.
Mr. Bums moved;
Ms. Olson seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Motion carried.
To record future Water and Sewer Board
meetings.
Bums, Clark, Olson, Wiggins, Woodward,
Mccaslin
None
Higday, Habenicht
4. PROCEDURES FOR ADDRESSING CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS FROM
THE PUBLIC.
The Board discussed the desire to have a chance to investigate and obtain background
information on issues citizens wish to bring before the Board. A time limit of 5 minutes
for scheduled visitors and 3 minutes for unscheduled visitors was discussed. Linda Olson
I -3
noted the need for adequate time for an issue. A citizen submitting their issues and
information could also submit an estimate of time needed, if more time is required. The
Board reserves the right to modify the amount of time if it is perceived to be excessive or
repetitive. The Board could decide at the beginning of the meeting if time restrictions are
necessary. Mr. Woodward recommended that the protocol be posted on the City's
website. Mr. Wiggins recommended it be noted in the next Pipeline.
Linda Olson requested that staff investigate the legal standing if unscheduled visitors are
allowed to speak.
The Board recommended that time is set aside at the end of the regular meeting for
unscheduled visitors or after scheduled guests , with the Board having the prerogative of
limiting excessive time or repetitive issues.
Mr. Burns moved;
Mr. Clark seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
That a policy be established for citizens who
wish to address the Board on water and
sewer related issues. Citizens are requested
to submit their issues and questions, along
with a discussion time estimate, one week
before the meeting. This would allow staff
an opportunity to research, respond and
resolve, if possible. If not, the issue will be
forwarded to the Board. Unscheduled
visitors will be allowed to address the Board
after scheduled visitors at the beginning of
the meeting. The Board will have the
prerogative of deciding whether or not to
address issues that have been discussed at
previous meetings to the Board's
satisfaction. The Board will consider the
amount of time requested for discussion and
adjust it as they see fit. However, the Board
expressed a desire to try to keep within the
guidelines of allowing 5 minutes for
scheduled visitors and 3 minutes for
unscheduled visitors.
Burns, Clark, Olson, Wiggins, Woodward,
Mc Caslin
None
Higday, Habenicht
Motion carried.
;
5. AT&T LEASE -SHERMAN WATER TANK-PROPOSED AMENDMENT.
The Board received a memorandum from the Englewood's Assistant City Attorney
discussing changes proposed by AT&T for the lease allowing cellular antennas on the
Sherman Tank. The Board also received a memorandum from Bill McCormick,
Operations Superintendent of Utilities, discussing his reservations regarding the proposed
lease. Mr. McCormick noted that allowing twelve antennas on the Sherman Tank could
seriously impede operations and tank access. In his memo, Mr. McCormick
recommended not approving the amended lease.
Mr. Wiggins moved;
Ms. Olsen seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Motion carried.
To reject the proposed AT&T lease
amendment.
Bums, Clark, Olson, Wiggins, Woodward,
Mc Caslin
None
Higday, Habenicht
6. MARTIN & WOOD -PROVIDING WATER RESOURCES FOR SWEDISH
MEDICAL CENTER.
The Board received a letter dated June 20, 2011 from Joe Tom Wood ofMartin & Wood
Water Consultants noting that they will be providing water resources consulting to
Swedish Medical Center. Martin & Wood will be evaluating existing tributary and non-
tributary wells on its facility. They may also be asked to prepare a substitute water supply
plan and augmentation plan for Swedish.
Martin & Wood will inform Englewood of any potential conflict of interest in performing
consulting services for Swedish Medical Center.
Mr. Wiggins moved;
I -S
Mr. Mccaslin seconded:
Ayes :
Nays :
Absent:
Motion carried.
To allow Martin & Wood to provide water
resources consulting services to Swedish
Medical Center. Englewood will be notified
of any pending conflicts.
Bums, Clark, Olson, Wiggins, Woodward,
Mccaslin
None
Higday, Habenicht
7. BUDGETING FOR WATER& SEWER RATE STUDY AND
WATER CONSERVATION PLAN.
Mr. Fonda discussed budgeting for a water and sewer rate study and a Water
Conservation Plan. Linda Olson had discussed a water conservation plan with the State
Water Conservation Board and it was noted that, even if not in compliance, funds were
available to municipalities. Mr. Fonda will contact the Water Conservation Board to
discuss.
Mr. Wiggins moved;
Mr. McCaslin seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Motion carried.
To recommend the Utilities Department
budget for a water and sewer rate study and
Water Conservation Plan.
Bums, Clark, Olson, Wiggins, Woodward,
Mccaslin
None
Higday, Habenicht
' -"'
8. BILLING TEMPLATE.
John Bock, the Utilities Manager of Administration discussed the process ofredesigning
the existing billing format. The artwork and available data will be upgraded. John
discussed working with Tefoworks to upgrade information that would be available on line
and give the customer direct access to their billing information. The Teleworks upgrade
is estimated to cost $89,000.
John also noted the Utilities Department is developing, through GIS, a Mapbook that will
illustrate various rate structures. John will investigate having Teleworks appear before
the Board at a future meeting to explain what is available.
Woodward requested that the administrative fee for sewer be itemized. Mr. Clark
requested that the existing stock of billing forms be exhausted first, with supplemental
information inserted at the bottom.
9. INFORMATIONAL ARTICLES:
The Board received the following informational articles:
An article from the July 8, 2011 Denver Post, "Higher sewer rates in Denver area the
price of improved service."
An article from the Englewood Herald: Opinion, "Englewood taking advantage of seniors
on water bills," from Ryan Laird.
Clyde Wiggins left at 6:45 p.m.
10. UNSCHEDULED VISITORS:
Laurette Barentine appeared to discuss protocol for executive sessions and open comment
time for citizens.
Mr. Ryan Laird appeared to discuss issues he has brought up in previous meetings. Mr.
Clark recommended that because of Mr. Laird's previous detrimental comments to the
staff and Board, that his questions should be compiled and directed to the Board in
writing. Ms. Olson concurred with this procedure.
The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p .m .
The next Englewood Water Board meeting will be August 9, 2011 in the Community
Development Conference Room .
Respectfully submitted,
Isl Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
..
"
' -e
Date
October 3, 2011
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
Centennial Agreement for
Temporary Lease of Return
Flows
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
Council passed the original Centennial Agreement for Temporary Lease of Return Flows on
July 1, 2002 and renewed May 19, 2003 and July 12 , 2004 . This agreement is a renewal
agreement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board, at their August 9, 2011 meeting, recommended
Council approval of the Agreement for Temporary Lease and/or Re-Diversion of Reusable
Return Flows of Water Agreement with Centennial Water and Sanitation District. It is also
recommended that the Director of Utilities be granted the authority to renew the agreement on
the anniversary date for three successive years.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
Englewood injects powdered activated carbon to improve water quality into a forebay near
Union Ave. and S. Platte River, but the process creates blackened water that cannot be
directly introduced into City Ditch for exchanging. Clear water can be exchanged upstream of
City Ditch but must be pumped into the ditch from a forebay adjacent to the Allen Plant.
Englewood has no pump or pipe for pumping this forebay, but Centennial is agreeing to
provide and install the temporary pump and pipe at Centennial's sole expense.
Centennial owns reusable wastewater return flows to the S. Platte River and Englewood has
means to re-divert these flows at Union Avenue and either use them or redeliver to
Centennial. The proposed agreement would divert the return flows and pay Centennial $85.00
an acre-foot for the flows, plus pumping costs. Englewood would only acquire the return flows
at its ' sole discretion. Centennial would acquire all return flows delivered to Mclellan
Reservoir that are not acquired by Englewood and shall pay Englewood $30/acre foot, plus
pumping costs.
From 2005 to present, Centennial Water and Sanitation District did not need this agreement
because they had enough single use water to use , which is preferable, and did not have to
2 -1
use resusable water. Centennial only requires the water provided in this agreement in dry
years when there was a lack of single use water.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Englewood will pay Centennial $85 per acre foot for all return flows it chooses to acquire from
Centennial and Centennial shall pay Englewood $30 per acre foot for return flows acquired by
Centennial.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Bill for Ordinance
Agreement for Temporary Lease and/or Re-Diversion of Reusable Return Flows of Water
Centenl. Temp Lease Ret Flow 10-3-11
2 -2
AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY LEASE AND/OR
RE-DIVERSION OF REUSABLE RETURN FLOWS OF WATER
1. Introduction; Parties and Purposes .
Centennial Water and Sanitation District (Centennial) owns reusable return flows to the
South Platte River which consist of Centennial · s reusable water discharged by Centennial 's Marcy
Gulch wastewater treatment plant (the return flows). The City of Englewood (Englewood) has a
means to re-divert the return flows at Un ion A venue, and either retain them for use by Englewood or
redeliver same to Centennial. The parties intend that Englewood shall attempt to divert the return
flows, under the circumstances set forth below, and pay Centennial for the return flows if same are
retained by Englewood ; and that Centennial will pay Englewood for re-directing the return flows, if
same are redelivered to Centennial. It is anticipated that Englewood will attempt to divert the return
flows at its Union Avenue pump station, and either use same immediately in its Allen Treatment
Plant, or exchange same up City Ditch to Mclellan reservoir, in Englewood's discretion.
Therefore, the parties have agreed as follows.
2. Centennial to Give Notice of Availability; Englewood Response.
Centennial will advise Englewood, on a daily basis, of the amount of available return flows at
Englewood 's Union Avenue pump station. Englewood will advise Centennial, on a daily basis , of
available return flows Eng]ewood will not be diverting.
3. Englewood to Attempt to Divert.
Englewood will make reasonable efforts to lawfu11y divert the return flows at its Union
A venue pump station . Englewood shall have no obligation to divert: a) if diversion would impair
the necessary quality of water introduced into Englewood's water treatment plant or introduced into
City Ditch for exchange, as determined in Englewood's sole discretion; b) except to the extent that
Englewood detennines to use the return flows immediately in its Allen Treatment Plant, plus the
exchange capacity in City Ditch; c) to the extent that the capacity in Englewood's pumping system
after supplying Englewood's demand is less than all of the available return flows . Englewood shall
have no obligation to use the return flows immediately in its Allen Treatment Plant. While
Englewood shall make reasonable efforts to divert the return flows, the parties recognize that various
factors may make diversion impractical, and Englewood shall have no liability to Centennial for
failure to divert . Englewood will account for return flows diverted at its Union A venue pump
station .
4. Englewood to Exchange Up City Ditch.
Englewood will make reasonable efforts to exchange the diverted return flows up City Ditch
and 1nto McLellan Reservoir, via the pump station from City Ditch to McLellan Reservoir .
.
T.
z -3
5. Englewood 's Option to Acquire Return Flows Delivered to Mclellan Reservoir.
Englewood will account for the return flows delivered by exchange to McLe1Jan Reservoir.
Englewood will have the optiOJ} to acqu ire the return flows delivered to Mclellan Reservoir (and
Englewood will acquire any return flows used immediately in Englewood's Allen Treatment Plant).
Within four days after the end of each week (ending Saturday at midnight) Englewood will notify
Centennial if it wishes to acquire a11 of the return flows delivered to McLeJian during that week.
Englewood will pay Centennial $85 per acre foot for all of the return flows which it acquires, and
pay the pumping costs associated with those return flows . Return flows so acquired by Eng]ewood
shall be treated as Englewood's water fo r all purposes, and may be used by Englewood or delivered
to Centennial under any agreement between Englewood and Centennial.. Return flows delivered to
Mclellan as to which Englewood does not gjve such notice shall belong to Centennial.
6. Centennial 's Payment for Return Flows Acquired by Centennial.
Centennial shall acquire all return flows delivered to McLellan Reservoir that are not
acquired by Englewood . Centennial shall pay Englewood $30 per acre foot of return flows acquired
by Centennial , plus all pumping costs associated with delivery of those return flows to McLellan
Reservoir. ·
7. Temporary Pumping Facilities from the Forebay Reservoir Next to the Ali~n
Treatment Plant. · · · '· '1
' ·
Englewood currently injects granular activated carbon (GAC) into the forebay adjacent hthe
South Platte River, from which Englewood's Union Avenue pumping station pumps water to the
Allen Treatment Plant facilities. (The GAC is injected because of the current severe quality
problems in the South Platte River.) The water containing the GAC is blackened in color and
therefore cannot be directly introduced into City Ditch for exchange purposes. Therefore, a
substitute supply of clear water to be exchanged up City Ditch must be pumped into City Ditch from
a forebay reservoir adjacent to the Allen Treatment Plant (not to be confused with the forebay at the
river). (Pumping of this substitute supply will be unnecessary if the GAC injection at the river
forebay should cease.) Englewood has no pump and pipe to accomplish the pumping of this
substitute supply from the forebay reservoir. Centennial will provide and install such a pump and
pipe, and hook it up to a power source, at Centennial's sole expense. Englewood and Centennial will
cooperate in determining the location, nature and installation of the pump and pipe. At the end of
this agreement, Centennial will remove the pump, pipe and power hookup at Centennial's sole
expense, unless the parties otherwise agree. Centennial will restore any excavation or alteration of
the forebay and surrounding areas , at Centennial's sole expense .
8. Pumping Costs.
Englewood will reasonably detennine pumping costs, which are to include power, other
operation costs, and maintenance.
2
r ...
2 ~ 4
9 . Tennination.
Either Englewood or Centennial may terminate this agreement after 5 days written notice to
the other party. If not so tenni11Ated, this agreement will tem1inate at the sooner of October 31, 2011,
or the cessation of flows in CitYDitch below the Allen Treatment Plant, whichever sooner occurs,
unless the parties otherwise agree .
10 . Payment.
Englewood will account for del iveries. Englewood will pay Centennial for return flows
acquired by Englewood within 3 0 days after the end of the month during which particular deliveries
were made to Englewood. Centennial will pay Englewood within 30 days after the end of the month
during which particular deliveries were made to Centennial.
11 . State Engineer.
Centennial will be responsible for any necessary notice to the State Engineer's office ,
assuring the State Engineer 's office that its return flows are indeed reusable and divertible by
Englewood, and reporting to the State Engineer's office, in cooperation with Englewood,
12. Date.
This agreement is dated as of the ___ day of ______ , 2011.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
CENTENNIAL WATER AND SANITATION
DISTRICT
3
J. -s
3 -J
3-2
Cathy Burrage
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Bill McCormick
Wednesday, July 20, 2011 10:40 AM
Cathy Burrage
Stu Fonda
FW : Camera investigation at 780 W. Oxford .. "
Dave Prado met with the Police Dept. and unfortunately the Police Dept. cannot put a camera in the Ditch ROW for the
trespassers entering Dave's yard. Officer Matt Mander will be working with Mr. Prado on responding to trespasser
occurrences and the Utilities Dept. will not be involved with the trespassing problem. I will send another e-mail from Mr.
Prado that I received earlier this week. I have given this to the Police Dept.
From: Gary Sears
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 12:26 PM
To: Bill McCormick; Stu Fonda; Jeff Sanchez
Cc: Jim Woodward; Jason Clark
Subject: RE: Camera investigation at 780 W. Oxford
Thanks Bill, hope you are feeling better. Councilmember Gillit asked about this last night, so please keep me in the loop
as you find additional information. Gary
From: Bill McCormick
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 10:43 AM
To: Stu Fonda
Cc: Gary Sears; Jim Woodward; Jason Clark
Subject: Camera investigation at 780 W. Oxford i •• ,
I talked to Officer Matt Mander and they cannot put the camera on the tree where the trespassers are entering
Dave Prado's yard at 780 W. Oxford. Officer Mander has talked to Mr. Prado and there may be another site that
the camera can be installed. They will meet this afternoon. Officer Mander said that this is a Police issue and
that he will be taking over the trespassing issue and will tell Mr. Prado to contact him about any issues that he
has. (Yippee!!)
1
"-I -I
t
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM: Stewart H.
DATE: July 21, 2011
RE: Response to Councilperson Joe Jefferson's Council Request #11-151
As stated in the attached memo, the billing system currently does not produce the data
requested. The Water and Sewer Board has directed staff to budget funds in the 2012
budget to conduct water and sewer rate studies . As a part of the rate study, a professional
rate analyst will determine the data needed to perform the study. Funds have been
included in the 2012 budget for Advanced Utility Systems to develop the programs that
will extract that information from our usage data for use in this study and in future
studies. These rate studies will be major efforts and should be performed by a
professional rate analyst.
It should be noted that the revenue system must produce the same amount of money
regardless of the rate system that distributes the cost. This means that the lowering of
rates for some customers will result in raising the rates of other customers. It therefore
follows that the process must be open and inclusive taking into account differing points
of view. The final rate structure adopted by Council must also be legally defensible. The
Water and Sewer Board has established a process to address questions of this nature.
This inquiry and the reply will be included in the packet for the August 9, 2011 Water
and Sewer Board meeting.
s-J
MEMORANDUM
To: Stu Fonda, Director of Utilities
From: John Bock,
Date: July 20, 2011
Subject: Consumption Data for Sewer Rate Study
While the raw data needed for a rate study already exists in CIS Infinity, we do not at this
time possess the tools needed to extract it into a reliable and meaningful format.
The Water and Sewer Board has directed us to provide for a rate study in 2012. At that
time, when the professional rate consultant tells us what are the necessary numbers and
the format in which that data must be presented, we will work with Advanced Utility
Systems to configure the reporting tools needed to produce the necessary information.
<.
5-l
Stu Fonda
From: Leigh Ann Hoffhines
Sent:
To:
Monday, July 18, 2011 12 :38 PM
Stu Fonda
Cc: John Bock ; Cathy Burrage; Gary Sears; Mike Flaherty; Sue Carlton-Smith; Leigh Ann
Hoffhines
Subject: FW: Utilitie#.pouncil Request
Good morning Stu -Council Member Jefferson has submitted the following Council Request . I have added it to the lis t:
11-151.
Thanks, Leigh Ann
From: Joe Jefferson
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 12:31 PM
To: Leigh Ann Hoffhines
Subject: FW: Utilities Council Request
Please make a request for the info if possible in a timely manner.
Thanks,
Joe
From: ryan laird [rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2011 11:20 AM
To: Joe Jefferson
Subject: Utilities Council Request
Joe,
In order to move forward with the problems I have brought to the attention of City Council, I would like you to
submit a council request for some specific information. One of the easiest problems that should be addressed
immediately is the inequitable sewer billing . As you are aware, I have pointed out that about 75% of
Englewood residents are being overcharged for their sewer and the smaller households of Englewood are
subsidizing the costs for the larger households in the service area in cities like Greenwood Village and Cherry
Hills. The minimum charge for the sewer rate structure should be based on a reasonable usage value, not
arbitrarily assigned.
The members of the Water and Sewer Board voted unanimously to provide funding in next year's budget for a
sewer rate structure study. However, City Council and the Board have not made any firm commitments as to
when our sewer rates would be corrected. The Board was throwing out numbers of $40,000 to $50,000 for a
rate structure study. I agree with your opinion that some basic sewer rate structures could be developed at a
minimal cost. I asked the Utility Department director, Stewart Fonda, if he would develop these sewer rate
structure options, but he declined stating that he no longer had the expertise to calculate rate structures, even
though he is the individual who created our existing water and sewer rate structures in 1977.
1
Please have the Utility Department provide the number of accounts for each customer class and the average
sewer usage for each customer class in the two tables below. These customer classes were taken directly from
the Utility Department's published rate structures. My intent is to provide City Council some preliminary sewer
rate structures at a cost of zero dollars.
Thanks,
Ryan Laird
Table 1
~--·-·--·--··-·-----------·--·-·---···----···-----·------··-··-·-·-------···-· ·-------·--·-···· I
side City Sewer Customers Billed Quarterly and in the City's Collection System
aintenance Area
!customer Class ·-·ru~ber ~fF'lat1umb~r of Metered ~er~-ge Met;;~ds~-;-~-~-
ate Accounts ccounts Usage (1,000 gallons per
quarter) 1 ~~~~iif x_-------1=-=~--=-=--~==·~-=F==-=----· ··-·-r -··--===~·=-==
·--·----i-------1-·---·-----1 Mobile Home Unit 1 isls;-;Co~rcial--1-------··---··--r---· ---··-··------·-·-·r-·-·-·---------------·-···--·
I ·1-·------------·· ··-------·····-----------~/4" Commercial I rric;m.mercia1-·-··--r------·--T----·-----·-----_T ___ ·-... -------·--· -
------------r ------·---·-·---·--i------------·----···--·-··--·-··--------····-··-·· il -1/2" Commercial 1 I .--··----·--·----·-· ··1--·-·--.. --··--···--·-··-1-··--·-------·····-·--··-··---,----·-······-·-----· ··-·-···--~" Commercial 1 c---------,--------·-------i--·-·------·----·-·-··--·--·
j3" Commercial 1 1
~" Co~er~ial-· ----·-i---· --···-·---· -----T·-·-·--·---·-----,----.. ·-· ------·--· --------··-·· -
~" Commercial -i--··----,-----·-·------r------------------·-
i8" co~~~---r ------·-----·---r-----------------r-------·---·----j
JI O" g_omme~_c!~} ______ . ------~=--=-~-~--J -----·--____ l=-=~==~--~-~-=I
Table 2
2
~nside City Sewer Customers Billed Quarterly and Not in the City's Collection System
I---------------------------------------------------------------------~
!Maintenance Area
-f ustomer~lass ~mber of Flat ~mber of Meter;d verage Metered Sewer
ate Accounts ccounts sage (1,000 gallons per
I quarterj / ,.,-------r-------------j ~~~}~~!: Unit -f-===J;--l -----------f---~=-=~=~
~f 8 " Commercial ------------,---------------,-------------1
~/4" Commercial ---------,---I -----.
[ii'commercial -T-----------,-----------------1--------------------------------
!1 -1/2" Commercial I ---------T-------,-----------------------
~" Commercial l --T-------------,-----------------------
\3".Commercial _____ l __________ ------r -----------------i-------------------
~" Commercial -----r-------------,----------T ------------------
~;~:=:;~~~ --t----------f=-=-=---~-t-~===---=-==-_!
11 O" Commercial I I --·---====r---==-=-=-==--J
Table 3
r:. ---------------------------------------------------------------------;~---jOutside City Sewer Customers Billed Annually and Not in the City's Collection
!System Maintenance Area
!customer Class umber of Flat umber of Mete~d~verage Metered Sewer
/ ate Accounts ccounts sage (1,000 gallons per
i uarterj
1s-i~g1e-Famii)' ___ -----r·---------------------r -------------------------r ----------------------
rM u1tifamily ,------,----,--------
M obile Home unit ____ l _______ ---------T ------------------1---------------------
i5/8 ''c0minerci ai---r·---------i -----------r-------------
~/4'~ c~~~~~iai-------r -------------------r ---------------------·-r ··------------------------------------
,... r-·---------·-r------------,---------11" Commercial 1 1 I
[I=17i"c~-;~i~{C l ------------1---------------------,--------------------
~tteommercia1 I --------,--------------------!
vc~--;.;~-,-----,-----------------r -----------------·1
~" Commercial -r-------------------r-------------1
w··-~;;-a1 -----,------------·1 -------------------r--------------------1 . T-----------------------,----------------------~ 18" Commercial 1
110~-c~~ai-----T -----------~~=~--,------------.:=:_-~-T -=---------------~==~-~
3
S-5
Table 4
J?utside City Sewer Customers Billed Quarterly and Not in the City's Collection ~-
!System Maintenance Area
1Customer Class f -um_b_e_r ~f Fl.at 1~~m~ber of Metered verage Metered Sew;r
Rate Accounts Accounts Usage (1,000 gallons per I
... , . 1quarter) , fSing1e Family ----,------·--+----r------··---· -· ----r-------·--------1
~ultifamily ,--------------------,--------1
[M obile Home-unit ____ l ______ -··-·-·--r -------i------· -----------1
1518" Commercial r--------------r·--------,----·-·------·--------_ __1 ~14" Commercial --,----------r·------------------r--·--------·-··-··-------·-J
11" Commercial ___ T ______ -----r ·------r·-·-----··-----------j
1 1 --1-;2~;-comffi~~cial l · ···-----··-·----T·---·-·------·---------r··-·······-· -·------·--· --------' ~11 Co~ercial I ··----,--------1--------·----~
~~·Commercial ---,-----------------,------------·-T·----··-··-·--·------·--·----
~" Commercial 1-------------,---·-----·--i-------·---------
~" Commerci~l ---1 --· -------r -----·-·----r-------··---------·--· ---
18" Commercial J -----·---I --------·---·--
fcy.-fo~~;C~-~l_==·-~-~=-=-=-~_J=-~ -~ ------·-·· -----, ---~~--==-~~~~=-:-~-
<-
4
Format Dynamics :: CleanPrint :: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_18493442 Page 1 of 7
' .
denver~ost .. co .m l;IE DEM'ERPosr
denver & the west I weld, adams counties
..
" Lawyer had dual
role in .deal that
cost Weld, Adams
farmers water
rights
By Karen E. Crummy and Eric Gorski
The Denver Post
Posted: 07/17/20 11 01 :00:00 AM MDT
Updated : 07/17/2011 05 :16:04 PM MDT
BRIGHTON -It was supposed to be a can't-miss
deal.
Coming off a devastating drought in 2002,
farmers in Adams and Weld counties would get
to keep their coveted irrigation water while
positioning themselves to someday sell it to
cities and developers .
But nine years and one contentious legal battle
later, hundreds of farmers who own shares in a
century-old irr igation company instead face the
prospect of dry fields and lost livelihoods.
Meanwhile , the irrigation company's lawyer was
rewarded with a gold watch, a bonus and a
lucrative new client. Both he and the company's
engineer got the opportunity to buy land on a
remote ranch.
And a water district , key to the deal,
strengthened its ability to supply
growing Front Range developments with water by
gaining access to the company's vast network of
canals and reservoirs .
It's going to be hard to plan for the future ," said
Len Pettinger, 76, who farms 500 acres near
Brighton . "We're already living day to day. I guess
now we starve to death."
A Denver Post investigation into the union of two
public water districts and shareholders in the
Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Co . and two r
elated systems found that those who held the
farmers' fate in their hands took significant
risks, appeared to gain personally and
profess ionally from the arrangement, and failed
to accept an out-of-court settlement that could
have saved the farmers, some of whom will lose
half their water.
Among the newspaper's findings:
• FRICO's longtime lawyer-John P. Akolt Ill -
represented both FRICO and the United Water
and Sanitation District, the public water district
attempting to build a Front Range water-delivery
system. Akolt also represented United in other
affairs and private companies controlled by
United president Robert Lembke .
Akolt said there was no conflict of interest and
noted the FRICO board approved of his dual
roles .
advertisement
Print Powered By (!~IFormat Dynami ~s .. )
httn://www.denvemost.com/fdcn?uniaue= 1311000463093 <.-I 7118 /20 11
Format Dynamics:: CleanPrint :: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_18493442 Page 2 of7 ..
denvernost.co ,m "li1E DENVER Po~I
• FRICO didn't
hire its own engineer. Instead, theJtompany
Robert Lembke is president of the
United Water and Sanitation District,
whi ch had re latively much less to los e
in the court decision than d id the
farmers. (Craig F. Walker, Denver Post
file )
relied on engineer Duane Helton, who like Akolt
was working for both FRICO and United. A
water-court judge rejected nearly all of Helton's
calculations regarding how much water FRICO
legally owned, leaving farmers with less
irrigation water, especially in dry years.
• Both Akolt and Helton acquired real estate -
about 80 acres each -on a Weld County ranch
from a Lembke-controlled private entity while
doing work for both FRICO and United. The deeds
do not include a purchase price, and Weld County
has no records showing a price. Both men said
they paid for the land but declined to disclose
how much .
The web of relationships and side deals has
come under greater scrutiny since the Colorado
Supreme Court on May 31 found FRICO had been
taking too much water out of the South Platte
River for more than a century.
The decision hurt everyone, but farmers say they
had more to lose than the districts .
"As part of their water portfolio, it was small,"
said David Dechant, a Hudson farmer. "What they
had to lose was very different than what we had
to lose. For farmers, it's the amount of water
that matters."
Every drop precious
Len Pettinger is driving on a dirt road, his hands
on the wheel of a 1989 GMC pickup truck with a
rear-view mirror held together with duct tape .
Irrigation ditches crisscross this part of southern
Weld County like veins in the earth. The
Bowles Ditch, the West Burlington, the Speer.
~dvertisement
Print Powered By @"I Fo r rn at Oynam i c ~~J
http://www.denveroost.com/fdco?uniaue=1311000463093 l. -2 7/18/2011
!7ormat Dynamics:: CleanPrint :: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_18493442 Page 3 of7
•
denver~ost.com
11tE DENVER.Posr
water Ion
1.£1i:SEY ., fJrmo" ih \\'cU :i oo oi.4'.-n•
.. 'lili'ii:::i."' cw:it~ l<:11t ~ !hJl'ilicant
'110U"1l c~ li>tlt lr11r,;;11 1on
w.'ll:.er ~11'1< th~ t(llD 1~1
Suprf'me C-OUn fOIJ ,.;f II"!) moll
tK-rn 1.#<lll Q !QO m~h W~I OI
..
M_:.!il\
'h:r•ttl .-V.1'
'5'JlD [i)i.J NIT
lOt;llSUlE
-B11.,1att111.-0'.l.\tbt CJlilill
-!tl!/o 1'Jrllttl °" (4".IQI
UiK 'l ~
f,l)\ll!l l f
out {if the lcut11 Pl~t1Hht r
roe nie<e in>n ~ <l'~tur)".
TNlS!'.al'le.::t•;Hll!lu<H ra r~rs
in tn~ lilll'ilng1oo Ol t.<"h,
Rli'W"IWlr Vld Lam Co , tn~
f·onnN> R"'!'lvoit •nC
llr"J;itlon CC\, J<oo 1t1e
HeM•t,111 ~rll)r.IOI l •iltr;rc.
Tt>e t hrH> N•e WJter 11gr.t11
~nd .J w;;ztcir Ori.N efJ ")'Stl.Yn m
!~<!l mllf'
l •. iuriapl• lllttft, ._...,.,
1ndUll4i~~
A rn.111~\ "°~'" ra~o~
lnro<P')<it~ '"' J\£35,
~-,......., .. kl.tJ'llCllr .....
~nco..:
~ ColD<<l.$ mu:~JI. a1ttl\
tc«1p#ny1r<orpt>rW!!l In 1!)1)
,. "'""""' '" ..... io" fll11ric•: ~ put>(K enbf)I f ll'mtd in 1907
.!K"IJ',~1111;,t~~T-<11L1,CO'lf1LiJt:l'\JU ifl.aw, .an J O-di.r "11-1';:&.ltf~t~N ro-c ~·4 ru.
1'tf.r A. ... ,, ... .,, f\t1r
Click on image to enlarge (The Denve r Post)
The water flows out of Barr Lake, one of four
major reservoirs owned by FRICO. Founded in
1902, the mutual ditch company is one of the
state's largest, delivering water to shareholders
that include farmers and cities .
"Every drop of water that you lose, you can't
afford to lose," said Pettinger, a former big-rig
driver who is harvesting hay on land his father
bought in 1942. "My water is probably worth as
much as my land. Now, who knows what it's
going to be worth?"
Like other farmers who depend on FRICO water,
Pettinger is fixed on one question . "Why on God's
green earth did this happen?" he says .
The origins of the farmers' plight lie in a complex
arrangement between FRICO, the East Cherry
Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District and
United Water. United is a 1-acre special district
formed in 2002 by Lembke, a real estate
attorney and developer with designs on building
a wholesale water network spanning the Front
Range .
On Nov. 12, 2002, FRICO general manager
Manuel Montoya and Akolt, the company's
lawyer, relayed an offer to FRICO shareholders :
ECCV, trying to wean itself off diminishing
groundwater supplies, wanted to buy some of
their water.
That meant petitioning a state water court,
where a judge would decide whether the change
would hurt other water rights and if the amount
of water FRICO said it owned was accurate .
Montoya explained that if all the shares in the
FRICO system were part of the case, the farmers'
water would be more valuable if they ever
decided to sell because the court process would
already be finished. In the meantime, he assured
them, existing irrigation use would be protected .
When asked by a man in the room if
shareholders were being told the "whole story,"
Akolt replied there was a chance a judge could
cut back the amount of water farmers could sell
for municipal use.
"Is the downside any worse than what you're
looking at already?" said Akolt, according to a
transcript of the meeting. "The answer to that is,
it's certainly not worse and probably better ."
Montoya then said : "We are not trying to railroad
advertisement
Print Powered By @[form a t D·~namic?}
htto://www.denveroost.com/fdco?uniaue=l311000463093 7/18/2011
Format Dynamics:: CleanPrint :: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_18493442
•
Page 4 of7
denvernost.com
r,rltE DENVERPosr
this. But let's try to make it easy ."
The shareholders' unanimous voicla vote gave the
FRIGO board the go-ahead . The move put every
share in FRIGO's Barr Lake system under the
microscope, even though the United and EGGV
stake amounted to just 5 percent of the system.
By the end of 2003 , FRIGO, United and EGGV had
agreed : United would use FRIGO's reservoirs and
canals to gain access to water from the South
Platte, and FRIGO shareholders would have the
opportunity to sell their water and use United's
pipeline and other infrastructure . EGGV would
receive various water rights, including those
from FRIGO.
The FRIGO board was so pleased with the
contract, it gave a $15,000 bonus to Akolt and a
$10,000 bonus to Montoya on Dec . 17, 2003,
according to meeting minutes .
Akolt, FRIGO's lawyer for 30 years, received a
gold watch engraved with his initials and the
word "visionary."
With so much at stake, others with interests in
South Platte water noticed. More than 40 towns,
districts, private companies and cities -
including Englewood and Aurora -lined up to
make sure FRIGO and United didn't get any more
water than they were entitled to.
In the months leading up to the 2008 trial,
engineers for Englewood and Aurora produced
reports that called into question calculations by
Duane Helton, who was hired by United and
FRIGO to determine the historic, legal use of the
water.
The w ide discrepancy -the cities' figures were
about half that of Helton's -caused some
stakeholders to worry.
"When I saw those, it was terrible . I knew we had
a huge problem ," said Walraven Ketellapper, a
water broker who owns shares in FRIGO and the
related Henrylyn Irrigation District. "To protect
the shareholders, who had such big stakes in the
outcome, they should've had a more business-
like approach . It should not have been a joint
venture with United ."
Even so, Akolt rejected a settlement offer from
the objectors that would have left shareholders
and farmers with substantially more water than
they have now.
Akolt said in an interview he jettisoned the offer
because it went beyond cutting back the amount
of water sold for municipal use : It also slashed
the amount of water farmers could use for
agriculture .
However, a copy of the settlement offer obtained
by The Post contradicts Akolt; it notes the offer
applies only to shares sold and changed to
municipal use . And in a March 19 , 2008, e-mail ,
Akolt wrote that he rejected the offer for
another reason : The two sides couldn't agree on
the total amount of water FRIGO was entitled to.
Steven Sims, an attorney representing Aurora,
said that the objectors tried to settle because
"we didn't want to affect the farmers ."
"What we had on the table only applied to
municipalities that took water out of the
advertisement
Print Powered By (es l F ormatDyna m ic s '")
http://www.denvemost.com/fdco?uniaue=1311000463093 (, -'t 7/18/2011
Format Dynamics:: CleanPrint :: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_18493442
l
Page 5 of7
system," he said in an interview. "They told us
they could get a better deal by going to court ."
That didn't happen . Water court Judge Roger
Klein sided with the objectors, ruling that FRIGO
had used too much water and irrigated too many
acres, dating back a century.
Helton, who has been a water engineer for 30
years, declined to comment on the case.
The state Supreme Court unanimously upheld the
water court decision in May. No one will know
exactly how much water farmers will lose until
the State Division of Water Resources fully puts
the ruling into practice, and the amount will vary
from year to year based on conditions.
"I'm just a small guy on the end of a ditch," said
Ray Jones, 62, who farms about 90 acres
between Hudson and Lochbuie . "But every little
guy counts, and I invested my life savings to
come out here to this place ."
Akolt maintains that FRIGO on the whole got a
"good deal" and is still in an "enormously better"
position because of its agreement with United .
"FRIGO would be dead broke and not be able to
maintain the system" without the money and
infrastructure provided by United , he said .
Montoya, who retired as FRIGO general manager
last year, said all the parties who took the case
to court were hurt -and all share blame .
"For peop le to say they were innocent bystanders .
. . nobody was innocent," he said .
Multiple roles, side deals
Even before the Supreme Court ruling, farmers
and irrigation district officials zeroed in on
Akolt's and Helton's multiple roles and side
deals, questioning whether the men had their
interests at heart.
Most attention focused on Akolt , whose father
and grandfather also represented the ditch
company.
In 2003, the FRIGO board authorized Akolt to
serve as special water counsel to United as well
as FRIGO "to increase efficiencies and minimize
conflicts between counsel ," said Gil Rudawsky, a
spokesman for United . (Lembke, United's
president , declined to be interviewed .)
Records show United paid Akolt's firm $250,000
for work on the deal.
Akolt, who was suspended from the practice of
law briefly in 1992 for settling a case without
client permission, said United and FRIGO "had
the same exact desire and issues and interests
at stake . As long as you're aligned and your
client is aware and your client is agreed that you
don't have a conflict, you don't have a conflict."
A FRIGO board member who authorized the
arrangement -Mark Koleber, water resources
manager for Thornton -agreed.
"John was looking for the same outcome -an
outcome that would have benefited both
parties,'' he said.
But that view is not universally shared on the
advertisement
Print Powered By ( ii I Forrn~t Dy naiTliCs '')
htto://www.denveroost.com/fdco?uniaue=1311000463093 <. -S 7/18/2011
Format Dynamics:: CleanPrint :: http ://www.denverpost.com/ci 18493442 ' . -
Page 6 of7
denvernost.co 1m1
l'Ji1E DENVER Posr
FRICO board . Rod Baumgartner, general manager
of the Henrylyn Irrigation District, said Akolt's
having dual roles with FRICO andlJnited "is
probably not proper."
"If you are beholden to someone besides who is
writing your paychecks, it causes a huge
problem," said Baumgartner, who was not on the
board when it agreed to the arrangement.
Henrylyn attorney Steven Janssen said an
"inherent conflict" existed between United,
which was trying to liquidate its small percent of
FRICO shares, and farmers who wanted to keep
irrigating .
"If you had different law firms on this deal, they
would've made sure the 5 percent didn't take
advantage of the 95 percent," he said .
"Joe Farmer has no other water right. But Lembke
got the network," he said, referring to water
storage and other pieces of the FRICO system
that are now cogs in United's larger water-
delivery network .
United spokesman Rudawsky, however, said
United's water rights were hurt just like the
farmers'.
In addition to representing Un ited in this case ,
Akolt has represented United in a handful of
other water-court applications . And he has
represented another Lembke-controlled water
authority and at least two of Lembke's private
companies .
Questions also have arisen over land owned by
Akolt and Helton on 70 Ranch, a former hog farm
in Weld County crossed by the South Platte .
Records show a Lembke-controlled entity
deeded 80 acres to Helton in 2005 and 77 acres
to an Akolt trust in 2007 . Neither transaction has
a purchase price in the documents, although
both men said they paid for the land . Lembke,
through a spokesman , said they paid the same
price paid by his private company because the
land was undeveloped .
Helton said he and his wife moved there because
his "work load was and still is in northeastern
Colorado ." He also said he doesn't believe there
was any actual or appearance of a conflict of
interest in obtaining the land.
United has paid Helton $1.5 m illion for
engineering work over the past seven years,
records show.
Akolt said the land was not part of his work for
United.
"I didn't get the land as payment," Akolt said.
"Even if the land was acquired in lieu of getting
paid, that's not a conflict."
Montoya, the former FRICO general manager,
said Lembke also offered to sell him 80 acres on
70 Ranch .
Montoya said he was concerned about the
appearance of a conflict of interest, so he took
the FRICO board on a field trip to see the land
and showed them documentation of assets he
would use to buy it.
The board gave him the green light, but Montoya
advertisement
Pri n t Powered By (B l Fo rrn:~:t c?.ynamics ·J
httn://www.denvemost.com /fdcn ?unioue=l '.) 1100046:)091 c. -(., 7 /1 R/?011
~Format Dynamics:: CleanPrint :: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_18493442 Page 7 of7
)1 '"'
denvernost.com
t;.lE DENVER J>rn,-r
said he chose not to buy the land because he
was a FRICO employee and "didn't want to have
any appearance of a conflict." t
"There was no conflict, but the appearance
would be, 'How did Manuel get land at the 70
Ranch? Was there any kind of special deal given,
since we were negotiating agreements with
United?'" Montoya said.
"We're getting slaughtered"
Normally, FRICO board meetings at the ditch
company's nondescript offices in Brighton are
staid affairs.
Not so one morning shortly after the Supreme
Court ruling, when about 25 farmers filed in.
"We're getting slaughtered out here," one said.
"Your livelihood's not in jeopardy," said another,
directing his anger toward suburban water
officials on the board.
Akolt blamed the water-court judge.
The judge "treated us differently" than prior
applicants, he said.
"The judge's ruling could not be reasonably
anticipated," said Mike Happe, the board
member representing Westminster.
From the back of the room, a farmer disagreed .
"John lost the case for us," he said .
Akolt, his hands pressed together, had an
announcement:
He was resigning.
"I was the general in charge of the battle," he
said . "When you lose the battle you take
responsibility for it."
Akolt intended to stay on for a while to help find
a replacement and bring that person up to
speed. But two weeks after his resignation, the
board asked him to leave. He had failed to file a
routine motion in another water case, which was
then dismissed.
Although it's been discussed , the ditch company
has yet to review how the ruling will impact
farmers.
Karen Crummy: 303-954-1594 or
kcrummy@denverpost.com Eric Gorski: 303-954-
1971 or egorski@denverpost.com
The Post seeks tips
The Denver Post is investigating water deals
along the Front Range as growing residential
communities try to bridge the gap between
affordable water supply and increased water
demand. If you have a tip for the Denver Post's
investigative team, call us at 303-893-TIPS or
toll free at 866-748-TIPS or e-mail us at
TIPS@denverpost.com .
~dvertisement
Print Powered By C@:Format Dynam i~~)
htto://www .denvernost.com/fdcn?uniaue= 1311000463093 (, -7 7 /1R/?O11
;
Stu Fonda
To:
Cc:
Subject:
ryan laird ; Lou Ellis ; Dan Brotzman ; Gary Sears ; Mike Flaherty; Frank Gryglewicz; John Bock ;
Cathy Burrage ; Sue Carlton-Smith ; Leigh Ann Hoffhines; Kerry Bush; Jeanne Kelly
Council ; Jim Woodward ; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson ; Bob Mccaslin ; Randy Penn
RE: Open Records Request dated July 22, 2011
t
Th i s question and t he others w i ll be presented t o t he Wa t er and Sewer Board at their August mee t ing as d i rected by
Cha i rman Cla r k at the July meeting.
From: ryan laird [mail t o :rlclimb @hot ma il.co m]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2011 3:04 PM
To: Lou Ellis; Stu Fonda; Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears; Mike Flaherty; Frank Gryglewicz; John Bock; Cathy Burrage; Sue
Carlton-Smith; Leigh Ann Hoffhines; Kerry Bush; Jeanne Kelly
Cc: Council; Jim Woodward; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson; Bob McCaslin; Randy Penn
Subject: FW: Open Records Request dated July 22, 2011
Lou ,
Thanks for the quick response. I do not want to spend $50 to get a cassette copy of the meeting when usually an
electronic copy of public meetings are offered for free or CD copies are offered for $5 . I understand that the
Water and Sewer Board meeting was recorded with an unusable , incompatible, outdated , and extremely rare
type of recording machine at the direction of the Utility Department.
I feel that the audio recordings of the Water and Sewer Board meetings should be posted on the City 's web?ite ,
so that the information is easily available to the public. The City owns the electronic equipment and has staff
expertise to post the audio recordings. The Water and Sewer Board should not be taped with an outdated 4-
head cassette tape that is incompatible to the more common 2-head cassette players and does not allow for an
electronic copy. I do not know anyone who has a 4-head cassette tape player and using this outdated piece of
equipment has effectively banned residents from accessing the information that is discussed at the public
meeting .
Another issue with the Water and Sewer Board meetings is that onl y one meeting 's minutes are available on the
City website and that it takes an excessively long time to post the minutes. For example , the minutes for the 6-
14-11 meeting were not posted on the website until 7-22-11 . Now that the 6-14-11 minutes are posted, the
pre vious minutes for May , 2011 and earlier are no longer accessible. Multiple years of Water and Sewer Board
meeting minutes should be posted online and made easily available to the public.
Other Englewood public meetings have made progress in making the information discussed in these meetings
available to the public. The City Council meetings can be accessed for free on the City 's website. Additionally,
the City now has minutes and audio recordings of City Council meetings dated back to 2007 posted online and
easily accessible . I congratulate the City by posting these recordings and minutes on the City's website and feel
r
1
that this action is starting to provide more transparency and allowing Englewood residents to become aware of
local issues. I hope that the Utility Department will recognize the importance of transparency and stop
effectively banning the public from knowing what is discussed at these public meetings.
Thanks again for your time and patieJ:!Ce with this matter.
Ryan Laird
>From: lellis@englewoodgov.org
>To: rlclimb@hotmail.com
"
>CC: sfonda@englewoodgov.org; dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org; gsears@englewoodgov.org;
mflaherty@englewoodgov.org; fgryglewicz@englewoodgov.org; jbock@englewoodgov.org;
cburrage@englewoodgov.org; scarlton-smith@englewoodgov.org; lhoffhines@englewoodgov.org;
kbush@englewoodgov.org; jkelly@englewoodgov.org
>Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 12:38 :03 -0600
> Subject: Open Records Request dated July 22, 2011
>
>
>Ryan,
>
>Regarding the attached Open Records Request, received July 22, 2011: "I request an electronic copy of the
recording made by the City for the July 12, 2011 Water and Sewer Board meeting".
>
>There are two cassettes from that meeting. The City's fee for tape duplication is $25.00 per cassette. This fee
has been in place for years and it is based on the fact that the process of converting this tape to a regular cassette
is very time consuming.
>
>In accordance with the City of Englewood Open Records Request Policy a 50% deposit is required prior to
processing this request.
>
>Please remit $25.00 (2 cassettes @ $25.00 each= $50.00) with the understanding that you will pay the
remaining balance of $25.00 upon receipt of the cassettes.
>
>
>Lou
>
>
> Loucrishia A. Ellis , MMC
>City Clerk
> The City of Englewood
> 1000 Englewood Parkway
> Englewood, Colorado 80110
> 303-762-2407
2
RECElVE ~~~
0 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, C
JUL z 2 zon
REQUEST TO VIEW OR OBTAIN INFORMATION
Qff\Cc Of FROM ENGLEWJ>pn CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
PrtiKii.Slf<Yf ~i.m l?equesting intli rmation tl~)"' V\ l£J j v-d
Address of person requesting ipformation ~C. '3 :;).__ 'S .. Co..-6;\(f 5-\-,
·f \'\~\ecocoJ 1 CO 8 0 l /. 5
0
Phone number ·30 3 -7t../ fa -Z'J °/ / FAX number ---_
E-mail address /?LCL/.kf&@!balma.// CO r r7
Name of company requester represents . .
. ,....,--f ' . . ..Ji · l f ·f I v i 1 .f u I ~ . ];;'.,..
Documents/lnformat1.on requested L rep 1e 5 /;.1 {11f{,() we /]J I ,7 !A"f () 0 ne:. .~.?. Er I IA.d
f?oa;d mee6-'5" cla /,?J bad Jaur1 2011 lo .?i2_08, I he (, lj
fnwde-, efalmn;, €-f-i'e:s o.-F (.JJ Cow1<,/ f/1€!7fi::; m,fluk5 r:bfrj fxu l -lo
Date of request ·-z.--JJ-/ ( · :;).()07 for fr .e~~
Time of request 3 ~, ao p~~ ~'\ t~\.e L~ +.:l' 5
web ::.'i -\-e ,
The City of Englewood will respond to this request for information within three working days, per C.R.S. § 24-
72-203 (3) (b) or, in the case of extenuating circumstances, the response period may be extended by seven
working days. A modification of the request is considered a new request.
The day the request is received does not count as a day, neither do weekends or City of Englewood recognized
holidays.
RESEARCH FEE: $25.00 PER HOUR, AFTER THE FIRST HOUR.
BLACK & WHITE COPY FEE: 10 CENTS PER PAGE; COLOR COPY FEE: 35 CENTS PER PAGE.
TOTAL COPY CHARGES OF $5.00 AND UNDER WILL BE WAIVED.
A page is considered one side . [These are for "standard pages ". CRS § 24-72-205 ( 5 (a) states that if the record is in a fonnat
other than a standard page, the fee cannot exceed the actual cost of providing the record .]
CD/DVD: $5.00 EACH
Staff will provide an estimate of the research time and copies involved and a 50% deposit will be required prior to processing the
request.
Applicant notified that records are not readily available: ___ verbal written
City of Englewood
Office of the City Clerk
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood , CO 80110
303-762-2405 or 303-762-2407
FAX 303-783-6896
Response: by ________ _
Date of response: __________ _
Time of response : __________ _
Finance/City Clerk/Open Records Req uests/Open Records Policy 2009/July 8, 2009
..
Stu Fonda
From:
Sent:
ryan laird [rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Thursday, July 21, 2011 3:13 PM
To: Stu Fonda; Lou Ellis; John Bock; Cathy Burrage
Cc: Gary Sears; Dan Brotzman ; Mike Flaherty ; Frank Gryglewicz ; Sue Carlton -Smith ; Leigh Ann
Hoffhines; Kerry Bush ; Jeanne Kelly
Subject: RE: Open R~ords Request from Mr. Laird
Mr. Fonda,
Was this cashflow done in house or was it done by a consultant? What was the cost? Is there an executive
summary as part of the work product for the 2008 sewer rate increases like in 2003? You must understand that
I just want to clarify, because your department stated the memo and cash flow was the entire work product for
2003, then you changed your mind and decided to let me see the executive summary that had been produced in
2003. Thanks for your time with this matter.
Ryan
From: sfonda@englewoodgov.org
To: lellis@englewoodgov.org; jbock@englewoodgov.org; cburrage@englewoodgov.org; rlclimb@hotmail.com
CC: gsears@englewoodgov.org; dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org; mflaherty@englewoodgov.org;
f gryglewicz@englewoodgov.org; scarlton-smith@englewoodgov.org; lhoffhines @englewoodgov.org;
kbush@englewoodgov.org; jkelly@englewoodgov.org
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:46:03 -0600
Subject: RE: Open Records Request from Mr. Laird
The attached cash flow was what was presented to Council. It calculated the rate increases. There was no other
rate study conducted. Based on the cash flow Council approved the ordinance. This is all that went to Council.
From: Lou Ellis
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 10:58 AM
To: Stu Fonda; John Bock; Cathy Burrage
Cc: Gary Sears; Dan Brotzman; Mike Flaherty; Frank Gryglewicz; Sue Carlton-Smith; Leigh Ann Hoffhines;
Kerry Bush; Jeanne Kelly
Subject: Open Records Request from Mr. Laird
Mr. Laird just spoke to Kerry regarding this response.
He said this response he received is not what he requested in his Open Records Request.
1
Stu Fonda
From:
Sent:
To:
ryan laird [rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Thursday, July 21 , 2011 3:17 PM
John Bock-------
Cc: Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears ; Mike Flaherty; Frank Gryglewicz; Kerry Bush ; Jeanne Kelly;
Council; Cathy Burrage; Stu Fonda; Lou Ellis
Subject: RE: Rate S~ies
Mr. Fonda,
I am still waiting to receive a list of the water and sewer rate studies that were done between 1965 and 2011.
The table you attached simply shows the years that rates were increased.
Ryan Laird
From: jbock@englewoodgov.org
To: rlclimb@hotmail.com
CC: dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org; gsears@englewoodgov.org; mflaherty@englewoodgov.org;
fgryglewicz@englewoodgov.org; kbush@englewoodgov.org; jkelly@englewoodgov.org;
Council@englewoodgov.org; cburrage@englewoodgov.org; sfonda@englewoodgov.org;
lellis@englewoodgov.org
Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 16:06:17 -0600
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
Ryan,
The memorandum dated June 10, 2003 and the Executive Summary Wastewater Rate Study were the only work
product. They were complementary and made a total presentation to the Board. You have been provided what
we have relating to this matter to answer your open records request. A full rate study was not done. The cash
flows prepared by Black and Veatch for sewer is in the memorandum dated June 10.
Attached is a list of all water and sewer rate adjustments with an explanation below as to which have rate
studies or cash flows.
Stu Fonda
From: Lou Ellis
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 12:21 PM
To: Stu Fonda; John Bock; Cathy Burrage
Cc: rlclimb@hotmail.com; Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears; Mike Flaherty; Frank Gryglewicz; Kerry Bush; Jeanne
1
Kelly
Subject: FW: Rate Studies
I just received a call from Mr. Laird asking about the status of this Open Records Request.
He stated it has been 2 weeks since he initially requested this information and this response
time is way beyond the timeframe set forth in State Statute. He is still asking for the full reports.
I told him I would forward his complaint to the Utilities Department.
Lou
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 4:15 PM
To: John Bock; Cathy Burrage; Lou E llis
Cc: Council; Jim Woodward; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson; Bob McCaslin; Randy Penn
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
John,
I am sure that you are not deliberately intending to misinform me, so I would once again like to request a full
copy of the rate study reports that I previously asked for on June 15. You must understand that I felt like I was
being deliberately misinformed when you only sent me the memorandums. You insisted that the memos were
the only wo.rk product produced by Black and Veatch until you were confronted on the issue. Then you
admitted that there was more work product, in the form of the executive summaries that you provided on June
22. Now, you have stated that the memos and the executive summaries are the only work product produced. It
appears to me that the executive summaries are only part of the full report.
The Executive Summaries have section numbers in the footer at the bottom (for example "l-2", which would
correspond to Section 1, Page 2). It appears that there were other sections to these rat e study reports. Please
provide me with a full copy of these rate study reports.
Also, please provide me the list of all the water and sewer rate studies on record between 1965 and 2011 , which
I requested on June 15.
Thanks for your timely attention to this matter.
Ryan
2
From: jbock@englewoodgov.org
To: rlclimb@hotmail.com; cburrage@englewoodgov.org
CC: dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org; gsears@englewoodgov.org; lellis@englewoodgov.org;
sfonda@englewoodgov.org; Council@englewoodgov.org; jwoodward@englewoodgov.org;
RGillit@englewoodgov.org; JJ efferson@englewoodgov.org; BMcCaslin@englewoodgov.org; "' .. RPenn@englewoodgov.org ti ·
Date: Wed , 22 Jun 2011 13:19:27 -0600
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
Ryan,
Attached are the .pdf files the paper copies of which you received at our front counter today. These are also the
files Stu thought you had received earlier today but had not been set as yet.
John
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:17 PM
To: John Bock; Cathy Burrage
Cc: Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears ; Lou Ellis; Stu Fonda; Council; Jim Woodward; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson; Bob
Mccaslin; Randy Penn
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
John,
I do not appreciate what appears to be deliberate misinformation. There WAS other product besides the June
2003 memo . I just want the entire Black and Veatch rate study that was done in 2003 . I've got a part of it
already, so I know for a fact that it exists. It appears to be titled "Wastewater Rate Study", June 2003. And
please provide me a list of ALL water and sewer rate studies on record between 1965 and 2011. I asked for all
rate studies, not just the rate studies that evaluated the rate structure. Please include the "not full rate studies".
Thanks ,
Ryan
From: jbock@englewoodgov.org
To: rlclimb@hotmail.com
CC: dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org; gsears@englewoodgov.org; lellis@englewoodgov.org;
sfonda@englewoodgov.org; Council@englewoodgov.org; jwoodward@englewoodgov.org;
-,c 3
RGillit@englewoodgov.org; JJefferson@englewoodgov.org; BMcCaslin@englewoodgov.org;
RPenn@englewoodgov.org
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:30:02 -0600
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
Ryan ,
The tables relating to the sewer fund that are in this package were the work product produced by Black &
Veatch and presented to Council. There was no other product. The list of all water and sewer rate studies is
the 1977 water study. Do you want the presentations that were not full rate studies, but only analyzed the
increases needed?
John
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:22 PM
To: John Bock
Cc: Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears ; Lou Ellis; Stu Fonda; Council; Jim Woodward; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson; Bob
Mccaslin; Randy Penn
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
John,
The file that Cathy sent me and the file that you attached were not what I asked for, but simply a memo to city
council. Please provide me a copy of the 2003 Black and Veatch water and sewer rate study that was done
in 2003.
Also , please provide me a list of all water and sewer rate studies on record between 1965 and 2011?
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Ryan
------------------
From: jbock@englewoodgov.org
To: rlclimb@hotmail.com
---·---~ .. -------------~--·-·-·~ ----···-· .. ·-
CC: dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org; gsears@englewoodgov.org; lellis@englewoodgov.org;
sfonda@englewoodgov.org
Date: Tue, 21Jun2011 16:10:46 -0600
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
Ryan,
4
The email from Cathy is the reply to this request. Also, on your other question the only water and sewer rate
study that has occurred was the water study in 1977. We have not been able to locate that in our files. When
rate hikes have occurred presentations were made to Council showing the required increases. We would have
these available since 2003 but they were not full rate studies. Do you wish to receive these?
John
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday , June 15, 2011 2:51 PM
To: John Bock; Cathy Burrage; Bob McCaslin
Subject: Rate Studies
Hello John,
I would like to get a copy of the 2 003 Black and Veatch water and sewer rate study that was done in 2003 . If it
is acceptable to provide me with an electronic copy , please have it attached as a PDF to an e-mail. Also, can I
get a list of all the water and sewer rate studies on record between 1965 and 2011? Please let me know if this is
acceptable and a timeframe when it could be done. Thanks for your attention with this matter.
Ryan Laird
5
John Bock
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Ryan,
John Bock
Thursday, June 30 , 2011 4:06 PM
ryan laird (rlclimb@hotmail.com)
Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears ; Mike Flaherty; Frank Gryglewicz; Kerry Bush; Jeanne Kelly;
Council; CaJhy Burrage ; Stu Fonda ; Lou Ellis
RE: Rate :studies
Gallagher Memo Stewart Fonda -2003 WW Financial Plan 6-29-11 .pdf; Summary Table of
Water and Sewer Rate lncreaese.pdf
The memorandum dated June 10, 2003 and the Executive Summary Wastewater Rate Study were
the only work product. They were complementary and made a total presentation to the Board . You
have been provided what we have relating to this matter to answer your open records request. A full
rate study was not done . The cash flows prepared by Black and Veatch for sewer is in the
memorandum dated June 10. r Attached is a list of all water and sewer rate adjustments with an explanation below as to which have
~studies or cash flows.
Stu Fonda
From: Lou Ellis
sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 12:21 PM
To: Stu Fonda; John Bock; Cathy Burrage
Cc: rlclimb@hotmail.com; Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears; Mike Flaherty; Frank Gryglewicz; Kerry Bush; Jeanne Kelly
Subject: FW: Rate Studies
I just received a call from Mr. Laird asking about the status of this Open Records Request.
He stated it has been 2 weeks since he initially requested this information and this response
time is way beyond the timeframe set forth in State Statute. He is still asking for the full reports.
I told him I would forward his complaint to the Utilities Department.
Lou
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com]
sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 4:15 PM
To: John Bock; Cathy Burrage; Lou Ellis
Cc: Council; Jim Woodward; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson; Bob McCaslin; Randy Penn
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
John,
I am sure that you are not deliberately intending to misinform me, so I would once again like to request a full
copy of the rate study reports that I previously asked for on June 15. You must understand that I felt like I was
being deliberately misinformed when you only sent me the memorandums. You insisted that the memos were
the only work product produced by Black and Veatch until you were confronted on the issue. Then you
admitted that there was more work product, in the form of the executive summaries that you provided on June .,,
22. Now, you have stated that the memos and the executive summaries are the only work product produced. It
appears to me that the executive summaries are only part of the full report.
The Executive Summaries have section numbers in the footer at the bottom (for example "1-2", which would
correspond to Section 1, Page 2). It appears that there were other sections to these rate study reports. Please
provide me with a full copy of these rate study reports.
Also, please provide me the list of alal-the water and sewer rate studies on record between 1965 and 2011, which
I requested on June 15.
Thanks for your timely attention to this matter.
Ryan
From: jbock@englewoodgov.org
To: rlclimb@hotmail.com; cburrage@englewoodgov.org
CC: dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org; gsears@englewoodgov.org; lellis@englewoodgov.org;
sfonda@englewoodgov.org; Council@englewoodgov.org; jwoodward@englewoodgov.org;
RGillit@englewoodgov.org; JJ efferson@englewoodgov.org; BMcCaslin@englewoodgov.org;
RPenn@englewoodgov.org
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 13:19:27 -0600
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
Ryan,
Attached are the .pdf files the paper copies of which you received at our front counter today. These are also the
files Stu thought you had received earlier today but had not been set as yet.
John
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:17 PM
To: John Bock; Cathy Burrage
Cc: Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears; Lou Ellis; Stu Fonda; Council; Jim Woodward; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson; Bob
Mccaslin; Randy Penn
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
John,
I do not appreciate what appears to be deliberate misinformation. There WAS other product besides the June
2003 memo. I just want the entire Black and Veatch rate study that was done in 2003. I've got a part-of it
already, so I know for a fact that it exists . It appears to be titled "Wastewater Rate Study", June 2003 . And
•,
2
please provide me a list of ALL w ater and sewer rate studies on record between 1965 and 2011. I asked for all
rate studies, not just the rate studies that evaluated the rate structure. Please include the "not full rate studies".
Thanks,
Ryan
From: jbock@englewoodgov.org
To: rlclimb@hotmail.com
.. { ..
CC: dbrotzman@englewoodgov .org ; gsears @ englewoodgov.org ; lellis @englewoodgov.org;
sfonda@englewoodgov.org ; Counci l@ englewoodgov .org ; jwoodward@englewoodgov.org;
RGillit@englewoodgov.org ; J J efferson@englewoodgov.org ; BMcCaslin@ englewoodgov.org;
RPenn@englewoodgov.org
Date: Tue, 21Jun2011 16:30:02 -0600
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
Ryan,
The tables relating to the sewer fund that are in this package were the work product produced by Black &
Veatch and presented to Council. There was no other product. The list of all water and sewer rate studies is
the 1977 water study. Do you want the presentations that were not full rate studies , but only analyzed the
increases needed?
John
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21 , 2011 4:22 PM
To: John Bock
Cc: Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears ; Lou Ellis ; Stu Fonda; Council; Jim Woodward ; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson ; Bob
McCaslin ; Randy Penn
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
John,
The file that Cathy sent me and the fi le that y ou attached were not what I asked for , but simply a memo to city
council. Please provide me a copy of the 2003 Black and Veatch water and sewer rate study that was done
in 2003.
Also, please provide me a list of all water and sewer rate studies on record between 1965 and 2011?
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
3
Ryan
From: jbock@englewoodgov .org
To: rlclimb @hotmail.com ,.,. ,
1''t
CC : dbrotzman@englewoodgov .org ; ·gsears @ englewoodgov.org ; lellis@ englewoodgov .org;
sfonda@ englewoodgov.org
Date: Tue, 21Jun2011 16 :10:46 -0600
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
Ryan,
The email from Cathy is the reply to this request. Also , on your other question the only water and sewer rate
study that has occurred was the water study in 1971. We have not been able to locate that in our files . When
rate hikes have occurred presentations were made to Council showing the required increases. We would have
these available since 2003 but they were not full rate studies . Do you wish to receive these?
John
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb @hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15 , 2011 2:51 PM
To: John Bock; Cathy Burrage; Bob McCaslin
Subject: Rate Studies
Hello John,
I would like to get a copy of the 2003 Black and Veatch water and sewer rate study that was done in 2003. If it
is acceptable to provide me with an electronic copy, please have it attached as a PDF to an e-mail. Also , can I
get a list of all the water and sewer rate stUdies on record between 1965 and 2011? Please let me know if this is
acceptable and a timeframe when it could be done . Thanks for your attention with this matter.
Ryan Laird
4
• RED CONSULTING MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Re:
Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
John Gallagher
2003 Wastewater Financial Plan Study
Date: June 29, 2011
I assisted the City in 2003 to develop a long-term wastewater financial plan to fund its
portion of the Bi-City wastewater treatment facility. This review included determining
the level of additional annual revenue needed from wastewater rate adjustments to meet
the capital and operating revenue requirements associated with the new plant.
Consideration was also given to maintaining appropriate cash reserves and to meeting
debt service coverage requirements.
The rate adjustments were uniform percentage increases to wastewater rates and did not
include any changes to the rate structure. This rate structure was in effect before the
2003 study and is the current rate structure . This study did not include a cost of service
analysis.
• 100 Fillmore Street • Suite 200,.-• Denver, CO 80206 • T 303-316-6500 • F 303-316-6599 • www.red oakconsulting .com
Summary Table of Water and Sewer Rate Increases
:{·
----
-
Year \Vater Sewer
---------
January, 197 3 x --·--
January, 1976 x --------
January , 1977 x x
.January , 197 8 x
January, 198 0 x
·-----
.January, 1982 x
January , 198 9 x -----·-------
January 1 99 0 x
July, 1996 x
January , 1997 x
------· --··--·· --·--
January, 1998 x
Januar y, 19 99 x ·------
January, 2002 x -----
January, 2003 x x
January , 2004 x
January, 2005 x x
.January, 2006 x x
----·
January, 2007 x x
January , 2008 x x
January , 2009 x x ------
January , 2010 x x
January , 2011 x x
'-----· ..
--
Above is a table showing the results of our search of past water and sewer rate increases .
The onl y fonnal rate stud y was a water rat e study done in 1977. Since 1977, cash flows
were done when rates needed to be adjusted . Before 1977 we found no evidence that
cash flov1/S or rate studi e s were done when adjustments were made. The y were probably
operating year-to-year and adjusted when it was apparent they needed more revenue.
,.·
,·
RECEsvr ·~,
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, CO
JUL 18 2011
(
OFFICE OF REQTJEST TO VIEW OR OBTAIN INFORMATION
THE CITY Ci.i.:KK FR6M ENGLEW OD CITY CLERK'~ OFFICE
Print name of person requestif information Lo..; orcl
Address of person requesting tfiiformation 30 .S. Lor-OV\G $+..
E~ewoaJ _, CO 9lJf L3
Phone number 30 :'>-] tf lo -7;). q I FAX number
E-mail address e LcL \MB@_ hoim a~ \ D com
Name of company requester represents __________________ _
Documents/Information requested "J:. f"~es-\ '°l"o v '1~w O..V\j ob~o..',~ 6.. eop~ at f~e
6ewev ca.\--e ~+U.Jj ·tho..~ WA.A pe.kcnneJ fo ra.\se. sewer ro..te:S between
waq A)l)d ~o u; 1.vb~c.b h}ert flLs~eJ lV\ OrJ~V\L1.V\(-<2: 71 ~\>') 5e'('~ e~ of
Dateofrequest 7j'?'/1! . . ~008 on /Jav, ~(J
Tlmeofreqnest /.)..:,ifj~ -v ~ ',JOGS.~ C Signatureofpersonrequesti~n ~ ~
The City of Englewood will respond to this request for information within three working days, per C.R.S. § 24-
72-203 (3) (b) or; in the case of extenuating circumstances, the response period may be extended by seven
working days. A modification of the request is considered a new request.
The day the request" is received does not count as a day, neither do weekends or City of Englewood recognized
holidays . ·
RESEARCH FEE: $25.00 PER HOUR, AFTER THE FIRST HOUR.
BLACK & WHITE COPY FEE: 10 CENTS PERPAGE; COLOR COPY FEE: 35 CENTS PER PAGE.
TOTAL COPY CHARGES OF $5.00 AND UNDER WILL BE WAIVED.
A page is considered one side. [These are for "standard pages". CRS § 24-72-205 (S (a) states that if the record is in a fonnat
other than a standard page, the' fee cannot exceed the actual cost of providing the record .] ·
CD/DVD: $5.00 EACH
Staff will provide an estimate of the research tune and copies involved and a 50% deposit will be required prior to processing the
request.
Applicant notified that records are not readily available : ___ verbal _written
City of Englewood
Office of the City Clerk
1000 Englewood Parkway
· Englewood, CO 80110
303-762-2405 or 303-762-2407
FAX 303 -783-6896
Response: by ________ _
Date of response: _________ _
Time of response: _________ _
Finance/City Clerk/Open Records Requests /Open Records Po li cy 2009/July 8, 2009
John Bock
From: Stu Fonda
Sent: Thursday, July 21 , 2011 2 :46 PM
To: Lou Ellis; John Bock; Cathy Burrage; ryan laird
Cc: Gary Sears ; Dan Brotzman; Mike Flaherty; Frank Gryglewicz; Sue Carlton-Smith ; Leigh Ann
Hoffhines; Kerry Bush ; Jeanne Kelly
Subject: RE : Open f3tcords Request from Mr. Laird
.i:'
The attached cash flow was what was presented to Council. It calculated the rate increases . There was no other rate
study conducted . Based on the cash flow Council approved the ordinance. This is all that went to Council.
From: Lou Ellis
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 201110:58 AM
To: Stu Fonda; John Bock; Cathy Burrage
Cc: Gary Sears; Dan Brotzman; Mike Flaherty; Frank Gryglewicz; Sue Carlton-Smith; Le igh Ann Hoffhines; Kerry Bush;
Jeanne Kelly
Subject: Open Records Request from Mr. Laird
Mr. Laird just spoke to Kerry regarding this response.
He said this response he received is not what he r equested in his Open Records Request .
He wants the Rate Study, not another copy of the ordinance listing the rate increase. He said it's the 4th time he has
received this ordinance and it is not what he is asking for.
The deadline to respond to this request is today at 5:00 p.m.
From: Cathy Burrage
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 10:26 AM
To: ryan laird (rlclimb@hotmail.com)
Cc: Cathy Burrage; John Bock; Stu Fonda; Lou Ellis
Subject: Ordinance #71
1
He wants the Rate Study, not another copy of the ordinance listing the fate increase. He said it's the 4th time he
has received this ordinance and it is not what he is asking for.
The deadline to respond to this request is today at 5:00 p.m.
t
From: Cathy Burrage
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 10:26 AM
To: ryan laird (rlclimb@hotmail.com)
Cc: Cathy Burrage; John Bock; Stu Fonda; Lou Ellis
Subject: Ordinance #71
2
ORDINANCE NO . 1/
SERIES OF 2008 ' ,. ~ ii ·
BY AUTHORITY
COUNCIL BILL NO. 78
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL
MEMBER McCASLIN
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER 2, SECTION 3, SUBSECTION B , OF
THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000 REGARDING SEWER FEES AND
CHARGES.
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado approved a sewer rate
increase with the passage of Ordinance No . 23, Series of 2003; and
WHEREAS, the proposed sewer rate increases will provide adequate funds to operate and
maintain the Bi-City Plant as well as the Englewood sewer collection system and allow completion
of several capital projects at the Bi-City Plant; and
WHEREAS, the Water and Sewer Board recommended the proposed increases to fees and
charges at their October 14, 2008 meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending
Title 12, Chapter 2, Section 3, Subsection B, of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as
follows:
12-2-3: Fees and Charges.
B. General. There is hereby levied and charged on each lot, parcel of land and premises served
by or having sewer connection with the sanitary sewer of the City or otherwise discharging
sanitary sewage, industrial wastes or other liquids, either directly or indirectly, into the City
sanitary sewer system an annual service charge which shall be computed and payable as
follows:
10 . All fees and charges listed under this Section 12-2-3, shall be subject to a cumulative
increase for the next H:r.,ie three(~ l) years(~ 2002 torn 2011) as follows:
On January 1, 2004, the e1tistiag fees and cha:rges shall be increased by the amoUBt of
fifteen 13eroent (15%) aboYe the Jillluary 1, 2003, fees and cha£ges.
On January 1, 2005, the e1cistiag fees and chBrges shall be iacreased by the amount of
fifteen 13ercent (15%) above the Januaiy 1, 2004, fees and charges.
On January 1, 2006, the e1dstmg fees and charges shall be itre!eased by the amount of
fifteen percent (15%) above the JanuMy 1, 2005, fees and cha£ges.
On January 1, 2007, the CJtistiRg fees and charges shall be increased by the amount of
fifteeB percent (15%) abo¥e the JanUM)' 1, 2006 , fees and charges.
1
11 b ii
Published by title in the City's official newspaper as Ordinance No .fl/, Series of 2008 , on
the 21st day of November, 2008.
3
James K . Woodward, Mayor
'-, __ __.)
.j
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Date: Agenda Item: Subject:
··'
November 3, 2008 f i 1 a i Bill for an Ordinance for Sewer Increase
..
Initiated By: Staff Source:
Utilities Department Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
Council approved a sewer rate increase that was implemented January 1, 1999. The last rate
increase before that was in 1982 by Council Bill #56 .
On July 8, 2003 Council approved annual increases for a five year period. The last increase
occurred January 1, 2008 .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
.
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommended Council approve a proposed bill for an
ordinance. The recommended increases in sewer charges are 8% in 2009, 8% in 2010 and 8% in
2011. The proposed increases provide revenues that maintain an adequate fund balance and meet
bond requirements.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
In 2008 the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant will be completed after four years of
construction. The construction was necessary to accommodate recent denitrification requirements
imposed by the State Health Department.
The attached Sewer Utility Revenue report and cash flow present a series of rate adjustments that
provide adequate funds to operate and maintain the Bi-City Plant as well as the Englewood sewer
collection system . There are also adequate funds to allow completion of several capital projects at
the Bi-City Plant that were determined during the construction period to be necessary.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
It is proposed to increase sewer rates 8% in 2009, 8% in 2010 and 8% in 2011 .
.. j
SEWER UTILITY
REVENUE REPORT
The Englewood Sewer Utility serves about 55% of the customers served by the Bi-City
Treatment Plant. The Bi-City Plant serves a population of about 300,000 in the south
metro area from the Valley Highway to the foothills south of Yale Avenue excluding
Highlands Ranch. The cash flow presented in this report includes Englewood's share of
the Bi-City Plant expenses as well as the expense of operating and maintaining the
Englewood sewer collection system. Tue cash requirements are predominantly deter-
mined by the payments to the Bi-City Plant operation.
In 2008 the Bi-City Plant expansion and upgrade will be completed after four years of
construction. It appears that the final costs will be very close to the $110,000,000 esti-
mated in 2003. Only about $3,500,000 of the $5,000,000 contingency will be needed to
complete the project. A five year revenue increase program was approved by the City
Council in 2003 to build the plant and it now appears that all of the goals established at
that time have been accomplished.
The attached cash flow presents a series of rate adjustments that provide adequate funds
to operate and maintain the Bi-City Plant as well as the Englewood sewer collection sys-
tem. There are also adequate funds in the cash flow to allow several capital projects, de-
termined during the construction period, to be completed over the next three years.
Englewood's share of these projects is estimated to be $900,000 in 2009 and an allow-
ance of $1,000,000 is shown for subsequent years.
The cash flow assumes that operation and maintenance expenses will increase at 6% per
year. An allowance has been made for the use of methanol in the new denitri:fication fa-
cilities. The methanol is estimated to cost about $700 ,000 per year. There is no current
proposal to increase staff levels at the plant even though the facilities have increased al-
most 30% and the new denitrification facilities have been added . At this time staff is
hopeful that the new computerized management and operating systems will allow per-
sonnel levels to remain constant. Nevertheless, if problems arise that are not anticipated
at this time, additions to staff could be required in subsequent years.
The cash flow shows that 8% increases are needed in 2009, 2010 and 2011 to maintain an
unencumbered balance of $3,564,398 by the end of 2011. An fdditional $6,250,000
would become unencumbered if and when the debt coverage~reaches a ratio of 1.10. This
means that revenues minus operation and maintenance expenses are 1.10 times the debt
service payments. In 2003 there were adequate funds in reserve to establish the
$6,250,000 reserve and thereby obtain bond money to build the project. By establishing
the reserve, the fund did not have to meet the coverage requirement of 1.10. However,
Sewage Treatment Charges
Q uarterly Ii-I
Year Overall Rate Increase in Total Single
Adjustment Single Family Family Quarterly
Ouarterly Bill Bill
2008 $43.46
2009 8% $3.48 $46.94
2010 go/o $3.75 $50.69
2011 8% $4.06 $54.75
2012 QO/o $0.00 $54.75
Annual
Year Overall Rate Increase in Total Single
Adjustment Single Family Family Annual
Annual Bill
2008 $160.81
2009 8% $12.86 $173.67
2010 8% $13.90 $187.57
2011 8% $15.00 $202.57
2012 0% $0.00 $202.57
Based on an averag e wint er quarterly consumption of 18 ,000 gallons .
-·i
Budget 2008 10/16/2008 8:35 AM
hlJl~Mi!iID~~~~~~~!m~oo~$]~5:t"la;===::r::=:::::~t==::r:::::::=r -+-----·--·----!" -~--·--. ---, --·
f-----+----·~~ ---~---
cm.•n
Q,lll.,.U4)
.. · ..... ;•
11.170.!42
1.tt1.an
,. ....
.. ,,
11n.011J
{11.291,316)
. ~· '
UU50 \'/.' .....
11,317
111.11•
i
NO CONTINGENCY MODEL SEWER FUND
On January 1, 2oog, the eJtisting fees and charges shall be increased by the amount of
fourteen percent (14%) above the January 1, 2007, fees and charges .
On January 1. 2009. the existing fees and charges shall be increased by the amount of eight
percent (8%) above the Januarv 1. 2008. fees and charges.
On Januarv 1. 2010. the existing fees and charges shall be increased by the amount of eight
percent (8%) above the Januarv 1. 2009. fees and charges.
On January 1. 2011. the existing fees and charges shall be increased by the amount of eight
percent (8%) above the January 1. 2010. fees and charges.
Section 2. 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 3. Severabilitv. 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 its application to other persons or circumstances.
Section 4. 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 5. 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 6. 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 3rd day of November, 2008.
Published as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the 7th day of November,
2008.
Read by title and passed on final reading on the 17th day of November, 2008.
2
c
(
l\1r . Fonda,
I don't understand why you and your department have not answered my previous questions even when
you were directed in the June, 2011 \Yater and Sewer Board meeting to answer my questions prior to the
Water and Sewer Board meetings and to provide a copy of the correspondence between myself and the
Utility Department to the Water and Sewer Board . I am also following through with your revised July,
2011 Water and Sewer Board recommendation that I summarize all my unanswered questions and e-mails
that were not fonvarded to the Board in one list /location, so that you can get around to answering them at
the August Water and Sewer Board meeting . Please feel free answer all the questions , clarify why the
Utility Department did not respond to the questions as directed by the Water and Sewer Board and
clarify why the Utility Department did not prnvide copies of the issues that I discussed to the \Vate1 ·
and Sewer Board. I have provided the e-mail correspondence in chronological order, shown the City
responses in italics , and bolded unanswered questions and important issues.
1. Utilities Website Correction
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15 , 2011 9 :35 AM
To : John Bock ; Cathy Burrage; Council
Subject: Utilities Website Correction
Hello Jolm,
I would like to thank you for starting to correct some of the mistakes that I have pointed out and that City
Council has discussed . However, on the City of Englewood Utility Department website, specifically the
2011 Metered Water Charges (http://englewoodgov.org/lndex .aspx?page=954), there is still another error
regarding the City of Englewood Utility Department published rates. The website was corrected on the
"Inside City" table to move the dollar amount under the minimum charge column to the administrati ve fee
column to accurately reflect City Council approved billing rates and to accurately reflect how customers
were being charged . But the "Outside City" table still shows that an administrative fee is not applicable .
.I would think that it would be in the City's best interest to have clear and accurate published rates.
Thanks again for your attention to this matter.
Signed,
Ryan Laird
Rl./,: Utilities Website Correction
6/15/JJ
John Bock
To 'ryan laird', Cathy Burrage, Cou ncil, Stu F'onda, GatJ' ,Sears
Hello Ryan,
I have shifted the charge to the other column. As soon as the City 's web master approves the change it
will appear on the web site.
John Bock
Anglewood Utilities Manager of Administration
E-MAILS/UNA1"\JSWERED QUESTIONS l OF 18
303-762 -2643
jbock@!e nglewoodgov.org
.PAX 303-783-6894
2. Rate Discrepancv
From: ryan laird [mailto :rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent : Thursday, June 16, 2011 7 : 1'9 A.i\!l
To: John Bock; Cathy Burrage; Bob McCaslin
Subject: Rate discrepency
Good morning John ,
Perhaps you can clarify the rate issue I am trying to figure out, because it appears that our current water
and sewer rates do not correlate to the rates that are approved by generations of City Council. Granted the
effor is minor , but I believe that the rates being charged should be congruent with what our City Council
has advised . It is unfortunate that we could not sit down together as recommended by the May Water and
Sewer Board meeting, so you could show me bow the calculations were made .
For water services, the last established rate table was in 1999 that established: administration fee= $1.61 ,
water rate = $4 .19. Then rate increases of 16% (late '03), 15% ('05), 8% ('06), 8% ('07), 7% ('08), 7%:i
('09), 7% (' 10), 6% (' 11) were implemented . When I do the math, I calculate that the administration fee
should be $8.47 , but the 2011 published and actual charged administration fee is $8.51. Similarly, the
water rate I calculated is $3 .25 , but the published and actual rate charged is $3 .29 . These calculations
were made, by simply applying the approved rate increases to the last established rate table . But when I
round the rates off to two decimal places (i.e. rounding up to $1.87 versus $1.8676 and rounding down to
$2.68 versus $2 .6805) the actual rate charged is still more than I calculate.
Similarly, on the sewer services, the last established rate table was in 2002 when we had a 20% rate
increase that established: flat rate= $23 .94, minimum charge = $21.78 , sewer rate= $1.1386 . Then from
2002 to 2011 , the rate increases were 20%, 15%, 15%, 15%, 15%, 14%, 8%, 8%, and 8%. The charges
that I calculated (with published rates in parenthesis) were : flat rate= $60 .13 ($60.19), minimum rate=
$54 .7 0 ($54 .75), and sewer rate = $2 .86 ($2 .86).
I'm hoping that you can clarify this issue, since I know that I am new to performing these types of
complex calculations and do not understand the political process . Perhaps the Englewood City Charter
or an Englewood City ordinance established a new mathematical standard that encourages the use
of rounding up on fees and rates. Or perhaps my calculator was wrong. Thanks again for your
attention to this matter.
Ryan
FW· Rate discrepancy
fi i2 J/IJ
John Bock
To 1yan laird (rlchmb@hotmail.com), Dan Brotzman, Stu Fonda, Gary Sears, Ca thy Burrage
Dear Afr. Laird:
E-MAlLS/UNANSWERED QUESTIONS 2 OF 18
You are correct. The numbers lvere rounded up. Ylie City Attorney has stated that round;ng up is legally
acceptable. When the next changes are made to the rate ordinances, this co11fusion could be avoided by
either publishing the actual numbers or by stating in the ordinance the rounding off procedures.
Stu F'cmda
3. Billing Template
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@ hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16 , 2011 11:44 Al\!I
To: John Bock; Cathy Bmrnge; Bob Mccaslin
Subject: Billing Template
John,
I wanted to make a clarification regarding the configurability of the billing system and how we can
improve the information on the bills . It may be best to direct this to Stewart Fonda, if you think it is
appropriate . Anyways , when I raised the concern that I thought the bills should have more detail on them
to let customers know what they were being charged for , my questions were dismissed . One of the
specific questions I asked was, "\Vhy does the bill not show if the water and sewer cycle charges are
based on consumption or if it is based on an arbitrarily set minimum charge?" In response to this
question , Stewart Fonda answered, "\Ve use a standard billing template that does not include that type
of infonnation, but it is available upon request. That information is available at the city's web site ." As
you are aware, I have found the information on the Utility Department 's website outdated and lacking and
l found it odd that a customer was being billed \Vithout providing any detailed information about the
services they received. So, in early May, I called the software company in Canada that you told me was
used to create the bill .
Advanced Utilities System told me that the software is not a standard billing template, but is in fact a
highly configurable billing system that could include a wide range of information on the bill including
measurement units, line-item breakdowns, and charge desc1iptions that distinguish between rate charges,
minimum charges , and administrative fees. Now, I understand that any new software takes some time to
learn the capabilities, but a standai·d billing template is much different than a highly configurable
billing system. Perhaps I don't understand the issue as much as I would hope. ls there an extra
subscription fee or consultant fee to use the highly configurable parts of the billing system? Did we
only purchase a trial version of the software?
I also understand that Stewart Fonda revised his answer at the May Water and Sewer Board meeting to
say that changes could be made to the bill . And I understand that it is a balancing act between providing
too much detail and not enough, and that space has to be used efficiently. ln response, Mayor Woodward
indicated that he did not need to see three "payment -thank you " line items on the bill , especially when
he only made one payment . lt was also pointed out that there is a lot of wasted space on the bill. l
understand that outside Englewood customers may have sanitation district line item charges and
interceptor basin agreement line item charges, but other utilities and all the other bills I receive in my
home are able to provide detailed infonnation to inform customers of the services and detailed costs of
those services .
In order to clarify, it would be helpful to know what changes the Utility Department is planning to make
to the water and sewer bill . \Viii volumetric units be shown on the bill, as indicated in previous
E-MAILS/UNANS\VERED QUESTIONS 3 OF 18
discussions? Will line-item breakdowns and charge descriptions be shown on the bill to show
administrative fees, minimum charges and rate charges? Will enough detail be shown to delineate
between flat rate charges and metered charges? Please let me know what we can expect on our future
water and sewer bills. Thanks for your time with this matter.
Ryan L aird
.F'rom: j bock@englewoodgov.org '
To: rlclimb@hotmail.com
CC: dbrotzman@engleH1oodgov.org,· .~fonda@englewoodgov.org; gsears@englewoodgov.mg;
cburrage@englewoodgov.mg
Date: Tue, 21Jun201112:15:08-0600
Subject: FW· Billing Template
Dear j\,;f r. Laird,
We have not yet explored these matters because foiling department personnel cannot recall receiving any
custmner concerns on this issue up to this point in time. There have been requests/or clarification on
how the chatges have been derived, and we have been able to inform the customers on an individual basis
to their sati~faction. Staff is not opposed, however, to researching all of these issues {f so directed by the
Water and Sewer Board This would probably be an iterative process over a period of time since costs
and results would have to be compared In addition, we have no idea what other customers feel is
necessmy so addressing that issue would also appear to be necessary.for the Board. Staff time could be
available in September when the budget process nears completion if the Board wishes ro proceed in this
matter. We ·will present your inquil y and this response to the Board at the July meeting.
Stu.
(Ryan Laird note: Mr. Fonda's response to me is completely opposite of his department's response
provided to the Water and Sewer Board in the July 12, 2011 meeting and he seems to flip-flop back
and forth on how the Utility Department is addressing the problem. Prior to the July 12, 2011
meeting, billing units , 1,000s of gallons, had been added to the bills. Also, John Bock spoke e>...1:ensively
about spending $90,000 to upgrade the billing software and to provide more information on the bills.)
4. Conservation Plan
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 3 :10 PM
To: John Bock; Cathy Burrage; Bob Mccaslin
Subject: Conservation Plan
John,
I know I am sending a lot of emails , but I am trying to take the direction proposed by the Water and
Sewer Board to have the Utility Department address my concerns first. I really would appreciate if you
would actually respond to my e-mails. Anyways, I would like to come to some understanding regarding
the different versions of the Englewood Water Conservation Plan and why there are at least three different
versions.
E-Mi\ILStUNANS\VERED QUESTIONS 4 OF 18
I understand that the version of the plan that the Utility Department gave me was incomplete . As I read
through the plan, it did not flow and the footnotes called out in the document seemed to skip and did not
have the explanation footnotes at the bottom. I also found it odd that the only page with a footnote shown
as "Englewood Conservation Plan" and "Page 18 " was the double-stamped, public process, affidavit
sheet. This "Page 18 " seemed especially odd since I was given a packet of only 15 pages total with
additional pages taken up by a submittal letter, two more proof of publication sheets, and two pages of
resolutions.
Well I was able to discover the problem when I did a public information request for the specific
resolution. Apparently, 1 was given only every other page of the Englewood Water Conservation Master
Plan. As you probably know, I hinted and reiterated multiple times that I did not receive a complete copy,
until the City Clerk was able to convince the Utility Department of this fact and provide a full version for
the Utility Department files. It appears that the Utility Department simply erroneously photocopied a
double-sided document and never kept the original. Also, as you are aware, I submitted an official
information request for any other versions of the report including the report reviewed by public comment
and the report reviewed by the Water and Sewer Board . The Utility Department did not have these public
records.
Imagine my surprise, when I found out that there was another version of the report. Since the Colorado
Water Conservation Board is a public entity, they provide very easy and readily available access to this
public information. It would appear that the CWCB was faxed an early report on December 25 , 1996 and
this 17 page rep011 did have page numbers, a footnote, and specific footnote descriptions. "'by was this
basic, but valuable information removed from the report?
The CWCB also has a copy of the City Council approved report that they received by mail on April 25 ,
1997 (the submittal letter provided me is dated April 23 and signed by yourself). However, this version
of the report is only every other page, almost exactly how I received the report . Now I understand that
mistakes do happen and at some point someone probably failed to copy both sides of a double-sided
document. But I am wondering how half of a water conservation plan could be approved. Perhaps it
is simply because the guidelines and oversight at the time were so loose, and that is the very reason why
our State legislators now require an updated water conservation plan . Or perhaps the Utility Department
had a lunch meeting with the CvVCB to discuss the details of the plan and they felt that 50% was
acceptable .
Please let me know if you can provide any clarification on this issue. Thanks for your time with this
matter .
Ryan Laird
(No Re.sponse)
RE: Conservation Plan
6/23il 1
rlclimb @hotmail .com
To jbock@englewoodgov.org, cburrage@englewoodgov.org, council@englewoodgov .org,
jwoodward@englewoodgov.org, rgillit@englevwodgov .org, jjefferson@englewoodgov .org,
bmccaslin@englewoodgov.org, rpenn@englewoodgov.org
E-MAJLS/UNANSvVERED QUESTIONS 5 OF 18
John,
'Vhy was this basic, but valuable information (i.e. footer with report title and page numbers,
footnote descriptions) removed from the report?
Was this information removed from the report after the public comment and the Water and Sewer
Board review?
How was only half of the water conservation plan mailed to the C\VCB?
How was only half of the water conservation plan approved?
Ryan
From: jbock@engle1 ,voodgov.org
To: rlclimb @hotmai I. com; cburrag<G)englewoodgov. org; Council@englewoodgov.org;
jwoodward@englewoodgov.org; RCJi llit@englelmodgov.mg; l!efferson@englewoodgov.org;
Blvl cCasli nr7Jj englewoodgov . mg; RPenn(g)englewoodgov. org
CC: gsears@engle1+·oodgov.mg; sfonda @englewoodgov.org; dbrotzman @englewoodgov.mg
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 09:00:13-0600
SuNect: RE: Conservation Plan
Ryan.
The i-tJe did indeed send you a one sided document on yourjirst request. Upon your discoVeT}' that this
was a Mo sided document, corrective steps were taken. Upon investigation we did ver{fy that Council did
pass the correct, two sided version. The City Clerk then noticed that the proof (~f posting qffidavit had not
been affixed to the document and that was corrected After extensive research between Utilities and the
Ci~v Clerk's office, it was the final conclusion that it is unhwwn what "page 18 " regards'. It was vertfied
that there are no pages missing.
John & Stu
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent : Wednesday, June 22, 2011 11 :02 AM
To: John Bock; Cathy Burrage; Council; Jim Woodward ; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson; Bob l\foCaslin;
Randy Penn
Subject: RE: Conservation Plan
John ,
It appears that you are trying to avoid answering my questions, as directed by the Water and Sewer Board.
'Vhy was this basic, but valuable information (i.e. footer with repo1i title and page numbers,
footnote descriptions) removed from the report?
Was this information removed from the report after the pubJic comment and the "'ater and Sewer
Board review?
How was only half of the water conservation plan mailed to the C\VCB?
How was only half of the water conservation plan approved?
Ryan
From: jbock@engle1-1 ,,oodgov.org
E-MAILS11JNANS\NERED QUESTIONS 6 OF 18
To: rlclimb @hotmail.com
CC: dbrotzman @.englewoodgov.org; gsears@eng/e·woodgov.org; sfonda(fj),englewooc~gr1v. org;
lellis(if.:.:engle·woodgov. org; churrage @englewoodgov.org
Date: Tue, 21Jun20JJ 12:20:08-0600
Subject: RE: Conservation Plan
Ryan,
It is our understanding that you have received the complete copy from the City Clerk's Office.
John
(Ryan Lajrd note-The questions are still unanswered . Mr. Fonda attempted to quiet these questions by
confronting me at the June 28, 2011 Wastewater Treatment Plant meeting. When I pointed out that the
clerical error, combined with the previous version of the report, and the fact that the 1997 \Vater
Conservation Report was kept hidden, made it look awfully suspicious, Mr. Fonda asserted that the
Colorado Water Conservation Board should not have posted the other versions of the report. l
informed him posting the information is what public info1mation is about and helps to provide
transparency in the government. Mr . Fonda immediately left the area. There were other residents who
witnessed the confrontation.)
5. l\'.leeting Minutes
From: rlclimb@hotmail.com
To : council@englewoodgov.org; jwoodward@englewoodgov.org; rgillit @englewoodgov.org;
jjefferson@englewoodgov.org; bmccaslin@englewoodgov .org; rpenn@englewoodgov.org
Subject: Meeting Minutes
Date : Fri , 17 Jun 2011 14:28 :02 -0600
To All Englewood City Councilmembers,
I am concerned that the meeting minutes from the May Water and Sewer Board do not include all
of the major points that I brought to the Board's attention. It also omits the important details and
deflects the problems that were discussed . When I read the minutes, it reads as if it was written as an
opinion letter to the editor, rather than stating the facts.
I understand that the job of distilling the conversation into meeting minutes is a difficult job and that all
the specific details cannot be listed with this process. However, the pattern of omission and deflection
that I see, in addition to the fact that Cathy Burrage's (recording secretary) bosses are the exact people
who were being criticized, leaves me wondering how this huge conflict of interest is allowed . Al.so , I
don't think it is appropriate to place Cathy Burrage into this type of situation, when her daily activities,
her performance reviews , and her entire career are affected by her supervisors . The minutes read as if
John Bock and Stewart Fonda had edited them .
I am also concerned that l was not allowed to voice this opinion at the June 14 Water and Sewer Board
meeting, because I was not even allowed to see a copy of the minutes prior to their approval. I was not
able to even see the meeting minutes from the May 10 meeting until Thursday, June 16 . I don 't
understand why this is acceptable and I don't understand why the City of Englewood waits , in this case,
over a month to ask the members of the Water and Sewer Board to approve minutes .
E-MAILS!UNANS\VERED QUESTIONS 7 OF 18
Please let me know what \Ve can do to fix this problem.
Thanks,
Ryan Laird
6. Meter Conversion Costs
From : ryan laird [mailto :rlclimb @hotmail.com]
Sent : Friday, June 24 , 2011 2 :21 PM
To: John Bock; Cathy Burrage
Subject : Meter Conversion Costs
John,
I am trying to understand the potential costs associated with the meter conversion . On the City's website
it states that the cost varies from $80 to $450 . When everyone was stating that the material cost alone was
$181, l assumed the $80 to $450 cost was outdated information . Now that I remember what it cost me
with a meter pit, I think that assumption was wrong. Let me know if this is a more accurate description of
the cost?
1) If a home has an outside meter pit (valve pit), only a meter is required at a cost of about $80 and the
Utility Department installs the meter at no cost.
2) If a home does not have an outside meter pit , a meter yoke and a meter is required at a cost of $181 . lf
the homeowner or family member can do the light plumbing required to install the meter there is no
installation cost .
3) If a plumber is required to install the meter yoke and a meter, the plumber cost may be up to
approximately $2 70 in addition to the $181 meter and meter yoke cost.
Thanks,
Ryan
f?rom: jbock@englewoodgov.org
To : rlclimb@hotmail.com; cburrage@englewoodgov.org
CC : ~fondarg)englewoodgov. org; gsears@}engle1voodgov.org
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:28: 1 7 -0600
Sul~ject: RE': lvf eter Conversion Costs
Ryan,
Yes , those numbers have changed
for case #1, a house with an existing pit, the customer pays the City $65 .82 andv.·e install the meter at no
charge .
. For case # 2 y ou are correct.
E-MAJLS/UNA1"'\JS\VERED QUESTIONS 8 OF 18
For case #3 where the homeowner need'i to pay the Ci~y to install the meter pit, they pay the Cizv $276.68 .
I'll update the dollar amounts on the web page as soon as I can.
John
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday , June 24, 2011 3 :08 PM
To : John Bock; Cathy Burrage '
Subject: RE: Meter Conversion Costs
Thanks John,
fo your case #3, where a homeowner needs to pay the City to install the meter pit : Is the meter pit
installation cost alone $277 and then the homeowner must pay another $66 for the meter correct? Or does
the $277 include the meter pit installation and the meter?
Ryan
RE: },,Jeter Conversion Costs
6 ·24/11
John Bock
To 't)ian laird', Cathy Burrage, Stu }(mda, Gmy Sears
The $2 77 is all the materials: meter, yoke and pit.
The T-Vater Department doesn 't pass along any of its installation costs.
John
(Ryan Laird note -I appreciate that the Utility Department has finally updated this information on
their website. I only had to ask half a dozen times.)
7. Rate Studies
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent : Wednesday, June 15 , 2011 2:51 PM
To: Jolm Bock; Cathy Burrage; Bob .Mccaslin
Subject: Rate Studies
Hello John,
I would like to get a copy of the 2003 Black and Veatch water and sewer rate study that was done in 2003 .
If it is acceptable to provide me with an electronic copy, please have it attached as a PDF to an e-mail.
Also , can I get. a list of all the water and sewer rate studies on record between 1965 and 2011?
Please let me know if this is acceptable and a timeframe when it could be done. Thanks for your attention
with this matter.
Ryan Laird
J?rom: jbock@englewoodgov.org
E-MAILS/UNA.NSvVERED QUESTIONS 9 OF 18
To: rlc!imb @hotmail.com
CC: dbrotzman @englewoodgov.org; gsears@ englewoodgov.org; lellis@!englewoodgov.org;
~fonda@englewoodgov.org
Dale: Tue , 21.Jun 20ll 16:10:46 -0600
SuJ~ject: RE: Raie Studies
Ryan,
The email Ji -om Cathy is the rep~v to this requesL Also, on your other question the on~v water and sewer
rate study that has occurred was the water study in 1977. We have not been able to locate that in our
files. When rate hikes have occurred presentations were made to Council showing the required increases.
We would have these available since 2003 but they ·were not.fill/ rate studies. Do you wish to receive
these ?
John
From : ryan laird [mailto :rlclimb @hotmail.com]
Sent : Tuesday, June 21 , 2011 4 :22 PM
To : John Bock
Cc: Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears; Lou Ellis; Stu Fonda; Council ; Jim Woodward; Rick Gillit ; Joe Jefferson ;
Bob Mccaslin; Randy Penn
Subject: RE : Rate Studies
John,
The file that Cathy sent me and the file that you attached were not \Vhat I asked for, but simply a memo to
city council. Please provide me a copy of the 2003 Black and Veatch \vater and sewer rate study that was
done in 2003.
Also , please provide me a list of all water and sewer rate studies on record between 1965 and 2011?
Thanks for your attention to this matter.
Ryan
From: jbock@englelmodgov.org
To: rlclimb @.hotmail.com
CC: dbrotzman@engle·woodgov.org; gsears@engleH-'oodgov.org; lellis@.englev1;oodgov.org;
!)fonda @engle11.:oodgov.org; Council@ englewoodgov.org; jwoodward@englewoodgov.org;
RGillit@englewoodgov.org; J.lejferson @englewoodgov.org; BAfcCaslin@englewoodgov.org,·
RPenn@englel-modgov.org
Date: Tue, 21 Jim 2011 16:30:02 -0600
Su~ject: RE: Rate Studies
R.yan ,
The tables relating to the se wer.fund that are in this package were the work produc r produced by Black &
Veatch and presented to Council. There was no other product. The list <~l all u'ater and s ewer rate
E-MA.lLS/UN ANS\VERED QUESTIONS 10 OF 18
studies is /he 1977 water study. Do you want the presentations that ·were not.full rate studies, but on~v
analyzed the increases needed?
John
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com)
Sent: Tuesday , June 21, 2011 S: 17 PM
To: John Bock; Cathy Burrage '
Cc: Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears; Lou Ellis; Stu Fonda; Council ; Jim Woodward; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson;
Bob McCaslin; Randy Penn
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
Jolm,
I do not appreciate what appears to be deliberate misinformation . There WAS other product besides the
June 2003 memo . I just want the entire Black and Veatch rate study that was done in 2003 . I've got a part
of it already, so I know for a fact that it exists. It appears to be titled "Wastewater Rate Study", June
2003. And please provide me a list of ALL water and sewei· rate studies on record between 1965
and 2011 . I asked for all rate studies, not just the rate studies that evaluated the rate structure . Please
include the "not full rate studies".
Thanks,
Ryan
ff-om: jbock@englewoodgov.org
To: r lclimb @hotmail.com; churrage (j:_ije nglewoodgov. org
CC: dhrotzman @e ngle111oodgov.mg; gsears@englewoodgov.mg; lellis@engleimodgov.mg;
~fonda@ englewoodgov.org; Counci l@englewoodgov.mg; jwoodward@engle1voodgov.org;
RGillit@e nglewoodgov.org; JJefferson1_i)englewoodgov.org; BJvfcCaslin @e nglewoodgov.org;
RPenn @englewoodgov.org
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 201113: 19 :27 -0600
Su~iect: RJ.l,: Rate Studies
Ryan,
Attached are the .pd.ffiles the paper copies o,fwhich you received at our.front counter today. These are
also the flies Stu thought you had received earlier today but had not been set as yet.
John
(Ryan Laird note: On 6-22-11 , John Bock refused to comply with the Colorado Open Records Act
when I asked to see the information I had requested, since the deadline had passed for compliance.
Luckily, the City Clerk and then Mr. Fonda decided to comply with the law and provide the information
that I had requested.)
From: ryan laird [mailto :rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28 , 2011 4: 15 PM
To: John Bock; Cathy Burrage; Lou Ellis
E-?vL,\ILS/UNA1~SvVERED QUESTIONS 11OF18
Cc: Council; Jim Woodward; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson; Bob McCaslin; Randy Penn
Subject: RE: Rate Studies
John,
I am sure that you are not deliberately intending to misinform me, so I vvould once again like to request a
full copy of the rate study reports that I previously asked for on June 15. '{ ou must understand that 1 felt
like l was being deliberately misinformed when you only sent me the memorandums. You insisted that
the memos were the only work product produced by Black and Veatch until you were confronted
on the issue. Then you admitted that there was more work product, in the form of the executive
summaries that you provided on June 22. Now, you have stated that the memos and the executive
summaries are the only work product produced. It appears to me that the executive sununaries are only
part of the full report .
The Executive Summaries have section numbers in the footer at the bottom (for example" l-2'', which
would correspond to Section 1, Page 2). It appears that there were other sections to these rate study
reports. Please provide me with a full copy of these rate study reports.
Also, please provide me the list of all the water and sewer rate studies on record between 1965 and
2011, which I requested on June 15.
Thanks for your timely attention to tills matter.
Ryan
From: Lou Ellis
Sent: Wednesday , June 29, 20JJ 12:21 PAJ
To: 5'tu Fonda; John Bock; Cathy Burrage
Cc: rlclimb@)hotmail.com; Dan Brotzman; Gary Sears; A1ike }1aherty; }rank Gryglewicz; Kerry Bush;
Jeanne Kelly
Subject: FW· Rate Studies
I just received a call from ]\/fr. Laird asking about the status of this Open Records Request.
He stated it has been 2 weeks since he initially requested this information and this response time is W£O -'
beyond the timefimne setforth in State Statute. He is st;// asking for the.full reports.
I told him I would.forward his complaint to the Utilities Department.
Lou
F"rom: jbock@englewoodgov.mg
To: rlclimb@,hotmail.com
CC: dbrotzman @englewoodgov.org; gsears@englewoodgov.mg; mflaherty@englewoodgov.org;
fg1yglewicztij;englewoodgov. org; kbush @englewoodgov.mg; jkelly@englewoodgov.org;
Cou11ci l@engle-rroodgov.org: cburrage@englewoodgov.org; sfonda@englewoodgov.org;
le llis@englelvoodgov.org
Date: Thu, 30Jun 201116:06:17-0600
Su~ject: RE: Rate Studies
Ryan,
E-MAILS/UNANSWERED QUESTIONS 12 OF l 8
The memorandum dated June 10, 2003 and the l!,--.xecutive Summary FVaste1-11ater Rate Study were the only
work product. They were complementmy and made a total presentation to the Board You have been
provided what 1ve have relating to this ;natter to answer your open record~· request. A full rate study was
not done. 'l7ie cash.flows prepared by Black and Veatch.for sewer is in the memorandum dated June 10.
Attached is a list of all water and Sl'1Ver rate adjustments with an explanation belon1 as to which have rale
studies or cash flows. '
Stu Fonda
RE : Rate Studies
7/21/1 1
ryan laird
rlclimb@hotmail.com
To jbock@englewoodgov.org, dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org, gsears@englewoodgov.org,
m±laherty@englewoodgov.org, fgryglewicz@englev~toodgov.org, kbush@englewoodgov.org,
jkelly@englewoodgov.org, council@englewoodgov.org, cburrage@englewoodgov.org,
sfonda@englewoodgov.org, lellis@englewoodgov.org
?vlr. Fonda,
I am still waiting to receive a list of the water and sewer rate studies that were done between 1965
and 201 l. The table you attached simply shows the years that rates were increased.
Ryan Laird
(Ryan Laird note -It is especially odd that Mr. Fonda had feigned ignorance to me and in his City
Council response regarding the existence of rate studies performed in the 1970' s from April, 201 J to
June, 201 l , but then in July, 2011 he informed me that he was the one who created the 1970 rate
structures. I pointed out this fact in the July Water and Sewer Board meeting and Mr. Fonda confirmed. l
don't understand why this information was withheld.)
8. 2008 Rate Study -Open Records .Request
From: Lou Ellis
Sent: lhursday, July 21, 2011 10:58 AA1
To: Stu Fonda; John Bock; Cath~v Burrage
Cc: Gary Sears; Dan Brotzman; Mike Flaherty; Frank Gryglewicz; Sue Carlton-Smith; Leigh Ann
Ho,lfhines; Keny Bu.sh; Jeanne Kelly
Subject: Open Records Request from A1r. Laird
A1r. Lairdjust spoke to Keny regarding this response.
He said this response he received is not i:vhat he requested in his Open Record~· Request.
He wants the Rate Study, not another copy of the ordinance listing the rate increase. He said it's the .:/th
time he has received this ordinance and it is not what he is asking for.
The deadline to respond to this request is today at 5:00 p.m.
E-M.\ILS/UNANS\VERED QUESTIONSr 13 OF 18
From: sfonda@englewoodgov.org
To: lellis(q:;englewoodgov. org; jbock@englewoodgov.org; cburrage @englewoodgov.org:
rlclimb @hotmail.com
CC: gsears@,englewoodgov.org; dbrotzman @englewoodgov.org; mflaherty(°0englewoodgov. org;
.f..ij1ygleu•icz @englewoodgov.org; scarlton-smith@englewoodgov.org; lhoffhi11es @engle1roodgov.org;
kbush @engle1voodgov.org; j kelly@engle¥1-1oodgov.org
Date: 17w, 21 Jul 201l14:46:03 -0600
Subject: RE: Open Recordv Requ'estfrom A1r. Lcdrd
lhe attached cash.flow 1t·as 1·vhat was presented to Council. It calculated the rate increases. I7iere lFaS
no other rate study conducted. Based on the cash.fiow Council approved the ordinance. This is all that
went to Council.
RE : Open Records Request from 1V1r . Laird
7/21/ll
ryan laird
To sfonda@engle\l·,1oodgov .org, lellis@englewoodgov.org, jbock@englewoodgov.org,
cburrage@englewoodgov.org, gsears@englewoodgov.org, dbrotzman @englewoodgov.org,
mflaherty@englewoodgov.org, fgryglewicz@engl ewoodgov. org, scarlton-smith@englewood gov . org ,
J hoffhines@englewoodgov .org , kbush@englewoodgov .org, jkelly@englewoodgov.org
Mr. Fonda,
Was this cashflow done in house or was it done by a consultant? \Vhat was the cost? Is there an
executive summary as part of the work product for the 2008 sewer rate increases like in 2003? You
must understand that I just want to clarify , because your department stated the memo and cash flow was
the entire work product for 2003 , then you changed your mind and decided to let me see the executive
summary that had been produced in 2003. Thanks for your time with this matter.
Ryan
9. Lack of Transparency in Recording
(Ryan Laird note -In response to requesting a copy of the July 12, 2011 Water and Sewer Board
recording.)
From : lellis @)englewoodgov.org
To: rlclimb @hotmail.com
CC: sf onda@englewoodgov.org; dbrotzman @englewoodgov.org; gsears("i!J englewoodgov. org;
mflaher(v@e11glewoodgov.org; fg1J;glew;cz :?!Jengle11•oodgov. org; jbock@}n1gle1-11oodgov.org;
cburrage @.englewoodgov.mg; scarlton-smith @englewoodgov.org,· lhojfhines@englewoodgov.org;
kbush (~ljenglewoodgov. org; j ke lly @engletvoodgov.org
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 201 I 12:38:03 -0600
Su~iect: Open Records Request dated JuZv 2 2, 20 l 1
Ryan,
Regarding the attached Open Record~' Request, received Ju~y 22, 2011: "!request an electronic copy of
the recording made by th e City for the July 12, 201 I Water and Sewer Board meeting".
E-I'vIAlLS/UNANSWERED QUESTIONS 14 OF J 8
There are two cassettesfrom that meeting. The City'sfee for tape duplication is $25. 00 per cassette. This
fee has been in place for years and it is based on the fact that the process qf converting this tape to a
regular cassette is vety time consuming.
Jn accordance with the City ofEnglewood Open Record'i Request Policy a 50% deposit is required prior
to processing this request.
Please remit $25. 00 (2 cassettes @ $25. 00 each ·=~ $50. 00) with the understanding that you will pay the
remaining balance of $25. 00 upon receipt <?f the cassettes.
Lou
Loucrishia A. Ellis, MlvfC
Ci~v Clerk
The Ciry of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, Colorado 80110
303-762-2407
FW: Open Records Request dated July 22 , 201 l
7/22/11
ryan laird
rlclimb@hotmail.com
To lellis@englewoodgov.org, sfonda@englewoodgov.org, dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org,
gsears@englewoodgov.org, mf1aherty@englewoodgov.org, fgryglewicz@englewoodgov.org,
jbock@englew·oodgov.org, cburrage@englewood gov. org, scarlton-smith@englewoodgov.org,
lhoflhines@englewoodgov.org, kbush@englewoodgov.org, j kelly@englewoodgov.org,
council@englewoodgov.org, jwoodward@englewoodgov.org, rgillit@englewoodgov.org,
jjefferson@englewoodgov.org, bmccaslin@englewoodgov.org, rpenn@englewoodgov.org
Lou,
Thanks for the quick response. I do not want to spend $50 to get a cassette copy of the meeting when
usually an electronic copy of public meetings are offered for free or CD copies are offered for $5. I
understand that the Water and Sewer Boa.rd meeting was recorded \Vith an unusable, incompatible,
outdated, and extremely rare type of recording machine at the direction of the Utility Department.
I feel that the audio recordings of the Water and Sewer Board meetings should be posted on the City's
website, so that the information is easily available to the public. The City owns the electronic equipment
and has staff expertise to post the audio recordings. The Water and Sewer Board should not be taped with
a.n outdated 4-head cassette tape that is incompatible to the more common 2-head cassette players and
does not allow for an electronic copy. I do not know anyone who has a 4-head cassette tape player and
using this outdated piece of equipment has effectively banned residents from accessing the infom1ation
that is discussed at the public meeting.
Another issue with the Water and Sewer Board meetings is that only one meeting's minutes are available
on the City website and that it takes an excessively long time to post the minutes. For example, the
minutes for the 6-14-11 meeting were not posted on the website until 7-22-11 . Now that the 6-14-11
minutes are posted, the previous minutes for May, 2011 and earlier are no longer accessible. Multiple
E-MillS/lJNANS\VERED QUESTIONS 15 OF 18
years of Water and Sewer Board meeting minutes should be posted online and made easily available to
the public.
Other Englewood public meetings have made progress in making the information discussed in these
meetings available to the public. The City Council meetings can be accessed for free on the City's
website. Additionally , the City now has minutes and audio recordings of City Council meetings dated
back to 2007 posted online and easily accessible . I congratulate the City by posting these recordings and
mjnutes on the City's website and 'feel that this action is statiing to provide more transparency and
allowing Englewood residents to become aware oflocal issues . I hope that the Utility Department will
recognize the importance of transparency and stop effectively banning the public from knowing
what is discussed at these public meetings.
Thanks again for your time and patience with this matter.
Ryan Laird
10 . Lack of Accuracy in Approved Water and Sewer Board l\'Iinutes
(Ryan Laird note -In response to numerous errors discovered in the Water and Sewer Board minutes .)
From: Lou Ellis
Sent: Monday, July 25 , 2011 3 :36 PM
To : Stu Fonda; Dan Brotzman; John Bock; Cathy Burrage
Cc: Gary Sears; Mike Flaherty; Frank Giyglewicz; Sue Carlton-Smith; Leigh Ann Hoffhines ; Kerry Bush;
Jeanne Kelly
Subject: Open Records Request -Ryan Laird
The deadline to respond to this Open Records Request is Thursday, July 28th at 5:00 p .m.
Thanks!
From: cburrage@englewoodgov.mg
To: rlclimb @hotmail.com
CC: .~:fonda@englewoodgov .org; lellis@englewoodgov.org; dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org;
jbock@englewoodgov.mg; cburrage@engle1·1JOodgov.org; kbush@englewoodgov.mg
Date : Thu , 28 Jul 2011 10:52:48 -0600
Su~ject: FW· Open Records Request -Ryan La;rd
The May 18, 2010 Water Board minutes were corrected. A corrected copy was given to the City Clerks'
qffice.
From: cburrage @englewoodgov.org
To: rlclimb@hotrnail.com
CC: kbush@englewoodgov.org; lelli.~Iij3englewoodgov. org; dbrotzman@englewoodgov.org;
.efonda@englewoodgov.org; jbock@englewoodgov.org; cburrage@eng lewoodgov.org
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 201 J 11:24:42 -0600
Subject: Afay 18, 20 I 0 Water Board minutes
(Ryan Laird note-A copy of the May, 2011 minutes had been attached rather than the May, 2010
minutes .)
E-MAILS/UN ANSWERED QUESTIONS 16 OF l 8
From: ryan laird [mailto:rlclimb@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 12 :13 PM
To: Cathy Burrage; Kerry Bush; Lou Ellis; Dan Brotzman; Stu Fonda; John Bock
Cc: Council; Jim Woodward; Rick Gillit; Joe Jefferson; Bob McCaslin; Randy Penn
Subject: FW: May 18 , 2010 Water Board minutes
Cathy.
It appears you accidentally sent me the May 201 l minutes rather than the May 2010 minutes. Thanks for
realizing that the previously approved May 2010 minutes were mistakenly approved when the text from
the April 2010 minutes was copy and pasted into the May 20 l 0 meeting minutes. How were you able to
correct this oversight? Are there multiple versions of the meeting minutes?
Also, I am glad that I was able to help the City Clerk's office locate the two other missing copies of the
minutes from 2011. There was also another set of minutes missing from around 2005. A.ll the meeting
minutes from around 2003 to around 1998 were missing and most of the minutes prior to ] 998 were
missing. Also , there were countless clerical eITors in the approved minutes, which appeared to be a
copy/paste oversight, where the wrong dates were shown on the approved minutes. Does the Utility
Department have plans to correct all of these discrepancies?
I think that an accurate and complete copy of the minutes should be kept on file with the City Clerk's
Office and that the Utility Department should post the records on the City's website. I am thankful that
the City Clerk's office was helpfiil in this open records request, unlike the Utility Department who stated
that they were specifically instructed not to give me any infonnation, including open records request
information, until the next August Water and Sewer Board Meeting. Does the Utility Depmiment plan
to tell all residents that they will not legally abide by open records requests or only the residents
that they do not like? Thanks for your attention with this matter.
Ryan
From: cburrage@englei-11oodgov.org
To: rlclimb @hotmail.com
CC: ~fonda@ englewoodgov.org; jbock@englewoodgov.org; kbush@englewoodgov.org;
dbrotzman @englei·voodgov.org; lellis@englewovdgov.org
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:58:31 -0600
SuNect: RE: A1ay 18, 2010 Water Board minutes
Ryan,
Water Board minutes will be posted after approved Water Board agendas are posted on the 2nd floor
information board at City Hall 24 hours before the meeting. Water Board minutes.from 2007.forward
will be posted on the Ci~v website, as time allows. Errorsfound in the Water Board minutes that affect
content will be corrected The revised minutes will then be forwarded to the City Clerk.
Cathy
RE : May 18, 2010 Water Board minutes
8/5/11
E-MAILS/UNANSV/ERED QUESTIONS 17 OF 18
ryan laird
To cburrage@englewoodgov.org, sfonda@englewoodgov.org, lellis@englewoodgov .org,
kbush@englewoodgov.org, council@englewoodgov.org, jwoodward@englewoodgov.org,
rgillit@engl ew·oodgov. org, jj eff erson@englewoodgov.org, bmccaslin@englewoodgov .org,
rpenn@englewoodgov .org
Cathy or Stewart,
Can you please explain why the Utility Department has promoted the policy that residents who
would like to speak at a Water and Sewer Board meeting are required to submit their questions an
entire week in advance of the meeting, but the Utility Department agenda fo1· the meeting is
apparently not posted until 24 hours before the meeting? This imbalance between the amount of prior
notice given between interested parties seems a little odd. Are other board and commission meetings
setup with this imbalance? l would hope if the Utility Department is requiring residents to provide a
notice by the previous Tuesday, that the Utility Department could turn around the information and post
the agenda by the previous Thursday . Also, the Water and Sewer Board homepage on the City of
Englewood website states, "A current agenda is available the week prior to a scheduled meeting."
However, as of 8/5/2011 at 8 PM, which is the last day of the prior week for the upcoming 8/9/2011
meeting, the agenda link still pulls up only the outdated 7/12/11 agenda . I do not remember the Water
and Se\.ver Board members ever stating that the current agenda should only be posted within 24 hours of
the meeting. In fact, I distinctly remember one of the Water and Sewer Board members commenting that
they would appreciate getting the agenda and the supporting documentation prior to sitting down at the
meeting, so they could look over the information and be ready with informative comments and questions .
Please help me understand . \Vhy is the Utility Department moving towards a more restrictive policy
on the release of agenda information for the Water and Sewer Board meetings?
Thanks,
Ryan Laird
E-MAILS/UNANS\VERED QUESTIONS 18 OF 18
John Bock
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Da n Brotzman
Monday, August 08 , 20 11 3:09 PM
Cathy Burrage
Stu Fonda ; John Bock ; Le igh Ann Hoffh ines
RE : Item f rom J u ly 12 , 20 11 Wate r Board
'
Boards and Commissions that have public hearings have an established procedure. Boards and Commissions are not
otherwise required to take public input. If a Board or Commission chooses to take public input, the time and method of
such input is at the discretion of the Chair of that Board or Commission.
From: Cathy Burrage
Sent: Tuesday, August 02 , 2011 10:20 AM
To: Dan Brotzman
Cc: Stu Fonda ; John Bock ; cathy Burrage
Subject: Item from July 12, 20 11 Water Board
Linda Olson requested a legal opinion on the procedure for allow ing u nscheduled visitors to speak .
Please advise.
1
Stu Fonda
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dan Brotzman
Monday , August 08 , 2011 3:09 PM
Cathy Burrage
Stu Fonda ; John Bock ; Leigh Ann Hoffhines
RE : Item from July 12 , 2011 Water Board
Boards and Commissions that have public hearings have an established procedure. Boards and Commissions are not
otherwise required to take public input. If a Board or Commission chooses to take public input, the time and method of
such input is at the discretion of the Chair of that Board or Commission.
From: Cathy Burrage
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 10:20 AM
To: Dan Brotzman
Cc: Stu Fonda; John Bock; Cathy Burrage
Subject: Item from July 12, 2011 Water Board
Linda Olson requested a legal opinion on the procedure for allowing unscheduled visitors to speak .
Please advise .
1