Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-10-11 WSB AGENDAAGENDA ENGLEWOOD WATER AND SEWER BOARD OCTOBER 11, 1994 5:00 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM A 1. MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 WATER AND SEWER BOARD MEETING. (ATT. 1) 2. GUEST: DAVID HILL -CENTENNIAL RULING. (ATT. 2) 3. CEDAR MOUNTAIN MEMO. (ATT. 3) 4. AURORA UTILITY 1994 RATE SURVEY. (ATT. 4) 5. WATER AND SEWER BOARD AND COUNCIL STUDY SESSION NOVEMBER 14, 1994 AT 6:00 P.M. IN THE COMMUNITY ROOM. 6. OTHER. WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES SEPTEMBER 20, 1994 A IT. I The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. Chairman Fullerton declared a quorum present. Members present: Members absent; Also present: Habenicht, Fullerton, Gulley, Lay, Neumann, Otis, Resley, Vobejda, Wiggins None Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities 1) MINUTES OF THE JULY 12, 1994 MEETING. The Englewood Water and s~wer Board Minutes from the July 12, 1994 meeting were approved. Mr. Otis moved: Mr. Vobejda seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. To approve the July 13, 1993 Englewood Water and Sewer Board Minutes. Habenicht, Fullerton, Gulley, Lay, Neumann, Otis, Resley, Vobejda, Wiggins None None 2) FIRE OF AUGUST 19, 1994 AND RESULTING NOTICE OF VIOLATION. Stu reviewed the events of the fire at Cedar Mountain on August 19, 1994 and the resulting water emergency. Stu noted that phenol, below State limits, was found to be the cause of the taste and odor problems. Safety measures in the case of another fire were discussed. 3. WATER BILL REBATES. The Board discussed the pros and cons of a water rebate to the Englewood citizens affected by the recent taste and odor problems. The Board decided not to offer a rebate from the recent water emergency. The Board instructed staff to respond with a letter to citizens inquiring about a rebate. Gulley moved; Neumann seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. 4. WATER RATE INCREASE. To not consider rebates because of the recent water emergency and respond with a letter to citizens who inquire about the rebate issue. Habenicht, Fullerton, Gulley, Lay, Neumann, Otis, Resley, Vobejda, Wiggins None None Stu discussed increasing maintenance expenses and revenue projections. The Board was informed that a rate increase may be necessary in 1995. Mr. Fonda noted that the last rate increase was in 1988. The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be October 11, 1994 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room A. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary CHRISMAN BYNUM &JOHNSON Ch ris man , Byn um & Johnson , P.C. Attcrrneys and Coun se lors at La w Con ti nen tal Bui ldin g 140 1 Walnut Street Suite 500 Boulder , Colorado 80302 Telephon e: (303 ) 444-4820 Fa csimile: (303 ) 44 9-5426 ABA/NET#: ABA1475 September 26, 1994 Martin Semple, Esq. City of Englewood 3400 S. Elati Street Englewood, CO 80110 Stewart Fonda Director of Utilities City of Englewood 3400 S. Ela ti Street Englewood, CO 80110 Gentlemen: I have enclosed a copy of Judge Post's order in the condemnation case which Centennial brought against Englewood . The ruling is a very satisfactory one for us. If you will recall, Centennial commenced a proceeding to condemn a large part of Englewood's carrying capacity in the Nevada Ditch. The proceeding was very hastily commenced in an effort by Centennial to "head off" Kiowa Resources . Centennial made numerous procedural mistakes in starting the case . In depositions , we were ab le to get Centennial's expert to admit that Englewood needed all its Nevada Ditch capacity through the Chatfield outlet works to run its system. That was very important, and it required a lot of preparation to get that result . Centennial then offered to dismiss the case and pay a fraction of our attorneys ' fees, if Centennial could start the case up again after 6 months of negotiations. In other words, we were to pay a lot of our own attorneys' fees in return for the opportunity to negotiate under threat of condemnation. We declined, and filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that Centennial had no authority to condemn Englewood, and had made numerous procedural mistakes besides that . We sought attorneys' fees, because the statute provides for them when the condemning party lacks authority or makes certain procedural mistakes . Centennial then declined to answer our motion and sought instead to "abandon" without paying attorneys ' fees , and remain free to start the case again. Stewart Fonda Martin Semple, Esq. September 26, 1994 Page 2 We contested Centennial' s right to "abandon, " in the face of a serious ongoing dispute over authority to condemn and numerous procedural mistakes. The Judge ruled that Centennial must pay our attorneys' fees if it wants to dismiss the case without prejudice (i.e., to remain in a position to start the case again). Centennial was not allowed to "abandon," as it claimed it could do, without payment of our fees. The Judge ruled that Centennial has ten days to decide whether 1) to dismiss and pay our attorneys' fees, or 2) to have the Judge hear our motion to the effect that Centennial lacks authority to condemn and committed various procedural mistakes as well, and therefore must pay attorneys' fees. Because of our success on the facts established at depositions, Centennial is in bad shape with respect to route 2; i.e., Centennial' s expert has conceded that we need all of our Chatfield capacity. If Centennial takes route 2, it should lose on the authority issue and still pay attorneys' fees. Our attorneys' fees to date are in excess of $50,000. Unfortunately, under Colorado law, Centennial is entitled to a hearing on whether all the attorneys' fees were reasonable and necessary. Expert witnesses can be used at these hearings on the question of the amount and the hearings can be quite long. They can amount to a mini-trial. The usual results of such hearings is that the Judge reduces, somewhat, the amount of attorneys' fees which are claimed. If Centennial chooses to pay our fees, we will probably want to settle for somewhat less than the full fees, in order to avoid further expense. Centennial can appeal, and they may do so. I think it would be a good thing for us if they decide to have a hearing on our motion for lack of authority, because we made such a strong record on depositions to the effect that we need all our capacity. I will call you about this. It is good news. I suspel:t they will appeal. David G . Hill DGH:pvg DISTRICT COURT, ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO Case No. 93 CV 962, Division 4 ORDER CENTENNIAL WATER . AND SANITATION DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation of the State of Colorado, Plaintiffs, v. NEVADA DITCH HOLDING COMPANY I a corporation of the State of Colorado; ALL SHAREHOLDERS OF SAID CORPORATION, including THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER and THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD; ANY UNKNOWN SHAREHOLDERS; and ALL OTHER UNKNOWN PERSONS WHO CLAIM ANY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS ACTION, Defendants. THIS MATTER is before the Court on Respondent The City of Englewood's ·Motion for an Order Determining that its Pending Motion for summary Judgment is Not Moot and Request for Opportunity to Object to Dismissal of this Action (the "Motion Re Dismissal"), and on Respondent The City of Englewood's Motion for Recovery of Costs and Attorneys' Fees including Legal Authorities (the "Motion for Fees and Costs"). The Court heard oral argument on May 10, 1994, and has reviewed the motions and briefs thereon, as well as supplemental citations of authority, and relevant statutes and case law. The Court being fully advised Finds and Orders as follows: 1. Centennial Water and Sanitation District {"Centennial") initiated this case by filing a petition in condemnation on April 21, 1993. 2. The ~~vada Ditch Holding Company ("Nevada Ditch") sought 1 dismissal from the proceedings. Essentially Nevada Ditch alleged that its shareholders, primarily th.:; City of Englewood ("Englewood") and the City and county of Denver ("Denver"), were the real parties in interest, thus it was an unnecessary party. 3. The condemnation was opposed by Denver and Englewood. 4. In Englewood's June 14, 1993 response to the petition in condemnation, it requested its fees and costs pursuant to statute. On November 16, 1993, Englewood moved for summary judgment based on allegations of l<ick of--··authority and improper -p·roceedings. Englewood again sought fees and costs pursuant to §SS-1-122, C.R.S. (1993 Supp.). 5. On January 26, 1994, Centennial filed a Notice of Abandonment and Discontinuance of these Eminent Domain Proceedings. In abandoning the proceedings, Centennial expressly relied upon ·Denver & New Orleans R. Co. v. Lamborn, 8 Colo. 380, 8 P. 582 (1885); and Johnson v. Climax Molybdenum Co., 109 Colo. 308, 124 P.2d 929 (1942); and Danforth v. U.S., 308 U.S. 271 (1939). 6. Centennial had entered into an agreement with Nevada Ditch and Denver resolving all issues between them. Accordingly, those respondents have not objected to the Petitioner's abandonment and purported discontinuance of these proceedings. 7. Subsequent to the Notice of Abandonment being filed, Englewood filed the Motion Re Dismissal and the Motion for Fees and Costs. Englewood is seeking fees pursuant to §38-1-122 (1), or in the alternative fees and costs as a condition of dismissal without prejudice pursuant to C.R.C.P. Rule 4l(a)(2); or as a Rule 11 2 ----·------'-·-=----~------ sanction. 8. The condemnation statute in its present form, provides throughout that the proceeding is subject to Court authority and the Rules of Civil Procedure. See e.g. §38-1-101, §38-1-103, §38- 1-104, §38-1-107, §38-1-110. Further, the Colorado Supreme Court has expressly found that the Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable to condemnation proceedings. Boxberger v. State Highway Commission, 126 Colo. 526, 251 P.2d 920, 923-924 (1952); see also Stalford et. al. v. l}nal'"n of-County Co?!'.miss-ioners of Prowers C-ey -. -, ---- 128 Colo. 441, 263 P.2d 436 (1953); Jacobucci v. District Court, 189 Colo. 380, 541 P.2d 667 (1975); and Aldrich v. District Court, 714 P.2d 1321, 1323 (Colo. 1986). 9. The mechanism to be used by the condemnors to abandon a condemnation proceeding is a motion to dismiss as was done by the condemners in both Denyer & R.G.R. Co. v. Mills, 59 Colo. 198, 147 P. 2d 681, 683 ( 1915) and Johnson v. Climax Molybdenum Co. , 109 Colo. 308, 124 P.2d 929, 930 (1942). 10. Centennial has argued that the Court is without authority to grant or deny a motion to dismiss because as a quasi- governmental entity Centennial has a substantive right to abandon the condemnation proceeding. ce·ntennial reasons that if the court cannot require it to proceed with a condemnation, it also lacks authority to impose conditions on dismissal. Centennial has cited case law holding that the condemner has an absolute right to abandon a condemnation proceeding prior to taking possession of the property. See e.g. Johnson y. Climax Molybdenum Co., 109 Colo. 3 308, 124 P.2d 929 (1942). This court disagrees with Centennial's analysis. 11. C.R.C.P. Rule 41(a)(2) provides that the Court maiplace terms and conditions upon granting a plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal. The Court in Denyer R.G.R. Co. v. Mills, 59 Colo. 198, 147 P. 681 (1915), stated in dicta that th~re was "grave question" whether ~uch dismissa l could be conditioned. However, that Court also noted that the court could assess costs upon abandonment; and further held that in · t:he ·absence---of --stat\itory authority, attorney fees were not awardable. statutory authority is now provided by §38-1-122 (1 ), C.R.S. Moreover, in a more recent case the Colorado Supreme Court held that the condemner's right to abandon was not absolute, and that if justice so required the condemner could be ordered to proceed with the condemnation. Piz v. Housing Authority of Ci ty and Cty of Denver, 132 Colo. 457, 289 P.2d 905 (1955). 12. Even assuming Centennial has an absolute right to abandon its condemnation, that does not render all issues before the Court moot. Property owners subject to condemnation proceedings are entitled to recover their costs, Leadville Water Co. v. Parkville Water District, 436 P.2d 659 (Colo. 1968); including costs incurred prior to an abandonment. oenver & R.G.R. Co. v. Mills, 59 Colo. 198, 147 P. 681, 685 (1915). Further, property owners may also recover attorney fees upon the Court finding that the condemner was_ not authorized to acquire the interests sought in condemnation. §38-1-122; C.R.S. (1994 Supp.); and Platte River Power Authority~- . Nelson, 775 P.2d 82 (Colo. App. 1989). 13. The issue of fees and costs was raised by Englewood in its original response to the petition for condemnation and in its motion for summary judgment, as well as in the motions it filed subsequent to the Notice of Abandonment. This Court retains jurisdiction over the issues of fees and costs prior to entry of an order of dismissal. The mere fact that in ruling on the issue of fees and costs, the Court may be required to consider matters which would have been reJ..e.7.r-a-nt to the-condemnatron -itself, does not mean the Court is precluded from proceeding with those issues. 14. Within ten days of the date of this Order, Centennial may file a motion to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice, and set the matter for a hearing on the amount of fees and costs, if any, to be awarded as a condition thereof. If Centennial fails to do so, the Court will proceed to rule on Englewood's motions. DATED THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1994 • ~-t.wLl BY THE COURT: Tho4' A/ f!llarty ig hereby Ordered to provide a copy of ttus Order to all parties of feCOrd within five (5) days from receipt of this Order and File Certificate of Compliance wilhin five (5) days thereaher C,EAI!flCATE OF SEBVlcq I certify that on q,.,;?. 3 _ q I Served the foregoi~ent by maiUng s~ [:). Q -. H -\ lZ\ Q g Judge ' 5 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Chuck Reid:r ~.:;ant City Stewart F~irector of October 4, 1994 Cedar Mountain ATT. 3 Manager Utilities As a result of the Cedar Mountain fire, the Water Department staff met to review how the water supply problems during the fire were addressed and how this could be improved in the future. The attached memorandum is a list of concerns that the operators wish to review in more detail over the next several months with the ob j ective of preparing an emergency response manual that would be available for ready referral during emergencies. Until the material is removed from the site, the danger of water supply contamination will continue to exist. The danger will increase when the City Ditch is taken out of service November 1. Until this date, the Denver Water Department has indicated the City could immediately make use of the entire ditch capacity if a fire broke out again. Low flows in the South Platte River exist in the winter, however, further compounding the situation. If a fire should occur during this period, the most effective way to fight the fire without contaminating the City water supply appears to be intercepting the run-off from the fire and pumping it to the interceptor sewer in Windermere Street. The lett er from the State Health Department to American Excelsior (copy enclosed) dated September 19, 1994 requests that American Excelsior submit a plan to pump 4,000 gallons per minute from the site. The Bi-City Wastewater Plant is currently working on a discharge permit to allow discharge to the sewer. The Clean Up Order and letter also require mon i toring of surface and subsurface waters, use on site or removal of precipitation runoff and monthly reporting. The state Health Department has also indicated that their lab would be available for analysis on an emergency basis if the City called their Emergency Management Unit. The City will also line up private labs to call in emergencies. The Water Department is also investigating the use of filter backwash water to minimize required pumping from the river in an emergency. Another potential option would be to meter drinking water from fire hydrants on the Denver system if the City's system became contaminated and a don't drink order was again issued. In the event of a hazmat incident above the City's intake other than a fire of this nature, the river intake is closed until the danger has passed the intake. This procedure has worked well in the past and will continue to be employed in the future. These incidents have been rare and should continue to be given the increased public awareness in this area and the increased inspections of businesses by pretreatment and hazardous waste investigators. MEMORANDUM TO: Stewart Fonda, Utilities Director FROM: ,fit1<:'1rl Bill McCormick , Operations Supt. ~ Util. DATE: Sept. 27, 1994 RE: Concerns for Future Water Emergencies The Allen Filter Plant staff met to discuss problems during the Cedar Mountain fire and concerns for future emergencies. The following is a list of those concerns: 1. Ability to protect the source. 2. Ability to fight the fire and still maintain water quality standards. Who will monitor the water? 3. Separate entities need to have us in the notification chain. Hazmat. Scanner? a. Littleton b. Englewood c. Arapahoe County d. Jefferson County e. Douglas County 4. Ability to change sources. a. South Platte River b. City Ditch c. McBroom Ditch off Bear Creek 5. Phone numbers for emergencies. a. Labs -24-hour and weekends, media numbers b. Heal Dept., Tri-County, EPA, etc. 6. Procedure for handling media and getting information to customers. Designated area. 7. Fire/Police command post -must be able to take recommendations and suggestions from employees. 8. Need emergency policies for Tri-County, State Health, EPA, etc. . 9. Survey watershed and identify potential problems - who to notify? 10. Overhead Storage - 1. Procedures for shutting off 3 mg storages and filling 6 mgd 2. Drain system if continuous pumping is needed 11. Procedures if City Ditch is not available as an alternate source. a. 80 mg -drawdown level 1. Consider quality 2. Baffle curtain damage b. 14 mg drawdown ability 12. When City Ditch available. a. Ability to immediately divert all of users flows. Contacts phone numbers b. Water rights -Ability to put into C.D. c. McLellan flows -diversion structure upgrade/ parshall flume 13. Power failures. a. What happens if extended power failure. 14. Coordination with Bi-City lab on analysis. 15. Ability to provide drinking water in emergency. a. National Guard b. Coors -bottled water c. Other sources? 16. Ability to dewater reservoirs if contaminated. 17. Reservoir valving -can it be improved? a. River b. North Reservoir 18. Emergency pumps. 1. Spend money on hoses, keep on maintenance 2. Rentals 3. More pumps? 19. Portable lab testing equipment. a. Bi-City have? b. Do we purchase? 20. Above all -how will all this be coordinated with Health Department, Hazmat crews, emergency personnel, media notification, handling of phone calls from concerned citizens and department staff responsibilities? STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor Patricia A. Nolan, MD, MPH, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the healch and environment of che people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Denver, Colorado 80222-1530 Phone (303) 692-2000 September 19, 1994 Ms. Barbara Green Laboratory Building 4210 E. 11th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80220-3716 (303) 691-4700 Hale, Pratt, Midgley, Hackstaff & Goldberg 1800 Glenarm Place, Suite 1400 Denver, Colorado 80202 Mr. Wayne Meckley American Excelsior Company 850 Avenue H East Arlington, Texas 76011 RE: American Excelsior Company Remediation Report of September 6, 1994 Arapahoe County Dear Ms Green and Mr Meckley: Colorado Dcpanmcnt of Public Health and Environment The Division has completed its review of the subject document. The report was submitted in a timely manner, but did not fully satisfy all the specific conditions of the Clean Up Order. The Division, however, feels that with implementation of items contained in the report along with items identified below, responsible site clean up can be accomplished while continuing to protect the public and the environment The items are: I. Monitoring -A final determination needs to be made as to whether Big Dry Creek is a gaining or loosing stream. Based on this determination the monitoring plan needs to be modified to reflect the conditions. If it is a gaining stream, some surf ace water monitoring will be appropriate. Parameters for analysis were not identified in the report The plan needs to include the parameters to be analyzed along with the analytical methods and their detection levels. The report indicates that wells planned by CDOT will be investigated for adequacy for the site program. The Division does not oppose use of the wells if they are both technically adequate and timely installed. 2. Handling of future precipitation -Runoff from unbwnt materials will be handled under the stormwater perm.it. Runoff from the burnt material however is the primary concern. Once the burnt material is separated per your plan, runoff from this material will be much easier to control and collect It is important that such collected waters be either consumed (such as by application to the shingles), treated (as by Englewood if arrangements can be made) or disposed by hauling to an acceptable site . It is suggested that efforts be made to ensure that an acceptable site can be found. 3 . Cleanup of materials along Big Drv Creek -The report does not address this issue but in viewing the site, debris was noted south of the newly constructed earthen road. These materials must be removed by October 1, 1994. Ms. Green and Mr. Meckely September 19, 1994 Page No. 2 4. Criteria for processing burnt material -Recent discussions indicate that sorting and moving of materials from the railroad property cannot begin until September 26, when a .07 cat is under contract The materials will then be moved to a prepared area and sorted, with a determination made by January I, 1995 whether the mixed material can be processed into mulch or must be disposed. The Division has significant concerns about the timing for determining whether processing of burnt material is possible. Water contact with the burnt materials appears to be the primary source of extremely poor water quality, as j udged by the fact that prior drinking water issues did not arise from the site. This being the case, the Division is requiring that a more timely determination be made on the ability to process the burnt material. In this fashion if they cannot be processed, transport off site for proper disposal can begin while acceptable materials are processed. The Division also will require identification of the criteria to be utilized to determine if processing is possible. 5. Reporting -In order that the Division may stay informed of progress, monthly status reports will be required. The reports shall identify a narrative summary of activities during the month and provide logs of the volume of I) material that has completed final grinding and 2) that which is transported off site. The reports would be due to the Division by the 7th day of the following month. 6. Contingency Plan -A plan to handle contaminated water volumes should a fire recur must be developed . An element of the plan could include use of the proposed site impoundments along with established access to pumps within a limited time. The plan should detail the handling of up to 4000 gpm of contaminated water. A response to these items is requested by October I, 1994. Should there be any questions please contact this office . Sincerely, <9~~ ~ Robert J. Shukle, Chief 0 -Permits & Enforcement Section WATER QUALITY CONTROL DMSION cc: Patricia A. Nelson. Permits and Enforcement Section, WQCD Stewart Fonda. City of Englewood Chris Wiant. Tri-County Health Dept. Pam Harley, HM& WMD Sarah Johnson, Permits and Enforcement Section, WQCD Steve Snider, District Engineer EXCELS All Participants in City of Aurora Utility 1994 Rate Swvey September 15, 1994 A TT. 'f UTILITIES DEPARTMENT Administration 1470 South Havana Street Aurora . Colorado 80012 303/695-7370 Attached is the 1994 City of Aurora residential water, sewer and water tap fee survey. The monthly water bills were calculated using your rate structure and 11,000 gallons usage per month. 1bis is the cWTent Aurora average usage for a 5/8 or 3/4 residential conswner. The sewer rates were calculated using your system methodology and rates. The tap fees consist of the system development charges, water development charges and incidentals for the meter, installation labor, and so on. This is done to anive at a number with the same items as are in the Aurora tap fee. If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7368. Thank you vecy much for your cooperation in completing this swvey. I hope that you will find the infonnation of use to you. Sincerely, Marshall R Estes C.M. Sr. Financial Analyst Utilities CC: :MRE Read File SlJRVYLTR.DOT \RATES\ WI'RATE94 WI"RATE9• 9/15194 RUNTIME: 4:35PM DATE REVISED : 08/17194 RATE COMPARISON TABLE WATER RATES -1994--1993- MONTIIl..Y MONTHLY % RANK NAME DIVISION CHARGE RANK CHARGE CHANGE MEAN OF POPULATION 24.58 23 .75 AURORA RANKING 18 of28 17of28 1 NORTHGLENN (5) lST 61.98 1 55.81 2 LONGMONT lST 31.77 2 30.80 3 THORNTON -INSIDE lST 30 .55 3 29 .61 4 CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL lST 30.35 4 29.23 5 LAKEWOOD lST 27.42 5 27.42 6 LOUISVIlJ.E lST 26.95 8 24.75 7 BROOMFIELD lST 26 .54 6 26.54 8 WHEAT RIDGE 2ND 25.61 7 25.61 9 COLORADO SPRINGS 2ND 25.41 11 24.23 10 WESTMINISTER (3) 2ND 24 .74 19 22 .20 11 CASTLE ROCK 2ND 24.50 10 24 .50 12 DENVER -OUTSIDE 2ND 24 .23 13 23 .71 13 LITTI..ETON 2ND 24 .23 14 23.71 14 SE . ENGLEWOOD WATER DISTRICT 2ND 24 .23 15 23.71 15 LAFAYEITE 3RD 24.15 12 24 .15 16 LAKEHURST DISTRICT (4) 3RD 23 .79 9 24 .70 17 HIGHLANDS RANCH METRO DISTRIC 3RD 23.65 16 23 .65 18 AURORA 3RD 22.58 17 22.58 19 KEN CARYL RANCH DISTRICT l(b) 3RD 22.45 18 22.45 20 ARVADA 3RD 21.58 20 21.25 21 WILLOWS DISTRICT l(c) & (3) 3RD 21.49 21 21.23 22 EAST CHERRY CREEK VALLEY (ld 4TH 21.10 23 19.25 23 SOlITH ADAMS COUNTY DISTRICT 4TH 20.55 22 20 .55 24 BOULDER 4TH 17.72 24 17.72 25 BANCROFT-CLOVER DISTRICT l(a: 4TH 16 .50 27 13 .75 26 CHERRY CREEK VALLEY DISTRICT 4TH 15.95 25 15 .95 27 DENVER -INSIDE 4Tri 14 .33 28 12.13 28 ENGLEWOOD 4TH 13 .83 26 13 .83 1994 1993 1. 1. Mill Levy Schedule a. Bancroft-Clover mill levy support 1.874 1.874 b . Ken Caryl Ranch District for water 8.776 8.776 c. Willows District for water 9.389 9.389 d . East Cherry Creek Valley All but Saddle Rock 6.344 6.344 e. East Cherry Creek Valley Saddle Rock 4 .625 0.000 f. Highlands Ranch Metro District Water and Swr Combined 7.400 7.400 2. All Monthly Charges have been computed based upon 11,000 gallons usage per month and a 518 or 314 inch meter . 3. Westminister and Willows maintained the same rate structure in 1994 as in 1993 but they have revised their volwne rate block downward in 1994 . This accounts for the 1993 to 1994 change in their monthly charge . 4. Lakehurst lowered the volume rate from 2.03 in 93 to 1.93 in 94 and increased the service chg from 4.80 in 93 to 5.11 in 94 . This accounts for their monthly charge decreasing in 1994 from 1993 . 5. Northglenn's bond charge increased from 29 .19 in 93 to 35 .36 in 94 . 11.()60/o 3.15% 3.17% 3.83% 0.1)0% 8.89% 0.00% 0.00% 4 .88% 11.44% 0.00% 2.19% 2.19"/o 2.19"/o 0.00% -3 .70% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 1.55% 1.20% 9.61% 0.00% 0.00% 20 .00% 0.()()% 18 .14% 0.00% \RATES\ WTR.ATE94 WI'R>.TEH 9115194 RUNTIME: 4 :04PM DATE REVISFD : 7125189 RATE COMPARISON TABLE WATER TAP FEES -1994--1993- SINGLE-FAMILY SINGLE-FAMILY % RANK NAME DIVISION TAP FEE RANK TAP FEE CHANGE MEAN OF POPULATION 5,944 5,790 AURORA RANKING 15 of28 15 of28 1 CONSOUDATED MUIUAL (1) lST 9,320 1 9,320 0J)0% 2 BROOMFIFlD lST 8,145 3 7,835 3 .96% 3 CHERRY CREEK V AILEY DlS!RICT (1) lST 8,049 4 7,820 2 .93% 4 LOUISVll.LE lST 7,862 11 6,325 24 .300/o 5 ARVADA lST 7,855 2 7,855 0 .00% 6 EAST CHERRY CREEK VALLEY lST 7,775 7 1,ZlO 6 .95% 7 WHEAT RIDGE (1) lST 7,640 5 7,640 0 .00% 8 LAKEHURST DlS!RICT 2ND 7,370 6 7,370 0 .00% 9 CASTIEROCK 2ND 7,075 14 5,958 18 .75% 10 Wil.LOWS DlS!RICT 2ND 6,930 8 6,930 0 .00% 11 SE. ENGLEWOOD WATERDISlRICT (1) 2ND 6,870 9 6,870 0.()()% 12 UITlEl'ON (1) 3RD 6,820 10 6,820 0 .00% 13 WESTMINI81ER 3RD 6,750 12 6,250 8.00% 14 1HORNI'ON-INSIDE 3RD 6,205 13 6,205 0.00% 15 AURORA 3RD 5,950 15 5,950 0.00°/o 16 NOR1HGLENN 3RD 5,841 16 5,841 0 .00°/o 17 KEN CARYL RANCH DlS!RICT (1) 3RD 5,820 17 5,820 0.()0% 18 LONGMONT 3RD 5,590 19 5,200 7 .50% 19 UFAYEITE 4TII 5,400 17 5,400 0 .00°/o 20 LAKEWOOD (1) 4TII 5,165 20 5,165 0 .00°/o 21 BANCROFI'-CLOVER DISlRICT (1) 4Tii 5,015 22 5,015 0.00°/o 22 soum ADAMS COUNIY DlS!RICT 4TII 5,000 24 5,000 0.00% 23 DENVER-OUTSIDE 4Tii 3,820 25 3,820 0 .00°/o 24 BOUIDER 4TII 3,779 21 3,779 o.00°1o 25 COLORADO SPRINGS 4Tii 3,683 23 3,955 -6 .88% 26 HIGHLANDS RANCH METRO DISlRICT 4Tii 2,985 26 2,985 0 .00% Z7 DENVER -INSIDE 5th 2,730 Z7 2,730 0 .00% 28 ENGLEWOOD 6th 1,000 28 1,000 0.00°/o 1. Tap fee shown includes the Denver Outside tap fee . \RATES\WTRATE94 WTRATE94 9/15194 RUNTIME: 4:45PM DATE REVISID : 7125189 RATE COMPARISON TABLE SEWER RATES -1994--1993.:... MONTIILY MONTIILY RANK DJNISION CHARGE RANK CHARGE CHANGE MEAN OF POPULATION 11.82 11.36 AURORA RANKING 14 of14 17 of24 1 CASTI..E ROCK (1) lST 27.60 1 29 .10 -5.15% 2 LONGMONT lST 17.94 2 16 .68 7.55% 3 WESTMINISTER lST 15.19 3 15.19 0.()0'% 4 LAKEWOOD (2) lST 14.94 4 14 .94 0.00°/o 5 DENVER -INSIDE lST 13 .99 6 13.24 5.65% 6 SOUTii ADAMS COUNTY DISTRICT 2ND 13.50 5 13 .50 0.00°/o 7 NOR111GLENN 2ND 13 .14 7 13.14 0.00°/o 8 EAST CHERRY CREEK VALLEY 2ND 12 .50 8 12 .50 0 .00% 9 1110RNTON -INSIDE 2ND 12 .14 12 10.87 11.64% 10 LAKEHURST DISTRICT 2ND 11.80 9 11.25 4 .89% 11 BROOMFIELD 2ND 11.66 11 11.21 3.93% 12 LOUISVILLE 2ND 11.25 13 10.85 3.69% 13 HIGHLANDS RANCH METRO DISTRIC 2ND 11.25 10 11.25 0.00°/o 14 AURORA 3RD 10 .61 17 9.29 14 .21% 15 ARVADA (2) 3RD 10.59 19 8.85 19.66% 16 COLORADO SPRINGS (2) 3RD 10.50 14 10 .50 0 .00"/o 17 KEN CARYL RANCH DISTRICT 3RD 10.13 15 10 .13 0.00°/o 18 LAFAYETTE 3RD 9.49 16 9.49 0 .00% 19 CHERRY CREEK VALLEY DISTRICT 3RD 9.00 18 9 .00 0.00°/o 20 BANCROIT-CLOVER DISTRICT 3RD 8.00 24 4.00 100 . 00°/o 21 ENGLEWOOD 3RD 7.59 20 7.59 0.00°/o 22 WHEAT RIDGE 4111 7.33 21 7.33 0.00°/o 23 BOULDER 4111 7.06 23 6.28 12.42% 24 LITTLETON 4111 6.46 22 6.46 0.00"/o 25 CONSOLIDATED MUTIJAL 4111 NO SEWER 25 NO SEWER NIA 26 DENVER -OlITSIDE 4111 NO SEWER 26 NO SEWER NIA Zi SE . ENGLEWOOD WATER DISTRICT 4111 NO SEWER 27 NO SEWER NIA 28 WILLOWS DISTRICT 4111 NO SEWER 28 NO SEWER NIA 1. C~e Rock volume charge decreased from $2.35 per 1,000 gallons in 1993 to $2.10 per 1,000 gallons in 1994 . 2. Arvada, Colorado Springs and Lakewood 1993 consumption was adjusted to equal the 1994 consmnption. This will allow the effect of any rate changes to be shown in the comparisons .