HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-03-14 WSB AGENDA1.
2 .
3.
4 .
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
• •
AGENDA
ENGLEWOOD WATER AND SEWER BOARD
MARCH 14, 1995
5:00 p.m.
Conference Room A
MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 14, 1995
WATER AND SEWER BOARD MEETING. {ATT. 1)
GUEST -DON MARTURANO -SOUTH ENGLEWOOD
SANITATION DISTRICT. {ATT. 2)
GUESTS: JOHN HENDRICKS & JOE BLAKE
CENTENNIAL WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT.
GUEST: DENNIS STOWE -BI-CITY WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT -PHASE IB IMPROVEMENTS.
THOMAS PLATING. {ATT. 3)
LETTER DATED FEB. 20, 1995 FROM CHERRY HILLS
VILLAGE -BUELL PROPERTY. {ATT. 4)
LETTER DATED FEB. 23 , 1995 TO MR. TOM ROTUNDA.
{ATT. 5)
LETTER FROM THOMAS ARCKEY, ATTORNEY
DATED FEB. 24, 1995 RE: SEWER LIEN FOR
2033 E. NICHOLS DR. {ATT. 6)
SOUTHGATE SUPPLEMENT #125. {ATT. 7)
10. OTHER
.
' ATT. I
WATER AND SEWER BOARD
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 1995
The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m.
Chairman Fullerton declared a quorum present.
Members present:
Members absent:
Also present:
Habenicht, Fullerton, Burns,
Lay, Neumann, Otis, Resley,
Vobejda, Wiggins
None
Stewart Fonda, Director of
Utilities
David Hill, Water Attorney
1. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 10, 19 9 5 MEETING.
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board Minutes from the January
10, 1995 meeting were approved with corrections.
Mr. Otis moved;
Mr. Resley seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
To approve the January 10,
1995 Englewood Water and Sewer
Board Minutes as corrected.
Habenicht, Fullerton, Burns,
Lay, Neumann, Otis, Resley,
Vobejda, Wiggins
None
None
2. GUEST: MR. ROTUNDA, 3003 W. MONMOUTH AVE.
Mr. Rotunda appeared to discuss his high bills since he
converted from a flat · rate to a metered water account. Mr.
Fonda noted that Mr. Rotunda's meter had been replaced and
that both meters were tested and found to be correct. Mr.
Rotunda also felt the City-issued publication promoting
conversion to water meters was misleading. Mr. Burns
recommended, and other Board members concurred, that a
disclaimer be attached to all future publications discussing
metering. Mr. Rotunda left and the Board decided that once
a property has converted to meter, it does not have the
option of returning to a flat rate billing status. The
Board recommended that staff extend the offer to Mr. Rotunda
to have a technician inspect his sprinkler system and make
water saving recommendations. Staff will send Mr. Rotunda a
letter informing him of the Board's decision.
Ms. Habenicht moved;
Mr. Wiggins seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Motion carried.
To establish a policy stating
that once a property converts
to a meter it may not revert
to a flat rate billing
status.
Habenicht, Fullerton, Burns,
Lay, Neumann, Otis, Resley,
Vobejda, Wiggins
None
3. MEMO TO DOUG CLARK DATED JAN. 12, 1995.
RE: WATER METERING.
The Board received a copy of a memo sent to Doug Clark on
January 12, 1995 reiterating that when a property is
transferred from flat rate service to metered service, the
change is permanent.
4. DEC. 20, 1994 MINUTES OF BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS.
The Board received a copy of the December 20, 1994 Record of
Proceedings of the Board of Water Commissioners. Item V-B-1
is entitled, "Water Agreement with Centennial Water and
Sanitation District." The item approved the execution of
the Water Agreement.
5. GUEST: DAVID HILL, WATER ATTORNEY
David Hill of Chrisman, Bynum & Johnson appeared before the
Board to discuss the AMAX suit. The Board also received a
copy of Joe Tom Wood's letter of January 12, 1995 regarding
the Englewood/AMAX suit. Mr. Hill noted that a status
conference will be scheduled with Judge Korlis and the trial
is set for October, 1995. Tom Burns noted that he had been
approached by Patty Wells of the Denver Water Board to
discuss a proposed settlement.
6. LETTER FROM JEFFREY SEUL DATED JAN. 30, 1995.
The Board received a copy of a letter sent to Scott Balcomb
with Delany & Balcomb discussing a proposed turnaround which
encroaches upon Englewood's Forest Service right-of-way for
its Ranch Creek collection system. The turnaround would be
used for a fire truck turnaround. The Board indicated no
objection to the turnaround provided that our pipe is
sufficiently protected.
7. LETTER TO YVONNE SEAMAN RE: BUELL PROPERTY
(SE CORNER OF HAMPDEN & UNIVERSITY).
The Board received a copy of a letter sent to Yvonne Seaman
of the city of Cherry Hills Village regarding the lack of
availability of sewer line capacity for the Buell property
located on the southeast corner of Hampden and University.
8. COM REPORT.
Stu noted that the COM report regarding the Allen Filter
Plant resulting from the reconnaissance study meeting held
January 16 and 17, 1995 should be ready the end of February.
The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be March 14,
1995 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room A.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
City of Englewood
February 27, 1995
Mr. Donald E. Marturano
P.O. Box 2858
Littleton, CO 80161
Re: South Englewood Sanitation District No. 1
Tap Fee and Admin. Charge -4819 s. Bannock St.
Dear Mr. Marturano:
AIT. 2
3400 S. Elati Street
Englewood, Colorado 80110-2304
Phone (303) 762-2300
(303) 762-2301
FAX (303) 789-1125
This letter is to advise you that, at its next regularly scheduled
meeting at 5:00PM on March 14, 1995, the City of Englewood's Water
and Sewer Board w i 11 take up and discuss the above referenced
matter.
You and any other members of the Board of Di rectors for the
District who would like to attend are welcome.
If you have any questions, or need assistance, you can call me at
762-2643.
Jle(J;J
John Bock
Englewood Utilities Manager of Administration
b:4819ban n.fee \jwb documen4wp5.1
(F'.
(J"' Printed on Recycled Paper -~~-;.\
•
M E M 0 R A N D U M
To: The Englewood Water and Sewer Board
From: John Bock, Utilities Manager of Administration
Date: February 27, 1995
Subject: Maintenance Money Withheld by the South Englewood
Sanitation District
Regarding the above referenced matter, I have attached the letter
we received from Don Marturano which presents his side of the
issue. The historical .events, as Mr. Marturano presents them,
are probably accurate.·
Please note the compliment paid to the City by Mr. Marturano on
page two where he states that we have made only two mistakes in
h i s 13 years of experience with the District, and those two
mista kes occurred this last summer. Thirteen flawless years is
not a bad record. Those two mistakes were caused by the
i n e x perience of a new employee. The employee is now completely
trained.
Basicall y , wh at happened is that we did, indeed, sell a sewer tap
perm i t fo r a property in South Englewood Sanitation District as
if it were inside the City. We collected for the sewer tap and
the sewer surcharge, or, $1 ,912.50. When we realized our error,
we tra n sferred $300.00 of the surcharge money into the Big Dry
Cree k Interceptor Trust, notified the District of the error and
offered to give them the leftover $200.00, which they refused.
We did loo k into what the City could do to obtain payment for the
District. When we contacted the title company they told us that,
because the closing had been completed, there was nothing they
could do. Because the money concerned was not the City's, there
was not much we could in terms of obtaining payment directly from
the property owner.
We then decided that, because the money involved was South
Englewood's, they were in a better position than the City to take
remedial action, so we referred the matter to them.
DONALD E. MARTURANO
Ms. Cathy Miller
Utilities Department
City of Englewood
~J~
P.O. BOX 2858
LITTLETON, COLORADO 80161
(303) 797•6200
FAX (303) 797•6240
September 26, 1994
3400 South Elati Street
Englewood, Colorado 80110
Re: South Englewood Sanitation District No. 1 (the "District")
Tap Fee and Admin .· Charge -4819 So. Bannock St.
Dear Cathy:
The City's
September 9,
nothing less
($725.00).
$200.00 check to the District, which I received
1994, is herewith returned. The District will accept
than its $700.00 tap fee and its $25.00 adrnin. charge
As background:
8/10/94 you called to advise of issuing a sewer tap and
fees collected on the above property, not realizing it
was in the District; however, by the end of the following
week, you would collect and remit $700.00 and $25.00 in
two separate checks.
8/19/94 you called and left a message that contact with
two parties was necessary to collect the $725.00, which
"would be shortly paid to the District."
8/26/94 I called for Jim Veryser on an unrelated item.
You answered and, without my asking, stated that the
"shingle fire" on So. Windermere had temporari 1 y put
collecting and paying the District's $725.00 "on hold."
9/2/94 you called about "a problem" and advised that the
tap issued was for an immediate connection made with the
sale of that property. A title company had escrowed fees
that were quoted as total tap fees ($1,912.50). At
c 1 osing, $1, 712. 50 was disbursed to a contractor, who
paid this amount and made the connection. Remaining was
$200.00, which was to be or had been paid to the City.
You could send $200.00 only; the District should recover
the balance directly from the owner. My response was not
DONALD E. MARTURANO
~~-aZ~/
Ms. Cathy Miller
Utilities Department
City of Englewood
September 26, 1994
Page 2
favorable (nor was that of the directors of the District
subsequently).
9 /6/94 you called and left a message, stating that the
$200. 00 check would "be out in a couple of days." Again,
it was received Sept~mber 9, 1994, but is being returned.
You must have overlooked the colorcoded maps in your office showing
the boundaries of all districts which transmit effluent to the
treatment plant. Although the property is in the City, it is in
the District's system and service area, not the City's.
The District has always issued and/or sold its own taps (since
1952), and the applicant always comes to the District first. In
fact, since I have been issuing taps, I have been completing, in
part, the City's permit, which the applicant brings to you . The
City has never been authorized to issue and/or collect tap fees for
the District, except to collect the surcharge for the interceptor
($300.00 per SFE).
Not once in my 13 years with the District, until this summer, has
the City issued (sold) a tap for the District, and this is the
second time it happened! On July 1, 1994, you collected tap fees
for 675 E. Belleview Ave., believing the same to be within South
Arapahoe's district. Fortunately, what you collected was in excess
of what was required to pay the District's and the City's fees.
Clause 7 of the maintenance agreement between the District and the
City explicitly states the District shall continue to issue and
sell sewer taps for its properties within the City, as it always
has .
Your suggestion that the District lien the owner's property for its
fees; the District being better able to do so than the City, is out
of the question. Again, the applicant always pays the District
first (this district or any other connector district). From the
monies paid to the City, $725.00 is the District's money. any
balance due is the City's responsibility to collect, particularly
DONALD E. MARTURANO
~-d~
Ms. Cathy Miller
Utilities Department
City of Englewood
September 26, 1994
Page 3
when the City, without authorization, collects tap fees for the
District, even if the collection is inadvertent.
The City is responsible for its actions. What if the property in
question here were within the South Arapahoe District, where the
City was authorized to collect district tap fees, and less than the
required fees were collected. Would the City then apologize to
South Arapahoe and expect them to pursue the owner for the balance?
Would South Arapahoe accept such an arrangement? I think not.
The outline of events above is troublesome. When you advised of
"the problem" on September 2, 1994, it was then that I learned:
(a) that the tap was issued and fees were paid on June 1,
1994, 2-1/2 months before I was first contacted on August
10, 1994; and
(b) that the owner had never been contacted. My guess is
that the two parties with whom you were at tempting
contact were the title company and the contractor who was
issued the tap or the permit. The contractor could not
be located, but the title company was found to be holding
an additional $200.00.
It is not the District's responsibility to contact the owner, with
whom the .City has had no contact, to inform him that additional
fees are due, because of the City's mistake. Suffice it to say,
the owner is going to be very reluctant to pay. The District could
well spend two to three times in attorney fees what it needs to
collect from the owner, and the District will not · do that.
The District expects a check for $725.00 from the City. We should
ask for interest from June 1, 1994, and for the attorney fees
incurred to date. Next time, that will be added to what the City
owes the District.
The $725.00 which the District expects from the City must be in my
office no later than 5:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 5, 1994. If
that payment is not here by then, that sum will be subtracted from
DONALD E. ~fARTURANO
~-aL~
Ms. Cathy Miller
Utilities Department
City of Englewood
September 26, 1994
Page 4
the District's quarterly payment to the City under the maintenance
agreement, which is due on or before October 10, 1994.
If you have any questions, please call.
With best regards,
//
' I c__,.I -~.
'/ ___ ,._.
/ .
t -~ < -: •
Donald E. Marturano
DEM:de
Encls./as stated
cc: Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities
John Bock, Utilities Administrator
Martin Semple, City Attorney
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
Directors, Engineer, Maintenance
Contractor and Bookkeeper
SOUTH ENGLEWOOD SANITATION
DISTRICT NO. 1
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
DIRECTOR'S NOTICE OF PERMIT REVOCATION
AND SERVICE SUSPENSION
February 23, 1995
ATT. 3
CONCERNING WASTEWATER CONTRIBUTION PERMIT #88-10 ISSUED TO Thomas Plating
Company Inc. located at 4695 So. Windermere, Englewood, CO 80110
THOMAS PLATING COMPANY INC. (HEREINAFTER "THOMAS"), ITS PRESIDENT , MR. F.
JEROME THOMAS , AND ITS REGISTERED AGENT, MR. JOSEPH M. THOMAS, ARE HEREBY
NOTIFIED OF THE REVOCATION OF WASTEWATER CONTRIBUTION PERMIT #88-10 AND
THE SUSPENSION OF SERVICE TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM FOR THE THOMAS
FACILITY LOCATED AT 4695 SOUTH WINDERMERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 12·2· -
6 E OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER UTILITY ORDINANCE. THE PERMIT
REVOCATION IS EFFECTIVE ™MEDIATELY AND ALL WASTEWATER DISCHARGE SHALL
CEASE ™MEDIATELY FROM THE THOMAS FACILITY.
I. Compliance History
The record maintained by the City of Englewood reflect the fact that Thomas has shown a continued history
of violation of its permit conditions , specifically:
• Criminal Case number SE9 DOV: 09-20-90 Permit pH discharge Req--3 counts
Ct 1 : No Contest Ct 2 and 3 : Dismissed
Limits pH discharge --3 counts
Ct 1: No contest Ct 2 and 3 : Dismissed
$1, 000 fine -· paid
• Criminal Case number SE 13 DOV : 07-01-91 Discharge contam-materials --2 counts
< Ct 1 : Dismiss Ct 2 : Guilty
$2,000 fine suspended if pays fine on SE14 and no furthers for one year.
• Criminal Case number SE 14 DOV : 07-01-91 Discharge contam-materials --2 counts
Ct 1 : Dismiss Ct 2 : Guilty
$2 ,000 fine --paid
5 jail days --suspended if no furthers for one year .
Director's Notice of Permit Revocation
Page 2
II. Current Violations Justifyin& Permit Revocation:
Date Parameter
cyanide
Limit Result
1.2 mg/I 1.6 mg/I 6-29-94
10-26-94 1. Discharge of waste chemicals not specified in the Wastewater permit (88-10).
11-3-94
11-3-94
11-3-94
12-5-94
2. Failure to notify the Pretreatment Authority of significant changes in the treatment
system.
3. Failure to comply with the Toxic Organic Management Plan.
chromium/daily ave.
chromium/4 day ave.
zinc /daily ave.
zinc /4 day ave.
total metals /daily ave.
total metals /4 day ave.
7.0 mg/I
4.0 mg/I
4.2 mg/I
2.6 mg /I
10.5 mg/I
6.8 mg/I
Slug Discharge of zinc and chromium.
65.5 mg/l
16.4 mg/I
44.3 mg /I
11.2 mg/I
111.3 mg /I
28. l mg /I
Failure to comply with Director's Order dated October 25, 1994 .
Failure to respond to Notice of Violation issued November 26, 1994 .
III. Ordinance Authority for Permit Revocation
The permit violations cited are cause for permit revocation in accordance with · the City of Englewood
Wastewater Utility Ordinance Section 12-2-6F, specifically.
• Failure of Thomas to report factually the wastewater constituents and characteristics of its discharges.
• Failure of Thomas to report significant changes in operations or wastewater constituents and
characteristics.
• Violation by Thomas of conditions of permit #88-10.
• Failure of Thomas to report pollutants above levels authorized in the permit.
Director's Notice of Permit Revocation
Page 3
IV. Conditions Required To Be Met To Obtain Reissuance of Wastewater Contribution Permit
A Wastewater Contribution Permit may be reissued and service restored to Thomas only upon the completion
of all the following conditions:
1. Completion of a permit application with all necessary information, specifically which must include, at a
minimum: a permit condition compliance plan, a spill control plan, a toxic organic management plan, and
a slug control plan. The entire application must be completed and submitted to the Director of Utilities,
who must find that it is complete and acceptable, and it must be approved by the City of Englewood
Industrial Pretreatment Division.
2. Removal of all stored hazardous waste and hazardous materials not presently used in plant processes.
Removal must meet all requirements of local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Copies of waste
manifests generated from the disposal of the above stated wastes must be provided to the City of
Englewood Industrial Pretreatment Division and the City Attorney's office for review and determination
that the disposal occurred in a legally and technically sufficient manner.
3. Installation of a "process discharge only," monitoring manhole. Installation shall meet ordinance
requirements and be satisfactory to the City of Englewood Industrial Pretreatment Division in design and
construction.
4. When and if a Wastewater Contribution Permit is reissued, it will exclude the treatment and discharge of
concentrated tank solutions. Therefore, disposal of the chromate storage tank and the non-chromate
storage tank contents and the removal of the tanks will be required before a permit can be issued.
V. Notice of Ri~ht of Appeal and Appeal Process
Thomas, holder of permit #88-10 may file with the City of Englewood Director of Utilities; 3400 South
Elati, Englewood, Colorado, 80110; a written request for reconsideration of the decision contained in this
Notice within ten (10) days of this action. The request must set forth in detail the facts supporting the
request. The request for reconsideration shall be acted upon by the Director within ten (10) days from the
date of receipt by the Director. At the request of Thomas, a hearing will be held by the Director before
acting on the request for reconsideration.
If the decision of the Director concerning a request for reconsideration is unacceptable to Thomas, a written
appeal must be filed with the City of Englewood Water and Sewer Board within ten (10) days after receipt of
the Director's decision. The appeal shall be filed with the Board Secretary, Utilities office at Englewood
City Hall, 3400 South Elati, Englewood, Colorado 80110. The Water and Sewer Board shall hear the appeal
and shall make a final ruling on the appeal within thirty five (35) days of receipt of the written appeal. The
party filing the appeal shall be given five (5) days written notice of the date and time of the hearing.
Dated this .b._ day of [ ~1"'"j I Ii f)'
Stewart H. Fonda
Director of Utilities, City of Englewood
SF:bd
cc: Hill & Robbins, P.C.
Dan Brotzman, Assistant City Attorney
February 20, 1995
Mr. Stewart Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
City of
CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE
SANITATION DISTRICT
2450 East Quincy Avenue
Englewood. Colorado 80110
3400 South Elati Street
Englewood, CO 80110-2304
Dear Mr. Fonda,
A copy of your letter dated February 14, 1995 was recently
forwarded to me by the City of Cherry Hills Village. The Cherry
Hills Village Sanitation Board is the legal sewer provider for the
property within the proposed rezoning application and is aware of
the issues you mentioned in your letter. We have informed the
developer that the capacity within the existing lines was designed
for development at the current zoning densities. We are also aware
of the ridge that will separate the northern portion of the
property from the gravity flow system to the south.
We will continue to be in contact with the prospective developer of
the property and will be discussing the available options for sewer
service. As decisions are made we will keep you advised. If you
have further questions, please feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
µ
Bill Matsch, President
Cherry Hills Village Sanitation District
ATT. s
City of Englewood
3400 S. Elati Street
Englewood , Colorado 80110-230'4
February 23, 1995
Mr. Tom Rotunda
3003 W. Monmouth Ave.
Englewood, CO 80110
Re: Water Metering
Dear Mr. Rotunda:
Phone (303) 762-23 00
(303 ) 762-2301
FAX (303) 789-11 25
Thank you for taking the time to address the Englewood Water and
Sewer Board at their February 14, 1995 meeting with your concerns.
After careful deliberation, the Board has decided to deny your
request to transfer your residence back to the Flat Rate Schedule
of water billing.
The Board, however, is interested in assisting you with your high
water usage concerns and would like to make the following offers:
1. If you like, the Board will direct the Utilities
Department to send out a Technician to conduct a water audit of
your res i dence and to recommend water saving techniques that may
help you lower your bill.
2. If you like, the Board will directed that the Utilities
Department make available to you, and at no charge to you, the
services of a sprinkler system professional who can evaluate the
setup of your sprinkler system to see if there are any water saving
techniques or modifications that you can employ.
Again, thank you for the time you took to address the Board, and I
will wait for your reply.
If you have any questions, or need assistance, you can call me at
762-2643.
Sin~ly, dn~o807-1
Englewood Utilities Manager of Administration
b:rotun da\j wb doc u~e n4 wp5.1
f".
Pr inte d on Recycled Paper <;§~~
Thomas J . Arckey
John F. Reha
Elizabeth Flanagan-Porarf
City of Englewood
ARCKEY & REHA, L.L. C.
Arromeys ar Law
26 West Dry Creek Circk
·Suire 740
Lirrkton, CO 80120-4475
February 24, 1995
Off ice of the City Attorney
Mr. Rick DeWitt, City Attorney
3400 South Elati Street
Englewood, Colorado 80110-2304
Re: Notice Pursuant to C.R.S. 24-10-109
Dear Mr. DeWitt:
A TT. "
Telephone: (303) 798-8546
Facsimik: (303) 798-4637
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Please make note that the above law firm has been retained to
represent Charles W. and Roseanne Thenell. On August 25, 1994, the
City of Englewood, through its Department of Utilities, placed a
Notice and Lien for sewer tap assessment against the property
located at 2033 E. Nichols Drive, Littleton, Colorado, County of
Arapahoe. The owners of that address are Charles W. Thenell and
Roseanne Thenell. The alleged debt resulting in the lien arose
from unpaid sewer tap fees when the residence at 2033 E. Nichols
Drive was constructed in approximately June, 1987. At the time of
the connection of the sewer tap the owner of the real property was
Starwood Development Company, Inc. , a Colorado corporation. Due to
neglect of the government officials of the City of Englewood and
the South Arapahoe Sanitation District, they failed to collect the
sewer tap fee from Starwood Development Company, the owner at the
time the connection was made.
The City of Englewood has no lawful right to place a lien
against the real property located at 2033 E. Nichols Drive,
Littleton, Colorado. Furthermore, any right that the City of
Englewood·had to file such a lien is barred by the doctrines of
latches waiver and estoppel. Moreover, the assessing of the lien
against the real estate is barred by the statute of limitations
C.R.S. 13-80-103.5. The City's action is an attempt to collect the
debt that is well in excess of six years old. The filing of the
lien against our property is in violation of the state and federal
constitution, 42 u.s.c. §1981 and amounts to slander of title.
The amount of monetary damages claimed against the City of
Englewood is $25,000. Please be advised that after the expiration
of the statutory waiting period to commence legal action as
City of Englewood
Mr. Rick DeWitt, City Attorney
February 24, 1995
Page 2
provided in C.R. s. 24-10-109 ( 6) legal action will be commenced
against the City of Englewood.
Sincerely,
;JL:.-
TJA/pg
cc: Gale Norton, Colorado Attorney General
Dennis W. Stowe, Acting Director of Utilities, City of
Englewood
Charles and Roseanne Thenell
TIA\ENGLEWOO .U
ATT. 7
8UPPLIDIDT •o. ~ TO COIDOC'l'OR 1 8 &GUDDT
DIS &GUIDIDT, aade and entered into by and between the CITY or .. QL .. OOD, acting by and through it• duly authorized Mayor and
City Clerk, hereinafter called the •city,• and 800TllGATI 8UITATIOM
DISTRICT, Arapahoe and Douglas Counties, Colorado, hereinafter
called the •Di•trict,•
WllD•U, on the 20th day of June, 1961, the City and the
Di•trict entered into an Aqreement in which the City agreed to
treat ••wage originating fro• the Diatrict'• •anitary ••war •Y•tem
within the area aerved by the Di•trict, which Agreement wa• most
recently renewed by Connector'• Agreement dated November 16, 1988;
and
DDBU, aaid Connector'• Agreeaent provide• that the Di•trict
aay not enlarge it• •ervice area without the written con•ent of the
City;
•ow, DBRBl'ORI, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
undertakings herein •et forth, the parties agree aa follows:
l. · The City hereby consent• to the incluaion of certain
additional area located in Arapahoe County, Colorado, owned by the
JAKES r. OLLY ftUST, and more fully de•cribed on Exhibit A
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, into
Southgate Sanitation District. The City agrees that said
additional area may be •erved with the •ewer 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'• Agreement dated November 16, 1988.
Accordingly, Exhibit A referred to in Paragraph 1 of the
Connector's Agreement dated November 16, 1988, i• hereby amended to
include such additional area.
2. Each and every other proviaion of the aaid Connector's
Agreement dated November 16, 1988, •hall remain unchanged.
IK WI'ntBSS WJlBJlZOP, the parties have •et their hands and
seals this __ day of , 1995.
&T'l'BST:
CITY CLZJUt
(SEAL)
&T'l'BST:
81CJllTARY
(SEAL) .
CITY or .. QLBWOOD
800TllGAT• 8UITATIO• DISTRICT,
&RAPABO• &SD DOUQLAS COUllTIIS,
COLOllDO
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
ALL OF TRACT 39, CLARK COLONY NO. 3, BEfNG IN THE NORTHEAST ONE
QUARTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSI-IlP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 67 WEST OF THE
SIXTH PRINCIPAL NIERIDIAN, CITY OF GREENWOOD VILLAGE, COUNTY OF
ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS :
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 39~ THENCE
NORTH 89°40'13" EAST 330.61 FEET TO THE NORTiiEAST CORNER OF SAID
TRACT 39, (ALSO BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT "A" OF
COLONY PARK); THENCE SOUTH 0°11'18" EAST 629 .41 FEET TO THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER or SAID TRACT 39 (ALSO BEING THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF TRACT "A" OF COLONY PARK); THENCE SOUTH_ 89°40'48" WEST
330 .95 fEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 39; THENCE
NORTH 0°09'27" WEST 629 .36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 208,188 SQUARE FEET OR 4.7793 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
7950 EAST PRENTICE AVE., SUITE 103
.,,.. Miu.ER ENGINEERING
"' -8 SURVEYING, INC.
CIVIL ANO LANO DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING
LANO SURVEYING
. 770-2015
770-1272 (FAX)
ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO 80111
Mr. Duane Tinsley
Southgate Sanitation District
3 722 East Orchard Road
Littleton, Colo ., 80121
February 21, 1995
Dear Duane,
Enclosed is a submittal for the proposed inclusion of the James F. Kelly Trust property
into Southgate Sanitation District. The property is at 6616 East Prentice Avenue which is
just east of South Monaco Street about one quarter mile south of Belleview on the south
side of E. Prentice Avenue . We are currently in the process of preparing a two lot
subdivision plat for the property in order to create two single family lots as shown .
Hopefully, this letter can serve as the "narrative description" portion of this submittal for
inclusion of the property into Southgate Sanitation District.
The property to be included consists of 4.78 acres and it is zoned R-2.5 in the City of
Greenwood Village . No zoning changes are proposed. The site is currently vacant and
the intention is to sell off the two newly platted lots for two new single family homes on
this property. An existing Southgate sewer main is in the Crestline Ave . alignment
adjacent to the south boundary of this property which would be the source of sewer
facilities for this subdivision. A sewer main extension up the west side of Lot 2 to serve
Lot I will be required. The total sewer service requirements for this subdivision would
ultimately be two taps into the new sewer main on the west side of Lot 2.
The items included with this submittal are the Petition document, a Survey Drawing, a
copy of the proposed subdivision plat, a Vicinity Map, an Affadavit of Trust, a Trust
Agreement, two Warranty Deeds to the property (the west half and the east half), a Title
Company Guarantee indicating current ownership of the property, a $375.00 check
payable to Southgate Sanitation District and the Narrative Description (this letter). If
everything appears to be in order, could you start the process for review of this submittal
so that the property can ultimately be included into Southgate Sanitation District? If
anything is missing, please let me know. Thank you for youf help.
Sincerely,
~R ENGJ4
1
ERING & SURVEYING, INC.
(tr fr1\ JI· fl'u!_[r\
Arthur H. Miller, P. E.
AHM/pb
Afll\1-600
cc: Mr. Mike Kelly
\
\
••
••
8
DENVER
.Jt'
BELLEVIEW TERRACE
SEWER LINE REIM-
BURSEMENT AREA
(.s..1 . ~.r I .
ct) I -
4J . ~t~
'·-·---........__
I,
'l
'•
. ,
·'
I
\ .·.
•• •••• --· .. 1 ••• •'tt
·--~!...!! .. ~
: .. --
. _,: ____ ..
·~ ..
.L.)j
. ~ ........ ____ ~ , ~
:J .. a:
···----,
..
I------,"
--!!...-
..... .t!!!_
...
--·----i ..
ca
"' 0 ..
0 ... a:
-·-...
__,.
CRf SILIH[
...
, .
·Bl
"' $ .
.
...
...
"'
... ..
::> u
0
.J
..
I
I
I
I
I
I ...
I
I
I
I
I
VICINITY MAP
Scale: 1• = 300'
--"1""'·-··-· ---·-·-·-·---·-·S:-El.~J:..~§.~'-~.!.Y§:_._·--·-·-·-·-·-·-· ,•-··-,..---..,.,,..... __ .. _"_·_·....,··~ 'r--~r----,,,.·---.11---.. ~!.'1.
~ .
1(' '
I
I
I
I
I
•-l
~''I------"-··---·u1 ·--:: ...
I /
I
I
. I -. --;<,"°-=--.,.,-,
...
•I
............ _
.. ,
AV£: .,
-
,,. "
--·
-...
I
•'
t "! :i
I
I
.~
'-·-.t~·
SITE
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
••
I '
--···· -1't ~
..
-.!-!.
., .. ~· , , . r-u:-1 · · --,.,.-). ..
..
,~~·) -· ···-;;r~l /j
...... L-.::~ .. --(:· ~· ·~
f I ... ,
: ... ----.,. .... "' . , ...
11!~----i -J:
'
.--_ I ~~11: $
4
--.
"--::-------t:--r~~~.,..Tr~"Tl"ll' ... _,,.., ·---' ___ _
·-·~i-~·--..... "' _j ••• , __
... I •"I • UI
... 'f --rr ...............
....... ,... . .. /.• / ....
•, .
' ~ ff•
___ ,, . .......... .. . .-..... .... ...
. J .
•• ., -I ";'-... ".' 'eJ /_
€) . . "'---' ,,,, -
. ..
. .. e
----'"'1-----, -nr ~
........... -·
-· . ..
.. ........ ,. .. , .... .. '--="'---' --··---==--.....:_-===.!==-.J.~=====-=:r.::= ---
I
I
NE COR ., TRACT 39
(FNO . #4 REBAR)
COLO l'IY PA R }\
LOT g <;
_____ _j_ ___ _
S 0°11 1 18 11 E TRACT • A.
629.41 1
I
I
I
I
8 10' UTILITY EASEMENT gc------------------------------t---
I ~
(:)
Q:'.
r~·
_...,I
~~I
0 ""1 ~§1
~I
·21
I
;;;I
~I
I ~ I
~ iu I
I "' s I (.,) !2
~ ·o I ~ v I ~ m I
~ z I
'~I
I
I
I
100'
SETBACK
s 0°11 "' t. -335.88
LOT I
" ·01~ Wl CD
t-....
Ill
2 .5000 ACRES
L_
I
k · SE BACK
BLOCK
J
."' ...
9
~
.N
"1
.CD .,
• " a:
11'1
so'
SETBACK
I
I
£'.i .
. 1"' 0 CD
0 t--....
11'1
LOT
2 .5072
\ ~OT 5
SECOR., TRACT 39\ I
_l -1::_:3 ~I -\-I
2
ACRES
I
--,
l
I
I
I
I rl() m
0 I ..., ,., I
I
. I
sEfi?AcKI
_J
I
I...,
I~
I~ 1=~ 5CX> t2 v
I~
Im (/) -___ J_
SW COR., TRACT 39
(FNO. PIN 8 CAP L.S.
1t21321
I ) I G TRACT 40
CO L ONY I SOUTHERL Y 11 2 TRACT 40
... ,,.,
?
Point of Begmning
NW COR ., TRACT 39
(FNO. PIN 8 CAP UNREADABLE)
CL J-\ n }\ NO. 3
........
~
(:)
~
I
L
I
I
-·~I
[()
::i
II)
~ <(
I-a:
0 h .l
-l a
-<(
-l
}-o
11)
"' lil 3:
l-
o <(
-l a:
b.l Oz
<( 0
-l II)
~r-lt... >
<Sa ro
::i t: (/) ~I ~ ~I
~I
1\1
-1
0..
i-a
0 b.l
..J a
z:
b.l
2:
<(
~-
'
\
-Z11)
I-b.l · •
o r-cc: a
-' ::i l\l [()
0 L'1 ::> r-11)
(/)
'atflEiON/ENGLE:WQOD ''"
WASTEWATER TRBATMEMP PLAiff:'
v· ·.-"
LRMP ',OBJEC-JNI--,T\tES~',,
t 'Permit Compliapce
+ Qdoi: Control & Prevention ,, ,'~\
35
Bot:> IidAti!NGs
,,0rlginal
__,;Orlginal ,Ji~jectio~ (2o/o)
-oesign Loading
--::Original Projection ( 1 %)
.. ~-.. .. . ,. -:
15 +-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ......... ~...._~~~~~~~~~~
1987 1992 1997 2002
YEAR
2007 2()12 2017
~ •. t
t
·1»
Cfl
Q -Ill
= f.
45
40
25
20
15
BOD ... LOADINGS
,Revised
-Revised>Projection
-Original:&.Projecdon 2%
;;-Design Loa~t~·
Ji'ooLOADINGS
Im~~Ct
'1:t
-Revised Projection
-Original Projection 2%
·;; "~Design Loading
Phase la
1992 •1 997
1996 2ooti
SERVl€E :AREA. GROW-TH ,
PRESS!J~ES,:,.
• Opening o'f DIA ::(fin~l\~!!)
• C-470 Corri,dor Development
• SW .: Light &ail
• .,Cinderella C~pr':;Rs~,~velopment
+S;:Retail>Expan~!on
·' ,',
PR9JECif :s€:OPE ,
+ Headworks
.~ S~condat:y Ii;,ickliFLg rFilter
~ ... Secondary €larifier
, ... :::Hr,__ ,,~, +' .. Nitrifying Trickl,ing Filter:.
• D1g~~ters
• Dewatering BuilHing
PHASE lb EXPANSION
RECOMMENDED PROJECT ELEMENTS
BY PROCESS AREA
HEADWORKS
Septage Storage
Odor Control
Engine Driven Pump
PRIMARY CLARIFIERS
Electrical/HY AC
MARCH 14, 1995
SECONDARY TRICKLING FILTERS
New Trickling Filter
New Trickling Filter Pump
Odor Control
SECONDARY CLARIFIERS
Internal Modifications to Existing Mechanisms
NITRIFYING TRICKLING FILTERS
New Ni trifying Filter
New Nitrifying Filter Pump
Odor Control
DIG ESTERS
Add Mixing to Four Digesters
Convert Covers to Fixed Covers
Add Heating to Two Digesters
Decommission Engine Generators
Modify Piping
DEWATERING BUILDING
Construct Dewatering Building with Truck Loading Facilities
Relocate and Convert Centrifuges
Add Biosolids Storage for Transportation
Odor Control
Modify Existing Building for Warehouse/Electrical Control Center
PROJECT #CQST
ESTIMATED AT'i'$17,470,0QO
:rnc1uaiiig
+ Design ,Engineering
• Permitting
,;:+ Construction
*~ Construction Management
+Black & Veatch
+CH~mHILL
+ Camp, Dresser &.;McKee
+ HOR lrj~,rastructuie
t t
t t
PERMIT ISSJVES
+Metals Limitations (Copper, Selenium,
Manganese, Mercury)
+ Fecal Coli£ orm Standards (Recreation Class I)
+ EPA Reg!on VIII Mixing Zone Policy
•Total Maximum Daily Load Study
(Watershed Management)
+ Nitrate Standard
1995
City of Englewood Director of Utilities
3400 S. Elati St.
Englewood, CO 80110
Request For Reconsideration
Revocation of Waste Water Permit #88-10
Dear Mr. Fonda:
Compliance History:
09-20-90. This violation was early in our "learning curve".
Steps to correct the cause were taken and reported to your people.
07-01-91. This also was early in our learning experience.
Again, Steps were taken to correct. Since installing the original
waste water system much equipment has been_ added and additional
floor space used to fine tune the system.
07-01-91 While our system appeared to be operating
satisfactorily, we were uncomfortable with the testing results
being consistently near our limits. Baxter Mogul called on our
technician claiming wonderful products, products which were
superior to the flocculating agent we were using. Tests using one
of their products performed very well, and we agreed to a trial run
in our system. It was during this trial or possibly the day after
we had switched back to our usual flocculent that your department
sampled and found our effluent somewhat over our permit limits.
At the time of your sampling and before knowing the results, Baxter
Mogul demonstrated yet a second product more costly than the first
but guaranteed to be exceptional. It truly tested wel 1. Yes, we
tried that product, samples were taken by your people, tested, and
were once again in violation.
We switched back to our original flocculent and have been using it
ever since. For something like three years we have had no
violations until the "cyanide" incident.
6-29-94 Cyanide
We have a plating bath which contains potassium ferricyanide,
CAS#: 13446-66-2. This chemical is neither "cyanide" nor
hazardous! Your people told me that since the chemical contains
"cyanide" in its name it would be considered hazardous by them as
they had no knowledge of the substance and could not take a chance.
I spoke to a chemist at the manufacturer of the product containing
the chemical who informed me the product is non-hazardous, stating
a 150# man could ingest 1# with no ill affect.
I have since
Classification
purchased a copy
Guide", a reference
of "Hazardous Materials
source recommended in the
"Uniform Fire Code", which clearly states potassium ferricyanide is
NON-HAZARDOUS.
Perhaps our Hazardous Waste and Pollution Control Technician should
be discussed at this time. In June of 1994 James Keeling was given
full authority and respons i bility for our pollution controls. Mr
Dave Louch was so notified in writing on June 29, 1994.
Thereafter, Dave dealt solely with Keeling.
It was clearly pointed out that he, Keeling, had complete
authority, that if anyone higher on the chain of command requested
anything that would violate any laws, Keeling was to refuse , and,
if any problem ensued, he was to tell him that he was following my
orders, and to report to me immediately if a problem were to occur.
Keeling's promotion was a result of the
by both Mary Gardner and Dave Louch,
keeping our system operating smoothly
earned a promotion.
high regard expressed to me
as we l l as his success in
for three years. He had
10-26-94 In early spring of 1994 I accompanied a State Health
Compliance Officer around shop. At that time we observed several
metal containing chemical products setting on the floor near
storage tanks used to control release of chemicals and rinse waters
too concentrated to release suddenly into our water purification
system. On checking with Keeling, Keeling stated that he intended
to process the products through our system. Keeling stated that
the water control people were aware of this, that he had shown them
the materials when we had our annual inspection. I saw the
inspectors at that point with Keeling. I, too, was under the
impression that heavy metal containing products which we had used
could be processed through our equipment, so I had no problem with
his intent; however, every product I saw there was still useful to
us. I directed Keeling not to dispose of them.
About 6 months later the State inspector came through again this
time touring the shop with Keeling. At some point I became
involved as the previously mentioned products were still in their
original position, plus additional materials were now there. I
asked Jim why. Jim replied he was directed to dispose of them by
the foreman, a person not aware of the requirements for discharge.
I reminded Keeling again that he was responsible for all
discharges,not the foreman
An examination of the materials showed products still useful to us
such as nickel carbonate. There were also products even though
obsolete which should under no circumstances go through the system.
There were 4 small bottles of chloroform from our laa which would
violate our permit if released, along with diesel fuel and Stoddard
solvent, both of which we have use.
All of the products were removed from the area and properly stored.
11-3-94 When the discharge analyses were received from the City,
the results were brought to my attention. I immediately spoke to
Keeling who claimed he was unaware of any problems. The thought to
terminate his employment occurred to me, but I thought it may be
prudent to do some thinking on the problem.
As we had a problem with just one person completely and solely
responsible, it was obvious an additional control should be
inserted. I asked Patricia Braem our Production Manager, if5ive
would take on the responsibility of unannounced testing of grab
samples. She agreed and began sampling and recording the test
results. She continued this practice up until the plant shutdown.
All of her readings have been in compliance with the highest zinc
reading being 4.0 ppm.
A few days after Braem accepted the grab sample testing I asked her
if she would also take on the responsibility of sampling for our
required outside analyses. Braem agreed and to date has sent out
6 samples, 5 of which have been returned, all results well within
Permit limitations.
The City also has sampled since the incident. We looked good in
the first sampling. a regular quarterly sample. We have not been
given results of a sampler collected sample but are confident the
results are excellent based upon Braem's frequent and consistent
sampling results.
We do have a problem with the alleged sampling hours on 5:00 and
6:00 A.M. as stated on the citation. Our production manager
thought it strange that none of our employees saw your people
sampling as she came to work at 5:00 A.M. and several others
reported to work between 5:00 and 6:00.
Our maintenance supervisor, Brian Munroe, comes to work at 4:00
A.M .. When queried, Munroe stated that t'he first thing he does
after punching in is to check the water treatment system. At that
time the system was being shut down about 11:00 P.M.. Munroe
states that the equipment was indeed shut down and there were no
signs whatsoever of any problem.
I then asked if it would be possible for Keeling to have set up a
system of dumping overnight. Munroe said there was no way anybody
could rig up such a system and went into some detail explaining
why.
I asked Munroe what is the earliest any water would start down the
sewer, and he replied 6:30 A.M., possibly 6:25 A.M .. He explained
Kee 1 ing turns on a radio, makes a pot of coffee, goes around the
shop inspecting and turning on pumps, etc. After all that,
Keeling's first release of water is from the filter press, water
which always runs clear.
Keeling walked in about that time allowing me to then ask~ him his
routine. Keeling repeated the routine as Munroe had stated leaving
out any · mention of radio or coffee.
I saw and spoke to Louch at the manhole at 2:50 P.M. As I walked
up Dave was watching another man tightening bolts on a "X" shaped
mechanism. The other man appeared to be explaining the mechanism to
Dave. When I first received the violation report, I assumed the
grab samples were take in the afternoon. If Keeling had been
cheating, midafternoon would have been the best time to catch him.
This time makes more sense.
11-3-94 We sent a reply 10-30-94 stating we had received the
Director's order and would comply. On rereading the order I see we
were to have sent manifests and this point was missed, The one
shipment of a cyanide containing product was made to a compan y in
California, a copy of the B/L is enclosed. A copy was previously
supplied to the State Health Department.
11-3-94 We thought the one response promptly .made after your
people 's visit covered the matter. When it was pointed out that
two responses were needed, a second was sent without delay .
After Braem's taking on responsibility for all sampling. she and I
both agreed we needed furthe r controls on Keeling's operation. We
inserted our Maintenance supervisor, Brian Munroe, into the chain-
of-control over Keeling. Munroe was our first operator of the
waste water system having taught Keeling to operate the equipment.
Being in the shop constantly moving about> Munroe seemed a good
further control. He accepted and has performed beautifully.
Munroe also grabs samples for inhouse testing. To my knowledge he
has found out-of-compliance 4 times , each time immediately going
into the agreed upon plan o f correction. Once he found the p.H.
slightly out of bounds. A slight adjustment corrected the problem
making it unnecessary to shut down the machine. Another time he
read 10 ppm of zinc shortly after starting up, requiring a prompt
shut down and recycling of the effluent. Adjustments were made ,
the treated water was monito r ed until the zinc dropped to 4.0 ppm,
water was released and further monitored until the Zinc dropped to
our more or less norm of 1 ppm.
We believe that management has operated reasonably with good intent
to be in compliance. After a effluent violation did occur, we
believe prudent steps were taken to insure continued compliance.
As the effluent violation is the only one in almost four years, and
prudent controls have been installed, we sincerely hope another
chance will be given.
Sincerely,
F.Jerome Thomas, Pres
/\LBUOUERO~ 883·7100 ATLANTA 608·1117 BOISE 362·5000 CALG ARY 287-1105 CASPER 266-3375 CHIC AGO 890-5959 CI NC INNATI 874 -1900 CLEV ELAND 676-9300
COLO RADO Sl'RINGS 598·6'194 COLU MBUS 878 · 7009 DA LLAS , FT WORTH 21 4-038 ·3535 DENV ER 289-3500 DETROIT 946·4334 DURANGO 247 -3192 EL PASO 591-1700 FONTANA 909.355.5735
FREEMONT 51(}.683-0970 FRESNO 233· 7792 GRAND JU NCTION 243 ·3200 GRAND RAPIDS 534-1177 HELENA 44 2-0431 HOUSTON 691 ·6191 IN OIANAPOUS 784· 79 56 KANSAS CITY 231 ·2500
LO~ BEACH ,10·6'l4·6987 LOS ANGELES 310·948 -4566 LO UIS VILL E 636·5400 MEMPHIS 948-4500 MILWAUKEE 481-4545 MPLS IST PAUL 888-7292 OK LAHOMA CITY 672-0888
OMAH A 592·7144 ORANG E COUNTY 714 ·974 -9664 PHOENIX 278-1551 PORTLAND 285-3050 PUEBLO 542·7310 RENO 324-6987 SACRA MENTO 916-373-0189 SAN ANTONIO 299-1124
SAN DIEGO 619·271 ·9955 SEAIT LE 241 ·0 222 SF/OAKLAND 510-451 ·6987 SLC 973 -9734 SPOKAN E 535· mg ST LOUIS 382· 1102 TUCSON 620-1132 VANCOUVER . B.C. 420 ·4664
STRAIGHT BILL OF LADING -SHORT FORM -Not Negotiable -ORIGINAL tmliEOl!!IM!m~
"71f.,.., 7:!!.::~r::~~!!L~f.o~ ~;E,~:,<:!..~
, ,, NORTHEA STERN MOTO R FR EIGHT . IN C .. I NEMR I: WESTWAY MOTOR FREIGHT INC. IWMFRI
FROM DATE
_._..,'-... ----·-----•1•.i ~. 1~ Q•O~••v Or~«•De'O Ot>low ,,, OPP0""' 9ood o•dr • r•cr p • 01 no••d icontrnr\ and C0"d"•0" ot CO"'""'' 01 PO<li.ogr \ vn ~,..0-"• rno•li.rd cc11>\•9n.ed and drl••~ Ol 1n d i<o1rd ~low ....,,,,<;., lO•d ca"'"' lll\<r w _,.d CO"••• be•nq uOO l'f\IOO<J •li•ovgnov• "''' Con1to<• O\ '"'•On
,nq on.,. ~•\on o• co•oo101oon "' PQ\\.oe \\•0" o! '"'" prooe•ly undt-• H'lr conrrocu ogi r~ 10 carry to''' ..,,..,01 glocr ol d t hvr 1y or \O•d dt\llnQl•on ,I on •I\ •Ovi t o rl"lt•w •\f' 10 d f'lo vf'f ro ono•hf'r corflt f on r~ routf' 10 \O•d ~\1 1no11on II •\ mu•uoHv og•ttd 0 \ 10 f'O<l'I COtt>tr or oll
.:i• nnr 01 \O •O p<o~"'I' o ver au or onv por1ton ot \01(1 rourt 10 Of'\l 1no1oon ono o i ro eoch oonv 01 ony rom e on ltrt llf'd .n o il O• ony o l \Ood pro~rly rho1 t ve1y \f'fvl(t to be ~do""td l'\t <t unOtr \hall be \ub1t<' 10 oll rhe ''""'' ond cono 1r1on\ ol •l'\f' Unolorm Domt \!>( Srro•ol'I•
B.H ol lod•ng ~r 101r n l • .n un,tcrm F•t •gi'11 (lou•llCO!oon ,n t lft<I on •l'lt dnlt ht •tOI •I•~.,'' o •ool or '1 •ool w Oltl \h1om"'" 01 •1• •n th e opol1Co b lt ..,,oro• COH •t • clon1l1Co••o n o• •o••lt ,1 rn,, •\ o mo101 CO«•t • \l'lopmf'n• ·
$11---eow!ll_"'-1,._to l .....iW .... ll'o ol l ____________ ot~.IN:IWlftOit-.. ----·-...... ~---tlcM-... 1·1t1 ---·-\61-ol .... __...-"""-IOr"'o----l-•e-.., __ )O..,._Jll_,_, __ "°IOfl•U"-l -No-....
CONSIGNED TO (On Collect on Delivery Sh ipment s , the letters "COD" must appear
before consi gnee's name or as otherwise provlded In Item 430 , Sec . 1)
\J~c 0 , ~ \..,) -e. coos C.O .D . FE E TO BE PAID BY 0 CONSIGN EE
OR 0 SHIP PER
DESTINATION (street)
L ~ -\\ ~ I ~ f\ \ \) \
CITY , STATE ANDZIPCODE
0 A. c <'' ~' \ \ ~ . ~ \
NUMBER
PACKAG ES HM
KIND OF PACKAGE , DESCRI PTION OF ARTICL ES ,
SPECIAL MARKS , AND EXCEPTIONS
IF CONSI GNEE'S PERSO NAL OR COM PANY
CHECK IS ACCEPTAB L E FOR C O.D. PL EAS E NOTE :
REM IT
C.O .D.
WEIGHT
(pou nds only)
(subject to correction )
Subject to Secuon 7 of cond itions of
applicaole bi ll of lading , 1f this sh1pmen1 1s
to be delivered 10 ll'le consignee w1t t'IOut
recourse on the cons ignor, the consi gnor
snall sign the followmg stalement:
\" ";\ '\ '""'.-......_ L ~ ~ THE AG RE ED OR DECLA RED VALUE OF THE --~--+---+-~ \J-"''-'--'v--.--'\"-f\_,__ ______________ --+--'-'d.,~-:),~,-) ___ p ---t. PROPERTY IS HEREBY SP ECIFICALLY ST A TED $
BY TH E SHIPPER TO BE NOT EXCEEDING
ROUTING DELIVERING
CARRIER
PER
------+-+'--=''--'"-..l"'--'--''--'-'--'--'--'+--'-.!....:-'-.:....J..L.....:~,.__~_~.:..!...S""-~'----J-'l-"---'"--'----",__,),,_-1 ~~~:y ,~1 .~~:~.cr~;~~~1~~::;. :::::1.s ;~ SHIPPER OR AGENT SIGN 1-tERE
• If lhe shipment moves between two ports by a carr ier b y wat er, the law requires that the bil l of lading
shall stat e whether it i s "carrier's or shipper's weight."
NOTE -Where the rate 1s dependent on val ue . shippers are required to state specifically in writing the
agreed o r declared va l ue of the property .
l•~ecl ao<J are 1n proper condl!lon tor 1ranSPQr1at10n
acc0ta1ng to me appl1cao1 e r90u1a11ons or rn. DepMlment
ol T ransporu11on
NO . PCS .
RE CEI VED
SINGLE . CA RR~GJ:Vi
S HP T/~ ~
~(v)
TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC.
__ .....