HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-03-08 WSB AGENDAAGENDA
ENGLEWOOD WATER AND SEWER BOARD
MARCH 8, 1994
5:00 P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM B
1. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 8, 1994 MEETING. (ATT. 1)
2. GUEST: DAVID HILL & JOE TOM WOOD.
2-4-94 -LETTER TO STU FROM BARRY (ATT. 2)
2-4-94 -LETTER TO MARCHAND FROM HILL {ATT. 3)
2-8-94 -LETTER TO SEUL FROM MARCHAND {ATT. 4)
2-9-94 -LETTER TO MARCHAND FROM HILL {ATT. 5)
2-9-94 -LETTER TO MARCHAND FROM HILL {ATT. 6)
2-10-94 -LETTER TO BARRY FROM STU (ATT. 7)
3-1-94 -FAX FROM DAVID HILL (ATT. 8)
3. COLORADO WATER & SEWER RATES. {ATT. 9)
4. CEASE & DESIST ORDER FOR BI-CITY. (ATT. 10)
5. SOUTH ARAPAHOE CONNECTOR'S AGREEMENT REVISIONS.
{ATT. 11)
6. CHERRY HILLS RANCHO. (ATT. 12)
7. REFUND AGREEMENT FROM RBI. {ATT. 13)
8. LETTER FROM HANK BROWN DATED 2-10-94 (ATT. 14)
9. OTHER.
A IT .. I
WATER AND SEWER BOARD
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 8, 1994
The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m.
Chairman Fullerton declared a quorum present.
Members present:
Members absent:
Also present:
Fullerton , Habenicht, Gulley,
Lay, Neumann, Resley, Vobejda,
Wiggins
Otis
Stewart Fonda, Director of
Utilities
1. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 11, 1994 MEETING.·
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board Minutes from the January
14, 1992 meeting were app roved as corrected.
Mr. Resley moved;
Mr. Vobejda seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent;
Motion carried.
To approve the January 11,
1994 Englewood Water and Sewer
Board Minutes as corrected.
Fullerton, Habenicht, Gulley,
Lay, Neumann, Resley, Vobejda,
Wiggins
None
Otis
2. AGREEMENT WIT H ARAPAHOE ESTATES.
Holly Holder, attorney for Arapahoe Estates submitted an
Agreement for a proposed water treatment facility which
utilizes a reverse osmosis system for the removal of
fluoride. Arapahoe Estates will exchange return flow for
nontributary water from its wastewater treatment plant for
capacity in Englewood's wastewater treatment facility to
treat the backwash discharged from the Arapahoe Estates
water treatment plant. The Agreement was submitted to the
Board for review.
3. SAFE DRINKING WATER CHARGES ON BILLINGS.
Stu d i scussed an idea presented in an AWWA seminar. In
Arizona, a rate analyst had isolated the portion of the bill
that was required to conform to Federa l Standards imposed on
the municipality. Stu d i scussed the pros and cons of using
this idea.
4. LETTER DATED JAN. 21, 1994 RE: RANDY PIERCE.
Randy Pierce volunteered to participate on the Cross
Connection Control Advisory Committee. Randy was added as
the member representing a medium size public water supply.
It was recommended that a congratulatory letter from the
Board be sent to Randy.
5. FENCING THE CIT Y DITCH AT QUINCY.
Residents adjacent to the City Ditch at Quincy have
requested that the Ci ty build a fence along the ditch. Bill
McCormick has estimated it will take $1800 -$2000 to fence
this portion of the ditch. The Board concurred that the
fence should be constructed .
6. NUTRI-PODS.
Stu discussed a proposal from Randall & Blake using Limnion
technology to control the a l gae blooms in the wash water
reservoir using Nutri-Pods. Nutri-Pods are underwater
greenhouses that contain aquatic vegetation which should
absorb nitrogen and phosphorous more rapidly and algae.
Randall & Blake, an Englewood firm, will make a presentation
to the Board at a future meeting.
7. REPLY FROM CONGRESSMAN DAN SCHAEFER
RE : H.R. #3392
Stu read the reply from congressman Dan Schaefer discussing
H.R. #3392. The Board recommended Stu send a letter to Mr.
Schaefer thanking him for considering cosponsoring this
bill.
8. BI-CITY AMMONIA VIOLATION.
Stu notified the Board of a pending
exceeding ammonia level standards.
City Plant has prepared a response.
since been consistently lower.
9. BEAR CREEK AUGMENTATION PLAN.
Notice of Violation for
Dennis Stowe at the Bi-
The ammonia levels have
David Hill and Joe Tom Wood will be present at the next
meeting to review the Bear Creek Augmentation Plan.
10. LETTER FROM DENVER WATER DEPT.
Stu reviewed a letter received from Chips Barry of the
Denver Water Board discussing a possible resolution of the
litigation regarding the 1964 Water Exchange Agreement and
the 1969 Modification between Centennial, Climax, Denver and
Englewood.
11. WATER & SEWER BOARD ATTENDANCE POLICY.
The Board discussed an attendance policy. The Board
concurred that three unexcused absences (absences without
prior notice or consent) would be grounds for dismissal from
the Board.
The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be March 8, 1994
at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room B.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
HAMI ET J. BARRY, Ill
Manallf"
ID:SPF-301 Series FAX:
{jj]oanf [!/ CfPate,,.. ~nvni&utNll'/\r/
1600 W. 12th Avenue Denver, CO 80254 Phone (303) 628-6000
Telecopier No. (303) 628-6509
HUBERT A. FARBES. JR .• Prelldent
MS. ROMAINE PACHECO, I st Vlce-Pretldent
MONTE PASCOE
RONALD L LEHR
RICHARD A. ICIRIC
February 4, 1994
PAGE 2
ATT. 2
Mr. Stewart Fonda Mail Code 41J
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
J400 South Elati
Englewood, co 80110
Mr. Bob Kilborn
Cyprus Climax. Metals Co.
P.O. Box 68
Empire, co 80438
Mr. :Joe Blake
Centennial Water and Sanitation District
62 Plaza Drive
Highlands Ranch, co 80126
Gentlemen:
Re: Litigation Surrounding 1964 Water Exchange Agreement and . 1969
Modification between Centennial, Climax, ·oenver, and Englewood
Representatives from Denver have discussed individually with
representat)ves from each of your entities the possibility of pursuing
a mutually satisfactory resolution to the subject litigation. Based
on these d i scussions, we have perceived that there may be sufficient
interest among each of the parties to pursue such a resolution.
Because of that perception, this letter has been prepared. ·
It is envisioned that discussions leading to a nego~iated settlement
would init i ally focus on technical solutions wh i ch would address the
needs and interests of each of the parties . Because of time
constraints resulting from dates established by the Court, these
discussions would necessarily be frequent and of extended duration in
order to determine by mid-March whether or not a negotiated settlement
is achievable. My staff has suggested that this may require meeting
as often as two to three tirrres a week, a half day or more at a time.
Denver is willing to participate in and take the l ead in initiating and
scheduling the discussions. Assuming these discussions are agreed to,
CONSERVE WATER!
ID:SPF-301 Series
Mr. Stewart Fonda
Mr. Joe Blake
Mr. Bob Kilborn
Page 2
February 4, 1994
FAX: PAGE 3
l
Bill Bates of this off ice would coordinate the discussions and 'be
Denver's lead representative. / I
I I
To this end, the following recommended parameters should be aqreed ;to
by the parties: 1
2 •
3.
4.
5.
6.
i
I
The representatives wi ll be exploring technical solutions
required to meet the needs of the parties. Accordingly, each
party may not be represented by an attorney in the technical
settlement discussions.
Statements made by any representative in the settlement
discussions shall remain confidential under the guidelines of
C.R.E. 408. The term ~statements• as used herein include; but
are not limited to, documents, analyses, oral conversations,:etc.
The parties should agree upon a deadline for reaching the
technical framework of a proposed settlement. It is recommended
that the date be established as March 18, 1994. This date could
be further discussed during the initial conference. The date
could be extended only upon concurrence of all parties, who most
likely would agree to such an extension because substantive
progress has been made.
Discovery shall be stayed and no new motions filed before the
deadline for reaching a settlement.
Each party would commit to contribute the necessary personnel to
the settlement process. Each party recognizes that this would
most likely involve a fairly aggressive meeting regimen,
requiring numerous meetings of technical representatives of the
various parties as suggested above. The first meetinq should be
held during the week of February 7, 1994.
The suggestion has been made that the settlement discussions be
facilitated by a mutually acceptable independent facilitator. It
would seem appropriate to discuss this particular approach at the
initial session.
It is rny belief that we owe it to our respective organizations to
explore and exhaust all negotiated settlement alternatives be!ore we
embark on a litigious course that would be lengthy and expensive.
Further, I believe a negotiated settlement would ultimately foster a
climate of improved relations in which future agreements can be
developed. This letter is for purposes of offer and compromise under
C.R. E. 408.
If you concur with the terms .of the proposal set forth above, please
so indicate by signing below and returning a signed copy to this
office. To expedite t h e coordination of the initial meeting, you may
wish to fax a signed copy to this office (Fax No. 628-6852, attention
B. Bates). Signed copies of all parties will be available at the first
ID:SPF-301 Ser ies
Mr. Stewart Fonda .
Mr. Joe Blake
Mr. Bob Kilborn
Page J
February 4, 1994
FAX: PAGE 4
meeting. This letter, along with signed letters returned by the other
parties, would constitute a letter of understanding and provide the
basis on which settlement discussions can proceed.
I hope to hear from you very soon.
Sincerely,
H. J. Barry
Manager
HJB:bb:klM
n:\HJB\Bates\l~ay.ltr
Title
Date
i
I I I
I ~
CHRISMAN
BYNUM
&JOHNSON
r
Chrisman , Synu}n &
Tolmstm . P.C. .
Attomtys ond
Counulnrs a I Larv
Continrntlll Bu11di11g
1401 Woln11t Strrt!t
SuitcSOO
Boulder , Color11do 80302
Ttlcphonr : (303) '444-4820
Facsimile : <303) ~·5426
liBA(NF.T#: ABJ\1475
tf 4495426
February 4, 1994 .
VIA FACSIMILE
O.RIG.INAL TO BE MAILED
Gilben Y. Marchand, Jr.
Moses, Wittemyer, Harrison
and Woodruff, P.C.
P.O. Box 1440
Boulder, CO 80306-1440
Re: Case No. 89CW063; Centennial's Objection to Eng1ewood's
Desire to Operate the City Ditch Exchange
Dear Gibb:
A IT. 3
I spoke with Dave Hill and Joe Tom Wood at great length yesterday after our
conversation about Centennial 's concerns regarding our proposed decree in this
matter. As you explained to me, Centennial objects to En&lewood's desire to
operate an in-ditch exchange from its Allen treatment plant up to McLellan
Reservoir. Given that Centennial has no interest with respect to flows within the
reach of this exchange, we are unable to make any sense out of Centennial's
objection.
The primary reason that En&lewood seeks to exchange water up to Mcl.dlan for
storage is to make more water available for delivery to Centennial under
Englewood's existing contncts of supply with Centennial. This objection,
Cent.ennial's recent attempt to condemn Englewood's ditch capacity, and other,
similar hindrances are making it impossible for En&lewood to supply the water that
Centennial is demanding of Englewood under the agreements. If Centennial is
sincere about its desire to obtain additional water from Englewood, we uric you
to reconsider your objection to this proposed exchange.
With respect to your other commenu on our proposed decree, 1 offer the foll.owing
responses:
'5'4495426
Gilbert Y. Marchand . Jr.
February 4, 1994
J>aie 2
1. Accounting Fows. Joe Tom Wood is making chan&cs to the accounting
fonns this morning to address your concerns about diversions into S10l'31e. Once
his revised forms are avai lab le, I will fax copies to you.
2. Suwiy to Additional Lands. With respect to Centennial's objection to the
concept of materiality which appears in paragraph 10.D. of our most recent
proposed decree , we persist in our desire to retain this concept, but would be
willing to define "material" as supplying water to additional lands in excess of 20
acres.
3. Diversions of Consumptive Use Water Into Storage. You also asked, in
essence, whether consumptive use water diverted into storage would be treated by
Englewood as consumptive use water coming out. The answer to this question is
yes.
Please advise me as soon as possible today whether Centennial still intends to
oppose Englewood's effort to operate an in-ditch exc hange for the purpose of
delivering storage water to Mcl.ellan. Once again, Centennial's opposition to this
proposed ~change will be considered by Englewood as a direct assault upon its
ability to perform under its agreements with Centennial.
~J1/.~r'1 -
Jeffrey R. Seul
JRS:abm
cc: Stu Fonda
David G. Hill
'.
141003
'Zt4495426 A TT. 'i
MOSES, WITTEMYER, HARRISON ANO WOOORUF"F, P. C.
DAVID L.. HAA•ISON
(: .. A.LC& N , WOODRUF',.
lllO•C:•T E . 1.. a££8£:
DAVID""· 8A0WN
VE•ONICA A. 9"£1111.I NO
STEVEN il'.JEFF£AS
OILBCll'I' 'f. MAJICWAND • .JR .
l'AU L , , rtOLLE .. AN
Jeffrey R. Saul, E&q.
LAW 0,.P'ICS:S
I OOill WALNUT STIUtr:T. au1Tll: .100
BOULCILR, COLO"ADO 80302
TIELE"HONE: 1.10:111 •4>a78Z
1'ELEC:0,.1E•I 1.:10.:11 4.&.ll-8788
ADDRC$S COA•ICSll'ONDENC:I: TO:
February a, 1994
Chrisman, Bynum ' Johnson, P.C.
1401 Walnut Street, Suite 500
Boulder, co 80302
AAl'HACI. J .... osca
.IOHN Wl'l"TEMTElll
COUNSEL
HU011'LCT STONE
S"ECIAI. COUN81L.
••• IPgltwood • 1 'l'hrwat to Teraipat1 the lapcb Creek
&greeaept in 1997
Dear Jeff:
This letter is a follow-up to our second-to-last phone
conversation of Sunday niqht, February 6, 1994. That conversation
wa~ the culmi~~t.ion of. your and my ef.f orts to settle Eng .le~ood .1 ~
a,nd .. Centennial•.~. differences in case N 0 • 89CWQ63 (Epqlewood's
~pplicatio~ for .a . McBroom . ~.itch ·:w~ter ri9h~ and . a ._.McBroom .~i~~
~1.~n f.or ~:U~ellt~tion) : "· . " . , . . .. ·>"·"-:
. , .. ,
The . ·essence of the 'dispute concerned how . Engl~wood -was
proposinq to store its junior McBroom Ditch diversions in"'McLellan
Reservoir. Since such a storage claim had not been included in
Englewood's application and had not been described in any
engineering report, but rather had been proposed for the first time
without detailed information in Englewood's revised proposed decree
submitted two workinq days before trial, Centennial was concerned
over how such storage would be implemented.
In the conversation, I :confirmed that, although
Centennial had not decided to oppose Enqlewood's proposed "in ditch
exchange", Centennial was unwilling to sign a stipulation providing
that Centennial would not object to or otherwise attempt to prevent
Englewood from delivering water to McLellan by means of the so-
called "in ditch exchange" using Englewood's claimed 1989 McBroom
Ditch right. You stated to me that, since Centennial would not
sign sµch a stipulation, Englewood's proposed decree would not
include centennial 1 s · requested sentence clarifying.that Englewo~
was neither seeking nor obtaininq the right to exchange McBroom
Ditch diversions .up .to the Chattield outlet. As you know, at Court
iri · . Greel.ey , Monday morning, Enqlewood . did finally . include
Ce.ntenniai 's . requested language clarifying that Englewood was not
seekiilq · to .exchange McBrooin Ditch diversions up to the .Chatfield
outlet. · ·
Ial004
,
U4495426
MOSES, WITTEMYEft, HARRISON AND WOODRUFF, P. C.
fJeffrey R . seul, Esq .
:February a, 1994
1Page 2
This letter will conf ira that, in the same conversation,
you said that you had been instructed to convey Englewood's threat
to terminate the Ranch Creek Agreement when it comes up for
·•renewal" in 1997.
Yours truly,
MOSES, WITTEMYER, HARRISON AND
WOODRUFF, P.C.
By fiiii-
Gi~ Y. Marchand, Jr •
. GYM/jt
'cc: John D. Hendrick, Ph.D., P.E.
William R. McLoud, P.E.
lll005
ts'4495426
February 9, 1994
Gilbert Y. Marchand, Jr., Esq.
Moses. Wittemyer, Harrison
& Woodruff, P.C.
P. 0. Box 1440
Boulder, CO 80306-1440
Dear Gib:
ATT. 5
In Centennial's negotiations with Englewood over the two water agreements,
Centennial has frequently asserted that Englewood is sbon of "firm yield" water,
and indeed lacks sufficient water of any sort to fill Englewood's needs. The Ranch
Creek lease provides that Englewood may periodically terminate the lease on
account of need. Englewood has been making massive, expensive, and truly
extraordinary efforts to obtain enough water for its own needs and to be able to
fulfill its commitments to Centennial. On the one hand, Centennial asserts
Englewood is short of water. On the other hand, Centennial tends to be the most
difficult opposer in those water court cases in which Englewood seeks to increase
its available water. That is, Centennial on occasion appears to be actively opposing
Englewood's efforts to fill its needs and provide water to Centennial. If Centennial
is successful in opposing enough Englewood projects, and continues to insist that
Englewood is short of water, Centennial may well find that someday Englewood
is forced to call back the e, jf for no other reason than to supply
the 5,000 acre-foot contract.
~
Englewood's efforts to obtain more water have included its non-trib and not-non-
trib well applications and aug plan. its Brown Ditch change case, the recently
completed Bear Creek aug plan, and other cases. In the well adjudication cases,
Centennial was the last to settle, and insisted upon recognition of a stream node
which the State Engineer does not recognize. We agreed to recognize the
therecoforc non-existent scream node in our well decree , which subsequently caused
no end of trouble in our aug plan decree. In the Brown Ditch case, Centennial was
the last to settle and was by far the most difficult opponent to deal with. In the
Bear Creek aug plan case, Centennial refused to agree to an in-ditch exchange in
City Dirch, which can be used to supply water to Centennial in significant
quantities. We do not believe that Centennial can object to such an exchange, and
iaie02
., ..
e449S42s
Gilbert Y. Marchand, Jr., Esq.
February 9, 1994
Page 2
we do not believe it will injure Centennial. Centennial was not able to give us any
reason why it might injure Centennial. We thought Ccntennial's consent might be
useful at trial, however. Centennial refused to give its consent. and the only
reason given us was "Why should Centennial do this? Centennial gets nothing out
of such a consent. " In fact, Englewood can deliver Centennial a lot of water by
that exchange, but Centennial was distinctively uncooperative. Centennial's
position in Englewood's application for a refill right in McLellan has been obscure
and may be difficult. In Denver's Nevada change case, Centennial raised huge
objections to a deal which was very useful to Englewood. After the deal was
consummated and the decree entered, Centennial finally concluded that it was not
injured after all. (At least that's the way I recall it). Finally, Centennial bas sought
to condemn Englewood's capacity in the Nevada Ditch, which is absolutely
essential to Englewood's ability to supply itself and to supply Centennial.
I told Jeff Seul to tell you that Centennial was treading on dangerous ground with
respect to Englewood's ability to fill its needs, by constantly seeking to impede
Englewood's abili itself and Centennial. I do not have authority to make
threats about th ch ree ease. Such matters are chc province, ultimately. of
e lewood City ouncil , which has not considered the matter. However, as
an observer of che situation, I wished to scare, and do state, my observation that
Centennial seems to be pushing these matters lO an extreme, and may get
unintended resu lts.
Please convey this letter to Mr. Mcleod, Mr. Worley and Mr. Blake.
Sincerely,
David G. Hill
141003
CHRISMAN
BYNUM
&JOHNSON
Chrisman, Bynum &
Johnson, P.C.
Attorneys and
Counselors at U1w
Continental Building
1401 Walnut Street
Suite500
Boulder, Colorado 80302
Telep!ume : (303) 444-4820
Facsimile : (303) 449-5426
ABA/NET#: ABA1475
February 9, 1994
Gilbert Y . Marchand, Jr., Esq.
Moses, Wittemyer, Harrison
& Woodruff, P .C .
P. 0. Box 1440
Boulder, CO 80306-1440
RE : Your Letter of February 8, 1994
Dear Gib :
ATT-~
In Centennial 's negot1at1ons with Englewood over the two water agreements,
Centennial has frequently asserted that Englewood is short of "firm yield" ~ater,
and indeed Jacks sufficient water of any sort to fill Centennial' s needs . The
Thornton Ranch Creek lease (which includes the lease of half of McLellan)
provides that Englewood may periodically terminate the lease on account of need.
Englewood has been making massive, expensive , and truly extraordinary efforts to
obtain enough water for its own needs and to be able to fulfill its commitments to
Centennial. On the one hand, Centennial asserts Englewood is short of water. On
the other hand, Centennial tends to be the most difficult opposer in those water
court cases in which Englewood seeks to increase its available water. That is,
Centennial on occas ion appears to be actively opposing Englewood's efforts to fill
its needs and provide water to Centennial. If Centennial is successful in opposing
enough Englewood projects, and continues . to insist that Englewood is short of
water, Centennial may well find that sometlay Englewood is forced to call back the
Thornton Ranch Creek lease, if for no other reason than to supply the 5,000 acre-
foot Water Supply Agreement.
Englewood's efforts to obtain more water have included its non-trib and not-non-
trib well applications and aug plan, its Brown Ditch change case, the recently
completed Bear Creek aug plan, and other cases. In the well adjudication cases,
Centennial was the last to settle, and insisted upon recognition of a brand-new
stream node. which the State Engineer does not recognize. We agreed to recognize
the theretofore non-existent stream node in our well decree, which subsequently
caused a great deal of trouble in our aug plan decree. In the Brown Ditch case,
Centennial was the last to settle and was by far the most difficult opponent to deal
Gilbert Y . Marchand, Jr., Esq .
February 9, 1994
Page 2
with . In the Bear Creek aug plan case, Centennial refused to agree to an in-ditch
exchange in City Ditch, which can be used to supply water to Centennial in
significant quantities . We do not believe that Centennial can object to such an
exchange, and we do not believe it will injure Centennial. Centennial was not able
to give us any reason why it might injure Centennial. We thought Centennial's
consent might be useful at trial, however. Centennial refused to give its consent,
and the only reason given us was "Why should Centennial do this? Cente~al gets
nothing out of such a consent. " In fact, Englewood can deliver Centennial a lot
of water by that exchange, but Centennial was distinctively uncooperative.
Centennial' s position in Englewood's application for a refill right in McLellan has
been obscure and has been difficult. Finally, Centennial has sought to · condemn
Englewood's capacity in the Nevada Ditch, which is absolutely essential to
Englewood's ability to supply itself and to supply Centennial.
I told Jeff Seul to tell you that Centennial was treading on dangerous ground with
respect to Englewood 's abil ity to fill its needs, by constantly seeking to impede
Englewood 's ability to serve itself and Centennial. I do not have authority to make
threats about the Ranch Cree k lease . Such matters are the province, ultimately , of
the Englewood City Council, which has not considered the matter . However, as
an observer of the situation, I wished to state , and do state , my observation that
Centennial seems to be pushing these matters to an extreme, and may get
unintended results.
Please convey this letter to Mr. McLoud, Mr. Worley and Mr. Blake.
David G. Hill
cc: Rick DeWitt, Esq.
Stewart Fonda
City of Englewood
February 10, 1994
Mr. Hamlet J. Barry, III
Denver Board of Water Commissioners
1600 w. 12th Ave.
Denver, CO 80254
ATI. 7
3400 S . Elati Stree t
Eng lewood . Co lorado 80 110-230 4
Phone (303) 762 -2 300
(303 ) 762-2 30 1
FAX (303 )789-11 25
Re: Litigation Surrounding 1964 Water Exchange Agreement
and 1969 Modification Between Centennial, Climax,
Denver and Englewood
Dear Chips:
Thank you for your letter of February 4, 1994 inviting us to
participate in settlement negotiations regarding the
litigation described above. Joe Tom Wood and I would be
willing to participate in settlement negotiations with the
other parties to this lawsuit, with or wi thout an
independent facilitator. If Denver wishes to involve a
facilitator, however, Englewood would not be willing to bear
any of the associated expenses.
With respect to your proposal that we postpone further
discovery and motion practice, we unfortunately believe that
the litigation has progressed to a point where any delay in
this regard would compromise our position in the litigation
if settlement discussions prove unfruitful. As you know,
the trial is now scheduled to begin in October of this year.
Had we been able to continue the discuss i ons that were cut-
off last spring, perhaps we could have agreed to a temporary
cessation in litigation 'activity at that time.
Finally, Englewood understands that statements made at the
settlement negotiations would be inadmissible in evidence
under CRE 408. However, as I am sure you understand, the
"'nnt ed on Fiecyc;ed Pa per \~~
fact that a matter has been admitted or discussed during
settlement negotiations does not preclude future discovery
regarding the fact and the admission into evidence of the
product of that discovery. See attached copy of CRE 408.
Joe Tom Wood will represent us in the negotiations. Please
contact him (526-2600) to decide meeting times and other
necessary arrangements.
Sincerely,
Stewart H. Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
cc: Bill Bates, Denver Water Board
Bob Kilborne, Cyprus Climax Metals
Joe Blake, Centennial Water & Sanitation Dist.
Ii
,~,1 ·I
' 1' I'' I . r,,
1·" ;1 I ,,,
;jl
,,!
' I , ,
IJ
'
,, ,,
i" I
i'I
I . I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
Rule 408 Colorado Rules of Evidence
evidence of the original dcfecl . But 1tt
I IJ...21 -404. C.R .S . (19711 Supp.).
ANNOTATION
A~ in Larsen v. Archdiocese of Den-
ver. 631P .2d1163 (Colo. Ct . App . 1981).
Rule 408. Compromise and Often to Compromise
674
Evidence or (I) furnishing or offering or promising lo furnish, or (2) accept -
ing or offering or promising to accept, a valuable consideration in compromis-
ing or attempting lo compromise a claim which was disputed as to either
vatidily or amount, is not admissible lo prove liability for or invalidity of
the claim or its amount. Evidence of conduct or statements made in compro-
mise negotiations is likewise not admissible. This rule does not require the
exclusion of anv evidence otherwise discoverable mcrelv beca ·· ·
sented in the course of compromise negotiations . This rule atso does not
require exclusion when the evidence is offered for another purpose. such
as proving bias or prejudice of a witness, negativing a contention of undue
delay, or proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution .
(F~deral Rule Identical .)
Rule 409. Payment or Medical and Similar Expenses
Evidence of furnishing or offering or promising to pay medical , hospital ,
or similar expenses occasioned by an injury is nol admissible to prove liability
for the injury.
(Federal Rule ldenlical.)
Rule 410. OITtt lo Plead GuHly; Nolo Conlendere;
Withdrawn Pleu of Guilty
Except as otherwise provided by statutes of the State of Colorado , evi -
dence of a plea ofguilly, later withdrawn, or a plea of nolo contendere, or
of an off er to plead guilty or nolo conlendere lo the crime charged or any
other crime, or of slatcmenls made in any connection with any of the forego-
ing picas or offers, is not admissible in any civil or criminal action, case.
or proceeding against the penon who made the plea or off er. This rule shall
not app&y to the introduction of voluntary and reliable statements made in
court on the record in connection with any of the forqoina pleas or offers
. . ' · -• -··-~.-.... nr in ill ~Uh§CQU6RI prosecution Of
' 675 Liability Insurance .
This rule shall be superseded by any amendmen~
of Criminal Procedure which is inconsistent wilh l.h~
effect after the effective date of these Colorado Rule~
' lD
COMMITTEE COMMENT .ta.
The Commiltcc wishes to advise lhc CoUJt
of a proposed Federal Amendmtnt IO Ruic 410
ufollows:
Rule 410 . lnlldmlalbllity of Piao, Plea Dls-
c:us1lon1, and Related SWtmtldl
Except a' otherwise provided in this rule,
evidence of tltt f<>llu1t ·i11g is nor admissible
against the person who IYUlde the pica or ... a.J
a party to lht tliJcus 1ionJ , in any c fril 01 crimi-
nal p1oueding:
(I) a plea of 1uilry i.·lllch waJ lottr 1t•i1h -
dra11m ;
(2) a pita of nulo comtnderf':
(J) plro diJc11uion.1 1t·i1h tlit allorn~· for
lht so·urnment, conuming lite c1lmt ch<Ugtd
or lltry otlttr crlmt, which do not 1r.sul1 itt a
pita of 1uilf)· or which rt11llt In a plw of 111ilry
lattt witltd1a11.·n; °'
(4) llattmtnU made in tht collr.St of or iu
..... ..... ..
a constq11rnctA
1io111 . .....
However, rue.
atry procuJin1
COUTJt Of 111 DJ(j
or pita di.sc1u1.i..
a criminal pri~
statemcnl if 1101
defendant und·~
presence of com
FRE ADVI
Present Ruic /.
the t'cderul II
proposed amc
clarify lhc cir
di&cuuioas ai
m.issiblc in cv
Note thereto.
wouldmakcc:
ANNOTATION
Law ttYlrw1. For article, "Hearsay in Crimi·
nal Cues Under lhc Colora do R.ule 1 of Evi-
deace : An Overview'', see -'OU . Colo. L . Rev .
2n(l979).
In dN CJODIW d the baU bend Ntute. a plea
of auilty , when acccpled by the court which
pan11 a defca
1titutes a "co
plea is DO lo
successful e•
dcfcncd ac1
Court, 67 .. p _
Rule 411. LlabHlty lnsuru
Evidence that a person was or was not insured a1
sible upon lhe issue whether be acted negligen11,
This rule does not require the exclusion of evie
liability when offered for another purpose, such J
ship, or control. or bias or prejudice of a witness.
(Federal Rule Identical.)
ANNOfATION ~
Atha.din to m.....nn cotenrce lmfnipet'.
Evidence of • party'• liability insuraoce ia
•~a.. ... nt In th"' n11estion o{ whethu: .. M .ac.leA
~
~ ncgliaencly A
allusion lo
CHRISMAN
BvimM
&JOrSON
.,
I
'
Otri-. aJ...,,. &: ~:;s:;~ pi:'a
Co111Ydori Uni!
Conlinullal g
1401 Wobud }ilrut
Suilt soo J
llOlllJer, Co rMo 80302
Ttlephont: ~03) 444-4820
Focsimae : ~J) 449·S426 •
A/WNEl'I: ofM147.S
' l
•When you~ :i tu LO !Ills
number , Ille nlimber appca rl •i&
on your ~nal m:1y be
our "nc:Tcr blliy• !P line,
(303) 7%7-41.(DSI'.
I
!
U4495426
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
TO : Cathy Burrage for Stewart Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
3400 S . Elati Sueet
Englewood, CO 80110
FAX NUMBER: 789-1125
FROM: David G. Hill
DATE: March 1, 1994
RE: Centennial Condemnation
A Tl. 8
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING TIIIS ONE: e (
ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW BY MAIL : YES _ NO _x_
If you do not receive all pages, please call Pat Gabel (303) 444-4820
immediately .
Our fax number is (303) 449-5426.
COMMENTS
CONFIDENTIAJ ... ITY NOTICE
The information contained in thi$ facsimile message is anorney privileged and confidential i.ufol'mation .
It is intended only for the: use: of the iDdividual or entity named above. If you are not the intended
recipient. or tllc person responsible for delivering it to tl1c intended recipient, you are notified that any
d isc:losure , copying , distribution or use of this communication i11 rtrictly prohihited . If you have received
thi11 communication in error, please: notify us immediately by telephone and return the original me11.~ge
to us at 1he above ad.drclll\ via the U .S . PoN.I Service . Thank you.
Ill 001
CHRISMAN
BYNUM
&Joff;NSON
ChriS1Mn, Byn1m1 &
]olinMJ11, p I:.
Atl&lnuyl mt
CollnsdorS at w
C.0,.tbllr!Ul Building
1401 VMhtwt Sired
SvileSOO .
Bouldtr, Cplorado 80~2
Tclcphond (SOS) 4f4-4820
F«smut.: (303> 449-5426
liBA[N'F:n: ABAl475
U4495426
January 7. 1994
J'oseph M. Montano, Esq ...
Faegre & Benson
370 • 17th Street, #2500
Denver, CO 80202-4004 ·
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 Nevadi. Ditch
condemnation case. It calls for the payment of $20,000 in attorneys fees to
Englewood. I thought I had 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 ofall 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. Centennial will dismiss the present case (insofar as Englewood's
interest is concerned) with prejudice, and agree not to file any further
condemnation petitions whatsoever against Englewood (includini 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 Englewood does not want to use it for
carriage of water which Englewood oWn.s now or in the future.
rai002
U4495426
Joseph M. Montano, F.sq.
January 7. 1994
Page2
4. Centennial will pay a portion of the Nevada Ditch assessments, to
be negotiated.
S. Centennial will also pay a portion of thC cost of fixing the Corps of
&gineers pipe, if that turns out to be necessary, the proportion to be negotiated.
· Please let me know by Januacy 20 if Centennial is interested in a discussion along
these lines.
Sincerely,
David G. Hill
DGH:pvg
cc: Rick DeWitt, Esq.
Stewart Fonda
f41003
'5'4495426
!-:GU-:l4
aaoo lllC .. \l•l.tC ~LAZA
.170 llEVCNTl!:~NTl'I ll'l'Rl:CT
OCNVER. co1.cuu.oo aoaoe-•oo•
aoa, t1w••••CIC1
~AG•11111.c ••e-•••>
3anuary 20, 1994
f David G. Hill, Esq. ~ Chriaman, Bynum ,.Johnson, P.c.
~ 1401 Walnut Streot, Suite #500
~ Boulder, Colorado 80302
'..,...,WW••vw• .. w , •• ~~01,
RE: centaM1a.I tlate.r and sanitaf:iOD District: VP. Nevada
Ditch Holding CQ., C.•• NQ. 93 CV 962
Dear David:
Thank you !er your letter of January 7th, 1994.
Toaay, Centennial nas asked ma to respon4 to your latter.
In order to more appropriately do so, we would like to determine
what is the meaning of para~raph three at yo\U' letter as it
relates to the excess capacity ot the Ditch? Centennial has
requested that I seek to obtain more specitic i nformation 1n
order tor Centennial to be able to analyze and consider what we
asswna to })a a proposal from Englewood to sell excess capacity i~
the Nevada Ditch. Specifically, we would lilca to know tha amount
of excess capacity which is available; th• time and duration of
its availability; the cost of purchase; estimated costs ot
assesements which. centennial •i9ht have to pay; and eati11ated.
costs of fixing the Carp's pipe.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Yours very 'truly,
l /.
~~
Joa M. xontano
.JHM I a le/ DllDOU54.wPS
DIE::l MOINES WA5t1tNGTON , p,C, L ONDON f'RA.NKP'URT
V4495426
DISTRICT COURT, ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO
'Case No. 93 CV 962, Division 4
· PITI'l'IONBR 1 8 NO'l'ICB 01' ABANr>OHXENT AND DISCONTINOANCZ OF THESE
l DIHZH'.r DOKAIH PROCEEDINGS
CENTENNIAL WATER ANO SANITATION DISTRICT, a quasi-inunicipal
corporation of the State of Colorado,
Petitioner,
. 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 PERSON WHO CLAIM ANY INTEREST
IN THE PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THIS ACTION,
Respondents.
COMES NOW the Petitioner, Centennial Water and Sanitation
District, a quasi-municipal corporation of the State of Colorado,
and pursuant to its resolution adopted on the 25th day of January,
1994, and pursuant to law and, in particular, the cases of Denver
& New Orleans R.R. Co. v. Lamborn, SP. 582 (1885); Johnson y,
Climax Molybdenum Co., 124 P.2d 929 (1942); and Danforth v. U.S.,
308 U.S. 271 (1939), does hereby give notice unto this Court and to
all Respondents named in this case that it has and does hereby
abandon and discontinue the above-captioned eminent domain
proceedings.
Respectfully submitted this 7,/c tf;_ day of January, 1994.
FAEGRE & BENSON
M. Montano, #3695
eslie A. Fields, #11232
2500 Republic Plaza
370 Seventeenth Street
Denver, CO 80202-4004
(303) 592-5900
Attorneys tor Petitioner
Centennial Water and
Sanitation District
141005
1:4495426 . .
-2 -
MOSES, WITTEMY~, HARRISON ANO
WOODRUFF, P.C.
Charles N. Woodruff, #2772
Gilbert Y. Marchand, #19870
P.O. Box 1440
Boulder, CO 80306•1440
(303) 44 3-8782
TALLMADGE, WALLACE, HAHN, SMITH
& WALSH, P.C.
David J . Hahn, #1610
John w. Smith, III, #3281
Cynthia A. Calkin&, #10433
707 Seventee~th St ., Ste. 2140
Denver, co 80202
(303) 298-0221
Attorneys for Petitioner
Centennial Water and Sanitation
District .
141006
..
~
.I
•,
fi
'5'4495426
CERTirICA'fl or SERVICE
. I hereby certify that on the -~· t!.1 day of January, 199.4, a
true and correct copy of the f oreqoing PETITIONER.' S NOTICE 01'
ABAHDOHKE)f'l' AMI> DISCOHTINOANCE OP THESE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS
was placed in the U.S. first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed
to the following:
i John E. Hayes, Esq. ~ Hayes, Phillips & Maloney, P.C. ! 1350 17th Street, #450
~ Denver, co 80202-1517
•;
' David G. Hill, Esq.
Chrisman, Bynum & Johnson, P.c.
1401 Walnut Street, #500
~ Bould~r, co 80302
Timothy J. Flanaqan, Esq.
Kutak Rock
717 seventeenth street
Suite 2900
Denver, co 80202-3329
141007
.~,,,.----.. .......
\ _,.,/
'·--/· /. .
'·-~' ,,.,_,·.~-·· ,.
.---.Ci2=z~ -
DE£0157A .WPS
-3 -
COMPARATIVE RATE SURVEY
for
THE STATE OF COLORADO
WATER & SEWER RATES
1993
(Revised)
dmq
(c) DAVID M. GRIF'FTI'H & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
10200 E. Girard Ave.
Buildin B, Suite 223
Denver0 ~olorado 80231
(3 3) 755-1996
01131194
DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASSOCIATES. LTD.
REVISED STATE OF COLORADO
COAIPARATTVE RATE SURVEY -RESIDENTlAL WATER BILLS
{wAl'Ell t wri(f eiIL >wili1fsriiS?A.T:vw()iJsco(;IS1~ ;;::; w. hcea wAna
$$ GAU.ON9 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 I.ut RAD
1 AKRON
2 ALAMOSA
3 ARVADA
4 AURORA
S AVON
e BAYRB.0
7 BERTHOUD
a BOU.DER
9 BRIGHTON
10 BUENA VISTA
11 CANON QlY
12 CARBONDALE
13 CASTU: ROCK
14 COLORADO SPRINGS
15 COMMERCE QlY
11 CORTEZ
17 CRAIG
18 DACONO
19 DB.NORlE
20 DENVER
21 DU\ANGO
22 EAGLE
2S EATON
24 EDGEWATER
25 ENGLEWOOD
28 RRESTONE
U R.ORENCE
28 FORT COWNS
28 FORT .LUPTON
30 FORT MORGAN
31 FREDERICK
S2 FRISCO
33 GLENWOOD SPRINGS
34 Ga.DEN
S5 HAYDEN
SI ICREMMUNG
S1 LA JUNTA -(Summer)
38 LA JUNTA -(Wint«)
BILL
7.00
5.20
2.55
2.56
11.25
13.80
12.50
3.31
12.10
18.50
8.73
6.21
10.00
3.00
6.00
12.50
12.00
17.00
19.25
2.15
5.60
11.00
20.43
2.56
0.76
14.55
0.90
11.41
3.20
5.45
10.35
8.38
11.00
1.13
23.65
15.00
4.50
4.50
1,000
8,000
4,000
s.ooo
20,000
4,000
2.000
1,000
7,000
2,000
5,000
4',000
250
5,000
10,000
2.000
4,000
7,500
10,000
6,000
1,000
1,000
GaDou GaDoaa
9.80 13.30
9.70 14'.20
10.55 18.55
11.66 20.76
24.25 37.25
13.80 16.70
14.50 24.50
7.96 12.81
12.10 24.20
18.50
9.38
10.21
15.00
12.65
10.80
16.62
17.00
17.00
19.25
5.95
8.24
11.00
22.47
11.56
8.27
14.55
0.90
14.23
18.35
10.90
11.90
8.38
11.00
15.63
23.65
15.00
10.50
10.50
18.50
12.63
14.21
22.50
22.30
Ul.80
21.77
22.00
20.75
19.25
9.75
12.84'
20.75
32.87
20.56
12.07
20.05
0.90
18.93
28.50
15.25
19.65
13.38
11.00
25.93
23.65
19.00
14.60
14.60
Ga.Dou
18.80
18.70
26.55
29.66
50.25
23.95
32.00
17.26
36.30
18.50
15.88
18.21
30.00
31.95
26.80
26.92
27.00
25.75
19.25
13.55
17.04'
30.50
42.87
29.56
17.87
25.55
8.40
23.63
42.65
18.90
27.40
24.63
15.85
36.43
23.65
24.00
17.35
17.35
Ga.Dou
20.30
23.20
36.95
38.96
63.25
31 .20
38.50
21.91
48.40
18.50
18.13
22.21
40.00
4'1.60
34.80
32.07
32.00
30.75
19.25
18.30
21.44
40.25
53.07
38.56
23.87
31.55
11.90
28.33
55.80
21.10
SS.15
37.13
20.70
"8.93
23.65
29.00
18.85
20.10
23.80 Jan-86
26.70 Aug-86
47.35 Oct-91
48.06 May-91
76.25 Jul-90
38.45 Oct-90
43.50 Sep-89
26.56 Sep-91
80.50 May-92
22.25 Jan-89
22.38 May-91
26.21 Jan-88
50.00 May-89
51.25 May-92
4'2.80 Jan-92
37 .22 Jan-89
37.00 Jan-92
35.75 Jan-88
19.25 Dec-90
23.05 Jun-92
25.8" Aug-92
50.00 Jan-93
83.V Jan-92
47 .58 Nov-91
28.47 Jan-90
38.05 Mar-81
17.40 Aug-89
33.03 Jan-92
88.95 Oct-92
23.30 Jan-87
41.90 Jun-88
4'9.63 Oct-91
25.55 Aug-90
57 .43 Jan-92
23.65 Jan-91
34.00 Oct-90
20.35 Aug-80
22.85 Aug-80
NIA • Not Available or lncomple .. Response. FLAT • Flat rate structure wl1h only on• block.
INV • lnv.-ted rate block structu'e. DBR • Declining Block Rate &iructu'• -• z.ro
F1 • Flat rate per household with no volwn• baala.
Noll9 -....... em•nta baaed on cubic teet e.ve been converted Into gallons.
HIGHEST Bill.
LOWESTBIU
AVERAGE OF SAMPLE
$30.00
9.22
(c) -Ollvld IL GrHfith & A .. oclatH, Lid. 1994
$33.75 $58.70 $83.65 $108.80 $133.55
13.48 . 19.25 25.51 31.90 38.37
Mlly,,. reprodut»d with permission from DMG and If DMG authorship • acknowllldged.
Suwyqw•tioM -"ould b• dr.cted *'Bob Mculn. Envfronm•ntal Con.ultlng DlvWon. (214)401-1222.
S11lUC.
PLAT
DBR
INV
PLAT
PLAT
FLAT
DBR
INV
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
INV
FLAT
INV
FLAT
FLAT
DBR
Pl
INV
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
DBll
INV
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
DBI.
DBR
INV
FLAT
INV
Pl
FLAT
DBR
DBR
• "1"',... lun,. chang-1 « -,,_ .. ,,...,,_,,,.,. "1"' ,.,.., pl-... compl.t• a...,..,_, twm. ~ with ttu. ma/Ing.
. 01/31194
38 LAVETA
40 UTTLETON
41 LONGMONT
42 LOUISVILLE
43 LOVELAND
44 LYONS
45 MANASSA
48 MEEKER
47 Ml~N
48 MONTROSE
48 MONUMENT
SO NORTHGLENN
51 OLATHE
S2 ORDWAY
53 PALISADE
S4 PLATTEVILI.E -(Summer
55 PLATTEVILLE -(Wini«)
se PUEBLO
57 RANGELY
A RIFLE
58 ROQCY FORD
IO SALIDA
81 SILT
82 SILVERTHORNE
a SILVERlON
84 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS
85 STERLING
ee lEll.URIDE
87 THORNTON
ea WALDENBURG
88 WBJJNGTON •
DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASSOCIATES. LID.
REVISED STATE OF COLORADO
COMPARAJWE' RATE SLJRw:y -RESIDENTIAL WAJ'Sl BILLS
:w.Ai:lhi : itfib :ifr.L ~!:Jiimi!itiifi ::~i'.y.Wobid>ki:i tltVlffS :::::tt w. aaaa
$$ CWLONS 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 iAsC
BIU .. a.UDEO GaDOlll GaDou GaDou GaDou Gallou Oaa.U
13.00
N/>.
2.40
10.50
4.64
8.00
15.00
15.00
7.85
10.72
1.80
13.75
15.00
12.50
30.00
20.00
N/>.
7.00
8.50
7.00
17.50
10.25
10.38
11.75
1.00
18.17
2.00
10.00
18.50
10,000
N/>.
7,000
1,000
3.000
3,000
1.000
11.000
1.000
1,500
10,000
7,000
6,000
2.000
13.00
N/~
15.30
10.50
15.19
14.00
15.00
15.00
13.00
18.10
33.75
12.10
19.05
15.00
12.50
30.00
20.00
NIA
14.00
6.80
17.45
8.05
17.60
17.25
10.38
18.75
8.00
18.17
13.00
N/A
21.20
18.20
25.74
22.00
16.00
18.50
11.15
24.15
58.70
24.20
32.30
18.50
12.50
30.00
20.00
NIA
21.00
11.80
25.70
8.50
17.50
24.25
10.38
21.75
8.47
18.17
15.50
NIA
41.10
25.70
36.29
30.00
15.00
11.00
N/A
64.00
35.70
48.14
38.00
15.00
20.50 Apr-82
N/~ N/A
70.15 Oct-83
48.20 Jan-82
67.39 Jan-92
48.00 Mar-87
16.00 Nov-80
20.25 24.00 27.75 Nov-92
23.30 28.45 33.60 Oot-88
29.23 33.23 37 .23 Jan-91
13.85 108.80 133.55 Jun-92
37.32 61 .12 84.92 Jan-92
42.55
27.00
12.50
30.00
20.00
NIA
28.00
17.70
30.85
10.80
28.25
31.25
10.38
28.25
11.82
18.17
62.80
34.50
14.50
30.00
20.00
58.80 Jan-81
42.00 Feb-81
18.50 Jan-92
30.00 Nov-17
20.00 Nov-87
NIA NIA
14.55 27.10 38.85
NIA
35.00
23.80
38.20
12.30
35.00
38.25
10.38
35.75
14.82
18.17
62.20
18.00
67.90
10.00 12.00 14.00
23.40 34.80 48.40
70 WESTMINSTER -(Summ -I .OS
12.05
19.00
8.30
18.10 24.57 34. 13
42.00 Dec-91
28.50 Sep-80
41.45 Nov-80
13.70 Dec-89
43.76 Sep-92
45.25 Deo-81
10.38 Jan-80
45.75 Apr-83
17.32 Jan-92
18.17 Jan-88
84.75 Jan-91
11.00 Dec-81
89.40 Aug-92
45.53 Jan-92
80.81 Jan-82
50.80 Jan-80
12.30 Oct-88
71 WESTMINSTER -(Wint• -27.41 45.21 83.01
72 WINDSOR 11.05 28.95 34.80 42.85
73 YUMA 8.00 4,000 7.80 8.30 10.80
NIA• Not Available. FLAT• Flat rate rtucture with only one block.
INV• lnv.-1ed rate block •uctwe. OBA• Declining Block Rat. S1rucb.re -•Zero
F1 • Flat rata per household with no volume baala.
Note -measurements baaed on cubic tHt haw. been converted Into gallons.
HIGHESTBIU
LOWESTBIU
AVERAGE OF SAMPLE
$30.00
9.22
(c} -Dn/d ll. Griffith & bsociatH, Lid. 1SllU
S33_.75 sse .. 10 $83.es s 1oa.ao s133.ss
13.48 19.25 25.51 3 1 .80 38.37
May IM T•produt»d with permlalon from DIJG and • DIJG authorship ,. aclcnowl«lglHI.
Bwwyqwatlon. ahoukJ b• di.ct.ct*> Bob ltlc:L.-ln. Envrontnflnt.I Conault/ng Dlvl.ion. (214)401-1222.
WATEll
llATE
SJ'llUC.
DBR
N/A
INV
INV
FIAT
FIAT
Fl
FIAT
FIAT
DBll
DBll
FIAT
DBR
FIAT
INV
Fl
Fl
NIA
FIAT
FIAT
DBll
DBll
FLAT
FIAT
Fl
DIV
INV
Fl
FIAT
FLAT
FIAT
INV
DIV
DBll
FLAT
• J'Ofll',.,.. ,.. .. changed« -,.. .. -~-J'Ofll' ..... , pl.-. _,,,.,. tM wy iNrna ettdoHd wlfh ,,. .... ,,,,.
DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
01/31/!M REVISED STATE OF COLORADO
COMPARA T1VE RA TE SURVEY -RESIDENT1AL SEWER BILLS
1 AKRON 1.50 -1 .50 1 .50 1 .50 1.50 1 .50 F1 F1 F1 Jan-88
2 ~CSA 2.50 -4.50 8.50 8.50 10.50 12.50 100" YES UNL Mar-85
3 ARVADA 1.05 -8.65 16.25 23.85 31.45 39.05 100" NO UNL Oct-91
4 AURORA 1.81 -8.01 14.41 20.81 27.21 33.61 100" YES UNL May-91
S AVON NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA
I BAYRELO NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA
7 BERntOUD
I BOULDER
8 BRIGHTON
10 BUENA VISTA
11 CANON CITY
12 CARBONDALE
13 CASTLE ROCK
14 COLORADO SPRING
16 COMMERCE CITY
18 CORTEZ
17 CRAIG
11 DACONO
11 DB.NORTE
20 DBIVER
21 DURANGO
22 EAGLE
23 EATON
24 EDGEWATER
25 ENGLEWOOD
21 RRESTONE
%1 R.ORENCE
21 FORT COWNS
28 FORT LUPTON
30 FORT MORGAN
31 FREDERICK
S2 FRISCO
9.50
0.58
8.78
NIA
NIA
10.00
15.00
8.90
a.so
NIA
9.35
NIA
8.31
8.08
11.22
NIA
8.00
3.30
4.99
NIA
2.25
13.55
8.14
7.75
5.00
NIA
33 GLENWOOD SPRINC:: 14.50
34 GOLDEN 5 .63
S5 HAYDEN 12.12
38 ICREMMUNG 7.50
37 LA JUNTA -(Summ• 12.58
38 LA JUNTA -(WlnterJ 12.58
-8 .50 8 .50 8.50 8.50
-4 .78 8.98 13.18 17.38
3,000 11.30 22.60 33.90 45.20
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA
-25.20 40.40 55.60 70.80
-27.10 38.20 51 .30 63.40
-10.18 13.45 18.73 20.00
-e.so a.so a.so a.so
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA
-8 .35
NIA NIA
-8.31
8.35
NIA
8 .31
8.35
NIA
8.31
9.35
NIA
8.31
-17.38 25.88 33.88 42.28
-18.82 28.02 38.42 44.82
NIA NIA NIA NIA NIA
-1.00 e.oo 1.00 e.oo
-1.80 11.30 22.IO 29.30
NIA
5,000
4.99
NIA
2.25
4.99
NIA
2.25
4.99
NIA
2.25
4.99
N/A
2.25
-13.55 13.55 13.55 13.55
-25.94 43.74 81.54 78.34
-7 .76 7.7& 7.75 7.76
4,000 5.20
NIA NIA
8.20
NIA
7.20
NIA
7.40
NIA
10,000 14.50 14.50 21.60 28.50
2.250 1-0.58 18.58 28.58 37.58
-12.12 12.12 12.12 12.12
-7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50
-12.58 12.58 12.58 12.58
-12.58 12.58 12.58 12.58
8.50 F1
21.58 100"
58.50 100"
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
86.00 1 00"
75.50
23.28
8.50
NIA
8.35
NIA
8.31
60.58
53.22
NIA
8.00
1 00"
1 00"
F1
NIA
F1
NIA
F1
1~
1~
NIA
F1
35.80 1~
4.99 F1
NIA NIA
2.25 F1
13.55 F1
87.14 1~
7.75 F1
7.40 100"
NIA NIA
35.50 1~
48.58 1~
12.12 F1
7 .50 F1
12.58 F1
12.58 F1
F1 F1 Sep-89
YES UNl Sep-81
YES UNL May-82
NIA NIA NIA
NIA NIA NIA
NO UNl Jan-90
YES UNl Jul-92
YES UNl Jan-83
F1 F1 Jan-92
NIA NIA NIA
F1 F1 Jan-88
NIA NIA NIA
F1 F1 Feb-82
NO UNL Jan-82
NO UNl Aug-82
NIA NIA NIA
F1 F1 Jan-88
YES UNL Nov-81
F1 F1 Dec-82
NIA NIA NIA
F1 F1 Aug-SQ
F1 F1 Jan-82
NO UNl Jul-82
F1 F1 Jan-81
NO 18,000 IAua-82
NIA NIA NIA
YES UNL Jan-82
NO UNL Jan-82
F1 F1 Jan-81
F1 F1 Jan-80
F1 F1 Aug-82
F1 F1 Aug-82
NIA • Not Available or lncomple .. Response. FLAT • Flat rate a1ructur• with only on• block.
INV• Inverted rate block atructi.... DBR •Declining Block Ra .. Slructire
F1 • Flat rate per houaehold with no volume baaJa. UNL • Unlimited Wllt9r volume baaia.
Note -m-surementa baaed on cubic fHt ,_w been oo""'8f1ed Into gallons.
HIGHEST BILL $24.67 $27.10 $43.74 $81.54 78.34 87.14
LOWEST BILL
AVERAGE OF SAMPLE 8 .40 8 .06 11.87 14.50 17.11 18.73
(c) -Dald Al. Grlfflth & Associates, Ud. 11»1
Mlly IM reprodu<»d with permlulon from DMG and II DllG •uthonhlp Is •clcnowl#Klged.
Suwy qwstiona should b• directed*> Bob Mclain, Envronnumt.I Consulting Division. (214)401-1222.
• ,_.,.,.. ,,.,,. clwtgMI or .. ,,.,,.~,_.,.,_, pl.-. oompl«• tlw wy a-enoloeed wlllr ,,. .,.,6ng.
SEWEil
llATE
STR.UC.
F1
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
NIA
NIA
F1
FLAT
FLAT
NIA
NIA
FLAT
FLAT
FLAT
F1
NIA
F1
NIA
F1
FLAT
FLAT
NIA
F1
FLAT
F1
NIA
F1
F1
FLAT
F1
FLAT
NIA
FLAT
FLAT
F1
F1
F1
F1
DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
. 01/31/D4 REVISED STATE OF COLORADO
COMPARA1'1VE RATE SURlll:Y -RESIDENTIAL SEWER BIUS
}$EWER. iffiift< ssvh llftis XT::YkRious coiiS::'i ivits\ --OF
SS (W,LONS 5,000 10,000 15,000 20.000 25,000 WATEfl
BILL INQ.UDED Gala. Gala. Gala. Gala. Gala. U9EO
S9 LAVETA 3.00 -3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 F1
40 UTTl£TON
41 LONGMONT
42 LOUISVILLE
43 LOVELAND
44 LYONS
6.46 -8 .48 8.46 8.46 8.46 8.48 F1
6.00 -14.80 23.80 32.70 41.60 50.50 100"
8.35 -8.35 8 .35 8.35 8.35 8.35 F1
45 MANASSA
48 MEEKER
47 M~N
48 MONTROSE
48 MONUMENT
SO NORnfGLENN
51 Ol.AlliE
62 ORDWAY
a PALISADE
2.12
17.25
13.00
N/A
NIA
13.07
N/A
7.90
4.65
5.00
14 PLATTEVILLE -(S&u 13.00
SS PLATTEVILLE -(Wlr 13.00
18 PUEBLO 3.65
fi7 AANGB.Y
A RIFLE
50 RoacYFORD
IO SALIDA
81 SILT
82 SILVERTHORNE
83 SILVERTON
84 STEAMBOAT SPRINC
85 STERLING
81 TELLURIDE
fI7 lliORNTON
81 WALDENBURG
10.00
6.05
11.00
NIA
18.85
10.60
8.25
8.40
24.87
2.95
5.00
89 WB.UNGTON 8.27
70 WESTMINSTER -lS -
71 WESTMINSTER -(YI -
72 WINDSOR 8.10
73 YlACA 6.00
-10.27 18.42 26.57 34.72
-23.25 29.25 35.25 41.25
-13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
N/A NIA N/A N/A NIA
N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA
-13.07 13.07 13.07 13.07
N/A NIA NIA NIA NIA
-10.85 21 .80 32.85 43.80
-7.80 7.80 7.90 7.90
-4.85 4.85 4.65 4.65
-5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
-13.00 13.00 13.00 13.00
-13.00 13.00 13.0o 13.00
-1 .40 15.15 20.90 28.85
-10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00
-4 .75 8.50 14.25 11.00
-5.05 5.05 5.05 6.05
-11.00 11.00 11.00 11.00
N/A NIA N/A NIA NIA
-11.95 11.95 18.95 19.95
-10.60 10.60 10.60 10.60
-15.75 23.25 30.75 38.25
-8.40 8.40 8 .40 8.40
-24.87 24.67 24.87 24.87
-1 .55 18.1 & 22. 75 29.35
-5.00 5.00 &.00 6.00
-22.32 35.37 48.42 61.47
-10.35 20.70 20.70 20.70
-10.35 20.70 20.70 20.70
-8.10 1 .10 8.10 8 .10
-8.00 6 .00 8 .00 8.00
42.87 100"
47.25 75"
13.00 F1
NIA N/A
NIA NIA
13.07 F1
NIA NIA
54.76 100"
7 .80 F1
4.85 F1
5.00 F1
13.00 · F1
13.00 F1
32.40 100%
10.00 F1
23.75 100%
&.05 F1
11.00 F1
NIA NIA
18.85 F1
10.IO F1
45.75 100%
8.40 F1
24.87 F1
35.85 100%
6.00 F1
74.52 100"
20.70 100"
20.70 100"
8.10 F1
8.00 F1
AVG.?
F1
F1
YES
F1
YES
YES
F1
NIA
NIA
MAit :~{:Jdta [:{ = 1::·111·
F1 Apr-Sl2
F1 Nov-Sl2
UNL Oct-93
F1 Jan-82
UNL Dec-84
UNL Feb-91
F1 Nov-80
NIA NIA
NIA NIA
F1 F1 Jan-81
NIA NIA NIA
YES UNL Jan-81
F1 F1 Jan-92
F1 F1 Feb-81
F1 F1 Jan-82
F1 F1 Oct-80
F1 F1 Oct-80
YES UNL Jun-82
F1 F1 Aug-89
YES UNL Dec-81
F1 F1 Nov-80
F1 F1 Jan-82
NIA NIA NIA
F1 F1 Dec-ea
F1 F1 Jan-80
YES UNL Apr-83
F1 F1 Jan-82
F1 F1 Jan-82
YES UNl Jan-81
F1 F1 Nov-eo
YES UNl Aug-92
YE~ 10,000 Jan-92
YES 10,000 Jan-82
F1 F1 Jan-80
F1 F1 Oct-ea
NIA• NotAvallable.
INV • lrw.-ted rate block structLre.
FLAT • Flat rate nuctur• with only one block.
DBR •Declining Block Rate StructLre
F1 • Flat rate per household with no volume basis.
Not. -measwementa baaed on cubic fut have
UNL -Unlimited water volume basis.
been convwted Into gallons.
HIGHEST BILL $24.67 $27.10 $43.74 $61.54 78.34 87.14
LOWEST BILL
AVERAGE OF SAMPLE 6.40 8.06 11 .87 14.50 17.11 18.73
(c} -David II. GrHfith & Aa.ociatH, Ud. 1fi.4
May be reproduced with p.rmlnlon from OllG and II DllG •uthonhlp 1-•cknowledglld.
Bll'WyquntioM ahould b• dlr.cttKJ *'Bob lrlcl.aln. EnvrontMntll.I Contlultlng Owl.ion. (214)401-1222.
• ,_. ,.._ ,.. .. chllng«I M .. ,.. .. ,,...,,..,,,.-1 ,_. ,.,_, pi.-• compl«• ti.-.wwy i:Jnn• ~ with W. ,,..,Ing.
SEWEil
RATE
S'I'llUC.
F1
F1
FLAT
F1
FLAT
FLAT
F1
NIA
NIA
F1
NIA
FLAT
F1
F1
F1
F1
F1
RAT
F1
RAT
F1
F1
NIA
F1
F1
RAT
F1
F1
RAT
F1
RAT
RAT
RAT
F1
F1
DAVID M. GRIFFITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
01/31/94 REVISED STATE OF COLORADO
COMPARAT1VE RATE SURVEY -RESIDENTW.. COMBINED WATER & SEWER BILLS . COMBINED ::=Ji i¢0iiBIN.Eo=&rus iA.1:-:ywous C$Nsiiiv-Eu ,rn:tu MINllMUM BILLS
1
2
s
4
5
•
7
• •
10
11
12
13
14
15
18
17
18
11
20
21
22
2S
24
25
•
27
21
29
30
31
S2
S3
M
35
38
:rt
38
MINIMUM 5,000
ENmY #tif !f t(f :)~~i~·: ·:·: :·:-: .. ::::;:;:::::::-> BILL Gals. . ;.;:::::
AKRON 8.50 11.30
ALAMOSA 7.70 14'.20
ARVADA 3.60 19.20
AURORA 4'.17 19.67
AVON 11.25 24.25
BAYRaD 13.80 13.80
BERTHOUD 22.00 24.00
BOU.DER 3.89 12.74'
BRIGHTON 18.88 23.40
BUENA VISTA 18.50 18.50
CANON CITY 8.73 8.38
CARBONDALE 16.21 35.4'1
CASTI.E ROCK 25.00 4'2.10
COLORADO SPRINGS 8.90 22.83
COMMERCE CITY 14'.50 19.30
CORTEZ 12.50 16.62
CRAIG 21.35 26.35
DACONO 17.00 17.00
DB.NORlE 28.56 21.56
DENVER 11.23 23.33
Du:IANGO 16.82 27.86
EAGLE 11.00 11.00
EAlON 26.43 28.47
B>GEWATER 5.86 21.36
ENGLEWOOD 5.75 11.26
A RESTO NE 14.55 14.55
FLORENCE 3.15 3.15
FORT COWNS 24.96 27.78
FORT LUPTON 11.M 42.29
FORT MORGAN 13.20 18.85
FREDERICK 15.35 17.10
FRISCO 8.38 8.38
GLENWOOD SPRINGS 25.50 25.50
Ga.DEN 11.76 26.21
HAYDEN 35.77 35.77
KREMMLING 22.50 22.50
LA .AINTA -(Summer) 17.08 23.08
LA JUNTA -(Winter) 17.08 23.08
NIA • Not Available or Incomplete Response.
10,000 15,000 20,000
Gals • Gals. Gals.
14.80 18.30 21 .80
20.70 27.20 33.70
34.80 50.40 88.40
35.17 50.67 66.17
37.25 50.25 83.25
16.70 23.95 31.20
34.00 41.50 49.00
21.59 30.4'4' 39.29
"6.80 70.20 93.60
18.50 18.50 18.50
12.63 15.88 19.13
5".61 73.81 93.01
61 .70 81 .30 103.40
35.75 48.88 11.80
27.30 35.30 43.30
21.77 26.92 32.07
31.35 36.35 4'1.35
20.75 25.75 30.75
28.56 28.56 28.56
35.43 4'7.53 80.58
4'0.66 53."6 86.26
20.75 30.50 4'0.25
38.67 48.87 59.07
38.86 52.36 87.86
17.06 22.86 28.66
20.05 25.55 31.55
3.15 8.85 14.15
32.48 37.18 41.88
73.24 104.19 135.14
23.00 26.65 28.85
25.85 34.60 42.55
13.38 24.63 37.13
25.50 37.35 49.20
45.51 65.01 84.51
35.77 35.77 35.77
26.50 31.50 36.50
27.18 29.93 31.43
27.18 29.93 32.68
Not. -measurements based on camlc fHt ,_,,. been oomrerted Into gallons.
HIGHEST BILL
LOWEST BILL
AVERAGE OF SAMPLE
$43.00
15.63
(c} -David u. Griffith & AuoclatllS, Ltd. 1994
$45.72
3.15
22.5" •
$73.24
3.15
3 1.13
$104.19
6.4'6
4'0.01
$135.14
8.4'6
49.01
25,000
Gals.
25.30
39.20
86.40
81.67
76.25
38.4'5
53.00
48.14'
117.00
22.25
22.38
112.21
125.50
74.53
51.30
37.22
"6.35
35.75
28.56
73.63
79.06
50.00
89.27
83.36
34."6
38.05
18.15
"6.58
186.09
31.05
48.30
49.63.
61.05
104.01
35.77
41.50
32.93
35.43
$166.()9
8.4'6
58.10
BASED ON
METER SlZE?
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
YES YES
NO N/A
NO N/A
YES NO
YES YES
NO NO
NO N/A
YES N/A
NO NO
YES YES
YES NO
YES NO
NIA N/A
NO NO
YES N/A
NO NO
YES YES
NO NO
NO N/A
NO NO
NO NO
YES NO
YES N/A
NO NO
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
NO NO
NO NO
NO NO
YES NO
YES NO
NO NO
YES YES
YES YES
May IM reproduCfld with permission from DMG and II DMG •uthor•h/p la •clcnowl«Jglld.
S.Wyquestiona ahould b• directed lo Bob Mcl..Aln. Environmental Consulting DlvWon. (214)401-1222.
• JOf11 ,.._ hll119 chllngMI or ... hllw mWnt.rplWll-1 JOfll ,.._, ,,,_. compUI• the ..,,.y ~ ~ wilh flu. ma/6ng.
01/3119-4
38 LA VETA
40 UTTLETON
41 LONGMONT
42 LOUISVILLE
43 LOVELAND
44 LYONS
45 MANASSA
41 MEEKER
47 Ml~N
41 MONlROSE
41 MONUMENT
SO NORTHGLENN
51 OLAlliE
52 ORDWAY
53 PALISADE
64 PLATTEVILLE -(Summer
S5 PLATTEVILLE -(Winter)
A PUEBLO
fi1 RANGELY
A RIFLE
18 RoacYFORD
IO SALIDA
81 SILT
82 SILVERlliORNE
a SILVERTON
84 STEAMBOAT SPRINGS
85 STERLING
88 TEU.URIDE
fS7 ntORNTON
81 WALDENBURG
• WELLINGTON
70 WESTMINSTER -(Summ
71 WESTMINSTER -(Wint«
72 WINDSOR
73 YUMA
NIA • Not Available.
DAVID M . GRIFFITH & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
REVISED STATE OF COLORADO
CCMPARAT1VE RATE SURVEY -RESIDENTIAL COMBINED WATER• SEWER BUS
COMBINED t=itM89lliriNBI>1liifS::~¥'.Vwcfo$¢d&£'iliYilifitJi MINllMUM . BIU.S
MINIMUM 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 BASED ON
BILL Gala. Gala. Gala. Gala. Gala. METER SIZE?
16.00 16.00 16.00 18.50 21.00 23.50 NO NO
6.48 8 .48 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.46 NO NO
8.40 30.20 52.00 73.80 85.80 120.65 YES NO
19.85 19.85 25.55 35.05 45.05 SS.SS NO NO
8 .78
23.25
28.00
15.00
7.85
23.79
8.80
21.65
19.85
17.50
·43.00
33.00
3.65
17.00
14.SS
18.00
17.50
30.20
20.98
20.00
17.40
40.84
4.95
15.00
25.77
20.15
12.00
25.48
37.25
28.00
15.00
13.00
29.17
33.75
23.05
26.95
19.85
17.50
43.00
33.00
9 .40
24.00
10.65
22.50
19.05
17.50
37.20
20.98
32.50
17.40
40.84
24.10
15.00
45.72
18.40
22.40
28.10
12.30
44.HS
51 .25
28.00
16.50
18.15
37.22
58.70
48.10
40.20
24.15
17.50
43.00
33.00
15.15
31.00
21.30
30.75
20.50
17.50
44.20
20.98
45.00
18.87
40.84
43.25
17.00
70.27
36.80
48.11
38.05
13.80
82.88
65.25
28.00
20.25
23.30
42.30
as.es
70.17
50.45
31.85
17.50
43.00
33.00
20.90
38.00
31.85
38.00
21.90
26.25
51.20
20.98
69.00
21.32
40.84
82.40
19.00
94.82
45.27
85.91
44.00
15.30
81.58
78.25
28.00
24.00
28.45
48.30
108.80
94.92
80.70
39.15
19.50
43.00
33.00
26.85
45.00
42.80
41.25
23.30
35.00
58.20
20.98
74.00
24.02
40.84
81.SS
21.00
119.37
54.83
83.71
51.95
10.80
100.28 YES
03.25 NO
28.00 NO
27.75 NO
33.80 NO
50.30 NO
133.55 YES
119.07 NO
07.70 NO
48.85 NO
24.50 NO
43.00 NO
33.00 NO
32.40 NO
52.00 NO
53.25 NO
48.50 NO
24.70 NO
43.75 NIA
85.20 YES
20.98 NO
11.50 NO
26.72 NO
40.84 NO
100.70 NO
23.00 NO
143.92 YES
88.23 NO
101.51 NO
59.90 YES
18.30 NO
NO
NO
NO
N/A
N/A
NO
NIA
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
Not8 -measurements baaed on oublo fHt a.w been oonverted Into gallons.
HIGHEST BILL
LOWESTBIU
AVERAGE OF SAMPLE
$43.00
15.63
(c} -o.vld Al. Griffith & b.aciatH, Lid. 1g!U
$45.72
3.15 •
22.54
$73.24
3.15
31 .13
$104.19
8.48
40.01
$135.1 4
8.48
49.01
$168.o9
8.48
58.10
May I» r.,,rodut»d with permission from OMG and II OMG •uthor•h/p la aclcnowl«lglKI.
&neyqw•tioM •houkl b• dirtH:tlKI *'Bob llculn, Envronmental Con.ultlng Olvlalon, (214)401-1222.
• 1fMIT,... IMlw chang-1 or .. IMlw tnlailrt.,,,.t-1 '°"' ...... pleau complee the.__, a:.na. endoaed .,.. llU ..-1ng.
COMPARATIVE RATE SURVEY
for
THE STATE OF COLORADO
WATER & SEWER RATES
1993
(Revised)
dmq
(c) DAVID M. GRIF'F'I'IH & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
10200 E. Girard Ave.
Buildin B, Suite 223
-Denver6 ~olorado 80231
(3 3) 755-1996
A TT. Io
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTII, DIVISION OF ADMINIS1RATION, STATE OF
COLORADO
RESPONSE TO CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
CONCERNING 1HE cmES OF LI'ITLETON AND ENGLEWOOD WASTE-
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY, COPS PERMIT NO. C0-0032999, ARAPAHOE
COUNfY, COLORADO
The Cities of Littleton and Englewood ("Cities"), pursuant to paragraph 2 of the
Cease and Desist Order entered by the Director of the Colorado Water Quality Control
Division ("Division") on February 8, 1994, hereby give the Division written notice of the
Cities' intent to comply with the provisions of the said Cease and Desist Order as
follows:
1. The Cities have taken the measures necessary to cease and desist violating
Colorado Discharge Permit System, Permit No. C0-0032999, the Colorado Water
Quality Control Act, §§25-8-101, et~ and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto.
The Cities have been in compliance with the conditions of the said CDPS Permit since
November 1, 1993, as indicated in the Discharge Monitoring Reports for November and
December 1993, forwarded to the Division;
2. The Cities will, within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the Order, submit
a summary of individual lab data for all ammonia samples collected in February, July,
August, September, and October 1993. This summary will reflect corresponding sample
dates;
3. The Cities will, within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the Order, notify
the Division in written form of any remaining measures to be taken to ensure compli-
ance with permitted effluent limits of the parameters cited in the Notice of Violation,
including a timetable for any specific actions identified. To the extent such corrective
measures have been fully completed, the dates that such measures were completed will
be specified; and
4. The Cities, pursuant to C.R.S. §25-8-603, will submit an answer to the
Division admitting or denying each paragraph of the Findings of Fact and responding to
the Notice of Violation. The answer and any request for a hearing, pursuant to C.R.S.
§25-8-603, will be filed no later than thirty (30) days after issuance of the Order.
Respectfully submitted this __ day of February, 1994.
CITY OF LITILETON CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
By:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.Andrew MctvfiniIIlee Lorraine Hayes
City Manager Acting City Manager
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This is to certify that the undersigned on the day of February, 1994, placed a
true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to Cease and Desist Order in the
United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following:
J. David HolIIl, Director
Water Quality Control Division
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530
2
SENT BY:&EVERAJ.l. , P. C. . .
TO:
FROM:
DATE/TIME:
SUBJECT:
3-1-94 8=32AM BANTA, HOYT , GREENE~
BANTA, HOYf, GREENE & EVERALL, P.C.
I\ PROPliSSIONAL COIU'OllATJON
ATI'OllNliYS AT LAW
6300 SOUTH SYRACUSE WAY, SIJUB SS.S
. BNGLBWOOD, COLORADO IOl 11~725
TBLEPHONE (303) 2»-8000
PAI 'l'RAlfSNITTAL COVJR SBllT
COMPANY:
A'l'TN:
FAX NO:
City of Englewood
Kathy
789-1125
DARRYL L. FARRINGTON
BANTA, HOYT, GREENE ~ EVERALL~ P.C.
March l, 1994 8:43
South Arapahoe Sanitation District
7622300;# 11 5
A Tl, II
The attaehad letter sets forth the proposed changes to the Con-
nector's Agreement between the City and the District. Please
call if you have any questions or comments.
This is the cover sheet fo~ a transmittal consisting of 5 pages,
including this page.
SENDER'S FAX NUMBER:
SENDER'S TELEPHONE NUMBER:
(303) 220-0153
(303) 220-BOOO
* * *
CONFIDEN'l'IALDT NO'l'ICE
'l'his f acsiaile transaission and any accompanying dOCUJNmt:s con-
tain 1.nf or11Btion belonging to the sender which .11ay be CONFIDEN-
TIAL AND LEGALLY PRIVILEGBD. 7.'his in.to:n1ation is intended only
:Lor the use or the individual or entity to who.a this :Cacsiaile
transaission was set as indicated above. If you are .not the
int-ended recipient", any disclosure, copying, dist:ribution,. or
action talcen in reliance on the con~en~s of t:he inroraat=ion con-
tained in this facsilli.le translli.ssion is strictly prohibited. IL
you have received 'this transmission in error, please cal.I .us
collect; to arrange for the return o:L the docwaents to us at; our
expense. Thank you.
SENT B)': &EVERAl.L. , P. C. 3-1-94 8=33AM BANTA, HOYT, GREENE~
SOUTH ARAPAHOE SANITATION DISTRICT
6000 Greenwood Plaza Blvd., Ste. 110
Englewood, Colorado 80111
(303) 779-4000
February 25, 1994
Mr. Stuart Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Enqlewood
3400 South Elati Street
Englewood, Colorado 80110
Re: South Arapahoe Sanitation District
Dear Mr. Fonda:
7622300;# 21 5
This letter and the attached calendar sets forth the under-
standing between the South Arapahoe Sanitation District ("Dis-
trict") and the City of Englewood ("City"} concerning the calcu-
lation, billing, collection a ·nd remittance of sums charged by the
District to its users. These documents constitute an amendment
to the Connector's Aqreement between the District and tha City.
The District, by and throuqh its water activity enterprise
("WAE"), will charge its users a fee for wastewater transmission,
which the District terms a "service charge", beginning in 1994.
The City ag-rees to bill the service charge to the District's cus-
tomers, collect the charge, and remit the funds collected to the
District WAE. This letter sets forth details concerning the
calculation, billing, collection and remittance of the service
charge. The following itens outline the responsibilities of each
party:
1. On or before May 1 of each year, the District WAE
will notify the City of the amount or the calcula-
tion method of the service charge for that year
and the amount or calculation method of District
WAE late charges, if any. The District WAE will
provide the name and phone number ot the person to
be contacted with questions concerning the nature
of the District WAE service charge. This name and
number, along with any other information concern-
ing the District WAE service charge will be in-
cluded in the "Comments" section of the City•s
invoices to District WAE customers.
SENT B'.J'=&EVERAll. ,P.C. 3-1-94 8:33AM BANTA, HOYT , GREENE~
2. The City will include the District WAE's service
charge on the annual billing for the sewer servic-
es sent to the District WAE's customers. The City
will perform all billinq functions including, but
not limited to, issuance of late notices, calcula-
tion of lata fees, certification to the Arapahoe
County Treasurer of delinquent accounts and re-
sponse to customer inquiries concerninq the status
of accounts.
3. On November 1 of each year, the City will remit
the collected service charges to the District WAE
via wire transfer. The amount to be remitted will
be calculated as follows:
Service charges collected from current year's
billinq -
PLUS
PLUS
LESS
Delinquent service charges collected
from prior year's billing
Delinquent City sewer charges billed to
District wAE ·customers and· withheld from
prior year's remittance
city sewer charges billed to District
WAE customers in current year's billing
which have not bean collected as of
November 1
4. The City will provide the following information to
assist the District WAE in accounting for the ser-
vice Charges:
a) Detailed listing of annual billing of Dis-
trict WAE customers, including customer name
and address and individual amounts billed;
b) Detailed listing of accounts receivable as of
December 31 each year;
c) Detailed listinq o~ accounts filed with 'the
County Treasurer for collection;
d) Monthly totals of District WAE service charq-
es collected.
Other readily available information concern.ing the
District WAE's service charges, tap counts, etc.
will be provided by the City upon request.
7622300;# 3/ 5
SENT BY=&EVERAl.l. ,P .C. ; 3-1-94 8=34AM BANTA , HOYT , GREENE~ 7622300;# 41 5
Any provision ot the Connectors Agreement between the Dis-
trict or Englewood that is inconsistent with the terms of this
letter or the attached calendar shall be deemed amended hereby to
whatever extent necessary to make the documents consistent.
On behalf of the South Arapahoe sanitation District Board of
Directors, I want to thank you and your staff for your coopera-
tion and assistance in this matter.
CRB:jp
Enclosure
Approved by:
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
Very truly -yours,
SOUTH ARAPAHOE SANITATION DISTRICT
~ f?rL---.
Charles R. Br~c\,tf ;;esident
SENT BY:&EVERAlJ. , P. C.
May 1
June 1
July 20
tccvamber l
January 15
Hid .. May
October 1
3-1-94 8:34AM BANTA, HOYT, GREENE~
SOUTH ARAPAHOE SANITATION DISTRICT
BILLING CALENDAR -TRAHSMISSIOH/MAINTENANCE FEE
7622300;# 5/ 5
D1strict not1fi@s City of Englewood (City} of amount of
D1stT1ct transm1ss1on/m1in1."nctnte fee (01$tT1ct fee), defined
as a percentage of the City•s sewage treatm1nt f~ (City fee)
to be bi11ed for that year. District also provides n1111t and
phone number af µ~r~un to be contAct•d with question~
concerning tho District fat. This name and number, along with
any other 1nformation concerning the D1str1ct fee is to be
1ncludt!~ in the •coB1nents• s.ction of the City's invoices to
the District customers. Will also neQd to nottfy tit.Y how
many copies of the bill1ng journal the Oistrict will need.
City obtains District customers' water usage reports froin
Denver and Arapahoe Estates Water District and calculates City
fee. City •tll ca1cu11te D1itr1.;t fees u1in9 percentaga
provided b1 District.
Invo1ces are ~•ml tu Ol~trlct custc11ter~.
Past due notices are sent ta District CU$tomers.
City reinits D1str1ct fees collected, less unpaid City fees
from the June b111 irlg d&ae From District customers, to the
D15f.r1\;L. Th• Clt_y ,-.cords the 1111ount withheld as a 1iabi1 ity
and will r1m1t it to the District in the fall~ing year, ifter
col hct1on via the County Treasurer. Remittance to be v1a
w1re ~ran~fMr iu Oi~trlct•s Colotrust a~~gunt.
Cert1 fied latter sent to a11 unpaid accounts.. Letter requests
p•ym¥nL within 40 l.fclJ5 or a 251 hte ~harge ·•111 be added.
District late feos will ~ho be noted (1f prov1dld for v1a
District resolution). Letter a1so sti1t1s .that. if the account
ts not p1id by Ocl.ube:r, ttns ftstt {1ncl"ding th• D1stri~t·1, if
provided for v1a District Nsolution) wi 11 be doubled ind
filed w1th the County for col 1ect1on wt th property tixas
tnvo1cas.
25~ late charge 1dded to unpaid accounts.
A11 unpaid iltcunts (includtng City Fee, 25" penalty, and
Distrtct fee) lrt doubled and f11ed w1th County Treasurer for
collect 1 on.
2450 E. Quincy Avenue
Cherry Hills Village, CO 80EO
February 15. 1994
CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE
... COLORADO
Mr. Stuart Fonda. Director
Englewood Utilities Department
City of Englewood
3400 S. Elati St.
Englewood. CO SOllO
RE: Cherry Hills Rancho Dissolution
Dear Stu:
A TT... 12-
Village Center
Telephone 789-2541
FAX 761-9386
Please consider this letter as official notification of the Cherry Hi l ls Rancho
Water and Sanitation District's dissolution. For your records. enclosed is a
copy of the court order dissolving the District. Please begin mainta i ning the
service area pursuant to our agreement and collect your necessary charges.
Additionally, please consider this a request by Cherry Hills Village to commence
billing the homeowners in Cherry Hills Rancho Water and Sanitation District's
service area $2/month for each water tap and $1/month for each sewer tap . This
monthly fee co v ers the City of Cherry Hills Village's costs for administering the
contract with the City of Englewood. If anyone calls regarding this charge.
please refer them to Carmine Iadarola at 798-7778 . These charges can be remitted
to the Cit y of Cherry Hills Village annually.
Stu. thank you again for your cooperation. The City of Cherry Hills Village
appreciates you and your staff's assistance in this matter. Should you have any
questions or need additional information regarding the dissolution of Cherry
Hills Rancho or the monthly charges. please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely.
Charles S. Coward
City Manager
ij
j
I .. .
l.
..
;
}
j,
~,.,
.
'
Pf/31/1994 15•26 FRO" ROBERT J, FLYHH ATTY, TO 761938& P.84
DISTRICT COURT, COUNTY OF ·AP..APAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 19657, Division 4
ORDER DISSOLVING THE CHERRY HILLS RANCEO WATER AND SANITATION
DISTRICT
In re:
CHERRY HILLS RA.'l'iJCHO WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT, Arapahoe County,
Colorado
-------··--· --·
TF.!S MATTER came before the Court upon the Petition for
Dissolution of the Cherry Hills Rancho Water and Sanitation
District ( 11 District 11 ) • Having considered the l?eti ti on and the file
in this case, and being fully advised in the premises, the Court
hereby finds and orders as follows:
FINDINGS
l. On November 3, 1993 , the District and the City of Che~ry
Hills Villag.e, Colorado ("Ci ty 11
) , entered into an Agreement and
Plan for the Dissolution of the District ("Agreement and Plan for
Dissolution"). Subject to the entry of an Order dissolving the
District, the Agreement and Plan for Dissolution calls for all the
assets and property of the District to be transferred to the City
and for the City to provide equivalent water service to the area
previously served by the District pursuant to the City's 11 Agreement
to Provide a Portion of Cherry Hills Village With Water Service"
with the City of Englewood, Colorado. The Agreement and Plan for
Dissolution also provides for the City to provide equivalent sewer
service to the area previously served by the District pursuant to
the City's ::was::E.v¥.:iL;;;r C-=>n.."'lector' i:; Agreement and Wastewater
Collection System Maintenance Agreement 11 with the City of
Englewood, Colorado.
2. Notice of the time, place. date and purposes of the
Hearing on the Petition for Dissolution of the District, including
a recitation of the Applicable financial and service provisions of
the Agreement and Plan for Dissolution, was published in The
Villager newspaper for three consecutiYe weeks, the first
publication being on Thursday, November 25, 1993, and the last
publication being on Thursday. December 9, 1993. Said Notice was
also mailed to Arapahoe County and to all municipalities within
three miles of the bounda~ies of the District on November 18, 1993,
all as required by the provisions of Section 32-1-703 C.R.S., as
amended.
3. The boundaries of the District are located entirely
within the City of Cherry Hills Village and are legally described
on Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference .
l
j
~
·i
J .
~= •• ;·
·I ,.
1l/3l/l994 l:S:27 FRO" ROBERT J, FLYNN ATTY. TO 7619386 P,85
4. The District has no long-term financial obligations or
out:standing bonds, e:xcept for that certain "Service Agreen:~ntn,
daL~u June 27, 1972, between the District and cert~in Water Users
in Lhe D. E. Buchcinan Subdivision Amended Plat, as modifi~:i by
"Motl.ification of Service Agreement" dated January 6, 1.986, bet-11een
and among the District, said Water Users and the Buchanan
Subdivlsion Water and Sewer Users• Association, whereby the
DistricL permits properties located within the Buchanan Subdivision
to connect to the District's mains for purposes of receiving water
service. Said Agreements shall hereinafter collectively be
reterred to as the "Buchanan Agreements".
S. The District and City mutually waive the provisions of
paragraph l.2.1 of the Agreement and Plan for Dissolution which
t1~~kes t.he dissolution of the District contingent upon the
cancellation of the 11 Buc~l:ana:r_ Ag.i::;;;.e rn -c ·:·t~·:... !':. '!.~ the . intentic::i of
the parties that the City will assume the District's
responsibilities and rights under the "Buchanan Agreements".
6. The District may be dissolved without an election
pursuant to the provisions of 32-1-704(3) (b) c_R.S., as amended,
because the District's boundaries lie entirely within the corpo::-ate
limits of the City, and because the District ha.s no financial
obligations or outstanding bonds, and because the Board of
Directors of the District and the City Council of the City both
consent to the dissolution.
7. No electors of the District have requested or petitioned
this Court to hold an election on the question of the dissolution
of the District. Further, at no stage in the dissolution
proceedings, either before the District or before the City, has
anyone appeared or objected, either in person or in writing, to the
dissolution of the District.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Pursuant to the p~ovisions of 32-1-704(3) (b) C.R.S., the
·nistrict is hereby dissolved . The District will not continue in
existence for any purposes what.:.a~~·!<:'":":' _
2. If not already done so, all property of the District,
both real and personal, shall, as a result of this Order of
Dissolution, become the property of the City.
3. Pursuant to the provisions of 32-1-702(4} (b) (I) C.R.S.,
the City assumes all of the District's rights and responsibilities
under the "Buchanan Agreements" regarding water service to the
Buchanan Subdivision.
4. The City shall provide water service to the area formerly
served by the District ~n accordance with t.he Agreement and Plan
for Dissolution of the District and pursuant to the City's
"Agreement to Provide a Portion of Cherry Hills Village With Water
service'' with the City of Englewood, Colorado, which provisions are
incorporated herein by reference.
2
l
:~
11/31/1994 1~t27 FROM ROBERT J, FLYHH ATTY. TO 761938& P.8&
s. The City shall provide sanitary sewer service t.o the area
formerly served by the District in accordance with the Agreement
and Plan for Dissolution and pursuant to the City's 11 Wastewater
Coru1ector's Agreement and Wastewater Collection System Maintena..~ce
Agreement" with the City of Englewood, Colorado, which provisions
are incorporated herein by reference.
6. Counsel for the District is directed to file a copy of
the Order of Dissolution with the Arapahoe County Clerk and
Recorder's Office and with the Division of Local Government in the
Departrne:nt of Local Affairs, State of Colorado. All costs, if any,
of such filing shall be paid from the remaining funds of the
District. 11-/1 .
DA'l'ED this __ 12 _·day of ~ , 1993.
u chenmeister
Attorney for Cherry Hills Rancho
Water and Sanitation District
Registration No. 2560
6300 South Syracuse Way
suite 555
Englewood, Colorado 80111-6725
3
Kenneth K. Stuart
District Court Judge
Colorado 80110
FRO" ROBERT J, FLYHH ATTY. L,/,r'l.J...0.J. .l ~ TO 7619386
(To Order Pissolving the Cherry Hills Rancho water
and Sanitation District)
P.97
All of Cherry Hills Rancho 2nd Ame~ded Filing and 3rd hrnended Filing,
in the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado; together with the.
fol~owing P~rcels A through 0, inclusive, which are included in the
District for Hater Service only:
Pa~c'l A: HcCaffcry Inclusion
A Fc.rcel of land situate in the SW 1/4 of the sw 1/4 cf s~cticn 2 1
Tow:ship s South, Range 6S West of th~ 6th P.H., County cf Arapa~o~,
St~~b Of Color&~o, ~ore particu ~arly described as follows:
Tr,:t!ct J.; Beginning at a point on the south line of oxfcrd Lar:.=.
which is 366.0 feet east and 2o.91 feet south of the northwes~
corner of said SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4; thence South, parallel ~..'i\:h
the west line of said SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4, a distance cf 330.00;
thence East, parallel with the south lin~ of said CY.ford Lune, a
dist~nce of 957.07 f~et; thence North, parallel with the we~t line
of said SW l/4 of the SH 1/4, a dlsta~ce of 330.00 feet to a pcint
on the south line of said Oxford Lane which is 29.38 feet south of
the north linB of !>aid SW 1/ t. of thG SW 1/ 4; thence West, a.lo;lg the
south lina of said Oxford Lane, a distance of 957.07 feet to t!:e
point of beginning, containing 7.25 acres, more or less.
!1;'.oCt_1..L Cal':Uilcncing at the Northwest corner of th~ SW 1/4 of t~e
S'i-11/ lr of said Section 2; thence South 89~54 1 1,5 11 East .:rn. 00 f e-9t;
thence South 1~2 1 35" West 20.76 feet to the south lirie of Oxfcr~
Lane; thence South 89°54'~5" East and along the south line of
Oxford Lane J22.SO feet to the point ot beginning; thence co~tinu
ing South B9°54'45 11 East 13.20 feat to the northwest corner of a
parcel of land described in Book 1556, Page 348 of Arapahoe County
rc:ccrds; .. thence south 1°22 'J51f East along the -west li:::i.e of said
pilrcel a di~t:!.'"'·-:e of 330. DO feet; thence North S9QS4 •45n West 13 .20
fe~t; thence Horth 1"22 1 35" We.st 330.00 feet to t:n~ point of
beginning.
Po.reel B: Hannah Inclusion
A parcel of land located in thG W l/2 of the SW 1/4 o~ the NW 1/4 of
Sectio"n 2, Township 5 South, RangQ 68 West, County of Arapahoe, State
of Colorado, being more particularly described as follows;
Co~e~cing at a point in the center of Ory Creek, from which point
the northwest corner of S'aid W 1/2 of the sw 1/4 of the NW J./4
bears North 2B 0 23 1 50 11 West, a distance of 950 .6 feet; thence
South 43° 50' East, along the center line of Dry Creek, a distance
of 152.7 feet; thence south 71° 15' East, along the center line of
Dry creek, a distanc~ of 108.S feet to a point on the e~st line of
TOTRL P.97
181/31/1994 15:38 FRO" ROBERT J, FLYHH RTTY ~ TO ?'619386 P.81
ct 2
su.id W 1/2 of the SW l/ 4 of tile l:W l/ t,; ther:t;e ~outh, along t:-;e:.
e~st line of zaia W 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4, a dictancs of
l.'1.'-. o fe:?t to c:i pt>int. on .tho r.orth line of l1nrtin Lune; thencs:
tl ::>rth 7a'' o' West, c:ilong the north lin~ of 1-11.u:-tin I~?1c, a distar:ce
of 256.~5 fs~t; the~ce North iou 15' Ea$t, a distunce of 237.e7
fr.!-:t por.-e; o:c J.c::.s to th~ poi?'l~: rif OO?ginr.ingi eontijining . 9€ acr~
:mo~c or l:::::;:;;.
Al5o kno~n as and nu~bared 5 Martin L-1ne, Englewood, Colorado.
~r,c~1. c.: Warren Inclusion
b parcel cf l~nd located in the W l/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NW l/4 of
Sec.:.~ rin .., ,.,.._, ,.,...-h ~.,.., s::: c:oi·"-h J?.;o-·-~ 5:--r·e-• of' the 6.;..h P '"' Co·-,.;.·; Q-f .._ ¥~--""'• .: .......... ~.:. ··~"' ••' ... ~'-•.I . "-'··~;!-~ 0i ~ ~!..,. '-• l'a• t ~-•"-.:.. -
Arap~hcG, State of Colorado, :rnot:..e pa~ticuj.arly described as foll:;·"·s;:
..
CoYC..:~encing ~ta point on the southeasterly right-of-way line cf the .
City Ditch fros which point the north~est corner of said Wl/2 cf
the SW l/ 4 of the N'rf l/ 4 bears North 24° 45 1 ·30 11 West, a dista:-.c:
o~ 7~2.42 reet; thence Nc::-th sa~ O' East along th~ southea;te~ly
. h... " 1 . ~ th c '.J-"' • ... .,., d . "" f f .... .... r1g . ._-oL-v;;.:.y inc o.:... . e 1._y vli..C.,, a is._ance o 174. 0 ee ... ._o a.
point in tho center of Dry Creek and 25.0 faet southensterly f=o~
the center line of City Ditch siphon measured at right angl:~
thereto; thence South 15~ 10 1 West, along the center line c~ o=y
Creek, a distance of 116.6 feeti thence s . 09° 40' E., along thQ
center line of Dry creek, a distanc~ of 143.S feat; thence South
1ov 16' West, a distance of 237.67 feet to a point on the North
line of Martin Lane; thence South 89° 37 1 \'lest, along .. the no.::t~
line of Martin Lane, ~ distance of 14J.83 feet; thence north, a
diztance of 229.1 f~st; thence east, a cistance of 45.o feet;
thence north, a distance of 167.32 feet ~ore or less to the pcint
of beginningj containing 1.48 acres, more or less.
Also known as and nu.'11.bered 3 Martin Lane, Englewood, Colorado.
Pa~ce~_Q: Matsch Inclusion
The south 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/? of
the Southwest 1/4 of the Northw~st 1/4 of Section 2, Township 5 Sct:tn,
Ra.nga 65, West of the 6th P.M., and the North 1/2 ot the East 1/2 of
the West l/2 of the Northeast l/ ~ of the Southwest l/ 4 of the Nor~~
vest 1/4, Section 2, Township 5 South, Range 68 West of the 6th .P.M. ,.
Arapahoe Co~nty, Colorado
Also known as and numbered 3701 South Corona Street, Englewood,
Colorado.
TOTAL P.01
-,
CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE
COLORADO
2450 E . Qu incy Avenue
Cherry Hills Village. CO 8 0110
Village Center
Telephone 789-2541
December 16, 1993
Dear Cherry Hills Village Resident:
We would like to inform you that, by the end of December, 1993, the Cherry Hills
Rancho Water and Sewer District will have been dissolved. The services of this
District (the provision of water and sanitary sewer services) have been taken
over by the Cit/ of Cherry Hills v.·:llage. Cherry Hills Village, in turn, has
signed a full-service agreement with the City o·r Ens,i e,.,<.l\,;d tei c.:,;·:J:·ate, maintain
and replace, as necessary, the water di stri but ion system and the sewer col 1 ection
system in your neighborhood.
Your water and/or sanitary sewer service has been provided in the past by the
Cherry Hills Rancho Water and Sanitation District. This may be a bit confusing
because your water and sewer bi 11 s came to you directly from the City of
Englewood and made no mention of a district. However, Englewood only supplied
water to the District and received its wastewater for treatment. It was the
District which actually owned, operated and maintained the water mains and the
sanitary sewer collection system in your neighborhood.
Initially, you will notice Englewood trucks and personnel in your neighborhood
more often than before. Englewood pl ans on conducting a survey of the water and
sewer mains in your area in order to determine their state of repair. Any needed
maintenance will be performed. After this, the only time you may notice
Englewood trucks and workers is dur i ng normal, routine, scheduled maintenance;
during emergencies; or during water meter reading.
If a problem should ever develop with your water or sewer service, please call:
762-2635 (daytime) or 762-2650 (after hours) for immediate assistance. This
number is the Englewood Utilities hotline, and they have people available 24
nou ;·s per dliy to attend to water and sewer main pr:::>l:ller~s . If you have questions
about the dissolution or take-over of these services by Cherry Hills Village,
please call the Cherry _Hills Village Center at 789-2541 .
It is anticipated that this change will save the Cherry Hills Rancho neighborhood
money, while simultaneously improv i ng service and maintaining an excellent
utility system. We are happy that the City of Cherry Hills Village could play
a part in this improvement.
Sincerely,
Joan R. Duncan
Mayor
~~/~Q
Charles S. ~ard
City Manager
• A TT. 13
An Equal Opportunity Employer
February 25, 1994
Mr. Stu Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
3400 S. Elati St.
Englewood, Co 80110
Mr. Fonda,
Re : Allen Filter Plant Wash Water Reservoir Algae Control
Per the WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT with RBI Aquatics Inc.,
RBI will refund $7 ,000.00 of the initial installation of $20,000.00 if the City of
Englewood determines that the Nutri-Pod™ process is not meeting the needs of
Allen Filter Plant. The maintenance fee which will be billed monthly starting with
the completion of installation will cease upon termination. RBI recognizes that the
drinking water plant has high standards and that any adjustments will need to be
addressed immediately to keep the plant functioning properly.
Best Regards,
teve Smith, RBI Aquatics Manager
4901 S. Windermere, Littleton, Colorado 80120, Phone: (303) 795-2582
821 E . Southlake Blvd ., Southlake, Texas 76092 , Phone : (817) 481-6668
Randall & Blake, Inc.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
A TT. I '-f
HAN" BROWN COMMITTUS:
COLORADO BUDGET
FOREIGN RELATIONS
JUDICIARY
Mr. Stewart Fonda
City of Englewood
iinittd ~tatts ~matt
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-0604
February 10, 1994
3400 South Elati Street
Englewood, Colorado 80110
Dear Mr. Fonda:
Thanks for contacting me regarding H.R. 3392, the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1993. Your comments are appreciated.
H.R. 3392 was introduced on October 27, 1993. As you know, the
bill would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to assure the safety
of public water systems by requiring the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to publish contaminant levels and reduction goals
and establish drinking water regulations within three years of
the bill's enactment. Monitoring, compliance and enforcement
requirements would be eliminated by the EPA for facilities which
produce drinking water that does not contain enough contaminants
to warrant public concern.
H.R. 3392 also extends the authorization of funds, $100 million
in FY94, $125 million in FY95 and $150 million for each of FYs
96, 97 and 98, for grants to public water system programs.
The bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce. I am not in a position to cosponsor the House
legislation, but I appreciate your sharing the information with
me. I share your concerns about establishing drinking water
standards which have not yet been proven to provide any
significant health benefit and which are prohibitively expensive
for our small communities to implement.
I have worked on changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act for
several years now. For example, last Congress I introduced
legislation with Senator Domenic! to address this issue. S. 2900
would have established a moratorium on the implementation of
additional national primary drinking water regulations until the
EPA Administrator conducted a study to review each final
regulation as well as regulatory alternatives that reflect a
range of levels of safety or direct health benefits. The bill
would have directed the Administrator to identify any health
effect the alternative would prevent and the cost of implementing
the alternative.
In addition, the Administrator, in consultation with the Director
of the National Academy of Sciences, would have been required to
take into account when developing the list of contaminants
PRINTED ON RECYCW> PAPER
covered by the Act: (1) whether or not the contaminant is known
or expected to cause a significant adverse effect on human
health; and (2) whether or not the contaminant i s known or to be
present in public water systems in each state and region covered
by the Act.
s. 2900 would have also required the Administrator to take into
account the financial burden on states and loca l ities to meet the
requirements of the Act, and to recommend alternatives to help
those entities meet ·the funding needs.
I understand that Senators Domenici and Hatfield are considering
introducing similar legislation to H.R. 3392. As you gather
information on this new legislative effort, I would be interested
in your thoughts.
Should legislation regarding drinking water come to the Senate
for debate or a vote, your comments will be kept in mind. Thanks
again for taking the time to contact me.
Sincerely,
Hank Brown
United States Senator
HB/dey