The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-03-09 WSB AGENDA' ' WATER & SEWER BOARD AGENDA Tuesday, March 9, 2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM 1. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 10, 2004 MEETING. (ATT. 1) 2. OVERHEAD STORAGE ROOF REPAIR. -(ATT. 2) 3. STATE ENGINEERS ADMINISTRATION FEES LETTER DATED FEB. 12, 2004. (ATT. 3) 4. WATER MAIN FLUSHING PROGRAM IN APRIL. 5. OTHER WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES FEBRUARY 10, 2004 A TT. I The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Clark, Moore, Higday, Otis, Habenicht, Garrett Bradshaw, Cassidy, Bums Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities Bill McCormick, Operations Supt. Dan Brotzman, Eng. City Attorney 1. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 20, 2004 MEETING. The Englewood Water and Sewer Board approved the minutes from the January 20, 2004 meeting. Mr. Habenicht moved; Mr . Otis seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. To approve the minutes from the January 20, 2004 Englewood Water and Sewer Board Meeting. Clark, Moore, Higday, Otis, Habenicht, Garrett None Bradshaw, Cassidy, Bums 2. WATER METER PURCHASE. The Utilities Department purchases water meters needed for an entire year by requesting one large bid proposal for additional costs savings. A portion of these meters will be resold to Englewood customers for new installations as part of the flat-rate-to-meter conversion process. Some of the meters will be used to replace inactive or poorly functioning meters and to convert existing meters to the ITRON system. Sixteen meters, ranging from 1-112" to 3 ", will be used by Englewood Parks Department for changing existing irrigation meters. Mountain States Pipe is honoring 2000 prices for this bid, which is being placed in conjunction with Denver Water Board's order. The amount of the order to Mountain States Pipe and Supply is $92,323.18. Mr. Higday moved; Mr. Otis seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. To recommend Council approval of the purchase of water meters from Mountain States Pipe and Supply in the amount of $92,323.18. Clark, Moore, Higday, Otis, Habenicht, Garrett None Bradshaw, Cassidy, Bums 3. AGREEMENT FOR REALIGNMENT OF BROWN DITCH IN COLUMBINE ESTATES . Hearthstone Homes submitted an Agreement to the realign the Brown Ditch right-of-way in Columbine Valley Estates by exchanging property to relocate an easement 25' to the south of the existing right-of-way. This agreement will allow the owner to move the Brown Ditch easement to maximize his property for new construction. The property is located at 5600 Watson Lane in the City of Littleton. Englewood will maintain their 30' easement and the right to install, repair, remove or relocate the Brown Ditch at any time deemed necessary. The easement is being maintained for possible future raw water piping from Union A venue to McLellan Reservoir. Mr. Habenicht moved; Mr. Otis seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried . Mr. Bums entered at 5 :20 p.m. To recommend Council approval of the Agreement for Realignment of Brown Ditch in Columbine Valley Estates along Watson Lane. Clark, Moore, Higday, Otis, Habenicht, Garrett None Bradshaw, Cassidy, Burns 4. MARCY GULCH DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND SIPHON REP AIRS ON CITY DITCH. A Master Plan of Drainage for March Gulch was originally prepared in 1985 for the Marcy Gulch drainage basin in Highlands Ranch. Urban Drainage, Centennial Water and Sanitation District and the City of Englewood now wish to proceed with design and construction of the drainage and flood control improvements for this area. Erosion has exposed the City Ditch siphon pipe and the coming spring runoff could cause Englewood's existing siphon structure to fail. This would create an emergency situation because water could not be delivered to either Highlands Ranch or the Allen Filter Plant. Urban Drainage and Flood Control is proposing to construct a new spillway to replace the existing City Ditch pipe with 66" reinforced concrete pipe and a new inlet and outlet structure. Enlarging this pipe to 66" will allow the City Ditch to carry up to 75 cfs of raw water. In the Amendment to the Agreement, Urban Drainage has agreed to pay 50% of the drainage construction costs, which is $114,000. Centennial and Englewood will each pay 25% of the drainage construction costs -$57,000 each. Centennial will pay for the siphon enlargement costs of $64,000. Englewood will pay $2,000 for the new 12" gate valve, replacing the old gate valve. Mr. Otis moved; Mr. Habenicht seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. To recommend Council approval of the Amendment to the Agreement Regarding Design and Construction of Drainage and Flood Control Improvements for the City Ditch at Marcy Gulch. Clark, Moore, Higday, Otis, Habenicht, Garrett, Burns None Bradshaw, Cassidy 5. CLOUD SEEDING OPERATION FOR WINTER OF 2003-04. Englewood participated in Denver's cloud seeding program last winter and plans to continue the program for the winter of 2003-2004 . Using the same participation percentages as last year, Denver has calculated Englewood's contribution to the program to be $3,200 .00. The Board concurred that Englewood should continue to participate in the cloud seeding operation. 6. TAMPA TIMES ARTICLE DATED 1-10-04, "DESAL PLANT MIRED IN STANDOFF." Mr. Fonda discussed an article from the Tampa Times discussing Tampa Bay Water Department ordering the desalination plant to shut down for a month. Covanta Tampa Construction, which is operating the plant, refuses to turn it off. Stu discussed important issues that this standoff creates. 7 . ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS ARTICLE DATED 1-29-04. Mr. Fonda discussed an article from the Rocky Mountain News about a new fee from the State of Colorado to be collected from utilities, cities and others with water rights for the State Division of Water Resources. Mr. Fonda noted that our water attorney and water engineer are investigating the validity of the fees charged to Englewood. 8. LITIGATION WITH THORNTON RIGHTS ON THE PLATTE RNER. David Hill and Joe Tom Wood appeared to discuss a proposed filing that was noted in the Colorado Resumes for filing on water rights. David Hill noted that this case could be of major significance to Englewood. Metro Sewer District is proposing to build another wastewater treatment plant on the Platte River, north of their existing plant. The case would affect Thornton's senior ditch right return flows. Englewood may have to cut back its water to satisfy senior ditch calls . 300 to 400 acre-feet of Englewood's senior rights are at stake . Mr. Hill will keep the Board apprised of any developments. The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be Tuesday, March 9, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room. The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary ':----.:-·--··-·-·-·--··-··············· ·--······-~---··. Date March 16, 2004 INITIATED BY Utilities Department COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item Subject Tank repairs to the two Clarkson St. 3-Million-Gallon Reservoirs STAFF SOURCE Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Council approved the roof rehabilitation of the of the 6-million-gallon reservoir on August 21, 2000 in the amount of $77,325.00 to ABCO Contracting. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommended Council approval, by motion, of the bid award for the tank repairs of the two Clarkson Street 3-million-gallon reservoirs to RN Civil Construction in the amount of $201, 173.00. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The two Clarkson Street 3-miilion gallon covered reservoirs, located two blocks east of the intersection of Clarkson and Sunset Ridge in the City of Greenwood Village, were originally constructed in 1952 and 1956 as a water storage facility for treated water for the City of Englewood. The tanks provide fire protection and back-up water during power outages for Englewood's Zone 1, which encompasses 2/3 of the City. The east storage reservoir was overhauled in 1993 . Part of storage reservoir maintenance requires a thorough inspection every five years. In January, 2003 COM did an extensive inspection of the two 3-million-gallon tanks, and some additional repairs were completed on the east tank roof slab. COM is recommending that the concrete roof and venting be repaired on the west tank and the valves and hatches be replaced on both tanks. The concrete on these tanks have been deteriorating, and if left unrepaired, will become more extensive. The 50-year old valves must be replaced to isolate the tanks and hatches replaced for access before other repairs can be made. Requests for Bid were received from five vendors for the Clarkson Street Reservoir Roof and Valve Modifications. Five responses were received: Glacier Construction Premier Spec. Cont. COM Constructors Lillard & Clark Construction RN Civil Construction $318,020.00 $265,243.00 $247,061.12 $227,915.00 $201, 173.00 Steve Price from COM reviewed the bids and recommends RN Civil Construction be awarded the contract in the amount of $201, 173. FINANCIAL IMPACT The original 2004 budgeted amount was $150,000.00 before the engineer's new design estimate of $250,000 was received. A bid opening was held on March 1, 2004 and RN Civil Construction was the lowest, acceptable bidder in the amount of $201, 173.00. In the 2004 Budget, this money was allocated under#40-1603-61251. Extra funds are available in the Utilities ' fund balance . LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Bid Tabulation Sheet Letter from Steve Price of COM .; . : City of Englewood Bid Tabulation Sheet Bid Opening Date: March 1, 10:00 a.m. Bid Item: Clarkson Street Reservoir Roof & Valve Modifications Bid Bond Vendor YIN Item# Total Bid Exceptions: Lillard & Clark Construct/on y 1 $ 10,440.00 None noted Bruce Baird 303-791-3170 2 $ 60,000.00 3775 S Knox Ct 3 $ 18,000.00 Denver, CO 80236 4 $ 2,800.00 5 $ 39,000.00 8 $ 1, 150 .00 1 $ 1,325 .00 B $ 26 ,500 .00 9 $ 68 ,700 .00 total $ 227,915.00 CDM Constructors y 1 $ 5 ,7 60.00 None noted Dave Campbe/1303-383·2310 2 $ 48 ,816 .00 133117th St Suite 1100 3 $ 38 ,208 .00 Denver, CO 80202 4 $ 10 ,922 .17 5 $ 39.007.32 6 s 10 ,638 .93 1 $ 5,666.88 B $ 31 ,784 .63 9 s 56,257 .19 total s 247,061.12 Glacier Construction y 1 s 10,320 .00 None noted Steve Stephenson 303·221·5383 2 $ 43 ,200.00 7302 S Alton Way, Suite 41 3 $ 82 ,800 .00 Englewood, CO 80112 4 $ 2 ,3 80 .00 5 $ 30,900 .00 8 $ 5 ,700 .00 7 $ 5 ,72 0.00 B $ 46 .500.00 9 $ 90 ,500 .00 total s 318,020.00 Premier Spec Cont. y 1 $ 6 ,655.00 None noted Kent Cottle 303-934-2467 2 s 60 ,000 .00 2311 S Platte River Dr 3 $ 77,904 .00 Denver, CO 80223 4 s 7 ,154 .00 5 $ 30,000.00 6 $ 1,980.00 1 $ 2 ,600.00 B $ 28 ,595 .00 9 $ 50 ,355.00 total $ 265,243.00 RN Civil Construction y 1 $ 6,960.00 None noted Dan Niehus 303-482-3059 2 s 15 ,120 .00 6507 S Dexter St 3 $ 57,360.00 Littleton. CO 80121 4 $ 2,044.00 5 s 30 ,080 .00 6 $ 2,328.00 1 s 664 .00 B $ 34,052 .00 9 $ 52,565 .00 total s 201 ,173.00 Page 1 ClarksonReservolrAoofValveRepairTab.xls MAR-02·04 04:ZZPM F~aiwp Dr1111r' McKee CDM 1331 t7ttt 5mot.Suii. 1200 o.nver, '01Clr3C!o aozo2 ~: 303 2118-13 11 tax: 303 291-8236 March 2. 2004 Mr. 'Bill McCormick Utilities Department Cty of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway 'Englewood, Colorado 80110 . --------. ----· ... _: ---·----.. ··-······---..-..:....-..... -.· .. -....... --.-.:_. __ 303 Z938Z3S T-441 P.OOZ/00! F-rao Subject: Review of Bids for the Clarkson Street Reservoir Roof and Valve Modifications Dear Mr. McCon:nick: As requested. CDM completed a brief review of the bids for the above referenced project. This letter lists the actions taken to complete this review. COM completed the follo'"''ing items to evaluate this firm1s capability to complete !:his project • Evaluated the copy of the bid documents submitted to the City of Englewood on Marcil 1, 2004 • Verified the total from the Bid Items equals the Total Base Bid amount • Contacted each of the three references listed • Discussed the bid amount with RN Civil Construction The bid package included the reqWI'ed Bid Bond and reference information. Based on the evaluation of the bid forms received, it is our opinion that RN Civil Construction submitted a responsive bid. Also, the Total Base Bid equaled the sum of the Bid Items. The following summarizes the .findings from discussions with the three listed references: • All three Owners used as references provided positive feedback on the two main principals for RN Gvil Construction. • Two oi the projects used as references were completed by the principals of RN Civil Construction when they were employed by another general construction firm, Lillard and Oark Construction Company, Inc. • Ri.'\J Civil Construction has been in buslness for about 2 years. They colnpleted a $4,200,000 for the Town of Silt in December 2003. c:vn~ultlng • 'nginearlng •construction • op,rationa MAR-02·04 04:Z2PM FROM-(amp Dr1111r' McK11 CDM Mr. Bill McCormick March 2, 2004 P<lge 2 303 2938238 T·441 P.003/005 F-790 • The projects reierenced were all completed on a schedule to the Owner's satisfaction. • All three Owners would use the services of RN Ovi1 Construction or their principals again. As part of this evaluation, COM completed the attached Bid Evaluation Chedclist and noted the items that are applicable to this project.. Based on this overall evaluation, CDM recommends that RN Civil Construction is awarded the contract to complete the above referenc~d project Please call ii you have any questions. Sincerely, s£:~f2- Assad.ate Camp Dresser & McJ<ee Inc. cc: Project files Dave Pier ·.· i .. . . , "• MAR-OZ-G4 04:ZZPM F~aarp Dr1s11r' McK11 303 Z83823S CDNI Bid Evaluation Checklist Date: _March 2, 2004 __ ~- Project Oarkson Street Reservoir Roof and Valve Modifications_ Project No.: ITB 04-111 _______ _ Bidder. RN Civil Construction.~---- Evaluator: Steve Price -~~~~~~-- 1. Bid Form (Section 00300): a. Acknowledge'.II\ent of Addenda: -Did the bidder acknowledge receipt of all addenda? Yes b. Schedule of Prices: -Is the Schedule of Prices complete? Yes -Is the arithmetic correct? Yes -Ate there any qualifications to the bid? None noted c. Execution of Bid Form: -Is the Bid Form complete? Yes T-441 P.004/005 F·T80 -Are the propex signatures and seals included? Yes (for fonns received by the Oty) 2. Bid Bond: a. Is the Bid Bond correctly filled out and signed? Yes. 3. Questionnaire: a. Satisfactory Completion; NA -Are all questions completed satisfactorily? -If not, list deficiencies by question number b. Has the bidder been requested to submit evidence of license, experience, and financial statement? NA · c. If submi~ is it satisfactory? NA · 1 ,. '· f ;. WAR-OZ·04 04:Z3PM F~illP Dresser' McK11 Bid Evaluation Ot.ecklist Page2 d. References: 303 Z938Z3S -Were references contacted (required for low bidder)? Yes. • Briefly describe references: T-441 P.005/005 F·T90 • Reference No. 1: Town of Silt, CO ($4.2 million Wastewater Treatment Plant). Project is substantially complete. Very positive reference. • Reference No. 2: Carder Concrete ($4.0 million Carder South Plant, Denver, CO). Project was completed by the principals with RN Civil Construction when they were employed by another local contracting finn. • Reference No. 3: Gty of Broomfield, CO ($25.0 IIrillion Wastewater plant project). Project was completed by the principals with RN Gvil Construction when they were employed by another local contracting .firm. 4. Schedule of Suppliers: a. Did the bidder circle a supplier fo:r each item listed? NA 5. Alternate Suppliers: a. Axe the alternate suppliers proposed? NA 6. Schedule of Cost for Major Structures and/ or Areas of Work; a_ Did the bidder submit schedule with the bid package? NA b. If not, has the information been requested? NA c. If submitted, is the schedule complete? Is the addition correct? NA 7. Schedule of Cost for Olanges in Quantities: a. Did the bidder submit the schedule with the bid package? Included in bid form. b. If not, has the information been requested? NA c. A:te unit prices reasonable and acceptable? Y. es. d. If not, which are not acceptable? NA 8. Noncollusive Affidavit a. Is the affidavit complete; signed and notarized? NA 9. Corporate Authority to Execute Bid: a. Is a certified copy of the resolution approved by the board oi directors authorizing the officer in question to execute the bid and agreement on behalf of the corporation provided? NA 10. Other Deficiencies or Comments: None noted. 02/12/2004 THU 14:11 FAX 3035262624 Martin & Wood Water ''' Englewood Util j }\ -,--,-_ ~ :\1 .. ARTIN ANI> \V()()l) Mr. Stewart Fonda Utilities Director City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110 Dear Stu: February 12. 2004 602 Park Point Drive, Suite 275. Golden, CO ao.401 Phone: (303} 526-2600. Fox: (303) 526-2624 E-mail: mwi@mortinondwood.c:om Re: State Engineer's Administrative Fees Job #159.1 Attached is a copy of Joe Pershin's letter for you to sign regarding the City of Englewood response to the State Engineer's Water Administration Fees. We have reviewed both the State Engineer 's fees and Englewood's response, and we recommend that you sign the response and send it to the State Engineer. Before you submit the response, we need to make you aware of how Joe Pershin and we formulated the response. First and easiest. we recommend appealing the $100 fee on each of Englewood's 44 decreed Denver Basin Aquifer wells, because the statute applies to owners "of an absolute water right that has been adjudicated for: (I) direct flow in an amount of at least one cubic foot per second; (and) (ll) storage in an amount of at least one hundred acre-feet." Englewood's Denver Basin Aquifer rights, in our opinion, do not constitute direct flow or storage rights. Second, the State Engineer billed Englewood .for certain of her park and golf course wells. We recommend appealing these fees, because these are not direct flow or storage . rights. Third, the State Engineer billed Englewood for only two of her Ranch Creek Collection System rights because the statute is set up so that Englewood may appeal those rights listed by the State Engineer, we recommend that Englewood pay the fees for the two R.:anch Creek rights which the State Engfueer listed. If the State Engineer chooses to amend its list later by adding the remaining and correctly identified Ranch Creek rights, then we would I'C(:ommend that Englewood pay those fees at ~t time. Fourth, foe Pershin 's letter identifies several rights simply not owned by Englewood. Englewood should appeal these fees.· . · · 02/12/2004 THU 14:11 FAX 3035262624 Martin & Wood Water ~~~ Englewood Utilities Mr. Steward Fonda Febl'\llll)' 12. 2004 PD8c2 of2 ~003/008 Fifth, the State Engineer billed Englewood for 'the Como Reservoir riibt,. which is conditional, not absolute. Englewood should appeal this fee, as it is not absolute per the statUtc. Please let us know if you have any questions. cc: Joe Pershin David Hill Very truly yours, J J~.E. President . Ma111n and Wood Waw Can.uiltant$, !111:. . =--. ---·--. -----·-·-------=----!..-: __ ... 02/12/2004 THU 14:12 FAX 3035262624 Martin & Wood Water ~~~ Englewood Utilities FEB-12-2004 THU 11:28 Al1 ALLEN PLANTD rAX NO. 303 783 6853 ~005/008 P. 02 c T y 0 F ENGLEWOOD February 13, 2004 Division of Water Resources -W~P 1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 Re: Statement #505 Letter of Appeal for the City of Englewood To Whom it May Concern: The City of Englewood respectfully submits this list of water rights that should not be included in the February 1, 2004 statement from the Colorado Division of Water Resources concerning payment of administration fees pursuant to SB 278.· The grounds for protest are that none of the water rights listed in Section I belong to the City of Englewood , the wells listed in Sections II and lll are not decreed for direct flow or storage and Section IV contains an adjudicated conditional water right The rights listed in Sections II and Ill are not subject to the legislation. Section V is not water rights being appealed , rather clarification of information. The water rights being appealed by the City of Englewood are as follows: Section I Name WO ID Ad min Admin Number Fee Kiewit Well 3-457 4-F 8 6612 41510.00000 $250 Kiewit Well 3-457 4 8 6613 41829.00000 $250 City Ditch PL 8 1008 50759.00000 $250 City Ditch PL 8 1008 3985.00000 $250 City Ditch PL 8 1008 8706.00000 $250 City Ditch PL 8 1008 11754.00000 $250 S R Brown Ditch 1 8 1317 20790 .00000 $10 S R Brown Ditch 2 8 1318 20792.00000 $10 Linhart Ditch 8 1291 19866.13849 $250 Dad Clark Ditch 3 8 1296 19866.13361 $10 $1,780 1000 Englewood P;irlcway Englewood, Colorado 8011 O Pnone 303-762-2300 www.d.eniJcwocd.co.us 02/12/2004 THU 14:12 FAX 3035262624 Martin & Wood Water ~~~ Englewood Utilities FEB-12-2004 nm 11 :28 AH ALLEN PLANTD FAX NO. 303 783 6853 Section II ~006/008 P. 03 As set forth in detail below, there are 44 wells that were erroneously inciuded in 1he statement. These wells are not decreed for direct flow or storage. Fees were assessed against Englewood for •storage rfghts11 for 1he following wells: LA-3, LA-4, LA-5, LA-6, LA-7,LA..S, LA-11, l.A-12. LF-1, LF-2. LF-3, LF-4. LF-5, LF-6, U:..7, LF-8, LF-9, lF-10, LF-11, LF-12, OE-1, DE-2, DE-3, DE4, DE-5, 06-0, DE-7, OE-8, DE-11, DE-12, LF-M2. LA-2, UA-1, UA-2. UA-3, UM, UA-5, UA-6 1 UA-7, UA-8, UA-9, UA-11, UA-12, LA-1. No water is being stored by Englewood at these locations, and 1herefore the provisions of Secilon 37-a<l-121 do not apply aid no fees for water storage may be assessed. C.R.S. Section 37-80-121 provides thatfeea are to be ~sassed as follows: (2)(a) On and after the effective date of this seetiOn, an owner shall be subject to an annual water adminisV.aticn fee ln Ile following amounts: (I) For direct flow water that has bee adjudicated for: . (A} Agricultural irrigation, recharge, or stock water use, ten dollars for each decreed water right (B) For di'ect flow water that is not subject to su~subpr.1graph (A} of this subparagraph (1), two hundred fifty dollars for each decreed water right (II) For stored water that hu bttn adJudicattd for: (A) Agricultural irrigation, recharge, or stock water use, twenty five dollars for each decreed water righ~ (B) For stored water flow that Is not subject to sub-subparagraph (A) of this subparagraph (II), one hundred doUa11 for each decraed water right; (b) an owner: (Q Shall pay the fee within thirty days of the date the fee assessment is received; ............. , ...... . With regard to the foregoing language, the relevant inquiry is how is stored water defined? The provisions of Section 37-80-121 do not contain a definition of vmat is meant by storage. However, this term is defined elsewhere. Section 37-92-103(10.7) defines storage as follows: (10.7) 'Storage• or "store" means the impoundment. possession, and control of water by means ot a dam. Waters in underground storage aquifers are not In storage or stored except to the extent 1he waters in such aquifers are placed there by other than natural means wHh water to which the person placing such water in the underground aquifer has a condittonal or decreed right 02/12/2004 THU 14:12 FAX 3035262624 Martin & Wood Water ~~~Englewood Utilities FEB-12-2004 THU 11:29 Aft ALLEN PLANTD FAX NO . 303 783 6853 ~007 /008 P. 04 From the foregoing language, it is evident 1hat wdH' which exists in an undetgr<>Und aquifer is not •stored' unless the waters are ptacad there by some mechanism other than natural means. Englewood has been ~sed storage tees for water that, pursuant to Section 37 -92-103 has not been stared. The underground water simply exists there frcm natural causes, and Englewood has taken no action nor implemented any mechanism to store this water. Therefore 1hesa stlrage fees have been improperly assessed ag~t Eng~wood far~ afQ~ntioned welts. The fee for each of these 44 wells is $100 • ~. Section U The fo I Jlowmg weUs are not decreed for direct 1low or storaQe: Name WO ID Admln Number Central Power Well 2 8 5625 38424 .00000 Central Power W3-20--122T 8 5626 38424.00000 Central Power Well 5 8 5628 38424.00000 Central Power W6-8294R 8 5629 39216.00000 Englewood WeO 1--013981F 8 6002 38851 .00000 Englewood Weil 10-13075F 8 6003 37755.00000 Englewood Well 12-P04757 8 6005 41565.00000 Englewood Well 13-P20071 a 6006 38405.00000 Englewood Well 14-P20310 8 6007 38538.00000 Englewood Well 15-P20071 8 6008 38405.00000 Englewood Well 16-P578 8 6009 40058.00000 Englewood Well 17..f'04560 8 6010 41555.00000 Englewood Well 18-P05588 8 6011 41797.00000 Section rv Name WD ID Ad min Number Como Res 1 23 3974 29219.00000 Como Reservoir 1 is a condition al right and not subject to the legislation. There are 2 water righ~ in the statement that are not being appealed but need clal'ilbtion as to the information given . Section v Name WO ID Admfn Number Olson Bell Ditch 8 995 4457 .00000 Brown Ditch 8 1011 4717 .00000 Admln Fee $250 $250 $250 $250 $10 $10 $25Q $250 $250 $250 $10 $250· $250 $2,530 Ad min Fee $100 Englewood's share of the decree amount of Otson Bell Ditch is 1.575 cfs of the 6.300 cts originally decreed. The correct name is Olien and B1U Ditch. Englewood's share of the decree amount of Brown DHch is 1.400 cfs of 1he 16.500 cfs originally decreed. · ·0211212004 THU 14:13 FAX 3035262624 lartin & Wood Water +H Englewood Utilities ~008/008 FEB-12-2004 THU 11:29 AH ALLEN PLANTD FAX NO. 303 783 6853 The total fees for lie water rights being appealed equal $8810. Subtracting 1hat from the statement amount of $10,930 equals $2120. Enclosed please ind a check for the lmount of $2120. P. 05 If you have any questions concerning 1his letter. please contact Joe Pershi1 {Engfewood Watet Productim Administrator) at 303-783-6826 or Joe Tom Wood (Martin and Wood Wat.sr Consultants) at 30s.526-2600. Sincerely, stewart H. Fonda Director of Utiflties City of Englewood