Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-06-18 WSB AGENDAAGENDA ENGLEWOOD WATER AND SEWER BOARD JUNE 18, 1996 5:00 p.m. CONFERENCE ROOM A .. 1. MINUTES OF THE MAY 21, 1996 WATER AND SEWER BOARD MEETING. (ATT. 1) 2. INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE GOLD COURSE ENTERPRISE FUND AND THE ENGLEWOOD WATER DEPT. (ATT. 2) 3. MEMO FROM MARCIA HUGHES DATED 5-14-96 REGARDING THE WILD AND SCENIC TASK FORCE. (ATT. 3) 4. LETTER FROM DAVID ROBBINS DATED 5-13-96 5. RE: BI-CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. (ATT. 4) INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: A. ARTICLE FROM ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS -"HIGHLANDS RANCH, C-470 TO . LINK UP." (ATT. 5) B. LETTER FROM CAROL JACOBS DATED 5-24-96 RE: 3012 S. GRANT ST. (ATT. 6) 6. OTHER. WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES MAY 21, 1996 ATT. I The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. Chairman Fullerton declared a quorum present. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Fullerton, Burns, Neumann, Otis, Vobejda, Wiggins · Habenicht, Higday Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities 1) MINUTES OF THE APRIL 9, 1996 MEETING. The Englewood Water and Sewer Board Minutes from the April 9, 1996 were approved as written. Mr. Vobejda moved; Mr. Otis seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. To approve the April 9, 1996 Englewood Water and Sewer Board Minutes as written. Fullerton, Burns, Neumann, Otis, Vobejda, Wiggins None Habenicht, Higday 2) LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ARAPAHOE COUNTY. Mark Johnson with Premier Associates appeared to request a License Agreement for Arapahoe County to install an underground fiber optic cable in conduit under and along the City's right-of-way for the City Ditch. The cable crossing is proposed at the City Ditch approximately where Littleton Blvd. becomes Main Street at Court Place on the northwest side. Stu requested a locator map from Premier for the June 3 Council meeting. Mayor Burns moved; Mr. Otis seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. 3. MARTIN & WOOD PROPOSAL. To recommend Council approval of the License Agreement submitted from Arapahoe County for crossing the City Ditch with a fiber optic cable. Fullerton, Burns, Neumann, Otis, Vobejda, Wiggins None Habenicht, Higday Joe Tom Wood of Martin & Wood appeared to present his proposal for engineering services for an analysis of Englewood's water supplies. Martin & Wood is proposing to describe and quantify Englewood's water supplies, quantify the present water requirements and future water requirements at maximum buildout, identify limiting factors which in regards to Englewood's realization of yields, identify those water rights and the yields which are necessary for Englewood 's own use and what is available for lease to Centennial Water and Sanitation District. The report will also provide recommendations to improve Englewood's yields from its various water rights. The proposal is estimated to range between $30,000 and $35,000, with a maximum cost of $35,000. Mr. Otis moved; Ms. Neumann seconded: Ayes: Nays: To recommend Council approval of the proposal from Martin & Wood for an Engineering Analysis of Englewood's Water Supplies· and Demand for a maximum of $35,000. Fullerton, Burns, Neumann, Otis, Vobejda, Wiggins None Members absent: Habenicht, Higday Motion carried. 4. WATER STANDARD VIOLATION. The Board received a copy of the published "Notice to Englewood Water Customers" discussing the April, 1996 turbidity standard violation at the Allen Filter Plant. Stu outlined steps taken to improve turbidity. The reservoir has since returned to normal and turbidities are within limits. 5. GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. Stu reviewed the proposal of using General Obligation Bonds instead of General Revenue Bonds for the Allen Filter Plant improvements. The use of General Revenue Bonds would substantially lower rates by possibly eliminating the need for the last 8% rate increase. Stu noted that the recommendation to Council must be submitted by July 15, 1996 because it must go to the public for a vote. The Board recommended publishing a fact sheet for Englewood citizens discussing the proposed issue. Ms. Neumann moved; Mr. Vobejda seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. To recommend Council approval of the Allen Plant Improvement Project funding go to a vote of the public proposing the funding be by General Obligation Bonds in lieu of General Revenue Bonds. Fullerton, Burns, Neumann, Otis, Vobejda, Wiggins None Habenicht, Higday 6. SOUTH ENGLEWOOD MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. Stu discussed the existing agreement for the Englewood portion of the South Englewood Sanitation District. Don Marturano has expressed his board's interest in expanding the Englewood maintenance area to the remaining portion of South Englewood Sanitation District. Mr. Marturano stated that his board requested that a condition of the agreement be that Englewood will reimburse South Englewood for any missed taps. The Board expressed their disapproval of this condition. The Board instructed the Director of Utilities to investigate our legal position with the City Attorney. 7. LETTER OF AGREEMENT FROM DENVER WATER BOARD REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE OF CABIN-MEADOW CREEK. Stu discussed a letter of agreement that he is signing regarding the operation and maintenance of the Cabin-Meadow Creek System and specific designation obligations. 8. WILD & SCENIC RIVER. The Board received correspondence from Marcia Hughes, the attorney monitoring the Wild and Scenic Task Force. The letter discusses key concerns regarding matter related to the right-of-way and the Forest Service depiction of Alternative "H." 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: The Board received the following informational items: A. Copies of two letters. The first was a water complaint from Pat Feather of 4440 S. Pennsylvania St., the second was a letter from Brad Reed at 3651 s. Cherokee, complimenting Mitch Riley and Dave Chapman who responded during an emergency call. B. Copies of two articles. An article from the Denver Post dated April 24, 1996 titled, "Wat~r department cleared in fall" and another Denver Post article, "Deal puts s. Platte into flow of fuD." c. The Utilities Department 1995 Annual Report. D. A letter from Denver Water dated March 5, 1996 discussing Denver's long-range planning process. 10. C-470 INTERCHANGE. Terry Nolan, Jeff Case and Dave Burnett from Highlands Ranch Metropolitan Districts appeared to explain the proposed c- 470 Interchange across from McLellan Reservoir. Highlands Ranch is seeking a conveyance of rights-of-way from Englewood for the Highlands Ranch Blvd. access and Highline Canal Trail realignment. The proposed parcels would be conveyed to the Colorado Dept. of Transportation. The Board concurred with the proposed conveyance on the provision that the City Attorney approves the agreement and the City Surveyor confirms the legal on the conveyance. Mr. Otis moved; Mr. Vobejda seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. To recommend Council approval of the rights-of-way conveyance for the C~470 McLellan Interchange subject to City Attorney and City Surveyor approval. Fullerton, Burns, Neumann, Otis, Vobejda, Wiggins None Habenicht, Higday The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be June 18, 1996, at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room A. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary A TT. 2 INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THIS AGREEMENT, is made the_ day of 19_, between the THE ENGLEWOOD GOLF COURSE ENTERPRISE FUND (hereinafter Golf Course Enterprise Fund) and THE ENGLEWOOD WATER DEPARTMENT (hereinafterWater Dept.). The City of Englewood, as part of the expansion of the Englewood Golf Course P.U.D. which is located within the City of Sheridan, Colorado, agreed to install storm drainage improvements to alleviate recurring flooding along South Clay Street in the City of Sheridan, Colorado . Because the construction of this Storm sewer involves property and improvements belonging to two Departments, the Englewood Golf Course Enterprise Fund and the Englewood Water Department agree as follows: As a condition of the Golf Course expansion, the Englewood Golf Course Enterprise Fund will build and maintain the storm sewer consistent with the plans attached as Exhibit A. The plan, as originally proposed, called for an entirely piped sewer to empty into the flood plain of the South Platter River. Because of the excessive cost of such a project, the plan has been modified to include an open ditch and storm sewer joining with the existing discharge pipe which belongs to the Englewood Water Department and empties directly into the South Platte River. The Englewood Water Department agrees to allow the Golf Course Enterprise Fund to use the discharge pipe at no fee and the Golf Course Enterprise Fund agrees to conduct routine cleaning and maintenance on the discharge pipe for the duration of its use of the pipe at no cost to the Englewood Water Department. The Golf Course Enterprise Fund agrees to remove its Storm Sewer from the Englewood Water Department's discharge pipe and relocate it upon one year's written notice from the Englewood Water Department and will bear all costs of such removal and relocation. ENGLEWOOD GOLF COURSE ENTERPRISE FUND Jerrell Black, Parks & Recreation Director ENGLEWOOD WATER DliP1TMENl / 4jj/ By : S;'~ "\'(:-/\_(. A._ Stu Fonda, Utilfties Director ATT. 3 MARCIA M. HUGHES, P.C. Attorney and Counselor At Law MEMORANDUM TO : Wild and Scenic Task Force FROM: Marcia M. Hughes DATE : May 14, 1996 RE : DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES I am enclosing a copy of a draft delegation letter I prepared at the request of Brooke Serrell Fox of Senator Brown's office. This appears to be as far as we can get the delegation to go at this time in supporting Alternative H and emphasizing the importance of protecting water rights . If any of you believe we could effectively ask for even more , please let me know your suggestions as soon as possible . I am also enclos ing a copy of a memo I just sent to the Congressional Delegation staffers with whom I am working. I have not included a copy of the May 13, 1996 water rights memo , as you should have that document already. If you do not, please call. Thanks again fo r your attention to this matter. MMH :sh Enclosures J90 Union Boulevard, Suile 415 Laluwood, Colorado 80228-1.556 (JOJ) 980-8668 FAX (JOJ) 980-9551 Ms . Elizabeth Estill Regional Forester US Forest Service 11177 W . 8th Ave. Lakewood, CO 80225 Dear Elizabeth and Rick: DRAFT May_, 1996 Mr. Rick Cables Forest Supervisor US Forest Service 1920 Valley Drive Pueblo, CO 81008 Members of the Colorado Congressional Delegation have previously contacted you regarding the potential des ignation of portions of the South Platte River above Denver as Wild and Scenic. The multiple uses this river serves are a vital component of the thriving Denver metropolitan area . We are concerned that the study move forward in an expeditious manner and that the study seriously consider the value of maintain ing and promoting the multiple uses on the river including water supply, the fishery and recreation . As you conduct your study , please remember how important the river is to the area and that your decision will have long term consequences . The future effect of significantly restricting the river should be a great concern. As we have emphasized, we hope that you will make efforts to min i mize existing concerns that the wild and scenic designation is being used as yet another attempt by the Forest Service to reallocate water supplies . A full analysis of potent ial impacts to water supply uses should be fully set forth in the EIS . One alternat ive identified by the Forest Service provides very interesting possibilities for meeting the multiple uses on the river. Alternat ive H, which would provide for increased ways to protect the values of the river without a designation , provides opportunit ies for respecting and incorporating local governments and other interested groups in the cont inued effort to protect the uses on the river without impos i ng the heavy hand of federal government which would come with several other alternat ives . We ask that you seriously explore Alternative H and give the public full opportunity to address th is creat ive approach which you have proposed . We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to working with you to resolve the issue. Please let us know at the earliest opportunity if there are any concerns regard ing these matters . Sincerely, MARCIAM. HUGHES, P.C. Attorney and Counselor At Law MEMORANDUM TO : Brooke Serrell Fox, James Doyle, Keith Johnson, Larry Hojo, Patrick O'Keefe, Mike Bennett and Dave Burkhardt FROM: Marcia M. Hughes M ~ DATE: May 14, 1996 RE: ALTERNATIVE H We were dismayed to learn yesterday from the Forest Service that they are actually considering dropping Alternative H as one of the choices in their Environmental Impact Statement review of a wild and scenic river designation! We were told that the reason for dropping it would be that Alternative H does not prohibit dams. This is a blatant disclosure that at least some in the Forest Service are looking at the wild and scenic process to prohibit dams on the South Platte . It also demonstrates the potential significant bias of this EIS process. The purpose of the process is to consider the balance of uses and whether or not restricting water development would be appropriate. If their mind is already made up, why are they conducting an EIS? · I am enclosing copies of letters that have just been sent to your offices . We are quite concerned with this turn of events and encourage you to move forward on a letter to the Forest Service before the May 31 deadline. If you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Thanks for your attention to this matter. MMH :sh Enclosures cc: Suburban Water Suppliers, Wild and Scenic Task Force 390 Union Boul evard, Suite 415 Lakewood , Colorado 80228-1556 (303) 980-8668 FAX (303) 980-9551 SUBURBAN WATER SUPPLIERS WILD AND SCENIC TASK FORCE Ms. Elizabeth Estill Regional Forester U.S. Forest Service 11177 W . 8th Ave . Lakewood , CO 80225 609 W. Littleton Boulevard , Suite 101 Littleton, Colorado 80120 (303) 347-0017 Telefax : (303) 347-0018 May 13, 1996 Mr. Rick Cables, Forest Service Forest Supervisor U.S. Forest Service 1920 Valley Drive Pueblo, CO 81008 Dear Ms . Estill and Mr. Cab les : As you know , the Suburban Water Suppliers have tremendous concern regarding the extreme impacts a wild and scen ic designation on either the mainstem of the South Platte or the North Fork would have on the ability to operate our water systems . The potential ways in which our water systems could be impacted if there is a designation are numerous as reflected by the attached memorandum prepared by our legal counsel. We are greatly concerned with these impacts which would have extreme financ ial and soc io-economic impacts in the metropolitan area. Furthermore , the impacts would reach far beyond this area as our residents must have water . If necessary, we will have to reach out further for water supply, thus impacting other parts of the state . We are deeply concerned that the Forest Service has not fully acknowledged to the public, or perhaps even made itself fully aware, of the extreme impacts a wild and scenic designation would have to the water supply resources for a large percentage of the c itizens of the State of Colorado. We ask that you carefully evaluate this concern , make the facts related to this matter available to us and the public so that meaningful and accurate comments can be made, and address this matter in detail in your Environmental Impact Statement. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 695-7378 or our legal counsel , Marcia Hughes at 980-8668. TF :sh Enclosure ~µ T~ Griswold Chairman cc : Colorado Congressional Delegation Suburban Water Suppliers SUBURBAN WATER SUPPLIERS WILD AND SCENIC TASK FORCE . Mr. Rick Cables Forest Supervisor U.S. Forest Service 1920 Valley Drive Pueblo, CO 81008 Re : Alternative H Dear Rick: 609 W. Littleton Boulevard, Suite 101 Littleton, Colorado 80120 (303) 347-0017 Telefax: (303) 347-0018 May 13, 1996 We have just learned from Steve Davis that the Forest Service is considering dropping Alternative H as one of the alternatives under consideration in the EIS on the wild and scenic river consideration. We are surprised and deeply disturbed that this could even be a consideration . From our review of the information the Forest Service has received, there is tremendous support for Alternative H. It would be completely inappropriate to drop it at th is point. The reason that we heard that Alternat ive H might be dropped is because it will not prohibit dams . That is certainly true. It is the reason why the Suburban Water _ Suppliers are supporting that alternative. An open minded process should fully consider the many ways in which the forest can be protected. Unqer Alternative H, there is still tremendous federal authority to protect the uses in the Pike National Forest along the mainstem of the South Platte and the North Fork. All of your other statutory authorities will be in place. Furthermore, Alternative H would allow the abi lity to implement the intent of your primary statute by promoting multiple use on the river. A wild and scenic consideration would fully block the water operations use of the river. Please ma intain Alternative Hand expand it so that we and the public can better comment on this important alternative. Mr. Rick Cables Page 2 May 13, 1996 Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 695-7378 or our legal counsel, Marcia Hughes at 980-8668. Very truly yours, 1664 Chairman TG:sh cc: Colorado Congressional Delegation Suburban Water Suppliers c \ \ \ , ~:s _ .-----;-;;;;~: :;NTGOMERY KAl'IEN A . TOMB RONALD L. WU.COX JOHN H . EVANS MARK J . WAGNER JEFFREY :M. HALL A."INE K. LAPORT A Hn.L & ROBBINS. P. c. A'I"I'ORNEYS AT LAW 100 BLAKE STREET BUILDING 1+41 EI~ STREET DE."l\IER, COLORADO 80202 •1256 May 13, 1996 r '\ ./ '-- CONFIDENTIAL f\ I I. 't TELEPHONE 303 296 ·8100 TELE COPIER 303 296 •2388 This doc:ument contains confi- dential information and its contents may not be publicly disclosed without written permission from the author. Van Schooneveld and Co., Inc. 6000 Greenwood Plaza Blvd. Suite 110 Greenwood Village , CO 80111 Dear Sirs: Re: Request for Information Concerning Littleton/Englewood Bi-City Wastewater Treatment Plant In accordance with the request of Mr. Frank Gryglewicz, Director of Finance for the city of Englewood, I am providing you with a description and evaluation of certain matters to which this law firm has devoted substantive attention on behalf of the Bi -City Wastewater Treatment Plant ("Bi-City Plant") in the form of legal consultation or representation. My response is effec- tive as of the date of this letter. We have been retained by the Cities of Littleton and Engle- wood ("Cities") to represent those entities with respect to their operation of the Bi-City Plant. Our representation and consulta- tion is limited to specific areas, which can be generally de- scribed as the operation and maintenance of the Bi-City Plant and related environmental issues. All work is performed in close coord i nation wi th the respective city attorneys for Littleton and Englewood. You have inquired about two classes of claims that you would like us to address. our remarks in both instances are limited to the specific area of representation for which we have been retained. CONFIDENTIAL May 13, 1996 Page 2 A. PENDING OR THREATENED LITIGATION 1. LOWRY LANDFILL SUPERFUND SITE a. The Nature of the Pending or Threatened Litigation The Bi-City Plant was identified as one of more than 200 potentially responsible parties ("PRPs"), liable in whole or in part under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-510) ("CERCLA"), as amended and commonly known as the Superfund Act, for the cleanup of the Lowry Landfill site. The Lowry Landfill site is located approx- imately 15 miles southeast of downtown Denver in Arapahoe County, Colorado and has been designated as a Superfund site on the National Priority List ("NPL"). The U.S. Environmental Protec- tidn Agency ("EPA") has estimated that approximately 138 million gallons of liquid industrial waste containing hazardous substanc- es were disposed of at the site between 1967 and 1980. Of that amount, EPA has estimated that the Bi-City Plant hauled approxi- mately 5,590,928 gallons of digested sewage sludge, or 4.04% of the total volume of waste disposed of at the site, to the Lowry Landfill site from mid-1977 to mid-1980. EPA contends that such sludge contained hazardous substances as defined in the Superfund Act. b. The Progress of the Matter to Date In March 1994, EPA issued a Record of Decision in which it proposed a site-wide remedy consisting largely of the installa- tion of barrier walls around the perimeters of the Lowry Landfill site, installation and operation of groundwater extraction systems, construction of new groundwater treatment facilities as necessary, installation of a gas collection and monitoring system along the perimeters of the Lowry Landfill site and continued monitoring of the site. The estimated present worth of the proposed remedy is $94 million. c. The Response Which Is Being Made or Will Be Made to the Matter and an Evaluation of the Likelihood of an Unfavorable Outcome and an Estimate of the Amount or Range of Potential Loss Following numerous months of negotiation, the Cities of Littleton and Englewood finalized separate settlement agreements with Chemical waste Management, Inc. and Waste Management of Colorado, Inc. (referred to collectively as "Waste Management") and the City and County of Denver in March 1994 whereby the CONFIDENTIAL May 13, 1996 Page 3 Cities agreed to pay a total of approximately $1.9 million to resolve all liability asserted against the Bi-City Plant relating to the Lowry Landfill site. The potential liability for the Cities had been estimated to range from $3.2 million to more than $10 million, based on previously existing estimates of remedia- tion costs for the Lowry Landfill site, which had ranged from $150 million to $500 million within the last three years. The settlement does not resolve Englewood's liability to EPA or the State of Colorado. However, under the terms of the settlement agreement, Waste Management has agreed to indemnify the Cities of Littleton and Englewood against any further losses or potential losses associated with any additional liability that may arise from the Lowry Landfill site, including liability to EPA or the State of Colorado, for covered claims as set forth below. THE INDEMNIFICATION PROVIDED TO THE CITIES OF LITTLETON ANO ENGLEWOOD IS CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE DISCLOSED TO THIRD PARTIES OTHER THAN FOR BANKING OR INTERNAL FINANCIAL PURPOSES. Liability may be reopened at the site with respect to the Cities of Littleton and Englewood if and when covered costs at the site exceed $319 million in 1992 dollars, as determined by the Producer Price Index for Industrial Commodities of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Covered costs include: 1. costs incurred at the site which are costs of response or costs of removal or remedial action as ref erred to in section 107(a) of CERCLA and which are not inconsistent with the national contingency plan under CERCLA; 2. any legal fees or costs directly related to securing title or enforcing contracts relating to the purchase, construc- tion and/or operation of land, equipment or facilities in connection with removal, remedial or other actions to investi- gate, prevent, contain, or clean up contamination at the site; 3. reasonable costs up to $10 million incurred in the purchase of access or land for the purpose of imposing long-term land and/or water use control so as to maximize interference with or maximize effectiveness of remedial measures undertaken at the site; 4. reasonable transaction costs (including legal and consulting fees) which are related to addressing efforts by the United States or the State of Colorado to select or modify the response action or which are related to defending the selected response action; CONFIDENTIAL May 13, 1996 Page 4 5. reasonable costs incurred in connection with activities necessary to comply with any government administrative or judicial order pertaining to the release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant; 6. administrative costs and investment fees incurred in connection with amounts paid in settlement and/or the adminis- tration of agreements relating to the Site, including, but not limited to, settlement and indemnification agreements; and 7. any costs voluntarily approved by the Cities of Littleton and Englewood. The term "covered costs" excludes natural resource damages under Section 107(a) (e) and (f) of CERCLA. ~ As indicated above, EPA estimates that the cost of remedia- tion, as currently proposed, will be $94 million. If covered costs exceed $319 million in 1992 dollars, the City of Englewood will be responsible for .3653% of total covered costs in excess of that amount. An evaluation cannot be made at this time as to the likelihood that covered costs will exceed $319 million or the likelihood that EPA or the State of Colorado will assert claims for natural resource damages against the City of Englewood or the potential amount of those claims. 2. EXCEEDANCE OF DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS a. The Nature of the Pending or Threatened Litigation On or about February a, 1994, the city Managers of Littleton and Englewood were notified by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division of six alleged exceedances of discharge limitations contained in the discharge permit issued to the Littleton and Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant. Pursuant to statute, the maximum penalty that may be assessed is $10,000.00 per violation or a total of $60,000.00. Under the Colorado Water Quality Control Division's civil penalty assessment policy, the amount of the penalty that is ultimately assessed can be reduced by as much as 50% if the discharger presents evidence to the Division showing that the exceedances resulted in little or no injury to beneficial uses of the river. In addition, an actual financial penalty can be avoided if the discharger undertakes environmental projects benefitting the environment as a whole. CONFIDENTIAL May 13, 1996 Page 5 b. The Progress of the Matter to Date, the Response Which Is Being Made or Will Be Made to the Matter, an Evaluation of the Likeli- hood of an Unfavorable Outcome and an Esti- mate of the Amount or Range of Potential Loss The staff and consultants of the Wastewater Treatment Plant developed evidence regarding the potential injury to beneficial uses of the river which showed that the exceedances resulted in little or no injury to beneficial uses of the river. This reduced the potential fine by half. In addition, a proposed settlement agreement has been negotiated by the Cities of Englewood and Littleton and the staff of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division, pursuant to which special environmental projects would be supported or performed by the two Cities and the cash amount of any penalty would be reduced to zero. The proposed settlement agreement is currently awaiting signature by the Director of the Colorado Department of Health and Environ- ment. B. UNASSERTED CLAIMS OR ASSESSMENTS I am unfamiliar with the applicable requirements of "State- ment of Financial Accounting Standard No. 5." Other than the foregoing matters, I am unaware of any additional unasserted claims or assessments that might be brought against the Bi-City Plant. In so stating, my response is limited to the scope of my knowledge in our contract capacity to the Bi-City Plant. We will continue our practice of promptly informing the Plant staff, Supervisory Committee and City attorneys of any matter which we believe will adversely affect the Bi-City Plant. Our statement for December 1995 to the Bi-City Plant, of which Englewood is half-owner, was $349.05. The amount due as of most current billing date, March 31, 1996, is $1,294.38. I hope this information DWR:ncr cc: Frank Gryglewicz Stewart Fonda Dan Brotzman Larry Berkowitz (5-232) purposes. South Metro Bureau -892~2872 Among other things, Brian Abrams scored a perfect 800on his math SATs and speaks four Ian-- guages other than English.· Hal Stoelzl e/ Roc ky Mounta in -News has been accepted at Har-"He'd never used the chalk- versity this fall , although board ," Abrams said. Instead, he not yet decided what took students on field trips and e will pursue. studied real-life examples such as :i.t to pursue something the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska r one hand stimulating and and the Yellowstone fire-s. -· · se of my language skills . Despite his academic achieve- ething that gives back to ments, Abrams said he hasn't kept :nunity," he said . Making his nose buried in his books all the · 1long the· way wouldn't . time. He also plays tennis and er, "but that's not the be-rugby and worked on the scbool ld-all." newspaper. He founded The High-- rs also were asked to name -Wire, a news service for _ high r who had an especially -school journalists_ on the Internet impact on them. Abrams "I've strived to maintain a bal- s fifth-and sixth-grade sci--ance," he said. -"Yem can't get cher at Graland Country through high school without hav- 101,Jack McKenna . ing a good time." ATT. S Highlands Ranch, C-4 70 to link up . Fourth interchange will relieve traffic flow on crowded Broadway By Shelley Gonzales Rocky Mountain News Staff Writer DOUGLAS COUNTY -. The last of four interchanges linking C-4 70 to Highlands Ranch is slated to break ground in November. _ · The McLellan project, named for McLellan Reservoir that fonns its northern border, will be midway between South Santa Fe Drive and " ~ HIGHLANDS 0 RANCH ~ ~BOULEVARD ffi 1.WJTH / (/) INTERCHANGE ·. ~ut\ Roc ky Moun ta in News Broadway and is intended to relieve · The McClel- traffic on Broadway as the develop-INSIDE 1 · h nient in northwestern portion · of an mterc ange the bustling planned community •Train over-was planned in Pl.cks up.· pass to be builf the original C- in fall/47A 470 d · b . t Using a "full-diamond" design, es1gn u the interchange will connect Coun-was never built, ty Line Road with the soon-to-be-Case· said. The other Highlands built Highlands Ranch Boulevard. Ranch exits are at Broadway, Uni- The boulevard then will meet with versity Boulevard and Quebec Highlands Ranch Parkway and loop Street. . . . . ~ diagonally south back to Broadway. . ' The metro distnct likely will be j The area off the highway exit will be able to take a~vantage of th~ low . zoned mixed commercial and could water levels -m the ~eservorr to -J include business offices as well as make progress ne}l.1 wmter on the ? retailers. in~erchang~'s construction,. which r The interchange is scheduled to will run _sunultaneously WJ~ the ! be completed in November 1997. · nearby fa!lroad overpass project on · 1 "We see this as an important . Coun~ Lme. . t component to the entire transpor-I~ is one of many construct1~n J tation plan in northwestern High-projects under ~ay or planned m -~ lands Ranch," said Jeff Case, as-northwestern H1ghlan~s .Ranch. . sistant general manager of the -.A.town square and CIVIC center ts · Highlands Ranch Metropolitan .Dis-still m_the conceptual stage! but con- tricts, which is funding the project.. s~ction of a Safeway s~p center He said studies show that with-. on its southeastern peruneter has out the interchange, the already been rais~g dust all spring at Broad- dogged Broadway exit would be-way and Highlands Ranch Parkway. come a traffic nightmare. Just southwest of Broadway and The project will cost $9 million. C-470, the area's first hotel is being The metropolitan district, which built -a Residence Inn catering to -_ . builds and maintains roadways in business people or consultants - Highlallds Ranch, gets its money , working here on temporary con- from fees paid by residents there. tracts. · MEMORIAL DAY SALE! ity Name Brands It-Harris -Tarkett Mon.·Sat. 10-6 ·sun. 11-5 Open ti) 8 Thur.-Fri. Pubishilg on Sunday, June 30 For advertising info call 892-5162 D __ 1_ __ '"' ___ • ~--1'.T ___ _ City of Englewood 3400 South Elat i St. Englewood ~ Co. 80110 Attn: Mayor Tom Burns Dear Mayor Burns : ATT. ~ May 24.1996 I own a home at 3012 S. Grant St., which was built over "The Englewood Ditch ." Repair of The Ditch could have created many conflicts between Englewood , Denver and me. Several months ago , I became involved in legal matters with Englewood and Denver regarding repair of this vital water link and subsequent financial responsibilities . As an average citizen and homeowner , I could have been overwhelmed by the financial and legal ramifications of''The Ditch " repair . I am writing this letter to thank one particular Englewood employee named Bill McCormick. Mr. McCormick is Superintendant of Operations /U tilities. This employee not only walked me through the legal process , but he also kept the best interests of both the City and myself in perspective durin g the man y months of construction proceedings . Ma yor Burns. please thank Mr. Bill McCormick for me. He is a tremendous asset to the City of Englewood . Mr. McCormick is a pleasure to work with and he gets the job done~ Sincerel y, !/)!}: 0r v:u;;f-5 Carol Jacobs I 3012 S. Grant St. Engle wood. Colo . 80 110 MEMORANDUM TO: Stewart Fonda FROM: Joe Tom Wood, P.E~ SUBJECT: Golden Complaint -Other Expansions of Water Rights -Addendum DATE: July 31, 1996 INTRODUCTION This memo provides information on one additional transfer by Colorado Springs, and on Evergreen's two transfers in the 1960's. Colorado Sprin2s Case CA CNo Number) Historic Use In 1933 Colorado Springs sought to transfer 5 cfs of the Eder Ditch and 1.10 cfs of the Whipple Ditch to its South Catamount Creek point of diversion. The court allowed Colorado Springs to transfer 3.28 cfs of the Eder Ditch and 0.72 cfs of the Whipple Ditch, abandoning the remainders. Although we did perform some historic use analyses for the Eder Ditch, we did not do so for the Whipple Ditch, and do not, therefore, report any comprehensive quantification of historic use of both of the ditches. Municipal Use In 1994 Colorado Springs diverted 294 acre-feet off of these rights during the winter (November through March). This may constitute a temporal expansion of use over the pre- transfer use for irrigation purposes. However, in the decree approving these two transfers, there are provisions that require Colorado Springs to control its diversions so as to leave stated amounts of water in the creek during the June 15-to-September 15 period of each calendar year for the benefit of an objector. The decree also requires the City to leave a different amount of water for said objector "during the remaining portions of each said calendar year." This provision seems to sanction the year-round use of the water by Colorado Springs. 1 "' . Evemeen Historic Use In 1961 the Court approved the transfer of Evergreen's predecessor's Simonton Ditch water rights to Evergreen for municipal purposes in Case No. B-40945. In Case No. B-92455 in 1967 the Court approved Evergreen's predecessor's transfer of its Hodgson Ditch rights to Evergreen for municipal purposes. After abandonments were considered, the transfer allowed Evergreen to divert 6 cfs of its very senior (priority No. 2 on Bear Creek) Simonton Ditch rights and 3 cfs of the very senior (priority No. 3) Hodgson Ditch water right. Using information on historically irrigated areas from the two decrees and on other information from Larry Dirks' engineering reports on Denver's pending changes for the two transfer ditches, as well as for Evergreen's abandoned Pioneer Union Ditch, the following table indicates that the total historic diversions for all of the transferred water rights were 1,059 acre-feet with a resulting consumptive use of not more than 516 acre-feet per year. Transferred Priorities Historic Use Water Year 1993 Evergreen Municipal Use Avg April-Oct Nov-March Annual Case Amount Div Avg CU Div cu Div cu Div cu Ditch No. Date CFS Date Af/Yr Af/Yr Af/Yr Af/Yr Af/Yr Af/Yr Af/Yr Af/Yr Simonton B-40945 1961 6.00 12/25/1860 570 282 or less Hodgson B-92455 1967 3 .00 1861 & 200 99 1862 or less Pioneer B-92455 1967 0 .00 1861, 1862, 289 135 Union Totals 1865 or less 9 .00 1,059 516 l,139 363 413 20 1,552 or less Municipal Use In addition to Evergreen Metro District's diversions of water under the transferred rights for direct municipal purposes, the Water Commissioner considers that diversions from Evergreen Lake for Denver's Municipal Golf Course at Evergreen are also made under the transferred water rights. Further, the Water Commissioner's recent accounting and treatment of the transferred rights includes Hiwan Golf Course's diversions off of Troublesome Gulch for Hiwan Golf Course irrigation, even though Hiwan's points of diversions are clearly not included or sanctioned in the two transfer decrees. Totaling all of these diversions for the year 1993, one arrives at a recent municipal use of approximately 1,550 acre-feet of diversions from the transferred rights, with the resulting consumptive use of less than 400 2 383 acre-feet. Thus, there does not appear to have been an expansion in terms of historic consumptive use to this point, but municipal diversions clearly exceed historic diversions by approximately 500 acre-feet per year. In addition, Evergreen, of course, diverts water under the transferred rights all year round. Evergreen's November-to-March diversions for water year 1993 total 483 acre-feet. It is quite clear to me, however, that both transfer decrees specifically authorize winter diversions under the transferred water rights. This more or less amounts to a question of which holds: the express terms of a decree or the implied limitations of period of diversion taken from the Supreme Court's O" decision. cc: Mr. David Hill 3 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date Agenda Item September 3, 1996 Subject Memo of Understanding for the Transfer of Land for the S. Windermere Street Improvements INITIATED BY Utilities Department STAFF SOURCE Stewart H . Fonda, Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION None. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Water and Sewer Board, at their June 18, 1996 meeting, recommended Council approval of the Memorandum of Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) for the Windermere/Belleview North Improvements. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED lvf ts As part of the Santa Fe Improvement Project, lJn1en Ave. and Quincy Ave. were closed. Windermere is in the process of being converted to a truck route, which will run from Belleview north to Oxford Ave. COOT is in the process of rebuilding Windermere since in its current condition is not constructed to carry heavy truck traffic. It will be necessary to widen and raise the grade on Windermere, and in the process, a new bridge will be built over Big Dry Creek. The easement for the storm sewer will drain runoff from the intersection of Windermere and Layton. The proposed construction will raise the west driveway at the Allen Filter Plant. The Memorandum of Agreement is comprised of the following: TE-412, TE-411A and TE-411 are temporary easements for construction. (64,313 sq. ft.) PE-412 and PE-411 are permanent easements for storm sewer construction maintenance. (705 sq. ft.) Parcels 412 and 411 will involve a fee simple transfer of land for permanent street rights-of-way. (11 ,585 sq. ft.) Final easement documents will be submitted for final reading. FINANCIAL IMPACT An appraisal was made in accordance with applicable state laws and requirements, and Fair Market Value was determined to be $36,310.00 .. This is the amount being offered by COOT as total compensation for all interest in said parcels and includes damages, if any. The funds received ($36 ,310 .00) will be payable to the Englewood Water Enterprise Fund . LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Ordinance Memorandum of Agreement. MEMORANDUM TO: John Bock, Utilities, Mana~f Administration Dan Brotzman, City Atto~eq ~ · August 6, 1996 If FROM: DATE: REGARDING: Colorado Wat Conversation Board Easement. The contract is legally acceptable but there may be several practical problems: • Under paragraph 7 -90 days may not be sufficient time to move a raw water line. • Under paragraph 10 -General liability insurance will have to be purchased or CIRSA may be inserted as an acceptable form of loss prevention . • You will need to attach the exhibits identified in the easement. Attacrunent DB/nf ~'{~ Pnntea on Rt~~vc !ed Paoer -'~ Recorded at ______ o'clock .M. '---------------------------- Reception No.-----------------------------------~Recorder. EASEMENT THIS EASEMENT is made and entered into, pursuant to Section 24-82-201 et ~. C.R.S. (Supp. 1995), on this ~~ day of 1996, by and between the STATE OF COLORADO for the use and benefit of the COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD ("Granter") and the City of Englewood, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, ("Grantee"), whose address is 3400 S. Elati Street, Englewood, Colorado 80110 . WHEREAS, the Gran tor is an agency of the State of Colorado created and controlled by Title 37, Article 60, C.R.S. (1989), which functions for the welfare and benefit of the State of Colorado and its inhabitants; and WHEREAS, the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") has constructed improvements to the flow of water in the channel of the South Platte River ("River") in Arapahoe County, State of Colorado, with said improvements known as the South Platte River Channelization Project ("Channelization Project"); and WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the Channelization Project is to provide drainage, flood control and water flow regulation; and WHEREAS, the Corps and the Granter entered into two agreements which give the Granter the responsibility of acquiring land, easements, and rights-of-way for the Channelization Project and the duty of maintaining and operating the Channelization Project; and WHEREAS, the Granter has acquired certain fee title interests, rights-of-way, and easements within the Channelization Project right-of-way for the purposes of constructing and maintaining the Channelization Project; and WHEREAS, the Grantee wishes to acquire and the Granter is willing to grant an easement for the construction, operation and maintenance of a raw water line on the Grantor's property within the Channelization Project. WITNESSETH: That for and in consideration of the general public interest and benefit which will accrue from the Grantee 's development of the easement granted herein, the payment of the sum of Dollars ($ ) paid to the Granter by the Grantee, and the keeping and performance of the covenants and agreements hereinafter expressed, the Granter grants, conveys, transfers and delivers to the Grantee, subject to the conditions set forth below, a nonexclusive easement for the sole purpose of using the land covered by said easement for constructing, operating and maintaining a raw water line, hereinafter referred to as the Project, upon, over, across, below and through that portion of land owned by the Granter as part of the South Platte Channelization Project (hereinafter "Channelization Project "), situated in the City of Englewood County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, which is more fully described and shown in the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein (hereinafter "Property"). In no event shall the Easement exceed 20' in width, and its length shall be the minimum necessary for the proper construction, operation and maintenance of the raw water line from Union Avenue to Oxford Avenue, a length of approximately one mile. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, subject to any existing or recorded easements and rights-of- way, for the purpose of utilizing such Easement for the sole purpose of ownership, construction, operation and maintenance of the Project for the primary term of twenty ·o) years, commencing on the day of 1996, and ending on the ay of 2016 . At the option of the Grantee, and if approved by the ranter, this Easement may be renewed for successive terms provided that: (1) Grantee as complied with all the terms and conditions set forth herein, (2) Grantee delivers ··2j Page 1 of 5 written notice to Granter of Grantee's intention to exercise such option at least 180 calendar days prior to the last day of each of said terms, and (3) payment in full of the consideration for the whole next ensuing term accompanies the said written notice to renew. Grantee's consideration for each renewal of this Easement shall be the sum set forth above as consideration for this Easement, adjusted for inflation. The parties agree that this Easement is subject to the following conditions: 1. The Granter grants this Easement upon the express condition that the estate herein granted shall endure only so long as the Grantee utilizes the Easement for the sole purpose of construction, operation and maintenance of the Project in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted by the Grantee to the Granter, which have been signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Colorado and are attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein. In the event that the Grantee uses this Easement for any purpose other than the specific uses identified herein, then all of the Grantee's right, title and interest in and to the above described Easement shall become null and void, and the Property shall absolutely revert to and revest in the Granter as fully and completely as if this instrument had not been executed, without the necessity for suit or re- entry; and no act or omission on the part of any beneficiary of this clause shall be a waiver of the operation or enforcement of such clause. 2. This Easement shall include the right of the Grantee to enter onto the Grantor's property for the sole purpose of constructing and/or maintaining the Project. Provided however, that upon the non-renewal, abandonment or termination of any of the Grantee's rights or privileges under this Easement, the Grantee's rights to that extent shall terminate. However, the Grantee's obligations to indemnify and hold harmless the Granter, as more fully set forth below, shall not be terminated. 3. The Granter and the Grantee expressly covenant and agree that the terms and conditions of the Easement granted herein shall be in compliance with and subordinate to the terms of the September 7, 1977 and January 29, 1980 Agreements ("Agreements") between the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps"), incorporated herein by this reference. This covenant and agreement include but are not limited to the maintenance and operational requirements on the Granter and its designees under those Agreements and the necessity for the Granter and its designees to have unlimited access to the lands covered by this Easement to perform all necessary activities. The Grantee shall cooperate with the Granter and its designees in the performance of its maintenance and operational requirements . Violation of this provision may be grounds for the Granter to immediately terminate this Easement. 4. During the term of this Easement, the Granter shall have the right to dispose of the subject land or to use the same for other purposes subject to the rights and privileges herein granted to the Grantee. This Easement shall be nonexclusive and subject to any prior easements granted by the Granter to third parties, and to all prior easements of record whether granted by Granter or a previous owner. The Grantee expressly agrees to subordinate this Easement to all prior easements within the Project granted by the Granter. The Granter reserves the right to grant additional easements to third parties, provided that said easements do not materially interfere with the Easement granted herein. The Grantee agrees to share this Easement, provided that the additional easements do not materially interfere with the purposes for which the instant grant is made. 5. The Grantee expressly covenants and agrees that, in the event of termination of this Easement, in the event that the Grantee elects not to renew this Easement or no longer needs or desires this Easement, the Granter, at its sole discretion, may require the removal, at the Grantee's sole expense, of all appurtenances from the property subject to this Easement, and may require the Grantee to restore the property subject to this Easement, as nearly as possible, to the condition of the property existing as of the date of the execution of this agreement, all to the Page 2 of 5 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Grantor's sole satisfaction. The Granter shall determine in its sole discretion whether the proposed restoration complies with this paragraph. The Grantee agrees that all excavations or other temporary removal of soil as required for the proper construction and/or maintenance of the Project shall be properly replaced, and that the Easement shall be, as nearly as possible, restored and maintained in its original configuration and with similar vegetation. The Grantee shall also insure that the Property is left in a configuration satisfactory to and in compliance with the Channelization Project design plans and specifications prepared by the Corps. The Grantee shall be responsible at all times for the immediate repair or reimbursement for any damage to the Property due to the Grantee's use of the Easement. Routes of ingress and egress for construction and/or maintenance of the Project shall be limited to the minimum necessary locations, and all work areas created by the Grantee on the Grantor's property for construction and/or maintenance purposes must be obliterated, protected against erosion, and restored to the former condition of the Property, as nearly as possible. The Granter shall determine, in its sole discretion, whether the Grantee's restoration complies with this paragraph. In the event the Grantee fails to perform the restorative or revegetative work required by this paragraph to the sole satisfaction of the Granter, and after thirty (30) days prior written notice specifying with particularity the failure and indicating the remedial steps needed to cure same, the Granter shall be allowed to perform said work and the Grantee shall pay within thirty (30) days all direct and indirect costs incurred by the Granter for restorative or revegetative work including, but not limited to, regrading, filling, revegetation, erosion control, and replacing of soil. The Grantee understands and agrees that so long as the Grantor is the owner of the underlying fee interest to the subject property, the Grantor may, in its sole discretion, require the Grantee to relocate a portion or portions of the Grantee's raw water line by giving the Grantee at least ninety (90) days prior written notice of such requirement. All relocation costs shall be paid by the Grantee. In the event the Grantee fails to relocate within ninety (90) days, the Grantor shall be allowed to perform such work and the Grantee shall pay to the Grantor, within thirty (30) days of submission of costs by the Grantor, all direct and indirect costs for the same. The Grantee understands and agrees that its facilities are subject to damage and total loss without liability accruing to the Granter as a result of flooding, as the result of the maintenance and operation of the Channelization Project, or as a result of emergency or repair operations to and in the Channetization Proj ~ by the Granter, the Grantor's designees, or the Corps. ~~, .....__ , The Grantee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless~the Granter against a 1 liability and loss, and against all claims and actions based upon or arising out of damage or injury to persons or property, caused by any acts or omissions of the Grantee, its successors, assigns, agents or contractors. Throughout the term of this Easement, including but not limited to any renewal term, the Grantee shall maintain continual commercial general liability insurance !vering its use of the Easement. Said insurance shall name the Granter as an . ' ditional insured. A copy of the current certificate (s) of insurance and u) ·~·AC ditional insured endorsement(s) shall be attached to this Easement as Exhibit o/t'" C and incorporated herein. Notices of renewal of this insurance shall be provided to the Granter on an annual basis. Said policy shall provide coverage ... /\ in the amounts established by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (Article 10, o.::r Title 24, lOA C.R.S. (1988)), both now and as hereafter amended . .;;r-11. In the event that the Grantee contracts for any work to be performed on the properties, the Grantee shall require its contractors and subcontractors, except the Corps, to indemnify, save and hold harmless the Granter, its employees and agents, and the Corps from any and all claims, damages, and liabilities Page 3 of 5 whatsoever for injury or death to persons or damage to property arising from the contractors' and/or subcontractors' actions or inactions. All contractors and subcontractors shall abide by and follow the provisions of this Easement. 12. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Grantee to obtain all necessary and applicable local, state and federal approvals and permits for the purposes set forth herein. The Grantee shall comply with all reasonable rules, regulations and policies authoritatively promulgated pertaining to the use of the Easement lands, including, but not limited to, local, state and federal flood plain regulations. Noncompliance by the Grantee with any such permit, rule, regulation or policy may be grounds for the Granter to immediately terminate this Easement. 13. The Grantee understands and agrees that the Granter makes no representations concerning ownership of nor warrants title to any of the property underlying the Easement. To the extent that this grant of Easement may encroach on lands not owned or controlled by the Granter, the Grantee assumes all responsibility for any such encroachment. 14. The Grantee shall be responsible for recording this Agreement with the Clerk and Recorder's Office of Arapahoe County, Colorado and shall provide a conformed copy of the recorded agreement to the Granter. 15. All of the provisions of this Easement shall be binding upon all the parties hereto and their successors, assigns, agents and contractors. 16. The signatories to this Easement aver that, to their knowledge, no State employee has any personal or beneficial interest whatsoever in the property described herein. 1 7. This Easement shall not be deemed valid unless and until approved by the officials and officers of the State of Colorado as required by Section 24-82-202, C.R.S. (1995 Supp.) and by the Controller of the State of Colorado, or such assistants as they may designate. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this instrument on the date first above written. GRANTEE: City of Englewood GRANTOR: STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor By~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ For the Executive Director DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Colorado Water Conservation Board Daries C. Lile, P.E., Director ATTEST: Page 4 of 5 STATE OF COLORADO SS. COUNTY OF DENVER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of --------1996, by Daries C. Lile, as Director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, on behalf of the State of Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires Notary Public STATE OF COLORADO SS. COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ________ 1996, by , as ___________ of the City of Englewood. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires APPROVED: STATE OF COLORADO Gale A. Norton, Attorney General APPROVED: Division of Purchasing Notary Public APPROVED: Department of Personnel State Buildings Programs By-----,..----------------Execu ti ve Director APPROVED: Division of Accounts and Control Clifford Hall, State Controller Page 5 of 5