The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1994-01-11 WSB AGENDAAGENDA ENGLEWOOD WATER AND SEWER BOARD JANUARY 11, 1994 5:00 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM A 1. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 14, 1993 WATER AND SEWER BOARD MEETING. (ATT. 1) 2. GUEST: CARMINE IDAROLA -AQUASAN CHUCK COWARD -CHERRY HILLS RE: CHERRYRIDGE SAN. DIST. 3. COUNCIL NEWSLETTER. (ATT. 2) 4. SOUTHGATE SANITATION DISTRICT SUPPLEMENT #122. (ATT. 3) 5. LETTER FROM EVA EISENBERG RE: 4955 S. GALAPAGO ST. (ATT. 4) 6. DENVER WATER RATE INCREASE. (ATT. 5) 7. LETTER AND AGREEMENT DATED 12-27-93 RE: CENTENNIAL V. NEVADA DITCH. (ATT. 6) 8. OTHER. ATT. I WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 14, 1993 The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. Chairman Fullerton declared a quorum pr~sent. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Habenicht, Wiggins, Gulley, Neumann, Vobejda, Otis, Resley, Lay Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities David Hill, Water Rights Attorney Rick Dewitt, City Attorney 1. MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 9, 1993 MEETING. The Englewood Water and Sewer Board Minutes from the November 9, 1993 meeting were approved as written. Mr. Vobejda moved; Mr. Otis seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. To approve the November 9, 1993 meeting Minutes as written. Habenicht, Wiggins, Gulley, Neumann, Vobejda, Otis, Resley, Lay None None 2. LETTER DATED NOVEMBER 15, 1993 FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RE: LOWRY LANDFILL SUPERFUND. The Board received a copy of the letter sent to the City Manager regarding the Lowry Landfill Superfund site. The letter requests $15,331,676.82 be sent by check payable to the "Hazardous Substances Superfund." Stu noted that negot i ations are at a point where a settlement is possible. Mr. DeWitt discussed the letter and Englewood's position. 3. LETTER DATED DECEMBER 6, 1993 to MR. ALLEN BERRYMAN RE: GAUGING STATION The Board received a copy of the letter sent to Mr. Allen Berryman. Stu discussed more efficient ways to measure the flow i n the river. The City proposes to measure at the second weir structure downstream of Union Avenue and to measure flows in two 36" pipes using ultrasound. 4. GUEST -DAVID HILL CENTENNIAL/NEVADA DITCH. Mr. Hi ll discussed the Centennial -Nevada Ditch Agreement negot i ations. Centennial has hired another attorney and is negotiating to dismiss and Englewood is asking for our attorney's fees to be reimbursed. Mr. Hill will keep the Board informed of further developments. 5. AMAX. Stu and David Hill discussed the AMAX case. Englewood's object ive is to require AMAX to make accurate estimates. 6. U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE ACT. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife is requesting increased flows between Lexington and Chapman at Julesburg. Mr. Hill predicts that this issue could be a future issue. The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m. The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be January 11, 1994 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room B. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary Council Newsletter Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant 12/15/93 Secondary Clarifier Modification A TT. 2 Several weeks ago, two secondary clarifiers were taken off line for routine maintenance work. These two clarifiers were installed without tank drains, so removing the 1,000,000 gallons of water and sludge must be performed with portable pumps, with the final cleanup completed by hand. This operation takes several days per clarifier. Normally dewatering and cleaning goes smoothly and without incident. This time, however, we ran into a 4 to 6 inch layer of septic (i.e., smells really bad and not good for the process, either) sludge in the bottom of the clarifiers . We believe this is the cause of sewage odors reported at city hall during this time. Septic sludge is not a normal condition in a secondary clarifier and the clarifier mechanism is supposed to prevent this condition . However, in these two clarifiers, brass sludge scrapers were originally installed incorrectly by the construction contractor. The scrapers were installed upside down and were 4 to 6 inches off the floor, instead of scraping the floor directly, and allowed the septic condition to exist. Staff has corrected the installation of the scrapers on both clarifiers . Correct installation will minimize the septic sludge problem and should alleviate the odor problems associated with the recent clarifier dewatering. Also, the brass scrapers will be replaced with more flexible, wear resistant plastic scrapers to do a better job of preventing septic sludge from sitting at the bottom of the clarifiers . The new scrapers will be installed in 1994 as clarifiers come down for routine repair and modification . DWS/cp ATI .. 3 SUPPLEMENT NO. 12 2 TO CONNECTOR'S ltGREEMENT THIS ltGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, acting by and through its duly authorized Mayor and City Clerk, hereinafter called the "City, II and SOUTHGltTE S1\NIT1tTION DISTRICT, Arapahoe and Douglas Counties, Colorado, hereinafter called the "District," WITNESS ETH: WHEREltS, on the 20th day of June, 1961, the City and the District entered into an Agreement in which the City agreed to treat sewage originating from the District's sanitary sewer system within the area served by the District, which Agreement was most recently renewed by Connector's Agreement dated November 16, 1988; and WHEREltS, said Connector's Agreement provides that the District may not enlarge its service area without the written consent of the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and undertakings herein set forth, the parties agree as follows: 1. The City hereby consents to the inclusion of certain additional area located in Arapahoe County, Colorado, owned by Holly-Dry Creek Venture and Itlliant Techsystems~ Inc., and more fully described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, into Southgate Sanitation District. The City agrees that said additional area may be served with the sewer facilities of the District, and that the City will treat the sewage discharged into the city's trunk line from said additional area, all in accordance with the Connector's Agreement dated November 16, 1988. Accordingly, Exhibit A referred to in Paragraph 1 of the Connector's Agreement dated November 16, 1988, is hereby amended to include such additional area. 2. Each and every other provision of the said Connector's Agreement dated November 16, 1988, shall remain unchanged. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands and seals this day of 1993. ltTTEST: CITY CLERK (SEAL) ltTTEST: SECRETARY (SEAL) CITY OF ENGLEWOOD SOUTHGltTE S1\NIT1tTION DISTRICT, .ARAPAHOE 1\ND DOUGLltS COUNTIES, COLORltDO / f Legal Description: A parcel of land located in the Northeast One-Quarter of Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northeast corner of said Section 31; thence N 90 00'00" W along the north line of the NE '1/4 of said Section 31, a distance of 40.00 feet; thence S 00 20'16" W, a distance of 40.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning, which point is the point of intersection of the south right-of-way line of East Dry Creek Road and the west right-of-way line of South Holly Street; thence cont i nuing S 00 20' 16" W along said west right-of-way line, a distance of 1281.84 feet to a point on the south line of N 1/2 of said NE 1/4; thence N 89 56' 48" W alcng sc.id south line, a distance of 10.00 feet to the northeast corner of Block 2 , Heritage Greens Subdivision Filing No. 3; thence continuing N 89 56' 48" W alona the north line of said Block 2 and alona said south line, a --distance of 1061. 62 feet; thence departing said north fine N 00 11 '46" E, a distance of 1280 . 83 feet to a point on the south right-of-way line of East Dry Creek Road, which point is 40 . 00 feet south of the north line of the NE 1 /4 of said Section 31; thence N 90 00'00" E along said south right-of-way line and parallel with the north line of said NE 1 /4 , a distance of 107 4.85 feet, more or less to the True Point of Beginning. Containing 31.56 Acres, more or less. -; &UL. &dibX: ZkZICAtW&Qb&!.Jl'!;bfA#i¥.(.;: ,f P.!44 A MWWWP d ,,,,., ...... .. -':-.· .. , . . . ~ .. : ' .. . ,, l"" , ... ' ... ' ·,.j •.... .• ' "~jlll•,.,tflo ' • I .; •• -~~-·: ".~ ..I .., •••••.. ·111>~ •. : ,,..... ' ·• . ' .•, ·' .,., • • (~• > ~. 'Cll "l .. . . ' ·.~,. ~ ......... 't> s;;; : too "l 1£ ,.,.,. •'"' ·~ --- ' l ( ft13, -~~~-..-.r~··~ -.,....,.. ...... \ . \9 , ... , .•. •\\ , .... "' DEC-17-93 FRI 14:~6 ! j ) ti l .... -... -· "' -m ''.: -··~----------·-------.. -...... •' \ ~"'~ ''!"f St ... , ------} : .. :r __ ..,......:;_,;;.;·"_;;;____ •. N.•#1 I -I • ~ I • .__---..... .---9J-;fl;JO,-r----------- I : I ; :11 ~ I .. --·1)....--. ~.' ~ I P.03 ~ ~ i 1 ' 1 • • ' I I . • • I I I I I December 14, 1993 TO: William McCormick ~ Randy Pierce FROM: Eva Eisenberg A TT. i We have appreciated the help given to us on the big improvement, or solv- ing, of the water pressure at our residence (4955 S. Galapago.) It is great to have pressure and it is a timesaver. Thank you very much. First, our thanks to Mr. Roger Fraser who "rescued" me when I attended Council Meeting and I expressed our problem. (Over the years, I had been to Council Meetings on this but no response whatsoever was made.) Messrs. McCormick, Pierce and Woika then became involved. Randy Pierce's observation and suggestion solved the problem. After the correction, Mr. McCormick called to ask if all had been taken care of to our satis- faction. We appreciated the follow-up. I know this note is very belated. Perhaps I wanted to make sure the higher pressure would remain! Happy Holiday s! ./ ~ ~ ~ -, '?./#--/?'~7 C: Mr. Roger Fraser City Manager Loveland, CO Discussion of water rate hike on tap ·11ere~11fii'tiiitcas1f 1Jalance~·911 ... :"·.-.~·~-· .. ,,'.·;.,'r .... ,_. '> Over.a four-year period (1990 ~ 1994), the Denver Water Department will have spent $88 :7 million on metering , plant improvements and other projects. (25 . 7%) Repairs, maintenance, etc. ·,r / :.:: (29.8%) Universal metering program (3.8%) New · airport non- potable facilities -~.:·~1~l10 r !~~;;'~:;,~~2~~£l~ •: :f;1· ·.:;\.~,.if.)!~,-,. ; ' '·:• [/'\ ,~ • ~'~1 . ··:··~!:~ _7 i ·:"~_.llii·~~J;~v -~···-·-·-[bElilii&'l!lli_··"',,-llliil'!l.Jflll'il/11_·•·:;;..., -~~-• 'r·---_-: .::,"t':.<\f.5!J)f~!f;~ MflA'l\11.-.'=~-~iii • 71t'J • ~n<t:' · · "'l "~~r-.t P~ · .. ~t:.> .. :~:~~, . . ·~$1P·9 11M -'~1 B~·~~t~~;,;~~1~~,, "'"·J$llM I N 1(·. --.~'·_-•.• ,, :-....,~:-;;;.<!\ · 1· ... ,_~··1~·:,;'t:l'°'~J·,~--,.'i>J :!~.IL -·r .,~..1,.'..t: ... 4 ~-~.;,:.,;~;1 !°""OJi "'-":ti ~""'·"·:.,. :-:~Jt.~· · . , "· \' :,";-".'1t •1.~}t~.:;r~!J.!. ·_c~~;_f-/ ( O ) ,, .. I !';·.·, ·"' ;. . ., -~ ·~-" ··~): -...~ . . .,. "'.f:_ { ~t~,, ,;;•.~;:;,,,;~.~ . _bl, .. ,... ..... ~..: -' · -.., · ".::...-1 • .-. .-.:.;.-• .,;. ,~~:,,,.;,;:y_t:_:. 12.4 Yo · ·' ·o:46"Mltll0 t.J,,;~~,.\ , :\ "'~··-\t : . · _,.. Marston (7 2o;.) &4th ~---. · :_:~_, ... -:-_ ~!·~ ~J.·:t· , $_ ?·_. _M_ IL_ Uot4_ \_;·_., _· . Pretreatment · • 0 ·; • _ -,i -·~~·,y~ • {·! ·~~ ·. Plant ·Ave . Reservo::1.~%)Wolfo~·'.::::.:,ii~~ :. :t·:;: .. ·L:_·(7 .~~) ~~ff~t~reatment Reservoir lease (1.4%) &4th Ave. pump station Plant lnprovements Source : Denver Waler Department The Denver Post I Jonathan Moreno r / By Judith Brlmberg Denver Post Slaff Writer Public debate begins tomorrow on a proposal to increase Denver water rates between 40 percent and 55 per- cent and suburban rates by about 14 percent, probably over a three-year period . Questions about the timing, the amount and whether Denver home- owners and businesses are being ask- ed to shoulder a disproportionate share of th e financial burden are ex- pected to be raised by critics of the Denver Water Department. Late last week, department offi- cials were at work massaging the rate proposal, to be presented at a work- shop at 6:30 p.m . tomorrow at t he Three Stone Building, 1600 W. 12th Ave . A sharp dip in operating revenues attributable to two "wet" years and a decision to share the costs of Wolford Mountain Reservoir contributed to the· department's financial plight, offi- cials said . Initially they wanted to boost bi - monthly bills of Denver residential customers from an average $25 to $39 , for a total increase of about $85 a year. The department's 117 ,500 Den- ver residenti a l and 21 ,000 Denv er commercial customers saw their wa- ter bills go up during each of the past two years because of 7 percent rate increases in 1992 and 1993 . By the end of the week , however, a 40 percent increase amounting to $60 a year was under con s ideration for Denver customers. The department's 122 ,820 suburban customers, whose rates were un- changed in 1992 and were raised 2 percent last year, face a smaller in- crease. They already pay about twice .as much for their water as Denver us - ers do . Please see WATER on 48 .:t> --\ ~ lrJ THE DENVER POST Water bill may jump ·.$60 a year WATER from Page 1 B Under the City Charter, Denver residents are charged whatever good service will permit. The average charge for Denver resi- dential customers is the lowest in the metropolitan area and among the lowest of cities of comparable size. The charter also calls for the de- partment to cover costs and earn an adequate profit (now set at 8.3 percent) on water sales outside the city. Department officials admit that, when they decided in 1990 to dip into a huge cash reserve to im- prove the water system, they didn't think the money would go so fast. They believed it would take until 1995 or 1996 to pare the re- serve from $133 million to $45 million. The reserve, accumulated to · help pay for the abandoned Two Forks Dam, "was just sitting there and (building up a large bank ac- count) wasn't an appropriate use ,." water board President Hubert Farbes Jr. said last week. The original plan had called for spending the reserve on water- quality projects at the Marston and Moffat water treatment plants, on a water-metering pro- gram for 88 ,000 Denver homeown- ers who had been paying a flat rate, and on extensive improve-. ments to major lines and plants. Without the reserve cushion, Denver customers would have had to underwrite some of the im- provements and their rates would have been higher,. finance director Bobbie Wilson said. But some plans went awry. The years 1990 and 1991 were exceptionally wet, allowing cus- tomers to cut back on lawn water- ing. And, with more Denver home- owners voluntarily converting to meters and adopting conservation measures, operating revenues dropped drastically. Revenues, which had been above the $85 million mark, dipped to $77 .4 million in 1990 and $74 .2 million in 1991. They climbed back to $78 million in 1992 when meter- ing became mandatory. "We've got to structure our rates so that there is a hedge against wet years and dry years," Farbes said. "There has got to be a balancing feature ." / Water conservation also turned out to be a mixed blessing. Al- though the department reaped an additional 10,000 to 12,000 acre- feet of firm annual yield, it got less money from its customers. An acre-foot is enough water to serve a family of four for a year. And the costs to provide service didn't drop proportionately be- cause the · department still had to maintain water lines and facilities, Wilson pointed out. Denver's participation in the Wolford Mountain Reservoir, un- der construction northwest of Kremmling, also wasn't anticipat- ed in 1990 . The water department expects to pay out $10.4 million by the end of this year and a total of $43 million over a 25-year period. But the benefits are huge, Farbes said . In addition to forging a partnership with Western Slope water interests -traditionally at war with Denver -the depart- ment will own half of the 60,000 acre-feet of water stored in Wol- ford Mountain Reservoir. Citing the heavier increase pro- posed for Denver, water depart- ment critic John Bermingham blamed a series of questionable Monday , January 3, 1994. METRO FEES Annual water charges in some Denver metro cities : Arvada: .............................. $265 Aurora: ............................... :. 273 Boulder: ............................... 226 Broomfield: ....... : .................. 320 Denver: ................................ 152 Englewood: .......................... 167 Northglenn: .......................... 696 Thornton: ............................. 363 Outside Arvada: .................. 398 Outside Broomfield: ............ 641 Outside Denver: .................. 297 Outside Thornton: ............... 545 accounting switches for reducing the suburban rate base, thereby shifting some of the financial bur- den to Denver. "Denver customers were forced by default to cover not only the ex- penses covered by these account- ing switches but also the shortfalls for the system as a whole," he said. · But Farbes responded that the ratio between the rate bases re- mained about the same, and that was the key. · Two public meetings will be held following tomorrow's work- shop, and written comments will be accepted through Feb. 8. If ap- proved, the increases would take effect in the spring. ·,,__ .. .\ . I I . ! \ \ Monday , January 3 , 1994 William Dean Sing let on, Ch airman Ryan McKi bben, President and Publisher THE DENVER POST Ne il Wes t ergaard, Executive Editor Chuck Green, Editor of the Editorial Page Isabel Spenc er , Man aging Editor Jeanette Cha vez, Associate Editor K irk Ma c Dona ld , Senior VP, Sales and Marketing Fr itz And er so n , VP Finance F ounded 1892 James Ban man , VP Human Resources Ken Ca lho un , V P Marketing Frank Dixon , V P Op eration s Steve Hesse , V P Circulation Pr oposed water rate hike de serves close scrutiny A public hearing tomorrow , at 6:30 p .m . in the Three Stone Build ing of the Denver Water Com- plex at 1600 W. 12th Ave . will be the first official opportunity for city residents to comment on what sounds like a whopper of a rate in- crease proposed by the Denver Wa- ter Department. The Denver Water Board is con- sidering a recommendation to in- crease local water rates by 40 to 55 percent over the next three years . This is an unprecedented increase in a time when inflation has been held in check in nearly every sector of the economy . True , as the department has tried to emphasize , Denver 's water rates are low compared to a num- ber of other places , including the city's suburban neighbors. But a 50 percent increase in the cost of any- thing is ·not to be taken lightly. Clearly , one of the factors at work is the effect of recent water conservation efforts . Without rate incre ases , a utility's revenues sh rink when consumption is reduc- ed . Cost s, alas, do not shrink at the same rate; thus, a gap must be pl ugged. That is partly what has happened in Denver. !Ji the long run , such conserva- tion may save consumers money by forestalling the need for expensive new facilities . For now , however , a reasonable increase in charges for the water we still are using may be necessary. But the rate increase proposal raises at least two other questions . One is a management issue . The other in volves the ultimate mission of the department. The Denver Water Board has drawn down its once-sizable cash reserves, but still plans to keep an estimated $45 million in outside in- vestments. The cash reserves were built up to help pay for the now - abandoned Two Forks dam, and a cons iderable portion of the original reserve has been spent on system improvements. The question re- mains: How much cash on hand is really needed? Then, too , the public is entitled to ask now whether the independent water department has really trim- med its sails to better fit its cur- rent role . It was once the lead wa- ter-supply agency for the metro area , but is no more . Now would be a good time to look at how it should be organized and whether it is operating effi- ciently given its reduced role . ... .. . +13034495426 C B & J December 27, 1993 Joseph M. Montano, F.sq . Faegre & Benson 370 -17th Street, #2500 Denver, CO 80202-4004 T-512 P-' A TT. lo Re: Centennial v. Nevada Ditch Holding Co.; Case No. 93CV962 Centennial v. Last Chance Ditch; Case No. 93CV961 Dear Joe: I have received another of your stipulations for dismissal of the Nevada Ditch condemnation case. It calls for the payment of $20,000 in attorneys fees to Englewood. I thought I bad made it clear to you by phone that Englewood was not going to sign this. At one point, Englewood offered to allow Centennial to dismiss in return for payment of all of Englewood's attorneys fees. Centennial did not accept that offer, and keeps sending a counter proposal at $20,000. Englewood's original offer is no longer open. At this point, Englewood is willing to discuss a resolution of the matter along these broad general lines. 1. Ccntcnnia1 will dismiss the present case (insofar as Englewood's interest is concerned) with prejudice, and agree not to file any funher condemnation petitions whatsoever against Englewood (including Englewood's pro- rata interest in the properties of any mutual ditch company). 2. Centennial will pay $40,000 of Englewood's attorneys fees. (Total fees are now somewhere over $50,000.) 3 . Englewood will allow Centennial to use Englewood's pro-rata share of the Nevada Ditch capacity, whenever F.nglewood does not want to use it for carriage of water which Englewood owns now or in the future. +13034495426 C B & J Joseph M. Montano, Esq. December 27, 1993 Page 2 T-512 P-003 DEC 28 '93 09:17 4. Centennial will pay a portion of the Nevada Ditch assessments, to be negotiated. 5. Centennial will also pay a portion of the cost of fixing the Corps of Engineers pipe, if that turns out to be necessary, the proportion to be negotiated. I Obviously, this is not a binding offer in final form which may be immediately accepted by Centennial. The wording would have to be worked out, as well as items four and five . I think we can resolve four and five rather easily. Please let me know by January 20 if Centennial is interested. Sincerely, David G. Hill DGH:pvg cc: Rick DeWitt, Esq. Stewart Fonda j ... .. 'a'4495426 STIPULATION AND AGREEMENT This Stipulation and Agreement is executed this ----day of ~~~~~~~~~ , 1993 , by and between the Centennial Water and Sanitation District, a quasi-municipal corporation of the State of Colorado ("Centennial") and the Nevada Ditch Holding Company, a corporation of the state of Colorado; the City and County ot Denver acting by and through its Board of Water Commissioners, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado ("Denver") a shareholder of the Nevada Ditch Holding Company; and the City of Englewood, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado ("Englewood") a shareholder of the Nevada Ditch Holding Company, concerning the condemnation case filed by Centennial on April 9, 1993, in the District Court of Arapahoe County styled Centennial Water and Sanitation District v. Nevada Ditch Holding Company, et al,, Case No. 93 CV 962 ("Condemnation Case"). The Nevada Ditch Holding Company, Denver and Englewood shall collectively be referred to as the "Respondents." Centennial and the Respondents shall be referred to as the "Parties." NOW, THEREFORE, i n consideration of the mutual promises, agreements and covenants provided for herein, Centennial and each Respondent agree and stipulate as follows: 1. Abandonment of Condemnation Case and Pavment of Expenses, Costs and Attorneys' Fees. Centennial agrees to abandon the Condemnation Case and to pay to each Respondent the sum set forth Ill 002 fr4495426 in Exhibit A, made a part hereof, for any of its claims for costs, expenses and attorneys ' fees incurred in defense of the Condemnation Case. Each Respondent agrees to waive any and all other rights or claims it may have to seek damages, costs, expenses, or other items of compensation from Centennial resulting from the filing and subsequent abandonment of the Condemnation Case. Centennial agrees within thirty (30) days after the execution of this stipulation and Agreement to pay the sums in Exhibit A and then to file its abandonment of the Condemnation Case. 2. Negotiations. Respondents individually agree to negotiate with Centennial in accordance with c.R.S. 38-1-102 for a period of six (6) months from the date hereof concerning Centennial's desire to acquire from Respondents capacity in the Nevada Ditch and related facilities for delivery of water from Chatfield Reservoir. During the negotiation period, the parties agree to refrain from entering into any agreements with any third party affecting the use of such capacity. 3. Refiling of Condemnation Proceedings. Except as provided in this Stipulation and Agreement, Centennial, during the negotiation period, agrees that it will not file any new condemnation proceedings against the Respondents. If any one of the Respondents receives notice from any individual, party or -2- ~003 'a'4495426 entity seekj.ng to negotiate to acquire capacity or any other property or property interests which affects capacity in the Nevada Ditch, or notifies any Respondent that a condemnation action will . be filed or is threatened to be filed or has been filed for the same purpose, Respondents agree within three (3} days thereof to notify Centennial of the actions of such parties. Notwithstanding any provision herein, if Centennial receives such notice or learns from any source of any such actions Centennial shall be free to file any condemnation case it deems necessary during the negotiation period aga i nst any party, including all or any one of the Respondents . 4. Waiver of C.R.C.P . 41(a) Cl). Subject to the terms and conditions herein, the Respondents herein waive any right to assert that Centennial is not entitled to refile condemnation proceedings because of C.R.C.P. 4l (a) (1). 5. Waiver of Good Faith Negotiations. If the Parties do not reach an agreement within the negotiation period, and Centennial files condemnation proceedings against all or any one of the Respondents, Respondents agree not to assert that Centennial failed . to negotiate in good faith prior to the filing of condemnation proceedings. If Centenn i al files the proceeding because of any event des er ibed in paragraph 3 above, Respondents agree not to assert that centennial railed to negotiate in good faith. Except -3- ~004 'Zr4495426 as herein provided, Respondents reserve all other legal and factual challenges to Centennial's right to condemn. In turn, Centennial reserves all of its rights to argue or defend against such assertions and challenges. 6. Representations and Warranties. Each party represents and warrants that it has full capacity and authority to compromise, settle and release its claims with respect to the underlying dispute. 7. Document as Entire Agreement. This Stipulation and Agreement embody the entire agreement between the Parties who have signed it. There are no promises, terms, conditions, or obligations other than those contained herein. This instrument supersedes all previous communications, representations, or agreements, either verbal or written, between the Parties, and may not be modified in any manner, nor may any rights provided for herein be waived, except by the conduct of the parties or by an instrument in writing siqned by the party to be charged with such modification or waiver. 8. Effect of Stipulation and Agreement. This Stipulation and Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of each Party who has signed it and its respective legal representatives, successors and assigns. -4- ~005 ti'4495426 9. Governing Law. This Stipulation and Agreement shall be construed and governed according to the laws of the State of Colorado. FAEGRE & BENSON Ju ~--t;;· Montano, #3695 eslie A. Fields, #11232 Diane B. Davies, #11182 2500 Republic Plaza 370 Seventeenth Street Denver, co 80202-4004 (303) 592-5900 MOSES, WITTEMYER, HARRISON AND WOODRUFF, P.C. Charles N. Woodruff, #2772 Gilbert Y. Marchand, #19870 P.O. Box 1440 Boulder, CO 80306-1440 (303) 443-8782 TALLMADGE, WALLACE, HAHN, SMITH & WALSH, P.C. David J. Hahn, #1610 John w. Smith, III, #3281 Cynthia A. Calkins, #10433 707 Seventeenth St., Ste. 2140 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 298-0221 Attorneys for Petitioner Centennial Water and Sanitation District -5- KUTAK ROCK Timothy J. Flanaqan, #6356 717 17th Street, #2900 Denver, co 80202 (303) 295-2500 Attorneys for Respondent Nevada Ditch Holding Company · CHRISMAN I BYNUM ' JOHNSON I p. c. David G. Hill, #621 1401 Walnut St., Ste. 500 Boulder, co 80302 (303) 444-4820 Attorneys for City of Englewood HAYES, PHILLIPS & MALONEY, P.C. John E. Hayes, #5239 Suite 450, The Market Center 1350 Seventeenth St. Denver, CO 80202-1517 (3 03) 82 5-6444 Attorneys for city and County of Denver ~006 '5'4495426 EXHIBIT A -NEVADA DITCH HOLDING COMPANY EXPENSES. COSTS AND ATTOBNEYS' FEES TO BE PAID TO RESPONDENTS To be paid to: •The Nevada Ditch Holding company •City of Englewood •City and County of Denver acting by and through its Board of Water Commissioners $25,000 $20,000 1The total Fees and Costs to Denver in cases numbered 93CV961 (Last Chance Ditch case) and 93CV962 (Nevada Ditch case) are set forth in the Agreement for the Last Chance Ditch Company No. 2, Case No. 93CV961. ~007