Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-08-13 WSB AGENDA1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7 . 8. AGENDA ENGLEWOOD WATER AND SEWER BOARD AUGUST 13, 1996 s:oo p.m. ** CONFERENCE ROOM A ** MINUTES OF THE JUNE 18, 1996 WATER & SEWER BOARD. {ATT. 1) GUEST: BILL DAVIS -REQUEST FOR WATER MAIN AT 2200 W. EVANS. {ATT. 2) GUEST: STEVEN HEITZ -DRURY INN. {ATT. 3) GUEST: DAVID HILL -GOLDEN CASE. COUNTY LANDFILL -AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENTS .. {ATT. 4) LETTER FROM DAVID HILL DATED 7-8-96 RE: THORNTON. {ATT. 5) INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: A. LETTER TO BEN NEUMAN DATED 7-10-96 FROM RANDY PIERCE. {ATT. 6) B. MEMO FROM DELL MONTGOMERY DATED 7-24-96. {ATT. 7) C. ARTICLE FROM TIME MAGAZINE DATED 6-10-96 "DO WATER FILTERS WORK?" {ATT. 8) D. STATUS REPORT -WILD & SCENIC TASK FORCE {ATT. 9) WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES JUNE 18, 1996 ATT. I The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. Ms. Neumann declared a quorum present. Members present: Members absent; Also present: Neumann, Otis, Wiggins Habenicht, Fullerton, Burns, Higday, Vobejda Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities 1) MINUTES OF THE MAY 9, 1995 MEETING. The Englewood Water and Sewer Board Minutes from the May 21, 1996 meeting were approved as written. Mr. Otis moved; Mr. Wiggins seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. 2) BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS. To approve the May 21, 1996 Englewood Water and Sewer Board Minutes. Neumann, Otis, Wiggins None. Habenicht, Fullerton, Burns, Higday, Vobejda Mr. Brown and Mr. Horton appeared before the Board to request a water tap for the property they are leasing at W. Oxford and s. Platte River Dr. They requested a 3/4 " water tap for dust control at their asphalt plant, located on seven acres. Bi tuminous Roadways would pay for the tap and installation costs. Stu reviewed the existing policy of not issuing new water taps to outside City areas. Mr. Brown inquired as to the possibility of a revocable water tap. The Board requested Stu to obtain a legal opinion of the feasibility of a revocable water tap and discuss it at a future meeting. 3) MEMO OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE GOLF COURSE ENTERPRISE FUND AND THE ENGLEWOOD WATER DEPT. Stu discussed an Interdepartmental Memorandum of Understanding between the Englewood Golf Course and the Water Department. The memo is an agreement for the Englewood Golf Course to install storm drainage improvements to alleviate flooding along s. Clay st. in the City of Sheridan. Because the storm sewer construction involves property and improvements belonging to two City departments, a Memo of Understanding is necessary. Ms. Neumann moved; Mr. Otis seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. To approve the Interdepartmental Memorandum of Understanding to install storm drainage. Neumann, Otis, Wiggins None. Habenicht, Fullerton, Burns, Higday, Vobejda 4) WILD & SCENIC TASK FORCE. Stu distributed a memo from Marcia Hughes, the attorney for the Wild and Scenic Task Force, updating the Board on the progress of the project. Ms. Hughes noted that the Forest Service is considering dropping Alternative H as one of the choices in their Environmental Statement. Ms Hughes was informed that the reason for dropping it would be that Alternative H does not prohibit dams. 5) LETTER DATED MAY 13, 1996 FROM DAVID ROBBINS. The Board received a letter from David Robbins for their information discussing the Lowry Landfill Superfund Site resolution. 6) • ARTICLE FROM ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS -"HIGHLANDS RANCH , C-470 TO LINK UP." The Board received a copy of the article discussing the proposed C-470 Interchange near McLellan Reservoir for their information. Englewood's approval of the C-470 Interchange will be going before City council for first reading on July 15, 1996. 7) LETTER FROM CAROL JACOBS. The Board received a copy of a letter from Carol Jacobs to Mayor Burns complimenting Bill McCormick for his assistance in repairing the City Ditch next to her house. Mayor Tom Burns entered at 5:25 p.m. Since a quorum was unavailable earlier, Stu reviewed earlier discussion. Mayor Burns voted "aye" on the Minutes of the May 21, 1996 meeting and "aye" on the Interdepartmental Memo of Understanding. Meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m. The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be ~ 1996, 1995 at 5:00 p.m. in Conference Room A. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary D ·-·-·-·-·-···-·....-. ..... -~ I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -I -·I -I 36" DENVER MAIN - E 1--- r--+r-:--::--::-.-iillm..-~..,~--.--:::-:i:-:---::h--±---=-r~-t-;--:-:-±1 loj , I -6 1,20 ( I I I I '-::( I~ Ill 0\ C\J . : 2Z~O I I • I ....... -.... I I I I 01,5 I 1 I I I ~1 1 1 ~03 !'.' ~ ID C7I N 026 -~ ~N "'C 0 0 .... . I EVANS PARK :ESTATES ~1 ._, C\J-0.:-J---S-,9-1 -IP_.;_'.,;_~--_._-~_C'>_.____ 141210 t-.~~d'=~~.,-I ---I i t ! ..... 5_6._3_2-...., ...... , ~ -I{) 60J.'7 .I · B 2324 . i (.... j B.!9!-:i F'L; 87 _8 191 I P208 . C\I .-.J P.714 I ?. 43 i I 60 19 ; I 8 1 · 11 .. 16 I ... 15 60 14 ,__6...,.0_1_2....;---11~ il! 1 I •· : i I tr 1 ,,,~ 031 _, 0 38 =' i !~002 -: i f I w I 60 I 60. ~ ! i 1' ~ 5\ I i E ~ t-I I ~ 11 l ~L .a.1: I:~ 01 ! .o 0>t-gj I ... .... 0 ,,,, ! I .. , I "'O'l' I ,,, I 1()5 [;J • 1-:r ,.;o-=.-;i•! 1 0'2'2 0 = ·0"-4 Cll 1 035 •-""' I ' 111.0"' --':..11' ..>-.J ~ .., +f NI()"' ~I I l: Cl') 6 0 1 I I ... i "': I ~I I ii ~~,9,s iz~f!! ~~~7 I 2~;1: I 2331 i 036 v 0 24 037 025 009 ~ 039 C\J __: r-r-C\J C\J =I I AT'T. 2 JJ--.-J-·-··--·· I 14 .... I 5;c· I I 75 . I 25 ! 26127 26;291 . ! l I ~~ MeTaA 1002 z•duT : OT-35 .. I z.s'-ZJ~S '5 I " 2..75 I . , .. 08 1 02 1 96 14:31 'rt314 429 3679 DRURY INNS INC Drury Inns. Inc. 10801 Pl!ar T~ Lan"· St. Ann , MO 63074 (3141429-2255 FAX (314)429-3679 August 2 . 1996 VIA TELEFAX AND FEPERAL EXPRESS City of Englewood Water and Sewer Board City of Englewood 3400 South Elati Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Re: Drury Inn Hotel Devdopmenu'Northwest Comer ofl-25 and Dry Creek Road Dear Boari;i Members: Attached is a site plan of our proposed development at the above-referenced property, a rendering of our prototype hotel that we would construct on lhe property and a corporate brochure of Drury Inns. Inc. Drury Inns, Inc. has owned, developed and managed hotels since 1962. We currently operate over 75 hotels, 55 of which arc Dnny Inn hotels. We do not franchise. We own all of our hotels . When we develop and operate a hotel, we intend to be in the market as a long term resident. . Our hotels are "limited service" hotels . They are lirnired service because we do not operate a restaurant or other convention style facilities in the hotel. In addition, our rooms are equipped with a shower and sink with no kitchen facilities except a coffee maker. We intend to construct this hotel with 144 guest rooms. The hotel will also have an indoor/outdoor pool. In addition, we will have irri~alion needs for our landscaping in and around the building. We do not know the extent of the landscaping at this time as we are just beginning the preliminary development plan process with Arapahoe County . The Southgate Water and Sanitation District has given us preliminary approval of a 2 inch tap for this location . ATI. 3 Based upon Ordinance No. 48 of the City of Englewood, we understand that the tap fees for apartments, hotels and motels(whethcr fuJl service or otherwise) and mobile home parks are all calculated using the same rate, i.e. $1,400.00 per dwelling unit. Based upon the 144 rooms we intend to build our tap fee would be $201,600.00. However. we will not require the amount of water typically used in an apartment complex., mobile home court or full service hotel, and therefore, do . not believe the $1 ,400.00 per dwelling unit t3p fee is warranted in our situation. We would like the Board to consider basing our tap fee on usage rather than on the $1,400.00 per dwelling unit fee Toll-Free Reservations 1-80(1-325·8300 08 /02 /96 14:32 1'314 429 3679 City of Englewood Water and Sewer Doard Augu.o;t 2, 1996 Page2 DRURY INNS INC outlined in Ordinance No . 48 .. Therefore, we would like to meet with the Board at the August 13, 1996 meeting to discuss thi:s matter with you. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions prior to the meeting, plea-.e call me. Sincerely, DRURY INNS, INC. SU=·,~- By Steven~ ~;i: ~ Assistant Director of Development SFH :ew Enclosures Ill 003 08 1 0%/98 14 :3% 1:t314 4%9 3 879 DRURY INNS INC 141004 ~ 611111 111:111111 ·l'ir 111 1 111111~111 1 1 111 .. \ \ 111 111~ 111111 I l I \ I \ I \ I \ ---------- --- HUG -02-1 995 1a:5s GORSUCH KIRGIS 3l:U298~11 c: A TT,, '-f GORSUCH KIRGIS L .L.('. S IJIH \100 l•OI SEVENTEfSTH STR,E T OE1<V ~R . Coto kA ou 80202 Mr. Tim Cox ATTORNEYS AT LAW T~L~PHO~t (30~) 299-8900 F.a.~ (303) 298 -02!5 C.HARL£S A . KuECHENMEISTP.R 0111.ECT 01.a.1.: 303·299-891!5 August Z, 1996 Hydrologic Consultants, Inc. 143 Union Boulevard, #525 Lakewood, Colorado 80228 M"1L1Nv A1>0H~s P .O . Box 17180 nt ,vr R. COlOK"Do 80217·0180 Re: County Landfill; Amendment to AgreeJD.ents Dear Tiln: Enclosed are six execution originals of the referenced Amendment to Agreements, which I send to you for routing for signature to the five parties, and South Englewood Sanitation District No. 1, whose consent is indicated on the last page. When all six originals have been fully executed by all parties, you should distribute on~ to each. The only changes from the July 26 draft are a rewrite of the amendment to section 10.1 of the Wastewater Transmission Agreement, and the addition of a new Section 4 o! the Amendment, clarifying that except as a~ended by the A~endment, the prior agreeinents remain in full force and effect as written. I also changed the names of individuals signing for the various parties, as indicated by Darryl Farrington and yourself. In order to meet the City of Englewood's sub~ittal deadline, I have faxed a copy of this letter and the proposed Amend..ment directly to the City. Please cal if you have any questions. CAK:nj pc: Darryl L. Farr.ington ouane L. Tinsley Don Marturano City of Englewood via FAX ALL WITH ENCLOSURES y trtJ, KuUe AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENTS THIS AMENDMENT is made and entered into effective as of August , 1996, by and between SOUTH ARAPAHOE SANITATION DISTRICT----;--a Colorado quasi-municipal corporation ("South Arapahoe"); SOUTHGATE SANITATION DISTRICT, a Colorado quaai- municipal corporation ("Southgate"}; the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMIS- SIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, a body corporate and politic of the State of Colorado (the "County"); THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, a Colorado municipal corporation ("Engle-wood") and WASTE MANAGEMENT OF COLORADO, INC., a corporation {"WMC"). WREREAS, the Parties have entered into various agreements to provide for the transmission and treatment of storm waters containing contaminants or potential contaminants from the county Line Landfill; and WKEREAS, by such aqreements, the Parties limited the rate of discharge froll\ the Landfill and the maximum volwnes of wastewater therefrom to be treated at the Bi-City Treatment Pla1 t, owned jointly by Englewood and the. City of Littlcat.on and operated and managed by Englewood; and WHEREAS, the Parties deem it appropriate to ~odify the said liJnitations on discharge rate and volume at this time; HOW THEaEFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings herein set forth, the Parties agree as follows: sectjon l~ Subsection 8.1 of the Wastewater Transmission Agreement dated as of March Jl, 1995, by and between the Parties to this Amendment, is amended by deleting the words and figures "One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00)" and by substituting therefor the words and figures "One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00}" at both places in said Subsection 8. l where the said words and figures appear. ~~ction 2 ,, Subsection 10 .1 of the Wastewater Transmission Agreement dated as of March 31, 1995, by and between the Parties to this Amendment, is hereby amended to read j.n its entirety as follows: 10.1 Wastewater from both Taps combined shall be discharged into South Arapahoe Facilities at a substan- tially constant rate not to exceed 6.25 gallons per minute; providocl, that not more than once each day other than during the hours specified iminediately below, the discharge rate may be increased to a maximum of 16.25 gallons per minute for not more than 15 minutes, and provided further that the rate of discharge shall not CAK l5.J4.S0 .0'1\IS9749.l ~UG -02-19% 14:59 GORSUCH KJRGIS 303298 0215 P.004/006 exce~d 6 gallons per minute between the hours of 5:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. daily. The maximum daily discharge permitted is 9,000 gallons. Section 3, Paragraph 4 of the First Amendment to the consolidated AIUendments to Agreements dated March 21, 1995, by and between Englewood, the County and WMC, is amended to read in its entirety as follows: 4. It is acknowledged by the Parties that based upon qn agreed equivalent single-family residential unit wastewater flow of 200 gallons per dS!Y, the wastewater tlow entering the system from both the new and separate connections shall not exceed 9,000 gallons per day capacity previously acquired by the UNTY e · a~~nt-t"o 45 residential units. ~ection 4. Except as expressly amended by this Amendment, the above-referenced Wastewater Transmission Agreement and First Amendment to the consolidated Amendments to Agreements shall remain in full force and effect as written. Section 5. The County and WMC shall be jointly obligated to reimburse South Arapahoe and southqate for the engineering and legal fees they have incurred and will incur in responding to the request by the County and WMC for this Amendment. The amount of such reimbursement shall be determined after this Amendment is duly executed and acknowledged by all Parties and shall be paid within 30 days after the invoices are issued by south Arapahoe and Southgate. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have set their hands and seals effective as of the day and year first above written. SOUTH ARAPAHOE SANITATION DISTRICT [ S E A L ] BY=~~~~.,.-~~~~~:-:---:-~~- David Christensen, President ATTEST: Debb i e Militello, Secretary CAX\5>1 50.021159749 . I -2- HUG-02-1 996 15 :00 GORSUCH KJRGIS 3032980215 P .005/006 [ S E A L ] ATTEST: Donetta Davidson County Clerk and Re~order [ S E A L ) ATTEST: Loucrishia Ellis City Clerk ( S E A L J ATTEST: Julia Swearingen Secretary C'AXl.53'SO .<JZ\1S974 9 .1 BOARD OF COUNT¥ COMMISSIONERS, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE By:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Polly Page, Chair of the Board of county commissioners CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO By:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thomas Burns, Mayor SOUTHGATE SANITATION DISTRICT Arapahoe and Douglas Counties By:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Glen E. Neidert, President -3- ,. ( S E A L J ATTEST: Bill Jeffry Secretary llUt-<~UCH K I t-<ll I '.:i WASTE MANAGEMENT OF COLORADO, INC. Arapahoe and Douglas Counties By:~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- Robert P. Da~ico, President CONSEN'r OF SOUTH ENGLEWOOD SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 SOUTH ENGLEWOOD SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1, being a party to this Basin Interceptor Agreement, acknowledges receipt of a copy of this AMENDMENT 'l'O AGREEMENTS, and declares that it consents to the same havinq been entered into by the other parties to said Basin Interceptor Agreement. DATED this ~ day of August, 1996. [ S E A L ] 1.TTEST: Benjamin L. Olsen Secretary SOUTH ENGLEWOOD SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 By:~~~~~~--~~~-:-~~~~- Eugene F. Dunham, President -4- TOrnL P.006 CHRISMAN BYNUM & JOHNSON July 8 , 1996 Stewart Fonda Director of Utilities City of Englewood 3400 S. Elati Street Englewood, CO 80110 CHRI SMAN, BYNUM & JOHNSON, P.C ATIORNEYS AND COUNSEWRS AT LAW 1900 FI FTEENTH STREET BOULDER. COLORADO 80302 Re: 90CW221 (Our File Number 14660-231) Dear Stu: TELEPHONE lOJ.>%.1300 FACS IMI LE 303 .449.5426 For your information, I enclose a copy of the proposed ruling which Thornton seeks in this case . (Thornton drafted the document, as part of a motion for partial summary judgment.) As you will note, paragraph four seeks a ruling that effluent from the Bi City plant is unsuitable for use in any plan for augmentation or exchange . It is Ym important to Englewood that such a ruling not be entered . The proposed order also requires Englewood to pay Thornton's attorneys fees and costs , which Thornton asserts to be about $50,000. We have spent a great deal of time contesting Thornton's efforts, which accounts for the large bill on that item for this month. The history of the matter is this. We filed this case in 1990, as an application for a junior direct flow decree at Union Avenue. This was part of our efforts to obtain extra water at Union Avenue in periods of high flow in a way which would not affect our monthly and annual maximum limitations under the Petersburg decree. (If we take water under the Petersburg during "free river", it reduces the amount which we can later take under the senior Petersburg priority.) In 1995 we decided to accompany the application for a direct flow decree with an application for an augmentation plan and exchange , since the 1990 direct flow decree would be called out in all but periods of "free river." Unfortunately , and unknown to our water "team," Thornton decided to oppose all upstream applications for aug plans and exchanges which depended on the presence of return flows in the form of sewage effluent. As time progressed , it became increasingly apparent that Thornton was actively seeking a trial on the suitability of Bi City effluent in general , and that the cost of such a trial would be CHRISMAN BYNUM & JOHNSON Stewart Fonda July 8, 1996 Page 2 overwhelming to Englewood. We had been seeking to hold down the cost of this case, by getting delays in answering Thornton's very burdensome discovery, seeking ways to mitigate the effect of any effluent, and trying to arrange a settlement meeting with Thornton. (Thornton refused.) In early May, we finally concluded that there was absolutely no way to avoid an overwhelmingly expensive· trial, and that we would have to withdraw. Our decision was based, at least in part, on the discovery that Joe Tom's methodology for avoiding a quality dispute would not work. At that point, we were part way through answering Thornton's discovery, which was exceptionally burdensome. We then filed a motion to withdraw. On the next day, Thornton filed a motion for panial summary judgment, seeking a determination that the Bi City effluent was unsuitable, based in part on an apparent assertion that dismissal on any other basis would be prejudicial to Thornton, and on the fact that we had not finished our answers to the discovery and that whatever Thornton asserted must be true. Thornton also filed a pleading seeking to make our withdrawal to be one which was "with prejudice", including a holding that the Bi City effluent was unsuitable, again apparently because any other type of dismissal order would be prejudicial to Thornton. (Thornton's pleadings are not entirely coherent, and I am summarizing what I take to be the gist of them.) We countered with pleadings stating that voluntary motions for dismissal must generally be granted, and that Thornton's summary judgment motion was rendered moot by our motion to withdraw (i.e., to dismiss). These are indeed the general rules. Thornton also sought attorneys fees on account of our motion to withdraw, asserting that the withdrawal which we sought would be "without prejudice", and that attorneys fees should therefore be awarded to Thornton under the A WDI case. Under A WDI , the judge is to condition dismissals without prejudice upon conditions which will avoid "prejudice" to the other parties. Generally, this means attorneys fees should be paid to the other parties. We countered Thornton's A WDI claims first by saying that our dismissal was not entirely without prejudice, because we would lose our 1990 priority on the exchange which was a necessary part of our aug plan. We countered Thornton's AWDI claims, secondly, on this basis: AWDI says attorneys fees cannot be recovered for the objectors' work which may be useful in other litigation being carried on by the objectors. We asserted that Thornton is carrying on a "war against aug plans" involving around 24 cases, and that the work CHRISMAN BYNUM & JOHNSON Stewart Fonda July 8, 1996 Page 3 on our case "might be useful" in those other cases. We then sought discovery of, all of Thornton's attorney-client communications and expert's work product in our . case and all the other cases, without regard to the attorney client privilege, to ascertain the extent to which Thornton's work in our case could be used in the other cases. (This is in case the judge thinks attorneys fees should be awarded. We sure won't do it otherwise.) We also asserted that attorneys fees are not recoverable when there has been a stubborn insistence on litigation. Thornton of course refused even to meet with us to discuss settlement. We then asserted that Thornton cannot recover attorneys fees because its quality problems are of its own making, in part, and it should clean up its own act before seeking to eliminate uses of return flows upstream. (Thornton has been unwilling to give its data monitoring its own quality, particularly in Tani Lakes, to others.) Finally, we asserted that Thornton has its own aug plans and exchanges which damage quality downstream, and it should not be able to recover attorneys fees for stopping others from engaging in practices which it conducts. At this point, Thornton is trying to file one more pleading. We may object to it, when we receive it. The Judge is on vacation for about two more weeks. He usually rules rather promptly. I will keep you advised. I know you will call with any questions. Sincerely, David G. Hill Enclosure • • DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 1, STATE OF COLORADO Case No. 90CW22 l ORDER ON ENGLEWOOD'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION and ENGLEWOOD'S, AURORA'S, AND CENTENNIAL'S RESPONSES TO THORNTON'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT CONCERNING THE -APPLICATION FOR WATER RIGHTS OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD IN DOUGLAS, ARAPAHOE AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO THE COUR"f, having considered the Objector City of Thornton's motion for partial summary judgment, Englewood's motion for partial withdrawal of application, together with Englewood's, Aurora's, and Centennial's responses to Thornton's motion for partial summary judgment, as well as Thornton's response and objection to Englewood's motion and Thornton's reply to the responses of Englewood, Aurora, and Centennial, and being fully advised in the premises, orders as follows: 1. Thornton's motion for partial summary judgment is not mooted by Englewood's motion for partial withdrawal of the application herein. 2. While it is within this Court's sound discretion whether to act on Thornton's motion or on Englewood's motion, similar results will result from the disposition of either motion. For reasons of judicial economy, the Court will address Englewood's motion. 3. To prevent prejudice to Thornton, however, Englewood's motion for partial withdrawal may be granted only subject to appropriate terms and conditions. 4. Consequently, Englewood's motion for partial withdrawal of its application is granted subject to the following terms and conditions:· All portions of the application relating to augmentation plans are dismissed with prejudice, meaning that all issues raised by Englewood's proposed augmentation plan are resolved against Englewood and in favor of Thornton. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, effluent proposed by Englewood to be used as substitute water does not meet the water quality requirements of C.RS. §§ 37-80-120(3) and 37-92-305(3), 305(5). Finally, Englewood shall be assessed Thornton's reasonable costs and fees incurred in its defense of Englewood's • • application. Thornton shall have 15 days from the date of this order to make the submissions described in CRCP 121, § 1-22. DATED-.---------- BY THE COURT: Jonathan W. Hays Water Court Judge Water Division 1 • CHRISMAN BYNUM & JOHNSON July 8, 1996 Daniel L. Brotzman, Esq. City of Englewood 3400 S. Elati Street Englewood, CO 80110 Dear Dan: CHRISMAN , BYNUM & JOHNSON, P.C ATIDRNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT U.W 1900 FlFTEEmli STREET BOULDER. COLORADO 80302 TELEPHONE 303.546 .1300 FACSIMILE 303 .+49 .5426 Enclosed please find our invoices for professional services through June 15, 1996. Our new charges total $25,008.07, and the total for the year is $84,922.37. The' amount for this billing cycle on major cases is listed below: I Name I Amount I No. I Union Ave. App. (90CW221) 20,809.96 231 Chatfield Outlet Manifold 750.00 332 Stu Fonda has asked us to provide brief descriptions of the reasons for Englewood's involvement in all cases which appear on our bills each month. The following paragraphs contain these descriptions with respect to the matters reflected on the enclosed invoices: 1. General (#Q()l): This matter is our general file for work not attributable to specific cases. It includes charges related to calendaring, review of incoming pleadings, participation in term days for the various water divisions, and other miscellany. 2. Sheerin/Howes C#l 10): Englewood entered this case to monitor the augmentation for the storage right in Tamarac Reservoir. 3. Centennial Contract (#163): This matter covers Englewood's ongoing dispute with Centennial over the two contracts with Centennial. CHRISMAN BYNUM & JOHNSON Daniel L. Brotzman, Esq. July 8, 1996 Page 2 4. Amax (#165): This dispute between Englewood and Denver and Cyprus Climax Metals (f/k/a Amax) involved the question of proper allocation of the yield of Englewood's Ranch Creek water collection system in the Williams Fork river drainage among the parties to the dispute, as well as numerous other issues of great importance to Englewood. Settlement of this matter has been finalized. There may remain various minor details to be completed. 5. Englewood -McBroom Exchange (#230): This is Englewood's application to exchange water divertable at its McBroom Municipal Intake to other key diversion points within Englewood's system. A portion of the application went to decree on March 22, 1995, at a short trial to the Court. This water right will greatly enhance the flexibility of Englewood's water delivery system. The remaining undecreed portion of the application seeks a decree to divert at the Ensor well field, for delivery to Centennial. We have withdrawn the undecreed portion of this application. Existing decree stands as issued after the March 1995 Trial. 6. Union Avenue/Direct Flow & Storage (#231): This is Englewood's application for a 38 cfs direct flow water right on the South Platte at Union Avenue and for 680 acre feet of storage in a nearby gravel pit. We amended this application to include a plan for augmentation. Thornton objected to the plan on quality grounds, seeking to prevent us from taking credit for reusable effluent from the Bi-City plant. We sought to withdraw, and Thornton now seeks a decision that the Bi-City effluent is "unfit." I am sending a separate letter about this case. 7. Well Water Exchan~e (#233): This is Englewood's application for a well water exchange to divert decreed nontributary and not-nontributary ground water rights at six points of diversion along the South Platte river and a tributary of the South Platte River whenever Englewood has the need to do so, and whenever the stream conditions within the exchange reach will allow the exchange to proceed without injury to other water rights. The purposes of this exchange are to provide additional yield to the Englewood water system and to provide flexibility within Englewood's water system. 8. Colorado Water Conservation Board (#242 -#258): These cases are the instream flow applications of the CWCB in Water Division No. 5. They involve streams in the area where Englewood has water rights. We are monitoring them. 9. Ranch Creek Dispute (#312): This is our file regarding various issues that have arisen during the past couple of years with respect to development activities in the vicinity of Englewood's Ranch Creek diversion system. CHRISMAN BYNUM & JOHNSON Daniel L. Brotzman, Esq. July 8, 1996 Page 3 10. Westminster (#326): Westminster seeks to change its interest in water rights owned in the Manhart Ditch and Kershaw Ditch on Clear Creek and various exchange rights along Clear Creek. Englewood entered this case to assure that the amounts of consumptive use entitlements are appropriate and that return flows to the South Platte River are maintained so that calls from District 2 upon Englewood's rights at Union Avenue Intake will not be increased. 11. Chatfield Manifold Outlet (#332): This matter involves the relatively constant discussions concerning use of the Chatfield Reservoir outlet works. 12 . Town of Morrison (#337): This case seeks to change to an alternate point of diversion several water rights for which Morrison has already obtained change decrees. It involves shares of Warrior Ditch that had wrongly calculated entitlements given to the two shares in Case No. B-17672. This needs to be corrected at this time. 13. Henzylyn Irrigation District (#342): Englewood entered this case because it involves an additional 3,500 acre feet of senior storage rights divertable from the South Platte River downstream from Englewood's 1948 McLellan Reservoir water right. 14. Diamond Bar T vs. Denver (#346): The Diamond Bar T Joint Venture has sued Denver for a declaration that an ancient stipulation between the joint venture's predecessors in interest, Denver and Englewood subordinates Denver's senior Ranch Creek water rights to the joint venture' s junior water rights. The joint venture tried to do something similar to Englewood in an earlier case, but we obtained a stipulation resolving the issue in Englewood's favor. We need to be involved in this case to ensure that the joint venture does not compromise Englewood's rights under that recent stipulation. The joint venture has tried to do that. We won on summary judgment at the trial court level. The joint venture has appealed. We have been dismissed from the Supreme Court case. 15. Cooley Gravel (#347): Cooley Gravel Company seeks two storage rights for 650 acre feet and 9,800 acre feet from Bear Creek. We entered the case because of the size of the storage rights and to assure that the priority dates will be in 1995 and thus very junior to Englewood's senior McBroom Ditch rights and Englewood's junior McBroom Municipal intake right'. 16. City of Thornton (#352): This is an application for finding of reasonable diligence and to make absolute a portion of conditional water rights to West Gravel Lakes. Englewood entered this case to make sure that Thornton has not stored and used for municipal purposes the unchanged irrigation priorities that also divert from the structures that feed the West Gravel Lakes. CHRISMAN BYNUM & JOHNSON Daniel L. Brotzman, Esq. July 8, 1996 Page 4 17. Condemnation Le~islation (#353): This matter involves Senate Bill 96-004, which we helped draft and conferred with Senators to get passed as legislation. 18. Colorado Sprin~s and Aurora (#357l: These cities seeka conditional water storage right in the amount of 30,000 acre-feet from Homestake Creek; a conditional water storage right for aquifer storage in the amount of90,000 acre-feet in the Camp Hale area; a conditional water right for an underground aquifer called the F.agle Park aquifer; and other diversion rights and storage rights. They also seek to augment the out-of-priority depletions caused by the pumping of their well fields. Englewood entered this case because of the magnitude of the appropriations and to monitor the augmentation plan. 19. Public Service Gompany (#358): This application seeks approval for a plan for augmentation and a change of water right for a water supply to the Fort St. Vrain Nuclear Generating Plan near Platteville. The change concerns an extremely large amount of water from the Goosequill Ditch out of St. Vrain Creek. Englewood has entered this case to insure historic return flows are maintained to prevent worsening of the call from District 2 ditches. 20. Westminster and Climax Molybdenum Company C#36ll: This application is for new conditional water rights, including water storage rights and appropriative rights of exchange for water to be transported through the Henderson Tunnel to the F.ast Slope. Englewood needs to monitor this case to be sure all the conditions of the settlement with Denver and Climax are honored. 21. Park County Sportsmen's Ranch {#363): This case involves adjudication for three nontributary Laramie-Fox Hills wells located on a 2,300 acre tract of land in Park County. It seeks 851 acre-feet per year, and is interrelated to two other cases for additional water rights on the same property and a very large underground reservoir decree. Englewood has entered this case to monitor the whole project on this land. 22. Park County Sportsmen's Ranch (#364): This case is connected to the previous case and involves four different types of water rights, one of which is for an underground storage decree for a huge amount of water in an underground aquifer. Englewood is in this case because of the magnitude of the claims, the claimed 1992 appropriation dates, futile call aspects and water quality in the South Platte River from South Park formation water. 23. Aurora (#365): Aurora seeks to change water storage rights now decreed to Columbine Reservoir to storage in the underground South Park CHRISMAN BYNUM & JOHNSON Daniel L. Brotzman, Esq. July 8, 1996 Page 5 formation involved in the two previous cases. Englewood is in this case because of its interrelationship with the two Park County Sportsmen's Ranch cases. H you have any questions, do not hesitate to give me a call. Sin='.;/}__ ? ffetef/$~ David G. Hill Enclosure cc: Stewart Fonda City of Englewood July 10 , 1996 Mr. Ben ~ewman 1900 y/ Girard Pl Suite 809 Englewood , CO. 80110 Dear Mr. Newman, 3400 S. Elati Street Englewood , Co lorad o 8011 0-23 04 Phone (303 ) 762-23 00 (303 ) 762 -23 01 FAX (303 )789 -1125 This letter is to confirm the conversation on July 03, 1995 between you, Stu Fonda and me . My understanding of your concerns that you are getting brown water at your residence on a very regular basis . Other concerns are that this brown water is from either the city mains o,r the piping systems within the building where you live . Mr. Fonda talked with you and discussed what the City of Englewood has planned for the new treatment facilities . Work should start later this year, lasting approx . 10 years to completion . Water samples were taken on Feb . 13, 1996 by request of the Waterford Complex (results enclosed). Again water samples were taken May 23, 1996 by request of the Marks and yourself (results also attached). The May sampling of water was from a vacant apartment on the top floor and a sample at the main floor mens restroom. The water from the vacant apartment came out black and smelly for approximately 10-15 sec . then cleared up . The water from the main floor ran clear immediately. Right after I left the Waterford, I stopped by the park at Floyd and took a sample from the mens restroom . All three samples were then taken to the lab for the results . You and Mr. Fonda agreed to try to have samples of water taken from a valve connected to a fire hydrant and from your residence when your water turns color. This will either show that the water is going into the Waterford dirty or if the piping within the Waterford needs attention . Sin~~~ c;7.cu~ Randy E . P ierce Field Services Coordinator cc Stu Fonda ATT. 7 TO: BILL McCORMICK, OPERATIONS SUPERINTENDENT FROM: DELL MONTGOMERY, STREETS ADMINISTRATOR J/11/ DATE: JULY 24, 1996 SUBJECT: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COOPERATION Bill, as you probably know, the Street Department just completed an eleven day micro-surface project on some 80 plus blocks of streets in Englewood. I want to thank y our department for again giving us support on this pro ject. Three of your employees agreed to work both Saturday and Sunday to help us with traffic control. They were Chuck Kauffmann, Ro b Worek, and Jeff Hlad. Please thank them again fr o m o u r department . I would als o like t o let y ou know what a professional job Rich Co y d o es keeping the valv e boxes and manhole covers covered up so the material doesn't stick to them. Year after year, Rich takes care of this for us as well as anything else we need done at any given time fr o m traffic control, notification of citizens, cutting weeds along gutters, to whatever he can help with he is willing t o do. This year we had t o call on another of his talents when on Saturday morning we broke a part on the main machine . Rich welded the part together for us and within an hour we finished our full schedule for the day. Bill, I just wanted to let you know how much we appreciate the attitudes of you department and the overall teamwork this demonstrates within the City as a whole. C: Stu Fonda, Director o f Utilities Tom Brennan , Water Distribution Supervisor Rich Coy, Utility Sy stem Technician ;• . . ~s~· Pr,n ted on Reqc led Paper =-· 2021-> 7622300 B · 07/lS/96 15:47 :14 ITC FIRSTFAX . -··-·----.. , .. _ ... ·-·-· .. -.. -........ '"4'·"1'G'""' "'•'·'-"'"U~~UIA I \l'-t' MMV ... e1aomesuc11 ~~I.JO I Ulnl!tCllUJ.rnrni TfME Maga7inc June 10, 1996 Volume 147 , No. 24 ReLurn to Co ntcnts pa2e DO WATER FILTERS WORK? NOT NECESSARILY, DESPITE THE $450 MILLION AMERICANS SPEND EACH YEAR TO PURIFY WHAT FLOWS FROM THEIR TAPS CHRJSTJNE GORMAN You've read about the outbreaks of waterborne illnesses in places like Milwaukee, Las Vegas, New York City and Washington. You've been concerned that traces of lead may be lurking in your pipes. So just to be on the safe !;ide, you've installed a water filter on your kitchen tap. Trouble is, you may not be any ~Lter protected. In fact , the water y ou drink may be dirtier than it was before . The U.S. is blessed with one of the best water-supply systems in the world. Yet half of all Americans worry about getting sick from tap water contaminants, according to a 1995 survey by the Water Quality Association . As if to underscore the point, the Environmental Protection Agency has ordered the nali()n's 300 largest municipal water suppliers to begin testing for the cryptosporidium parasite, which poses a risk for people with weakened immune systems. · No wonder American homt:owners last year bought $450 million worth of water-treatment systems, up 30% from the $350 million they spent in 1994. According to Baytel Associates, a market-research firm in San Francisco, at least 12% of U .S . households treat the water in their homes in some fashion . Raytel expects that number to jump to 40% in the next 15 years. l3ut do these home treatment systems work? '!bat deptm<ls , experts say, on what you want them to do. "Not every product does everything," says Nancy Culotta of Michigan's NSF International, an Ann Arbor-based industry watchdog group. Some filtering systems, she notes, merely improve the water's taste by getting rid of relatively hannless inorganic chemicals like sulfur or chlorine. Others do a creditable job of removing lead but aren't designed to purify water tainted by bacteria or other pathogens. And many of the most popular systems need to have their filters frequently replaced, or owners will wind up running their tap water through the high-tech equivalent of a dirty sponge. Hundreds of products are on the market, but the technologies they use fall into a few basic categories: . ACTIVATED-CARBON FTLTRATION . 'lhcsc systems are the most popular and the most effective in reducing so-called aesthetic contaminant.; like chlorine and sediment. Filters made of carbon in solid block form , as opposed to granules, are also highly effective in reducing lead. Systems range from . inexpensive pour-through carufos to filters that arc mounted on faucets, on countcrtops or under the sink. Cost: $5 to $200. REVERSE OSMOSIS. These compact units force pressurized water across semipermeable membranes. Lead, arsenic and even some pathogens like Giardia are flushed out of the system--along with 50% to 90% of rhe water. The purified water that's left behind i s passed through yet another filter and stored in a pressurized tank. Under-the-sink models may cost $750 . DJSTTLLATION. These systems boil water and turn it into vapor, removing most inorganic contaminants like lead and killing any pathogens. The steam is then recondenscd into water. However, disti llation is not useful for removing volalile chemi~als like benzene. Prices start ar more than $100. 07/15196 09:14:33 07/15/9G 15:47:57 ITC FIRSTFAX 2021-> 7G22300 Page 004 Unfortunately, none of these systems are worry-free. The instructions for the popular Brita pour-through carat'cs, for example, tell <.;ustomers to change the filter every two months or after every 35 gal., whichever comes first. But many people don't count the gallons they u.se, and if they forget to check the calendar, they can wind up with filtered water that is in worse condition t.hau the stuff that comes from the tap. PUR. based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, has capitalized on this all-too-human habit by marketing a filter that automatically shuts itself off when it hus expired. . .For most urban and suburban Americans, home treatment systems probably aren't worth the hassle or expense, say independent experts . "In general, the greater risks lie in small community developments like trailer parks that opt not to be part of the water supply of a larger municipality,'• says Daniel Okun, a retired protessor of environmental engineering at lhe University of North Carolina. "The point is to find out what's going on in your local walt!r supply." As for disease-causing pathogens, the most cost-effective solutic)n is for the whole community to look after its drinking·water supply. That may require better treatment plants or land purchases to protect watersheds. Without those efforts, the U.S. wuld end up with a two-tier water system. Those who can afford in-home treatment will have peace of mind , while the rest of the population drinks dirtier and dirtier water. ·-Reported by Wendy Cole/Chicago COMPARING THE TOP SYSTEMS BRITA $25 (M:odcl No . 35507) Carhon-activated carafe filter is cheap, but frequent filter replacements add up TELEDYNE WATER PIK $159 (model no. IF 1 OOA) Another carbon-activated filt.e~, but this one fits under sink; needs its own spigot AMWAY $149 (Model No. E-9395) Also carbon-activated; fits on countertop and doesn't require new plwnbing CULLIGAN $850 (model no. AC-15) Reverse-osmosis system does 11 hetter joh on lead but wastes a lot of water Source: Consumer Reports ~"'""""----=·=---=--=-· ~=~="'--==-=---=·-=--=-===~=========··=··-··=·-·=----="·=·•·•-= .. ··"""·"-=-··=-==···=·····=··-="···=·=·=····=····=·····=-····=··"·~·- 07/15/96 09:14:34 TO : FROM: DATE : RE : MARCIA M. HUGHES, P.C. Attorney and Counselor At Law MEMORANDUM Wild and Scenic Task Force Marcia M. Hughes July 24 , 1996 STATUS REPORT A T1,, CJ I called Steve Davis on July 23 , 1996, to request a status report on the Forest Service W i ld and Scenic EIS for the South Platte. The news was not great. He informed me that the identification team , generally known as the "ID Team ", has "thrown out Alternative H because it doesn 't fully protect the free flowing characterist ics of the river". This is hard to understand because they are considering several possibilities of Wild and Scenic designations which would designate some pa rt s of the river , but not all of it. Furthermore , the whole purpose of the W il d and Scenic evaluation is to cons ider .fill of the uses on the stream , not just the f ree flow ing characteristics . It appears the the ID Team is is also likely to not recommend the North Fork be des ignated because it does not have "the values necessary". In fact , it appears that Alternative A (no Federal action), (B ) (the broadest wild and scenic designation for the whole area) and I (which would designate essentially from above Cheesman Reservoi r to Elevenmile) are the three most seriously cons idered alternat ives at this po int. TIMING To refresh your memory on the timing , the Forest Service is taking through the end of September to wr ite the Draft EIS and make its decision on its preferred alternative . This preferred alternative will be recommendation from the Forest Supervisor, Rick Cables , to Elizabeth Estill , the Regional Forester. The Forest Service will then send the DEIS to the pr inter and release it to the public approximately November 15, 1996. At that time there will be a ninety day comment period and then decisions will be made on revising the Draft . Steve Dav is said that us ually there are very small changes between the Draft and the F inal but here he expects that there may be many changes because of the complexity and the high level of public opinion involved . He also said that it is 390 Union Bouleva rd, Suite 415 La kewood , Colo rado 80228-1556 (303) 980 -8668 FA X (3 03) 980-9551 MEMORANDUM Page 2 July 23, 1996 possible the Forest Service would end up changing from one alternative to another between the Draft and the Final. I am quite concerned that this is the most important time to work with the Forest Service in writing a good Draft EIS . Tom Griswold has sent the attached letter to Rick Cables and requested a meeting to again emphasize the importance of a full consideration of Alternative H, rather than the current action by the ID Team of discarding it. If Alternative His not considered in any depth in the DEIS, its impacts will not be evaluated . This certainly makes Alternative H less available to ever select as a preferred alternative . The unusual nature of this Wild and Scenic EIS is demonstrated by the fact that apparently the office of General Council (OGC) is involved quite a bit with the ID team . Furthermore, we still have not received an answer to the questions that I have raised for over two years with the Forest Service on the need to protect both the Right of Way itself and the flow of water to the Right of Way so that it can be meaningfully operated . Steve apologized again that those questions have not been answered and had no clue if and when they would be, other than he thought that they would be at least answered in the Draft EIS which we are to rece iv e next November. CONGRESSIONAL STATUS We have rece ived a helpful letter from the Republican members of the House , Representatives Shaffer, Hefley, McGinnis, and Allard. A letter has not been sent by Senator Brown. This is quite surprising . However, there has been quite a bit of dialogue with his office . I will let you know as soon as more information develops . It does seem that Senator Brown could provide very i mportant assistance in getting the Forest Service to write an adequate DEIS . If you hav e any quest ions , er suggestions, please cci!!. cc : Charl ie Jordan SUBURBAN WATER SUPPLIERS WILD AND SCENIC TASK FORCE 609 W. Littleton Boulevard, Suite 101 Littleton, Colorado 80120 (303) 347-0017 Telefax: (303) 347-0018 Mr. Rick Cables Forest Supervisor U. S . Forest Service 1920 Valley Drive Pueblo, CO 81008 RE : Alternative H Dear Rick: July 24, 1996 I am quite concerned as we have heard that the ID team is recommending that Alternative H not be included as a fully evaluated alternative in the DEIS. Apparently, the ID Team is preparing its work based on its decision to discard Alternative H because it does not fully protect the free flowing characteristics of the river. We are wr iting to strongly urge that you ask the ID Team to fully consider Alternative H. W ithout this full consideration, the adequacy of the DEIS is seriously jeopardized. Every governmental entity, to the best of our knowledge, which has commented on the DEIS has urged the Forest Service to select Aiterna ti ve H as its prefo1rnd alternative. These elected officials represent most of the people of Colorado. This is a very important matter. It would be inappropriate for the Forest Service ID Team to simply discard Alternative H. Alternative H was initially proposed by the Forest Service. The argument that it does not fully protect the free flowing characteristics of the river is inappropriate. For one thing, the Forest Service is considering numerous alternatives which do not designate the entire river. The same argument would apply to all of those, meaning that only Alternatives A and B would have any validity . Furthermore, the whole purpose of the EIS is to consider the full picture related to the use of the river. The suitability analysis calls for studying ways to protect the uses on the river in alternative formats. If the Forest Services does not consider Alternative H as a viable option, including fully considering its impacts in comparison to others, the Forest Service is seriously jeopardizing the adequacy of this DEIS and its key purpose which is to fully study alternatives. We would like to meet with you to further discuss this extremely important matter. We are aware that the Forest Service is under budget constraints. This makes it even more important that the DEIS be written adequately the first time rather than setting this whole process up so that it has to be substantially rewritten. We urge you to meet with us in the near future to discuss this important matter and that you ask the ID Team to immediately revise its approach and fully eva luate Alternative H. Marcia Hughes has called your office to request a meeting . Should you have any comments in the meantime, please contact me at (303) 695-7378 or Marcia Hughes at (303) 980-8668. TG/ds Thank you for your consideration of this important matter. Very truly yours, Tom Griswold Chairman cc : Colorado Congressional Delegation Charlie Jordon , DWD Suburban Water Suppl iers 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 Boa rd, 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, ANALYS IS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED As part of the Santa Fe Improvement Project, Union 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 ove r 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 Filte r Plant. The Memorandum of Agreement is comprised of the following : 1 are permanent easements for storm sewer construction maintenance. (705 sq. ft.) Parcels and 4t11 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. UST OF ATTACHMENTS Ordinance Memorandum of Agreement.