HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-13 WSB AGENDAWATER& SEWER BOARD
AGENDA
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM
1. MINUTES OF THE JULY 12 , 2005 MEETING. (ATT. 1)
2. GUEST: DAVID HILL, WATER RIGHTS ATTORNEY. (ATT. 2)
3. JOINT DEFENSE AGREEMENT IN FRICO!UNITED/E. CHERRY CREEK
CASES. (ATT . 3)
4. PARCO SYSTEM PUMP VALVE AND ACTUATOR REPLACEMENT.
(ATT. 4)
5. WATER TAP FOR 4750 S. CLARKSON -CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE. (ATT.
5)
6 AWWA ULTRA VIOLET DISINFECTION KNOWLEDGE BASE. (ATT. 6)
7. TANK REPAIRS TO THE EAST CLARKSON STREET 3-MILLION-GALLON
RESERVOIR. (ATT. 7)
8. DOG PARK WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT . (ATT . 8)
9 . WATER MAIN CLEANING. (ATT. 9)
10. LETTER FROM "SAVE THE DITCH FOUNDATION" DATED 7-29-06 .
(ATT. 10)
11. WILDACRES CITY DITCH CROSSING. (ATT. 11)
12 . OTHER.
WATER AND SEWER BOARD
MINUTES
July 12 , 2005
A TT. I
The meeting was called to order at 5 :0 6 p .m .
Members present: Burns , Higday, Cassidy, Otis, Habenicht
Members absent: Clark, Moore , Garrett , Bradshaw
Also present: Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities
1. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 7, 2005 .
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board approved the minutes from the June 7, 2005
meeting.
Mr. Otis moved ;
Mr. Higday seconded:
Ayes:
Nays :
Abstain :
Members absent:
Motion carried.
To approve the minutes from the June 7,
2005 Englewood Water and Sewer Board
Meeting .
Higday, Cassidy, Otis, Habenicht
None
Bums
Clark, Moore , Garrett Bradshaw
2. LARGE WATER METER INSTALLATION.
The recommended large meter replacement program will have the larger 1-112" to 6"
meters being replaced over the next three years. Badger meters will be used to maintain
consistency with existing meters and as meters are pulled, they will be tested for accuracy
to determine loss. By having the National Metering Service provide the labor for
replacing these larger meters, installation can be completed in a short amount of time and
begin mo~e accurate readings on the larger water users.
The new meters will have test plugs that will allow periodic accuracy testing and meet
A WW A testing specifications. Denver has instituted this large meter replacement
program and found that the majority of their initial costs were recovered the first year.
Approximately 100 meter a year will be changed out and updated with the radio
frequency read-outs.
For the meter portion, National Meter and Automation is the lowest acceptable bidder in
the amount of $151,465 .00. For the installation portion, the lowest acceptable bid was
$35 ,660 from National Metering Service. It does not include the valves necessary during
the meter exchange. It is estimated that an additional $19,000 to $22,000 will be charged
for meter valve installations, making the final bid approximately $55,000 to $60,000.
Mr. Higday moved;
Mr. Cassidy seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
To recommend Council approval of the
purchase of water meters and yokes from
National Meter and Automation in the
amount of $151,465.00 and the bid from
National Metering Service in the amount of
$35,660 for the 2005 valve work for
installation of large commercial meters.
Higday, Cassidy, Otis, Habenicht, Burns
None
Clark, Moore, Garrett Bradshaw
3. SOUTH PLATTE PROTECTION PLAN.
The original South Platte Wild and Scenic River Review project involved a collaborative
effort in providing comments to the Forest Service and any other decision making agency
regarding collective concerns regarding the ability to protect the water supply of the
North Fork and maintstream of the South Platte River.
Numerous stakeholders developed an alternative to the Wild and Scenic designation now
known as the South Platte Protection Plan. The goal of the plan is to protect and enhance
the resources of the area at the local level without federal designation, while preserving
the role of the river as a water supply and maintaining sufficient flexibility in river
management while accommodating changes.
The agreement establishing the South Platte Enhancement Fund of the Denver
Foundation creates the foundation as an advised fund with the membership consisting of
Douglas County, Jefferson County, South Metro Water Supply Authority, Parker Water
and Sanitation District, City of Aurora, Colorado Springs Utilities, City of Englewood,
City of Thornton and Denver Water. Englewood 's proportionate share as a member of
the Board will be $8,000 a year for three years.
Mr. Bums moved ;
Mr. Otis seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
4 . BELLEVIEW PARK -DOG PARK.
To recommend Council approval of the City
of Englewood's Utilities Department to
participate in the Agreement Establishing
the South Platte Enhancement Fund in the
amount of $8,000 a year for three years.
Higday, Cassidy, Otis, Habenicht, Bums
None
Clark, Moore, Garrett Bradshaw
The Parks and Recreation Committee recommended to City Council that CDM prepare a
water quality study for the proposed dog park.
5. AUGUST 9, 2005 WATER BOARD MEETING.
The August 9, 2005 Water Board meeting has been cancelled.
6. BOARDS & COMMISSIONS ICE CREAM SOCIAL.
There will be an ice cream social for the City of Englewood's Boards and Commissions
on Monday, August 22, 2005 in Roman 's Park.
The meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.
The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be Tuesday, September 13 , 2005 at 5 :00
p.m . in the Community Development Conference Room .
Respectfull y submitted ,
Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
AT T. 2.
ENGLEWOOD WATER: FROM NO WINTER SUPPLY TO UNEASY ABUNDANCE;
THE PAST AND A VIEW INTO THE POSSIBLE FUTURE
THE CRISIS
In 1986 the Water Court ruled that Englewood had failed to prove that it had any lawful
winter water supply. The same ruling drastically reduced Englewood's available summer supplies.
The ruling faced Englewood essentially with three choices: selling out to Denver (which Denver
wanted), or cobbling together some sort of augmentation plan so that it would have a limited supply
in the winter months, or attempting to get the Water Judge to retry the case. Englewood hired a new
water attorney, David Hill , and retained water engineer Joe Tom Wood. Hill persuaded the Judge
to re-try the case, which became known as the Petersburg Ditch case. Together Wood and Hill dug
through ancient archives to find the correct basis for Englewood's winter supply, and persuaded the
Judge to rule that the newfound evidence indeed showed a lawful supply. (Testimony was taken for
28 days in a hotly contested trial with many opponents including Thornton, Denver, FRICO,
Westminster and Consolidated Ditches. Among other things, the FRI CO representative testified that
he and Denver had met and decided that Englewood needed to be removed as a diverter from the
river.) The Judge's ruling not only confirmed the winter supply, but strengthened it in a very
significant way.
Nevertheless, the summer supply remained drastically reduced. Englewood had a contract
to supply water to Centennial Water and Sanitation District (Highlands Ranch). In the event of a
major drought, Englewood could not have provided Centennial with the water due to it. Stu Fonda
and Hill were forced to beg for an agreement with Aurora whereby Aurora would provide 1500 acre
feet to Englewood for delivery to Centennial , in the event of drought. The late Tom Gtiswold, the
then-manager of Aurora utilities , was very kind and made the agreement. Englewood repaid the
favor in various ways . (The water was never used.)
REBUILDING
Rebuilding took a long time. Under Stu Fonda's leadership, it consumed huge efforts by
Fonda, Wood and Hill. It consisted of several steps. First, Englewood had "mothballed" and unused
agricultural rights in the Nevada Ditch , McBroom Ditch and Brown Ditch, purchased during the
days in the SO's and early 60's when Englewood intended to expand. In the late 80's those rights were
changed to municipal use on a very fortunate basis (the changes were opposed by some 15 parties,
but ultimately stipulated decrees were obtained).
Second, the Petersburg decision held that a municipal user could not expand its use of
formerly agricultural rights beyond the use made by the farmers. Englewood used that decision (and
other rulings) in successful litigation against Thornton, Westminster, Denver and Aurora to reduce
improper use made (or sought) by those cities. The reduction in diversions of those cities benefitted
Englewood. In addition, in the cases against Thornton and Westminster, Englewood got a significant
amount of water (annually) in settlement.
Third, Englewood sued Denver and American Metals Climax for delivering less than the
proper amounts of water on Englewood's western slope rights (commonly called the Ranch Creek
rights or the Cabin-Meadow Creek rights). In settlement, E nglewood received a more constant and
predictable supply from Denver based on the past yields of the rights .
Fourth , Englewood (at the last minute) passed proper ordinances to claim the non-tributary
groundwatF:r under the City and the golf course and the McLellan Reservoir area. Proper decrees
were obtained in the Water Court, and two wells have been drilled near McLellan, and one on the
golf course. They provided key supplies during the 2002 drought. Additional supplies are available
if more wells are drilled.
Fifth, a junior w ater right and augmentation plan for the McBroom Ditch were applied for
in 1989 , and a decree was successfully obtained. Thornton had agreed to withdraw from the case
in return for Englewood 's withdrawal from various Thornton applications on Clear Creek.
Nevertheless, in 2000 Thornton attacked the McBroom decree on the basis that publication of notice
had been unsatisfactory, and therefore reusable effluent from the BiCity plant and Centennial's
Marcy Gulch wastewater pl ant could not be used in the augmentation plan. The Water Court
generall y upheld the decree and allowed the use of reusable BiCity effluent and Marcy Gulch
effluent. However, the Court struck several sources of supply for the augmentation plan which had
been added at the last minute (some twenty other opposers had stipulated to the additions, but
Thornton belatedl y c omplained). Some of the eliminated sources of supply need to be added back.
See below. The augmentation plan was essential in the 2002 drought, and will probably be used to
sell substantial additional quantities to Centennial (again, see below).
Sixth, see separate confidential a ttorney-client communication.
Seventh is the matter of Centennial. Centennial set out to obtain Englewood's caniage rights
in the Nevada Di tch outlet through Chatfield Dam by condemnation, in order to caITy water to
Centennial' s proposed gravel pit reservoir north of C470. (Englewood needs those rights).
Englewood not only defeated the condemnation effort, it forced Centennial to pay $72,000 in
attorneys fees which Englewood had incurred in defending the case. Despite the resulting hard
feelings , contentious negotiations with Centennial continued. The original contract with
Centennial' s predecessor had numerous flaws and ambiguities, and had become seriously outmoded .
Negotiations to revise the contract were seriously assisted by Englewood's development of new
supplies . At last a satisfactory agreement , which resolved numerous difficult issues, was reached
in October of 2002 .
Eighth is the lower South Platte farm wells. The State Engineer had allowed these wells
improperly to deplete the river for generations, to the considerable damage of Englewood's rights
(and the rights of many others). In 2003 the Supreme Court put an end to the practice. Englewood
participated heavily in the winning summary judgment motion in the Water Court, and in the
subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court. Englewood's counsel also participated heavily (on a
volunteer basis) in the lobbying in the legislature which halted legislation which would have
2
overturned the decision. Subsequent cases in which the farmers sought augmentation plans (in
which Englewood was a partial participant) have reduced actual farm well pumping by at least half,
and much of the depletions from that pumping are being replaced. Full replacement of these
depletions will gradually be phased in.
Ninth, and almost a separate subject, is the Bi City wastewater treatment plant. In the 1980's,
Thornton extracted from the Coors/Golden wastewater treatment plant $20 million in cash and a
change in the location of the outfall, by a suit claiming that the effluent haimed the health of
Thornton's citizens. In the late 90's Thornton commenced a similar Water Court suit claiming the
BiCity effluent was harmful and caused disease among Thornton's citizenry. The case was
technically an objection by Thornton to an "exchange" conducted by Denver, in which Denver took
water from the river atStrontia Springs and replaced an equal amount with Denver's reusable Bi City
effluent. Had Thornton prevailed in getting the Water Judge to rule that the Bi City effluent caused
disease to Thornton's citizens , the consequences for Bi City could have been very bad. Englewood
joined Denver in contesting the case (the BiCity plant paid the fees). The suit took 77 days of
testimony by various experts . Toward the end of the trial, which was costing Thornton (and us ) huge
sums, Thornton ch anged utilities managers. The mayor had also changed . The new utilities manager
heard the tag-end of the testimony , which was Englewood's principal quality expert. That testimony
was very favorable to Bi City. Just after the end of the testimon y, the case settled. Denver provided
Thornton with a good deal of temporary water and other benefits in return for the settlement. Bi City
provided nothing to Thornton . Unfortunately, while Thornton ga v e up its claims about past effluent
quality , nothing prevents a fu ture claim by Thornton. However, Thornton is in the process of
installing a reverse osmosis treatment system which will remove almost any pollutant, the new
Thornton administration seems much less interested in litigation, and the Bi City plant will soon meet
stringent nitrate-removal standards. One of Thornton's principal claims was excess nitrate. A
serious benefit of the settlements was that FRI CO , which received 5 ,000 acre feet of Denver effluent,
agreed not to contest the use of Bi City effluent in future exchanges. It appears likely that Englewood
will obtain a similar agreement from South Adams Water and Sanitation District , which supplies
Commerce City, in the pending FRICO cases. (See below).
WATCHFUL COMFORT AND REMAINING TASKS
Since the dark days of 1986, Englewood's situation has improved to an almost immeasurable
degree. Englewood went through the 2002 drought without water rationing . (Compare that to 1986,
when emergency supplies were begged from Aurora.) In addition , despite the drought, Englewood
met its minimum delivery obligation to Centennial. Englewood has water rates which are among
the lowest in the Metro area. Centennial is a customer which immensely values Englewood, and the
working relationship is congenial. Water sales to Centennial now bring in over $1,500,000 per year
in revenue . Those revenues will increase by another $200,000 to $400,000 if the McBroom
augmentation plan discussions are successful, and in any event the price will jump substantially in
2013 if Englewood continues to meet its minimum delivery obligations. There is currently no
litigation which challenges Englewood's water rights (cross your fingers) and the BiCity quality
situation is quiet in the Water Court.
3
However, there are remaining tasks and a need for vigilance. Population growth and the
newfound underground water shortfalls in Douglas County and Cherry Creek valley subdivisions
put constant pressure on the surface water allocation system. There are enormous sums to be made
by improperly expanding one's diversions by "just a little bit", to the injury of Englewood and
others . Water pumped uphill from the South Platte below Denver is being quoted to water-short
areas at $30,000 per acre foot, so every questionable diversion is pursued by would-be suppliers.
The foreseeable ongoing tasks are five : first, the pending litigation over the change
applications of FRICO , United Water District and East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation
District. Second, the commencement of changes of the very senior agricultural ditch rights in the
general vicinity of Brighton and Fort Lupton. Third, the "policing" of wells for new subdivisions
upstream of Englewood. Fourth, "adding back" some of the replacement sources for the McBroom
augmentation plan, which Thornton got stricken. Fifth , completing the augmentation plans for
Englewood's park wells and City Ditch aesthetic flows.
The FRICO/United/ECCV changes to the rights in Beebe Draw could i ncrease Englewood's
obligation to release water to the river in winter, under the Petersburg decree . In addition, historic
over-use in Beebe Draw and improper undecreed changes to the priority dates of the FRICO rights
seriously impair the ability of McLellan Reservoir to fill under its 1948 priority; and further over-
uses appear to be proposed. There are rough estimates that as much as 20,000 acre feet of water
historically has been used in Beebe Draw out of priority. Again in a very rough sort of way,
Englewood may be injured to the tune of some 1600 acre feet. The applicants in these cases are of
course driven by the desire to sell water at the prices described above, and thus far they seem
unwilling to enter into sensible settlement negotiations .
For a long time , Englewood was the "lone ranger" in opposing these applications. However,
now (and fortunately ) Aurora has jumped into the case in a very big way , the Bijou system is
participating, and Greeley is participating. Aurora is playing a very major role. Aurora's efforts will
substantially cut Englewood's costs . Aurora has been relying heavily on Englewood's knowledge
of the FRICO system, and has been very cooperative .
Second, the ditch rights around Brighton and Fort Lupton, which are beginning to be changed
to municipal use, are in many instances senior in priority to some of Englewood's core summertime
diversion rights. In particular, Englewood's 1865 Nevada rights are junior to a number of those
ditches (and a few other rights are junior). It is important that the municipalities which now own (or
buy) the rights do not take any more water (or call more often) than the farmers did, and of course
that is the water law rule. Englewood has entered all of these change cases, and is monitoring them
to be sure no injury to Englewood occurs. Englewood also seeks to force the maintenance of
detailed accounting systems for that stretch of the river, which is developing numerous highly
complex municipal decrees. Thus far, fortunately, the municipalities doing the changes are getting
good engineering and are being quite reasonable about the amount they can divert, and about good
accounting. Settlements seem likely.
4
Third, there is a constant succession of new subdivisions upstream from Englewood,
dependent upon new wells for their water supply. The wells of course deplete the river. There is
always a proposed augmentation plan to replace the depletions, and all too frequently the
replacements appear to be inadequate. Englewood routinely objects to such plans, and the
developers routinely add more water, to get the cases settled. The costs to Englewood are not high.
The large number of wells, if not policed, would ultimately cut Englewood's supplies.
Fourth, there is the matter of adding replacement sources to the McBroom augmentation plan.
This requires a new water court decree, but the proposed decree should be non-controversial.
Hopefully the matter can be settled.
Fifth, four wells in small Englewood parks need an augmentation plan. An application for
a decree has been filed, the engineering report is nearly complete , and a proposed decree is nearly
complete. Again, hopefully there should be a settlement without controversy. In addition, the
augmentation plan for aesthetic flows in City Ditch needs completion. This too should be a small
matter.
SUMMATION
Englewood has been fortunate indeed. It is a rags -to-riches story. But constant vigilance will
be needed as population and water prices soar, tempting many to over-use their rights.
Respectfully,
/.· -., I /)
/I ~/ wi .:' /,J· ,.-/./ /' )._ / ;' / / , / , ·' i ' I , .· ,,,. / ({~ tfa. ~/
David G. Hill
5
BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW
1712 Pearl Screet • Boulder, Colorado 80302
David G. Hill
Partner
Daniel L. Brotzman
City Attorney
C ity of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110-0110
Stewart H. Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110-0110
Tel : 303.4 02.1600 • Fax : 303.402.160 I
bhgrlaw.com
July 12, 2005
ATT. 3
Email: dgh@bhgrlaw.com
Re : Joint Defense A g reement in FRICO/United/East Cherry Creek Cases
Dear Dan and Stu :
Enclosed is a final version of the joint defense agreement with Aurora. It is the same as what
you saw before , with a few inconsequential changes by Mark Pifher, Aurora's in-house water
counsel. If this is satisfactory to you , we should get City Council approval and get it on to Aurora
for signature. Aurora is going ahead with their approval process, so if we want changes we should
advise them soon. It is okay with me , but of course your decisions are the final ones.
Sincerely,
David G. Hill
/
I
JOINT DEFENSE AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
This Joint Defense Agreement ("Agreement") sets forth the understanding of the City of
Englewood ("Englewood") and the City of Aurora ("Aurora"), and their respective counsel
(collectively the "Parties") in connection with Water Court Case Nos. 02CW105, 03CW129;
04CW174; 02CW396, 03CW85, 03CW218, 03C\V442, 04C\V085; 04CW356; 04CW362; and
04CW365 ("Water Matters").
THE PARTIES' COMMON INTEREST IN THE PENDING WATER CASES
To ensure that all claims are litigated in an appropriated manner based upon a complete
understanding of all relevant facts and legal theories, the Parties may make available to each
other privileged information, both verbally and in writing, including notes, documents,
memoranda, and research ("Common Interest Materials"), relating to the respective
representations of Parties in connection with the Water Matters. The Common Interest Materials
may reflect and incorporate confidential communications made by the Parties to their counsel ,
and by the ir counsel to them, and are protected by the attorney/client privilege from disclosure,
and th erefore are intended to be insulated from exposure beyond the confines of the Parties (the
"Common Interest Privilege"). See e.g. Gordon v. Boyles, 9 P.3d 1106 (Colo. 2000); Matter of
Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, dated November 16, 1974, 406 F.Supp. 381 (S.D .N .Y.
1975). In addition, the Common Interest Materials are protected from disclosure as a result of
the attorney work-product doctrine or other applicable privileges. See e.g . Tranmirra Products
Corp. v. Monsanto Chemical Corp ., 26 F .R.D. 572 (S .D.N.Y. 1960).
The Parties are making the Common Interest Materials available to each other because
the Parties intend to cooperate to reduce expenses, improve efficiencies and increase
communications of the Parties and any other party who may, in the future, become involved in
the Water Matters. Because of the priv il eged nature of the Common Interest Materials, those
materials will be shared among the Parties with the express understanding that the Parties shall
not communicate the contents thereof to others, because the exchange of Common Interest
Materials is not made for the purpose of allowing unlimited publication or use, but in confidence,
for the limited and restricted purpose of assisting the Parties in advancing the Water Matters to a
successful conclusion.
The Party producing the Common Interest Materials shall designate the Common Interest
Materials as such. However, the failure to so designate the Common Interest Materials shall not
constitute a waiver of any attorney-client privilege or work-product privilege.
The Parties understand that the purpose of this Agreement is to facilitate common interest
representation by increasing the information flow between the Parties. The Parties recognize,
however, that under some circumstances, information known to one Party may not be shared
with the other Party to the Agreement.
Nothing in this Agreement is intended as, shall constitute, or shall be interpreted,
construed or used as evidence of an admission by a Party of any wrongdoing, liability or fault
(including comparative or proportionate fault), a waiver of any privilege, claim, right or defense,
estoppel, or an admission as to any matter of law or fact, either as between the Parties or with
9411\29\920046.3
respect to any person or entity not a party to this Agreement provided, however, that any Party
shall be entitled to use this Agreement to enforce its terms.
If any person or entity not a part to this Agreement requests or demands, by subpoena or
otherwise, any Common Interest Materials from any Party or from any Party's agent, employee,
consultant, or representative, such Party shall: (1) immediately notify the other Party, and (2)
assert the Common Interest Privilege with respect to the requested Common Interest Materials.
Each Party and each Party's respective counsel shall take all steps necessary to assert all
applicable rights and privileges with respect to such Common Interest Materials and shall
cooperate fully with the other Party in any judicial proceedings related to the disclosure of the
Common Interest Materials.
The intent of this Agreement is to preserve any pri vilege app licable to the Common
Interest Materials while pursuing the Parties' common interest and to keep all Common Interest
Materials confidential to the maximum extent allowed by law. A Party's disclosure of Common
Interest Materials exchanged pursuant to this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver by the
other Party of its right to assert a claim of the Common Interest Privilege and attorney/client or
work-product privilege with respect to any Common Interest Materials.
This Agreement shall be binding upon each Party even after the Water Matters are
decided or resolved, whether by settlement, judgment, dismissal, or otherwise as to that
respective Party.
This Agreement, its terms, the fact of its execution and all discussions among the Parties,
their attorneys, officers, directors, agents, consultants, representatives, and employees with
regard to the Agreement, are themselves subject to the attorney/client and work-product
privileges, and each Party agrees that the Common Interest Privilege and any privilege shall be
asserted in response to any subpoena or request for the production of the Agreement or in
response to any inquiry as to its terms, the fact of its execution, or discussions relating to it.
This Agreement confirms a verbal agreement previously reached between the Parties.
All previous privileged communications, and all Common Interest Materials previously
exchanged, between the Parties and their respective attorneys , officers, directors, agents,
employees, consultants, and representatives, are subject to this Agreement.
TERMINATION/WITHDRAWAL
Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement by giving written notice to every other
Party of its election to withdraw.
Any Party that withdraws from this Agreement, together with such Party's respective
counsel, remains subject to all confidentiality provisions herein as they pertain to information
theretofore received, but not as to subsequent information.
In the event a Party reaches a settlement with Applicants in the Water Matters (The
"Settling Party"), the remaining Parties to this Agreement may employ or continue to employ the
Settling Party's engineering experts and utilize their previously developed analyses and reports
9411\29\920046 .3 2
which were developed in conjunction with the Water Matters and exchanged pursuant to this
Agreement.
MISCELLANEOUS
Each Party understands and acknowledges that it is represented only by its attorneys in
this matter, that while an attorney representing any other Party has a duty to preserve the
confidences disclosed to him or her pursuant to this Agreement, the attorneys representing any
other Party will be acting only as attorneys for that other Party and will owe a duty of loyalty to
their respective client only. Each Party will pay for the services of its respective attorneys, but
nothing herein shall void any subsequent agreement between the Parties, if any, to indemnify any
other Party for attorneys' fees and costs or share in such fees and costs.
Each Party understands that the Parties may now or in the future have some adverse
interests and that the sharing of some confidences pursuant to this Agreement may lead to
potential conflicts of interest of the various attorneys in the future. The P arties do not intend that
the exchange of Common Interest Materials may be used for the future disqualification of their
respective attorneys and agree that they will not move for disqualification of attorneys in the
Water Matters or any other cases based on the exchange of Common Interest Materials pursuant
to this Agreement. The Parties hereby waive any conflict of interest arising from the sharing of
such Confidential Interest Materials.
Colorado law shall control the interpretation and enforcement of this Agreement. This
Agreement may be enforced in the District Court for Water Division One in Weld County,
Colorado by a temporary restraining order and injunction in the event of a breach or anticipatory
breach. The parties accept jurisdiction and venue in that court. Any modification to this
Agreement shall be in writing and signed by all Parties.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the Parties and their
respective counsel.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership, joint venture, and/or
principal and agent relationship between the Parties and/or their respective counsel.
The headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and are
not intended to limit the scope or affect the interpretation of this Agreement.
If any provision of this Agreement is deemed invalid or unenforceable, the balance of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
This Agreement constitutes the entire current understanding of the Parties and their
respective counsel with respect to its subject matter and supersedes any previous oral or written
agreements relating to the subject matter of this Agreement.
The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement is the result of joint negotiations among the
Parties, and agree that this Agreement shall not be construed or interpreted against any Party on
the grounds of sole or primary authorship.
9411\29\920046.3 3
Each person signing this Agreement represents and warrants that he or she has been duly
authorized to enter into this Agreement by the entity on whose behalf it is indicated that the
person is signing.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts each of which shall be deemed an
original.
PARTIES:
Dated: ____ _
COUNSEL:
Dated: -----
Dated: -----
9411\29\920046.3
THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
By: ----------------
Its :
THE CITY OF AURORA
By: ----------------
Its:
David G. Hill
Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti LLP
1712 Pearl Street
Boulder, CO 80302
(303) 402-1600
Special Water Counsel for City of Englewood
Steven 0 . Simms
Connie Peterson
Brownstein Hyatt & Farber, P.C.
410 Seventeenth Street, 22nd Floor
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 223-1100
Attorneys for the City of Aurora
4
Date
September 19, 2005
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
AT T. Lf
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
PARCO System -Distribution
System Discharge Pump Valve
and Actuator Replacement.
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
None .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Utilities staff recommends Council approval, by motion of the bid for Distribution System Discharge
Pump Valve and Actuator Replacement to Genesee Builders, Inc. in the amount of $188,300.00.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
In 1980 the Allen Filter Plant high lift pumps were upgraded and installed to meet requirements for a
pump to stop and start against a closed valve, a system that was initially installed by the PARCO. This
system has a large hydraulic oil tank and air pressure tank with individual lines running 7 high-lift
pumps. Due to aging equipment, there are increasingly imminent chances of a hydraulic leak
occurring and contaminating the clear well has increased dramatically, necessitating a system
replacement. Valves are wearing out and not sealing, which can cause the pumps to run backwards,
which in turn would refill the clearwell and potentially causing flooding.
The proposed system will incorporate new valves and an actuator system that will be a combination of
electric and hydraulic actuators that uses a small quantity of food-grade oil that will be self-contained
on each actuator, minimizing a clear well contamination if a leak should occur.
The proposed system will incorporate seven high-lift pump valves and actuators in the pump room at
the Allen Filter Plant. When the pumps are turned on, they fire up to speed and open the valve that
allows water to be pumped into the distribution system. In the case of a power failure, the hydraulic
portion will close the distribution system valve.
Work will include demolition of existing valves and actuators pumps and piping, installation of new
pump valves, VFDs, piping valves and related work and start-up and testing of pumps. Because of
previously successful installations, the Rotork Skillmatic Actuator has been specifically requested.
Four contractors picked up bid packages for the Distribution System Discharge Pump Valve and
Actuator Replacement. A bid opening was held on September 1, 2005. The following responses were
received:
Jcor Mechanical, Inc.
Johnson Controls
Velocity Constructor
Genesee Builders, Inc.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
$233,996 .00
$230,609.00
$190,959.00
$188,300 .00
Genesee Builders, Inc. is the recommended low, acceptable bidder at $188,300.00. The Utilities
Department budgeted $250 ,000 .00 in the 2005 Budget for this project. COM has reviewed and
approved the recommended lowest, acceptab le bidder.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Bid Proposal Tabulation
City of Englewood Bid Tabulation Sheet
Bid Opening: IFB-05-139 9/1/05 10:00 a.m.
ITEM: Allen Water Treatment Plant Discharge Pump Valve & Actuator Improvements
Addendum Schedule of prices
Vendor #1 #2 #3 B Line 1.1 Line 1.2 Line 1.3 Line 1.4 Line 2.0
Velocity Constructor, y y y y
P 0 Sox 270544 $ 8,287.00 $ 155,355.00 $ 9,180.00 $ 5,946.00 $ 12,191.00
Llllton, CO 80127
v
Jcor Mechanical, Inc. y y y y
15800 W 5th St $ 7,920.00 $ 190,866.00 $ 19,879.00 $ 8,516.00 $ 6,815.00
Gloden, CO 80401
Johnson Controls y y y y
10289 W Centennial Rd $10,525.00 $ 178,929.00 $ 23,945.00 $ -$ 17,210.00
Lillton, CO 80127 Not Noted
Genesee Bullders, Inc. y y y y
23695 Currant Dr $14,200.00 $ 136,800.00 $ 15,100.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 8,200.00
Golden, CO 80401
Total Bid
$ 190,959.00
$ 233,996.00
$ 230,609.00
$ 188,300.00
.... -...
DENVER VVATER
1600 West 12th Ave nu e · Denver, Colorado 80204-3412
Phone 3 0 3·628-6000 • Fax No . 303-628-6199
August 12, 2005
St ewart H. Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, Co. 80110
Dear Mr. Fonda:
A TT. 5
Thank you for your letter of August 8, 2005 . Denver Water has no facilities that
can provide water service to the Rectory at 4780 So uth Clarks on. With the City of
Englewood currently providing water service to the ch urch at 4750 So uth Clarkson
Street, and Denver Water having no p lans to install a w ater main in the ar ea, Denver
Water has no objection if Englewood serves the Rectory. If you have any question, or ifI
can be have further assistance, please contact me at 303 -628 -6 108.
Sincerely,
~~r ~
Jam es F. Culligan
Distributor Services Supervisor.
CONSERVE
c T y 0 F E N G
July 28, 2005
Sheryl Keuchenmeister, City Manager (303-783-2722)
Cherry Hills Village Sanitation District
2450 E . Quincy Ave .
Englewood, CO 80110
Dear Ms. Keuchenmeister:
LEWOOD
Englewood has received a request fr om Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church , located at
4750 S . Clarkson Street, for a new water tap to the existing rectory at 4780 S . Clarkson
Street that is currently on a well that has since run dry. Englewood is currently serving
the church but not the rectory, both of which are located in Cherry Hills Village . The
church is in the process of trying to subdivide the rectory portion for sale.
There is an existing agreement between the Denver Water Board and the City of
Englewood for mutually providing service to customers in cases such as this, depending
on the location of the nearest munic ip al water main. Denver Water is considering our
request to provide water service to 4780 S . Clarkson St., on the condition that Cherry
Hills Village has no objection. The proposed water tap would be subject to the existing
conditions set under the 1997 Connector's Agreement between Cherry Hills Village and
the City of Englewood (see attached).
Please consider this request for the Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church and respond, via
a letter that confirms that Cherry Hills Village accepts this property in accordance with
the agreement. We will then forward a copy of your letter to the Denver Water
Department.
Sincerely,
~OL
Stewart H . Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood , Colorado 8011 O Phone 303-762-2300
www.eng Jewo odg ov.o rg
····.z··-·
c T y 0 F
August 8, 2005
Mr. Jim Culligan
Denver Water Department -Water Sales
Distribution Services Supervisor
1600 W. lih Ave.
Denver, CO 80254
Re: 4750 & 4780 S. Clarkson St.
Dear Jim:
E N G LEWOOD
We have received a request from Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church, located at 4750 S.
Clarkson Street, for a new water tap for the existing rectory at 4780 S. Clarkson Street
that is currently on a well that has since run dry. Englewood is presently serving the
church but not the rectory , both of which are located in Cherry Hills Village. The church
is in the process of trying to subdivide the rectory portion for sale.
Normally, the City of Englewood does not provide individual water services outside the
City limits, and if an exception is made it must be through an established district or City .
There is an existing agreement between the Denver Water Board and the City of
Englewood for mutually providing service to customers in cases such as this, depending
on the location of the nearest munic ipal water main. Englewood is requesting that
Denver approve the connection of the residence at 4780 S. Clarkson Street, located in the
Denver Water Department service area of Cherry Hills Village to the Englewood water
main in South Clarkson Street. This is conditional upon no receiving no objections from
Cherry Hills Village and is subject to the terms and conditions of the May 12, 1997
Connector 's Agreement (see attached).
Please respond if this tap request is acceptable so Grace Evangelical Lutheran Church
may plan accordingly.
Sincerely,
Stewart H. Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 8011 O Phone 303-762 -2300
www.e nl!lew nod 1mv nrl!
AT T. G:>
Stu Fonda
From: Joe Pershin
Sent: Thursday , August 04, 2005 11 :11 AM
To: Stu Fonda
Subject: AWWARF Project
Stu,
Englewood has been asked to participate in an AWWARF project to develop an Ultraviolet disinfection knowledge base. Utilities
who participate have been asked to contribute an in-kind cash amount of $5000. Normally, a utility is asked to contribute an
employee's time for meetings and travel. Because of the cash contribution, the resea-ch team will visit the Allen Plant and put
together specifications and anticipated costs involved at some time in the future when lN disinfection is necessay. If we were to
pursue UV disinfection on our own in the future , the cost would be much more than $5000.
Federal regulations for drinking water Cl'e becoming more and more stringent One area of focus is the inactivation of pathogens.
lN creates no by-products and is effective on pathogens that chlorine cannot inactivate. It may be impossible to comply with
future regulations without UV disinfection.
Joe
8/4/2005
&~ A .. '.fv '-M-a .
R·2se ar c:"j
;:-:::u n ::ia-i:i o n
Advancing the Science of Water•
June 7, 2005
Harold Wright
Carollo Engineers
12592 W Explorer Dr.,Ste 200
Boise , ID 83713
/~ ... ~ .... 1J
Dear Mr.-wi1gfi t:
6666 Wert Quincy Avenue
Denver, CO 80235-3098 USA
p 303.347 .6100
F 303.730.0851
www.awwarf.org
email : info@awwarf.org
Sponsor s nesearcn
D ev c~loos :"'-nowl ed<!e
!3 rnmotes cl)llaborat1on
I am pleased to advise you that your proposal in response to our RFP entitled "Development of a
UV Disinfection Knowledge Base" has been selected for funding by the Research Foundation.
The Foundation and the Project Advisory Committee (PAC) are confident that your research in
this area will benefit the water supply community.
This award is contingent upon successful negotiation of the Foundation 's project funding
agreement. You , or your designated contract administrator, will be receiving this agreement
shortly. A copy of the agreement is also available for review on the Foundation's web site at
http://www.awwarf.org/research/projectadmin/docs/contract.pdf.
Alice Fulmer will serve as the project manager for this study and will contact you soon. If you
have any questions, please contact Alice at (303) 347-6109 or afulmer@awwarf.org. We look
forward to working with you and to the successful completion of this very important project.
Sincerely yours ,
c~
Walter J. Bishop
Chair
WJB:ps :3117
c: J.A. Hull , Capital Regional District Water Department
Joseph T. Pershin, City of Englewood Water Department
Stewart Fonda , City of Englewood Water Department
Doug Kaupp , City of Lethbridge Water Utility
Ian Douglas, City of Ottawa
Walter J. Bishop, Chair
David E. Rager. Vice-Chair
Mark Premo, Treasurer
James F. Manwaring, Executive Director
Drinking water UV disinfection has evolved
considerably over the last 10 years in terms of
regulations , commercial technologies, design
and operation, and fundamental understanding.
Thus, utilities, engineers, and regulators see UV
disinfection as an emerging technology and have
many questions that include: How much lamp
aging and fouling occurs? Are UV systems property
sized? How reliable are UV systems? How much
do they cost in terms of capital and O&M? Is
mercury release an issue? How do they comply with
Guidance and Regulations? What are the lessons
learned implementing UV disinfection?
AwwaRF RFP 3117 requests proposals to
develop a UV disinfection knowledge base that
consolidates industry knowledge and experience
on drinking water UV disinfection and answers
the important questions that impact the cost and
risk of implementing this technology. This goal
will be achieved by meeting the following specific
objectives:
• Summarize the literature on drinking water
UV disinfection with a focus on full-scale
applications .
• Identify the important issues and questions that
face utilities , engineers, and regulators
• Develop electronic tools for collecting and
manipulating quantitative and qualitative data
that includes design, validation, performance,
costs, and lessons learned .
• Collect a representative data set that spans
geography, water quality, capacity, treatment
goals , and commercial UV technologies .
• Answer important issues and questions using the
collected data.
• Develop useful software tools for optimizing UV
system design and operation .
• Disseminate the findings to the UV industry.
To achieve these specific objectives, we have
developed a project approach that involves:
./ Benchmarking the state-cf-the-art of drinking
water UV disinfection, using a literature review.
./ Surveying stakeholders and UV experts to
identify and rank issues .
./ Developing an MS Access database-surveying
tool for collecting data on UV disinfection .
./ Populating the database using surveys and
detailed on-site and off-site evaluations.
./ Developing software tools within the database to
answerthe important questions.
"' Developing analysis and recommendations
useful to utilities, engineers, and regulators.
Important deliverables will include: 1) a
comprehensive report that answers the important
questions on drinking water UV disinfection ; 2) a
CD-ROM and Internet database providing detailed
data on installed and planned UV disinfection
systems ; 3) software tools that engineers , utilities,
and regulators can use to reduce costs and risks of
implementing UV disinfection; and 4) a step-by-step
troubleshooting guide that utility operators can use
to evaluate their installed UV system.
The submitting organization for this proposal
is Carollo Engineers, with Mr. Harold Wright as
Principal Investigator (Pl) and Project Manager. The
Project Team includes COM, with Mr. Chris Schulz
as Co-Pl; the Institute of Medical Physics and
Biostatistics of the University of Veterinary Medicine,
Vienna, Austria, with Mr. Alexander Cabaj as Co-Pl;
and MacViro Consultants, Inc. Participating water
utilities include the Capital Regional District (BC);
City of Englewood (CO); City of Lethbridge (AL);
City of North Bay, (ON); City of Ottawa (ON);
City of Tempe (AZ); EPCOR (AB); Greater
Vancouver Regional District (BC); Lake Havasu
proi ecc .1bscr .KC • i
City Public Works (AZ); Neenah Water Utility (WI);
Poughkeepsies' WTF (NY); Region of Peel (ON);
San Francisco PUC (CA); Aqua New Jersey (NJ);
Central Lake County Joint Action Water Agency (IL);
City of Jackson (MS); City of Kelowna (BC); City of
Newark WTP (OH); City of New York (NY); City of
Tracy PWD (CA); Cudahy Water Utility (WI); Denver
Water (CO); r:ast Bay Municipal Utility District (CA);
Greater Cincinnati Water Works (OH); Niagara PWD
(ON); North Shore Water Commission (WI); North
Tahoe PUD (CA); Region of Waterloo (ON); South
Blount County Utility District (TN); Weber Basin
Water Conservancy District (UT). Participating
regulators include the Alicia Dielh (TX); Florida
Department of Health; Ontario Clean Water Agency;
State of California OHS; State of New York DOH;
State of Utah DEQ; and the State of Washington
DOH Office of Drinking Water. Participating UV
system manufacturers include Calgon Corporation
(PA); lnfilco Degremont (VA); Trojan Technologies
(ON); and WEDECO (NC).
AwwaRF funding of $250,000 is requested. Utility
cash contributions are $121,922, and third-party
in-kind contributions are $287,489; research team
cost sharing is $54,226. The total project budget is
$713,634 .
---------------project abstract • ii
UV Disinfection Database & Analysis Tool.This
project will develop a Microsoft Access database
containing qualitative and quantitative data on
installed or planned UV disinfection systems in
North America . Raw data will be directly accessible
using standard Access Query tools. All data entry
forms will allow users to view data and enter new
records. The database will include custom data
queries , accessible using a user menu, that will
provide answers on the important questions on UV
disinfection. All raw and normalized data , generated
using the queries , will be downloadable to Excel
or Word for further analysis . The database wi ll be
easy to navigate and supported by help features.
Researchers , engineers , utilities , and regulators will
use the data and analysis to provide answers on
UV disinfection , such as how much lamp aging and
fouling occurs with a given UV system , wha t are
UV system costs, and so forth . Data will be used
to provide realistic data for UV system des ign and
implementation that will reduce costs and ri sks.
UV System Optimization iools. The database will
be equipped with software tools that give :
• Statistical parameters calculated from entered
WQ data (e.g ., 5th and SOth percentiles , LSI).
• S/S 0 calculator tool for assessing comb ined lamp
aging/fouling with correlations to water quality
parameters and lamp types.
• UVCAT assessment of dose monitoring and dose
pacing efficiency.
• UVCAT O&M cost analysis and comparison to
actual costs.
• UVCAT UV system sizing analysis for a given
flow and UVT profile .
• Capital and life cycle cost calculators us ing
standard and UVCAT approaches .
• MTBF calculations for UV system components
based on reported failure data .
• UVCAT predictions of off-spec performance ,
pathogen inactivation , and relative health risk
using predicted and actual data.
• Model for mercury concentrations following lamp
breakage events .
• Safety factor calculator using the most recent
USEPA UVDGM .
• UVCAT estimated reduction in Cryptosporidium
patent costs possible by operating above the
patenfs upper limit dose of 175 mJ/cm 2.
These software tools will be used by engineers and
utilities to understand and optimize UV disinfection .
Tools for calculating off-spec performance and
relative health risk, mercury concentrations , and
UVDGM "safety factors · will be used to obtain
regulatory approval for UV systems.
UV System Troubles hooting & E·1aluation Guide.
This project will develop step-by-step procedures
that WTP operators and engineers can use to
evaluate and troubleshoot commercial UV reactors
from Calgon , Trojan , WEOECO , and Hanovia.
Procedures will include using S/S0 to indicate aging
and fouling, determining the efficiency of dose
pacing and monitoring, evaluating UV sensors
and on-line UVT monitors, quantifying aging
and fouling of specific components (e .g., lamps,
sleeves, sensors), evaluating sleeve integrity and
the impacts of mercury release , and evaluating UV
system reliability and response to alarms . These
procedures will be invaluable for utilities who wish to
better understand and optimize their UV systems .
Lessons Learned. This project will develop a
final report summarizing the findings of the wor1<,
including lessons learned and recommendations .
UV vendors, utilities , engineers, and regulators
will use the findings to improve commercial UV
technologies and their implementation .
-----------------J.pp licJ.cions pocenci.11 • :3
Advancing the Science of Water•
July 6, 2005
Joe Pershin
Water Production Administrator
City of Englewood Water Department
1500 W Layton Ave
Englewood CO 80110-6420
Dear Mr. Pershin:
6666 West Quincy Avenue
Denver, CO 80235-3098 USA
p 303.347.6100
F 303. 730.0851
www.a wwarf.org
email: i nfo@awwarf.org
Sponsors Research
Develops Knowledge
Promotes Collaboration
Enclosed is a copy of the draft Co-funding Agreement between the Research Foundation
and City of Englewood Water Department for the project ·'Development of a UV
Disinfection Knowledge Base." The other is a copy of the Project Funding Agreement
between the Foundation and Carollo Engineers which is referenced in the Co-funding
Agreement.
Please review the Co-funding Agreement and provide in writing any suggested revisions
you may have as soon as possible. In addition, please forward a copy to anyone in your
organization who must also approve the agreement. If you have any questions regarding
the draft agreement please contact Peggy Falor at (303) 734-3424 or email at
pfalor@awwarf.org. If your question is regarding any technical matters on this project
please contact Alice Fulmer, Project Manager at (303) 347-6109.
Sincerely ,
-.--) ' _L-:-i<7 ~ ff I FT"'-'
Donna Hughston
Administrative Assistant
DH:3117
Enclosures
c: Peggy Falor
Walter J. Bishop, Chair
David E. Rager, Vice-Chair
Mark Premo, Treasurer
James F. Manwaring, Executive Director
COFUNDING AGREEMENT
between
A wwa Research Foundation
6666 West Quincy A venue
Denver, CO 80235
and
City of Englewood Water Department
1500 West Layton A venue
Englewood, CO 80110-6420
for
Project 3117
This Agreement is entered into between the Awwa Research Foundation ("Foundation"
or "AwwaRF"), a Delaware nonprofit corporation whose principal place of business is
located at 6666 W. Quincy Ave Denver, CO 80235 and City of Englewood Water
Department, whose principal place of business is Charles Allen Water Treament Facility,
1500 West Layton Avenue, Englewood, CO 80110-6420 in furtherance of their common
interest to support research on behalf of the drinking water community.
Article 1: Responsibilities
1.1 A wwaRF , on behalf of the parties, has entered into Project Funding Agreement 3117
with Carollo Engineers to conduct a collaboration project entitled "Development of a
UV Disinfection Knowledge Base." The agreement with Carollo Engineers defines
the roles and responsibilities of the parties in accomplishing the tasks of the
collaboration project described in the project proposal which b y this reference is
made an integral part of this Agreement. In addition, the Project Funding Agreement
3117 describing responsibilities of the Principal Investigator, Harold Wright, is in the
attached Exhibit an d is made an integral part of this Agreement. Communications
re garding contract matters shall be through Peggy Falor at the Foundation, phone:
303 .734 .3424 , email: pfalor@ awwarf.org and Nancy Reid phone: 303.762.2320 ,
email: nreid@englewoodgov.or g.
1.2 City of Englewood Water Department shall provide co-funding for the Work in
accordance with the provisions of 2.1 below.
Article 2: Cofunding/Pavment
2.1 City of Englewood Water Department agrees to pay AwwaRF an amount not to
exceed $5 ,000 in United States currency for costs associated with the collaboration
project on or before the execution of this document. AwwaRF will invoice by
communicating with Joe Pershin, Charles Allen Water Treament Facility, 1500 West
Layton Avenue , Englewood, CO 80110-6420 , phone 303.783.6826, e-mail:
jpershin@englewoodgo v .org.
2.2 AwwaRF will be solely responsible for payment of the Foundation 's and the co-
funding organization's funds to the Participant, upon receipt and approval of the
Reimbursement Requests.
2.3 Payment(s) to AwwaRF should be made by check and sent to Accounting, AwwaRF ,
6666 West Quincy Av enue , Denver, CO 80235.
2
Article 3: Project Management/Reports
3.1 The Work will be conducted under AwwaRF's direction in coordination with a
Project Advisory Committee (PAC) defined as expert volunteers selected by
AwwaRF to provide technical review, assistance and /or expertise to AwwaRF
regarding the Project.
3.2 Copies of all reports , including Periodic Reports, Draft Report, and the Final Report
shall be furnished to A wwaRF and to City of Englewood Water Department by the
Participant.
Article 4: Intellectual Propertv Rights
4.1 Parties intend that the Foundation shall own all U.S . and world-wide copyright in the
Scope of Work , all Periodic Reports, the Final Report , the Project Profile, all drafts of
these works and reports , and all computer software developed as a deliverable for this
Project as defined in the Project F unding Agreement. Such property is hereafter
referred to as "Foundation· s Intellectual Property." None of the Foundation's
Intellectual Property shall be distributed by City of Englewood Water Department
without the prior written approval of the Foundation.
4.2 The Foundation grants City of Englewood Water Department use of its one-half share
of Jointl y Owned Intellectual Property Rights as defined in the Project Funding
Agreement 311 7.
Article 5: Intent to Publish
5 .1 City of Englewood Water Department understands that the purpose of the Project
Funding Agreement 311 7 is to further scientific and technological knowledge in the
area of research covered by this Project. It is likely that data concerning City of
Englewood Water Department will result from the Project and may be published in
the Final Report. City of Englewood Water Department will have the right to review
the Project's use and conclusions concerning that organization's data and/or test
results and provide the Participant with the reasonable opportunity to correct, or if
correction will take an unreasonably long time, to respond to, any problems or
difficulties uncovered by the data. information, or test results, all of which must occur
prior to the publication or use of such information as outlined in the Project Funding
Agreement 311 7.
Article 6: Indemnification
6.1 A copy of the indemnification pro vi sions is found in the attached Exhibit 2. If the
Participant shall be unwilling to agree to such indemnity provisions , due to such
circumstances as state law or self insurance A wwaRF agrees to so inform the co-
funder promptly and to advise the co-funder of the provisions that the Participant is
willing to accept.
3
6.2 AwwaRF shall defend, indemnify and hold hannless the co-funder, its officers,
directors, employees, agents and representatives, from and against any claim, suit or
proceeding brought against the co-funder based on a claim that involves any
intellectual property rights in existence as of this Agreement's execution date.
Article 7: Insurance
7.1 The Foundation shall require the Participant to provide the insurance coverage as set
forth in the Project Funding Agreement 3117. Upon the co-funder's request, the
Foundation shall provide the co-funder with certificates of insurance evidencing the
Participant's coverage.
Article 8: Time Frame
8.1 This Agreement shall commence on <date> and shall end on the Termination Date of
the Project Funding Agreement 3117 .
Article 9: Miscellaneous
9 .1 This Agreement represents the en t ire agreement of the parties and there are no
promises or understandings other than those stated herein.
9.2 None of the provisions, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement may be
added to , modified, superseded or otherwise altered, except by written instrument
executed by the parties hereto.
9 .3 This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the
State of Colorado .
9.4 Any notice given pursuant to the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and sent
to:
For City of Englewood Water Department: Joe Pershin, Project Manager, at Charles
Allen Water Treament Facility, 1500 West Layton Avenue, Englewood, CO 80110-6420,
phone : 303.762.2636, email: jpershin@englewoodgov.org.
For AwwaRF: Alice E Fulmer, Project Manager, at 6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver,
CO 80235 , phone: 303.347.6109 , email afulmer@awwarf.org.
4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by
their duly authorized representatives , effective as of the date oflast signature below.
Awwa Research Foundation
By: James F. Manwaring
Title: Executive Director
5
City of Englewood Water Department
By: Stewart H . Fonda
Title: Director of Utilities
Date
September 19, 2005
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
ATT. 7
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
Tank repairs to the east
Clarkson St. 3-Million-Gallon
Reservoir
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. Council approved 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 on November 4, 2004 .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board, at their September 13, 2005 meeting, recommended
Council approval, by motion, of the bid award for the tank repairs of the east Clarkson Street
3-million-gallon reservoirs to Premier Spec. Contractors in the amount of $261,285.00.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The east Clarkson Street 3-million-gallon covered reservoir, located two blocks east of the
intersection of Clarkson and Sunset Ridge in the City of Greenwood Village, was 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 60% of the City.
The east storage reservoir was previously overhauled in 1993. Storage reservoir maintenance
mandates a thorough inspection every five years. In January, 2003 COM did an extensive
inspection of the two 3-million-gallon tanks, resulting in repairs on the east tank roof slab .
COM has also recommended 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 has
deteriorated, and if left unrepaired, will become more extensive. West tank roof slab was
repaired in 2004 and valves were replaced in 2004.
The work will include repairing cracks in the base slab, removing and installing portions of a
new roof slab, repairing expansion joints, applying roof sealer, replacing two access hatches,
ladder and grating installation and repairing concrete columns on the east tank. Replacement
of the altitude valve with a butterfly valve in order to isolate the two 3 mg reservoirs from the
one 6 mg reservoir and miscellaneous pa inting .
Requests for Bid were received from five vendors for the east Clarkson Street Reservoir Roof
and Valve Modifications.
One response was received:
Premier Spec. Contractors $261 ,285.00
Steve Price from COM reviewed the bids and recommends Premier Spec. Contractors be
awarded the contract in the amount of $2 6 1,285.00.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The original 2005 budgeted amount was $150 ,000.00. A bid opening was held on September
1, 2005 and Premier Spec . Contractors was the lowest, acceptable bidder in the amount of
$261 ,285.000 . In the 2005 Budget, $15 0,000 was allocated. 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: September 1, 2005 1 :00 p.m.
Bid Item: Clarkson Street Reservoir Roof & Valve Modifications
Bid
Bond
Vendor Y/N Item# Total Bid Exceptions:
Velocity Constructors, Inc. 1
Fred 303-9/U.7800 2 NOBIO
9848 Garton Dr 3
Lakewood, CO 80227 4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
to tal $ .
Hallmark, Inc. 1
D. F Aoducci 303-423-8005 2 NO BID
5160 Panfet Unit 8-F 3
Wheatridge, CO 80215 4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
total $ .
Glacier Construction 1
Steve Stephenson 303-221-5383 2 NO BID
7302 S Alton Way, Suite 41 3
Englewood, CO 80112 4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
total $ .
Premier Spec Cont. Yes 1 $ 2,2 50 .00
Kent Cottle 303-934-2467 2 $ 51,000 .00
2311 S Platte River Dr 3 s 68 .00 0 .00
Denver, CO 80223 4 $ 4 ,500.00
5 $ 16 ,0 00 .00
6 $ 5,000 .00
7 $ 3.400 .00
8 $ 31 ,560 .00
9 $ 22.000 .00
11 $ 2.500 .00
12 $ 53.500 .0 0
13 $ 1,575 .00
total s 261 ,285.00
Page 1 IFB-05-138ClarksonResevoirTab.XLS
,_
Bid
Bond
Vendor Y/N Item# Total Bid Exceptions:
RN Civil Construction 1
Dan Niehus 303-482-3059 2 NOBIO
6507 S Dexter St 3
Littleton, CO 80121 4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
total $ -
Page2 IFB-05-138ClarksonResevoirTab.XLS
,
t , :
I ....
I
• • •
[II
• •
Ill
• • • • • • • • • •
City of Englewood
Off-Leash Dog Park
Water Quality Assessment
August 19, 2005
Draft
ATT. 8
• •
rl
• •
• • • • • • •
• • • • •
Executive Summ ary
[n recent years, commlmities across the Colorado Front Range have seen increasing
interest in off-leash dog areas in the urban environment . A group in Englewood has
recently proposed an off-leash dog park that would be sited at Belleview Park. This
park is located along the banks of Big Dry Creek, just east of Windermere Street and
immediately across Big Dry Creek (to the south) from the City of Englewood 's (City's)
Allen Water Treatment Plant (WTP). The dog park as proposed would be
approximately 1.6 acres in size and would be fenced off. A Jtme 2005 study by the
City of Englevvood (City) (Muller 2005) concluded that the proposed park could be
_ implemented without changing the floodplain in this section of Big Dry Creek.
Storm;vater nmoff from the dog park would enter Big Dry Creek and be conveyed to
the So uth Platte River immediately upstream o f the City 's raw water intake at the
Union Av enue Pump Station. The location o f the proposed dog park as it relates to
the South Platte River and the City 's Union A\·enue Pump Station is shown in
Figure ES-1. Due to the proposed park 's proximity to the City 's raw water intake,
conc e rns have been raised about the impacts o f the dog park on water quality. The
All e n WTP currently provides a high level o f tr eatment, and the City has a desire to
m .1 intain its proactive approach to providing residents with high quality drinking
water .
Figure ES-1 Location map for proposed dog park. receiving waters , and water treatment system .
DRA FT ES-1
0710\46344\RT --2w a 1ENGL'EINCOO :cc ~A.Pl(' EX ECU TI V E SL MMARY DOC 3/19/0 S :ie
• • • ••
• • • • • • • • •
I
• • • •
I
CDNI
Executive Summary
The proposed off-leash dog park was analyzed in this study for its potential to affect
the water quality in Englewood's South Platte River raw water supply source and the
implications with respect to treatment at the City's Allen WTP and Englewood's
drinking water quality . The analysis focused on microbiological contaminants
associated with dog excrement and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) that may be
associated with dog excrement and urine.
Thi!? study drew on the literature, the practical experience of other communities, and
a spreadsheet-based model developed for this study using site-specific characteristics
of the proposed dog park. The major findings of this study include:
• There has been little scientifi c research on the specific effects of dog parks on
potable water supplies, and on the effectiveness of best management practices
(BMPs) in removing contaminants of concern associated with dog excrement and
urine
• Dog excrement and urine is widel y recognized as a potentially significant source of
microbiological and nutrient contaminants in receiving waters
• BMPs focusing on promoting prompt removal and proper disposal of dog
excrement are in common practice at dog parks in Colorado and elsewhere, and
comprise one of the most basic and effective means of protecting receiving water
quality
• The proposed dog park is not expected to significantly affect levels of total nitrogen
or total phosphorus in the South Platte River
• If not promptly removed and properly disposed, dog excrement from the proposed
dog park could significantly increase fecal coliform bacteria in the South Platte
River at the Union A venue Pump Station intake and could pose a risk to water
treatment and treated water quality at the Allen WTP
• If not promptly removed and properly disposed, dog excrement from the proposed
dog park could have the p o tential to bring a regulatory requirement to modify the
Allen WTP treatment process at a capital cost in excess of $1 million
Given these findings, CDM recommends the following actions with respect to the
proposed dog park:
• The dog park should be clearly posted with highly-visible signage indicating that
the dog park is immediately upstream of Englewood's primary source of drinking
water and that dog excrement must be promptly picked up and properly disposed
• Specific rules requiring prompt pickup and disposal of dog excrement at the park
must be developed, communicated to park visitors, and regularly enforced
DRAFT ES-2
0710\'463"'\AT·r.!WQ\ENGLEWOOO DOG PARK\EXECUTI VE SUMMARY DO C 8/19/05 ge
II
II
• • •
II
• • • • •
II
•
• •
• •
Executive Summary
• Bags and trash cans, or simil ar excrement disposal means, should be made readily
available to park visitors and frequently restocked/ emptied
• Visitors should be warned that failure to adhere to these requirements could mean
that the dog park would be closed
• The City and / or proponents of the dog park should have the authority to close the
~og park if the dog park is not properly maintained
• Structural BMPs should be incorporated into the design and construction of the dog
park, including a grassed swale, detention pon d, and vegetated area to provide
treatment for any residual dog waste in storm runoff from the dog park site
An analysis of applicable water treatment regulations, along with an assessment of
implications of the dog park on water treatment at the Allen WTP and treated water
quality is provided in Section 3. A conceptual layout of the recommended structural
BMPs is provided in Section 4. A preliminary estimate of costs to add these features to
the dog park design and construction is $19,000, as detailed in Section 4.
The proposed dog park has the potential to be a significant threat to water quality in
the South Platte River , and to treatment of South Platte River wa ter for potable use at
the City 's Allen WTP . Diligent implementation and enforcement of rules requiring
prompt pickup and disposal of dog excrement, coupled with structural BMPs to treat
storm runoff from the dog park area, are critical to protect the receiving water quality
and Englewood's potable water supplies. With these safeguards in place and
maintained, Englewood will be able to continue to provide safe, clean drinking water
that meets all regulatory standards.
DRAFT ES -3
0710\ol6J.U\RT·T2WOIENGlEWOOO DOG PARKIEXECUTIVE SUMMARY DOC 8119/05 qo
•
I
I
I
I
Q
I
•
I
• • •
I
•
I
• • •
II
Section 1
Introduction
1.1 Project Overview
In recent years, communities across the Colorado Front Range have seen increasing
interest in off-leash dog areas in the urban environment. In Englewood, dogs are
currently allowed to be off-leash when under voice control at the following parks:
• Centennial Park (4630 S. Decatur)
• Duncan Park (4800 S. Pennsylvania)
• Jason Park (4200 S. Jason)
• Northwest Greenbelt (Zuni to Pecos along Harvard Gulch near Vassar Avenue)
A group in Englewood has recently proposed another off-leash dog park that would
be sited at Belleview Park. This park is located along the banks of Big Dry Creek, just
east of Windermere Street and immediately across Big Dr y Creek (to the south) from
the City 's Allen Water Treatment Plant (WTP). The dog park as proposed would be
approximately 1.6 acres in size and would be fenced off. A June 2005 study by the
City of Englewood (City) (Muller 2005) concluded that the proposed park could be
implemented without changing the floodplain in this section of Big Dry Creek.
Contamination of surface waters from dog excrement and urine has been well
documented in the literature . Siting a dog park at this particular location in
Englewood has prompted concerns regarding its potential impact on water quality.
There is the potential for stormwater runoff from the dog park to make its way via Big
Dry Creek to the South Platte River, and then be diverted through the Union Avenue
Pump Station into the Allen WTP, which provides drinking water to about 30,000
residents in Englewood .
Because of the proximity of the Union Avenue Pump Station to the confluence of Big
Dry Creek and the South Platte River, concerns have been raised regarding the
quantity and character of runoff from the proposed dog park that might enter the
Allen WTP, and whether that runoff could affect Englewood 's drinking water.
The location of the dog park and the relative locations of Big Dry Creek, the South
Platte River, the Union A venue Pump Station, and the Allen WTP are indicated on an
aerial photo in Figure 1-1. Pho tos of the proposed dog park site and Big Dry Creek are
provided in Figures 1-2 through 1-4 .
DRAFT
0710~34<4\RT-rlWQ\ENGLEWOOO DOG PARK\51.DOC a/19Al5 c19
• • • • •
II
•
II
• • • • • • • • • • •
Section 1
Introduction
Fig ure 1-1 Location map for proposed dog park, receiving waters , and water treatment system .
Figure 1-2 Proposed dog park area looking east.
CDNI DR AFT 1-2
0710\4634(1AT· T2W0'ENGLEWCOD DOG PA AK\51 DOC 9/19I05 ct•
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Section 1
In tro d uction
Figure 1-3 Big Dry Creek an d Allen WTP adjacent to
proposed dog park site during 813105 storm event.
cigure 1-4 Existing park signage ("Please pick up
after your pet") and bag dispensing station .
CDNI
The City's Utilities Department has undertaken a water quality study, documented in
this rep ort , to :
• Identify contaminants of co ncern associated with the dog park and its nmoff
• Estimate the magnitude of the dog par k 's effects on conc entrations of the
contaminants o f co ncern in the South Platte River downstream of the confluence of
Big Dry Creek with the ri ver
• Assess the potential implications on Englewood's WTP operations and finished
water quality, and identify any concerns regarding treated water quality associa ted
with implementation of the dog park
• Identify any treatment process upgrades that may be recommended or requir ed as
a result of South Platte River water quality degradation from the dog park
• Develop recomm endations and concep tual level cost estimates fo r structural best
management practices (BMPs) that should be implemented at the dog park si te, if
such BMPs are warranted
DRAFT 1-3
0 7 10146344\AT· T2WQIENGLEWOOD DOG PA AKISI DOC 8119,0 5 c1e
q
I
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
II
Section 1
Introduction
This report includes the following sections describing the analyses and findings of the
water quality study:
• Section 1 provides an overview of the issues and the study, along with background
information on the known effects of dog parks and dog waste on water quality
• Section 2 describes the methods used in analyzing the potential effects of the dog
park on South Platte River water quality, the results of those analyses, and a
comparison of the predicted concentrations of contaminants in the river to existing
river water quality data
• Section 3 analyzes the implications on water treatment at the Allen WTP and
treated water quality
• Section 4 describes recommendations for BMPs that should be implemented at the
dog park site to protect water quality, along with conceptual-level costs for those
BMP s
• Section 5 summarizes the conclusions and recommendations stemming from this
study
1.2 Bac kgro und
Dog waste is an identified source of pollutants to many water bodies in cities across
the country (U.S. En vironmental Protection Agenc y [EPA] 1993; Weiskel et al. 1996 ;
Northern Virginia Planning District Commission [NVPDC] 1999; Watson 2002 ;
Whitlock et al. 2002 ; Burnes 20 03 ; Cobourn and Segale 2004; Lacarra et al. 2004 ;
Alongi 2005; Center for Watershed Protection 2005 ; Murray 2005). Fecal matter and
urine from dogs can be deli v ered to surface waters via surface runoff and / or
infiltration to subsurface flow . The primary pollutants of concern associated with
these materials are:
• Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus)
• Coliform bacteria (e.g., fecal coliforms and E.coli)
• Parasites (e.g ., Giardia and Cryptosporidium)
1 .2 .1 Lit erature Revie w
The impacts of dog waste to surface waters with respect to coliform bacteria and
nutrients have been well documented in the literature. EPA estimates that for a small
bay watershed (up to 20 square miles), 2 to 3 days of droppings from a population of
100 dogs contribute enough bacteria, nitrogen, and phosphorus to te m porarily close a
bay to swimming and shellfishing (EPA 1993). Bac teria source tracking in the Seattle,
Washington area concluded that 95 per cent of the fecal coliform foun d in urban
storm water was of non-human origin and 20 percent could be directly attributable to
dogs (Trial et al. 1993). In Northern Virginia, dogs have been iden tifie d as the likely
main cause of fecal coliform exceedances in m any of their impaired streams (NVP DC
DRAFT 1-4
0710\A8344\RT·T2WOIENGLEWOOD DOG PARK\51 .DOC 8119/05 CJO
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
II
• • • • -CDM
Section 1
Introduction
1999). Dogs have also been identified as significant contributors to Lake Tahoe's
nutrient enrichment problem (Cobourn and Segale 2004) and as the primary culprits
in suburban water quality problems in North Carolina with respect to fecal coliform
bacteria (Alongi 2005; Murray et al. 2005). In San Diego, studies have attributed
bacteria levels high enough to force beach closings, at least in part, to local dog
activities (Watson 2002; Lacarra et al. 2004) .
The impacts with respect to parasites appear to be less quantified in the literature.
However, both Giardia and Cryptosporidium are widely cited as potential problems
arising from unmanaged dog waste (e.g ., Pitt 1998, Watson 2002 , Cobourn and Segale
2004).
An ongoing study, which commenced in June 2004 , is investigating the impacts of an
existing dog park on a small stream in the Lake Tahoe catchment (Walker 2005). This
research involves stream and d og waste sampling for E.coli at a number of
established sites in the vic inity o f the dog park. The dog park is currently
"unmanaged." Results to date indicate that fecal loadings are highly localized, with
highest concentrations of dog waste near the entrance of the dog park. The
investigators attribute this to canine territorial marking behavior, and note that this
finding could be important for park and / or BMP design. Results also indicate that
fecal loadings are seasonal, w i th less waste deposition during the colder months.
Finally, results to date indicate that the dog park does not have a consistent affect on
stream water quality, with respect to coliform bacteria. Furthermore, it appears that
management practices are not necessary at this time to protect water quality.
However, the author notes that this could change with increased precipitation
intensity or frequenc y and with increased dog visitation. Additionally, an existing
sedimentation pond, located near mid-reach of their stream, may be playing a role in
the low fecal coliform numbers observed in the stream .
Off-leash dog parks, specifically, were the subject of a proposed research investigation
in Northern Virginia (NVPDC 1999). This research was to target the impacts on water
quality from urban dog parks and the effectiveness of various BMPs. However, the
proposed project was never funded and the authors of the proposal are not aware of
any similar studies performed in the U.S. or elsewhere (Hicks, personal
com~nunication). Likewise, the literature review performed here did not identify
studies, other than the ongoing study described above, that have specifically targeted
off-leash dog parks, nor any others that attempted to quantify their impacts on local
water quality .
Finally, the literature review performed here did not identify any studies that
investigated the impacts of dogs or dog parks specifically on water treatment plant
intake water quality .
DRAFT 1-5
0710\"63"'\AT·T2WOIENGLEWOOO COG PAAK\5 1.00C 8/1 9/0 5 cie
• •
I
I
•
I
•
I
• •
I
• • • • • • • •
Section 1
Introduction
1.2.2 Survey of Existing Co mmunities with Dog Parks
As part of the data collection effort, various communities with existing dog parks near
water bodies in the Denver Metro area as well as out-of-state were contacted. These
surveys were performed to gain insight and information to better understand the
potential implications and administration of the proposed dog park, e.g., water
quality impacts, rules/regulations, and effectiveness of applicable BMPs .
The following entities were contacted as part of the survey:
• City of Boulder, Colorado
• Cherry Creek State Park -Aurora, Colorado
• Town of Estes Park, Colorado
• Austin, Texas
• San Francisco, California
In the Denver Metro area, the cities of Boulder and Aurora have implemented
guidelines and recommendations to protect water quality near dog parks located in
the vicinity of w ater bodies. However, neither one of these communities have specific
pollution prevention programs in place to eliminate or monitor potential water
quality problems arising from dogs.
The only dog park in Boulder adjacent to water is at East Boulder Park near the East
Boulder Community Center. The City of Boulder indicates that they do not have any
specific water quality monitoring programs established, although they believe it
would be beneficial. The biggest issue at that dog park is shoreline mud and
associated algal growth, which the city is currently addressing.
The City of Boulder does not collect data pertaining to visitor counts to their dog
parks although they estimate it i.; in the thousands per day. They are looking into
implementing a fee system or location to swipe a card in order to enter the parks to
offset the dog park maintenance costs. This system would also provide a means to
track the number of visitors to each park.
Water is considered a very important aspect in Boulder's dog parks to its residents
and users. Other than shade, the number one request at the City of Boulder's dog
parks is to either have access to swimming water or a spigot for the dogs to drink
from.
Even though access to dog parks and open space areas is seen as very important to a
majority of Boulder residents, there are currently no citizen groups that monitor
activity or problems at its various dog parks. This ism contrast to many areas in
California that have established formal committees to ensure the park is maintained
and that users are abiding by park guidelines and city ordinances. The City of
Boulder indicates that the community has not yet embraced this approach in Boulder .
DRAFT 1-6
0710\46J.UI RT· T'2WOIENGLEW000 DOG PARK\51 DOC 8/19I05 CJ O
•
II
•
II
•
II
• • • • • • • • • • • • CDM
Section 1
Introduction
To set forth its rules and guidelines at dog parks and open space areas, Boulder relies
on its website, signage at the parks, and word of mouth to convey its messages . An
extensive website is devoted to proper etiquette for dog owners ranging from proper
practices of "Leave No Trace Dogs " to voice and sight control rules on Open Space
and Mountain Park (OSMP) trails. Of the six Leave No Trace principles, two involve
dog etiquette . Included in these regulations are guidelines to manage dogs by having
the~ under voice and sight control at all times, and to pick up excrement and dispose
of it properly using trash receptacles. The website indicates to "pick up and dispose of
your dog's excrement to minimize the spread of disease and as a courtesy to other
-visitors. Plastic bags for waste pickup are usually available at trail head stations, but it
never hurts to bring along a few extra bags, for your own use or to help supply these
stations. And remember, disposal does not mean leaving the full bags along the trail -
please carry them back to a trash can." (http:/ /www.ci.boulder.co.us/openspace/
visitor I dogs .htm#impact).
Boulder 's website also indicates : "Dog excrement isn 't just foul-smelling; it damages
the land and s preads harmful microbes into water sources that drain into Boulder 's
reservoirs . It adds excessive amotmts of nitrogen fertilizer to the soil, increasing the
spread of nitrogen-loving noxious weeds at the expense of our native plants. Dog
waste also spreads parasites and bacteria and fouls water sources, some of which may
feed into Boulder 's drinking water. It is estimated that about 30 tons of dog waste are
left behind on OSMP land every year. That's the equivalent of 15 Ford Explorers!"
Boulder 's Parks and Recreation Department also provides policies and procedures for
the establishment of dog parks online. Included in the eight planning criteria is the
following: "Environmental Factors -Dog Parks should not be located in
environmentally sensitive areas that include unique wildlife habitat or where impacts
of the fenced area will change the environmental balance negatively. Additionally,
dog parks should not be located on unstable soils and easily eroded slopes." Also,
park amenities shall include, among other things, trash cans, dog litter disposal
stations, drinking fountains, and hose bibs for providing drinking water for dogs
(http:/ /www.ci.boulder.co.us/parks-recreation/PARKS/ dog_parks_main.htm).
Through these recommendations and policies, the City of Boulder is taking measures
against impairing water quality and keeping other problems under control that could
potentially be associated with dog park usage .
Another example of an area where dogs have direct access to water is at Cherry Creek
State Park in Aurora . Dogs are allowed in all areas at the park year-round 2xcept for
buildings and, for health reasons, the swim beach. There are over 3,000 land acres that
dogs have access to at the park and they are allowed in any waterbody, which
constitutes another 1,000 acres. There is not an official dog park at the park, but there
is a location called the 12-mile area where dogs are allowed off-leash when under
voice and sight control. Various other activities such as horseback riding and hiking
are popular in this area also .
DRAFT 1-7
0710\A63«\RT·T2WOIENGLEWOOD DOG PARK\51.00C 8119/05 qe
• • • • •
d
I
• • •
I
I
•
I
I
I
• • •
Section 1
Introduction
The park encourages voluntary pick-up of feces although they do not require it by
law. However, they are looking into regulations for excrement pick-up that could be
enforced by the local government. Other measures the park implements to protect
water quality and other concerns are having plastic bags available at campgrounds,
trailheads, and the 12-mile area. This is part of what the park calls "formalizing their
bag dispenser system," which encourages visitors to also bring their own bags but
also encourages them to be responsible for their dog. They have experimented with
three to four different types of dispensers to determine which is most effective. They
are also implementing a notification system whereby signs at trailheads and at the
· bag dispensers outline the expectations and guidelines for proper dog management
on all levels.
The park is not aware of any specific problems with water quality but if one did arise,
they are prepared to post information and/or ban use altogether until the problem
was eliminated. By law, they test the swim beach area every 5 days during the busy
season of May 1 through September 30. No E. coli or feca l coliform issues have been
identified anywhere in the park to date.
Although it does not record the number of dogs visiting the area, Cherry Creek State
Park does record the number of vehicles traveling into the parking lot that has access
to the off-leash dog area, among other areas. The park indicates that from January
through June 2005, 244,905 vehicles passed through their traffic counter to use this
particular parking lot. Given that many vehicles include at least one dog, parkwide
totals during this time period could be upwards of 100,000 dog visits.
On the other hand, Estes Park, which has a dog park with direct access to Lake Estes,
does not have specific guidelines or regulations in place as Boulder and Cherry Creek
State Park do to control potential water quality problems. The Estes Park Valley Dog
Park indicates that they did have concern about water quality before constructing the
park, and contacted local veterinarians to determine any impacts. The veterinarians
researched the possibility and determined that there was no significant potential for
pollution. With this information, the dog park was constructed.
Outside of Colorado, Austin, Texas, reported similar information with respect to the
administration and monitoring of their dog parks near water bodies. In Austin, which
has many dog parks near water, a program called "Scoop the Poop," which provides
"Mutt Mitt" bag dispensers throughout the city, attempts to keep the area's waterways
clean and protected. The city does monitor their creeks for bacteria; however, this is
not in relation to the Scoop the Poop program or dogs in general. San Francisco,
California was also contacted although officials there indicate they do not have any
dog parks in the city that abut a waterway and therefore did not have information on
dog parks' impacts on water quality .
DRAFT 1-8
0710\<63'4\AT· T2WO\ENGLEWOOO DOG PAAK\51.00C 8119/05 c1e
•
I
I
I
I
II
• •
I
•
I
• •
I
• •
I
I
I
Sec ti o n 2
Water Quality Analys i s
2.1 Nutri e nts an d Bacteri a Model Overvi ew
A simple screening-level model was constructed to estimate a range of potential water
quality impacts from the proposed dog park on the intake water to the Allen WTP at
the Union Avenue Pump Station. The model uses simple hydrologic runoff and
mixlng calculations in combination with dog waste loading characteristics derived
from the literature. Concentrations of nutrients and fecal coliform bacteria in the
· South Platte River, at the Allen WTP intake, are calculated for a design storm event.
Parasites, e.g . Giardia and Cryp tosporidium, are not included in this model due to the
lack of supporting data with respect to dog waste loading .
The following three equations summarize the key calculations in the model.
Dog park runoff (rational method):
Stream mixing :
Runoff mass loading:
where:
Q =
c =
I =
A =
Cru x =
C v s =
<2A 1s =
Mi =
#dogs =
Ld og =
Period =
%i =
EF =
C =C IA
cmix
M. =#dogs* L *Per iod * o/o . *EF I dog I
runoff flow rate (cubic feet per second [ cfs])
dog park runoff coefficient (unitless)
storm precipitation intensity (inches per hour)
dog park area (acres)
(2-1)
(2-2)
(2-3)
mixed s tream concentration (mg /Lor cfu /100 mL)
concentration associated with inflow A or inflow B (mg/L or
cfu /100 mL )
flow associated with inflow A or inflow B (cfs)
mass of pollutant i associated with runoff event (lbs or cfu)
number of dogs expected in the dog park at any given time
(averaged over 24 hours)
dog waste deposit rate (lbs/dog/day)
precipitation inter-event period (days)
percent (b y mass) of nutrient i in dog waste(%) or number of
bacteria per unit mass for fecal coliform (cfu/lb feces)
entrainment factor (0 -1, unitless)
The entrainment factor (EF) can vary from 0 (complete removal, no co ntaminants
reach receiving water) to 1.0 (zero removal) and can be used to acco unt for
infiltration, settling, removal of dog waste by owners, or removal of contaminants via
BMPs.
DRAFT 2-1
0710\AS344\RT·T2WCIENGLEWOOD DOG PARK\52 .00C 811s.'05 CJ9
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
•
2.2 Model Inputs
Section 2
Water Quality Analysis
Table 2-1 summarizes the input parameter values used in the analyses performed
here . Flow and precipitation values were derived from simple analyses of local gage
data (Cherry Creek Darn precipitation station and U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]
flow gage : 50uth Platte River below Union Avenue). Ambient nutrient (nitrogen and
phosphorus) values were calculated using the EPA STORET water quality database.
A v1ilable data were limited with respect to their periods of record. The available total
nitrogen data are particularly limited, as a less-representative station (South Platte at
Littleton) and an older period of record (1979 to 1991) represented the available data .
However, the available data for both phosphorus and nitrogen area deemed adequate
for the screening level analysis performed here . The model is generally insensitive to
reasonable fluctuations in background nutrient concentrations .
Table 2-1 Summary of Model Input Parameters
Parameter Value Reference
Runoff:
Runoff Coefficient 0 .2 User's Manual : Watershed Management Model :
Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration
Project , COM 1998.
Inter-event per iod (d) 7 Da il y Precipitation record for Cherry Creek Dam
(averaqed over 1994 -2004 )
Design storm intensity (in/hr) 0.1 Daily precipitation record for Cherry Cree.k Dam
(averaaed over 1994 -2004)
Design storm duration (hrs ) 2 Daily precipitation record for Cherry Creek Dam
(averaqed over 1994 -2004 )
Bia Orv Creek Ambient flow (cfs) 0 Conservative assumption
South Platte Ambient flow -dry weather 41 USGS flow data, below Union Ave ., 25th percentile
(els ) flow durinq Mar -Sept (2000 -2003)
South Platte Ambient flow -wet 184 USGS flo w data , below Union Ave ., 75th percentile
weather (els ) flow durinq Mar -Sept (2000 -2004)
Nitroaen:
% Nitrogen in dog waste 4 University of Florida : Agricultural and Biological
Enoineering Dept. (Prof. David P . Chynoweth)
Ambient Total Nitrogen Concentration , 1.7 STORET -S. Platte at/above Littleton
South Platte (mq/l) (POR = 1979 -1991)
Phosphorus:
% Phosphorus in dog waste 0.6 North Caro li na Cooperative Extension Service,
Publication AG-439-18 , "SoilFacts Nutrient Content of
Fertilizer and Orqan ic Materials." 1991 (Zeblena et al.)
Ambient Total Phosphorus 0 .16 STORET -S. Platte at Union Ave
Concentration , South Platte (mg/L) (POR = 1999 -2002)
Fecal coliform:
Fecal coliform production rate 8.2 x 109 EPA. "Model Report for Christina River Basin,
(cfu/animal/day) Pennsylvania-Delaware-Maryland Bacteria and
Sediment TMDl Development." 2005
Ambient Fecal Coliform Concentration -60 CWSD and lEWWTP monitoring data (1998-2005)
drv weather, South Platte (cfu/100 ml) (50th percentile)
Ambient Fecal Coliform Concentration -2000 CWSD and lEWWTP monitoring data (1998-2005)
wet weather , South Platte (cfu/100 ml) (95th percentile)
Gene ral:
Dog waste deposition rate (lb/day/dog) 1 NVPDC, "Nonstructural Urban BMP Handbook,• 1996
(solid and liquid waste)
Dog population 10 Estimated number of dogs onsite at any given time
(averaqed over 24 hours)
CDM DRAFT 2-2
0710\.l6J4ol\RT·T'2WOIENGLEW000 DOG PARK\52.0QC 8119/05 CJO
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • CDNI
Section 2
Water Quality Analysis
Ambient South Platte fecal coliform concentrations were taken from monitoring data
provided by the Centennial Water Sanitation District (CWSD) and the Little/
Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant (LEWWTP). These data have been collected
from the South Platte at locations within approximately 6 miles upstream and 3 miles
downstream of the study site, respectively, and are believed to be generally
representativre of ambient conditions at the study site .
Thi: dog waste deposit rate of approximately 1 pound per dog per d a y (lb I dog/ day)
is widely cited and used in the literature and is based on average estimates for a
45 pound dog. In addition to the references provided in Table 2-1, the fecal content
values assumed in the model for nitrogen, phosphorus, and fecal coliform are also
generally supported by independent estimates provided by Zublena et al. (1991) and
Cobourn and Segale (2004) (nitrogen and phosphorus); and Department for
Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2005).
2.3 Ri ver M ixi n g
As shown in Figure 1-1, Big Dry Creek discharges to the South Platte River a few
hundred yards upstream of the Union Avenue Pump Station intake. Over this short
distance, flow and load from Big Dry Creek are unlikely to be fully mixed across the
South Platte River. The amount of dilution provided by the South Platte River with
respect to runoff from the proposed dog park is dependent on the mixing that occurs
prior to the intake point. Tracer studies and/ or mixing zone modeling to better define
mixing characteristics in this reach are beyond the scope of this analysis. Therefore, an
assumption of 50 percent mixing with the South Platte at the WTP intake was made
for these analyses. In other words, only 50 percent of the South Platte flow is assumed
to be diluting the dog park runoff and Big Dry Creek flow, with the resulting
concentrations entering the Union Avenue Pump Station intake .
This assumption is believed to be conservative based on site observation. On
August 3, 2005 a significant rain event occurred in Denver. COM engineers were able
to observe the movement and mixing of the discharge from Big Dry Creek with the
South Platte River. On this day, it was clear that Big Dry Creek flow and load
advected to the center of the river at the point of discharge. The plume remained in
roughly the center of the river past the WTP intake. It appeared, on this day at least,
that only a fraction of the Big Dry Creek load, with significant dilution, entered the
Union Avenue Pump Station intake. Figures 2-1through2-4 document the conditions
observed during the August 3, 2005 storm event. The assumption of 100 percent of the
load mixing with 50 percent of the South Platte flow is therefore believed to be
conservative .
DRAFT 2-3
0710lol63U.AT-1'2WC\ENGLEWOOD DOG PAAK\52 .00C 8119/05 CJ"
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
II
Section 2
Water Quality Analysis
Figu re 2 -1 Confluence of Big Ory Creek and South Platte River during 813105 stonn event .
Figure 2-2 Mixing of Big Ory Creek flow with South Platte River flow immediately
downstream of confluence during 813105 stonn event.
DRAFT 2-4
0710\A8344\RT·T2WO\ENGLEWOOD DOG PARK\52 DOC 9119,05 c1 e
• • • • • •
II
• • • • • • •
ll
• II
CDM
I Big Dry Creek confluence I
-~
Section 2
Water Quality Analysis
Figure 2-3 South Platte River looking upstream from Union Avenue bridge during 813105
storm event .
Union Ave. Pump
Station intake
Figure 2-4 South Platte River looking downstream from Union Avenue bridge during 813105
storm event .
DRAFT 2-5
0710\"6J.U\RT-T2WOIENGLEWOOO DOG PARK\52 DOC 8119/QS Ci•
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
I
II
•
2.4 Projected \Vater Quality Impacts
Section 2
Water Quality Analysis
The model was run to evaluate the impacts to South Platte River water quality at the .
Union Avenue Pump Station intake under four different scenarios. These included
two assumed South Platte River flows (the 25th and 75th percentile flows based on a
nearby gaging station) in combination with two assumed entrainment factors (or rates
of removal of dog waste from the dog park). The assumed entrainment factors
included:
• 0.5 -indicating 50 percent of all contaminants are removed through removal and
disposal of dog waste and/or BMP treatment
• 1 -indicating 0 percent removal, with all dog waste contaminants reaching the
South Platte River
The dry weather scenarios assumed a lower flow (25 th percentile) and lower fecal
coliform backgrormd concentration (50th percentile) in the South Platte River,
whereas the wet weather scenarios assumed a higher flow (75th percentile) and
higher fecal coliform backgrormd concentration (90th percentile). These assumptions
track with experience in the Denver area and nationwide that bacteria concentrations
in urban areas typically trend higher in response to wet weather events.
The results of the four simulations are shown in Table 2-2 . As expected, removal of
50 percent of the dog waste ~ontaminan ts resulted in lesser impact to South Platte
River Water quality than did no removal. Complete removal of dog waste (zero
entrainment) would result in no impact to water quality and was thus not modeled
here .
T bl 2 P a e -2 ro1ected DoQ Park Impacts on 5 h Pl out atte R. 1ver Contaminant Concentrations
Total Nit ro aen Total P hosohorus Fecal Coliform
Assumed Increase over Concentration Increase over Concentration Increase over
Percent Cone. at Union South Platte at Union Ave. South Platte at Union Ave . South Platte
Removal of Ave. Pump Background Pump Station Background Pump Station Background
Scenario Contaminants' Station (ma/Ll Concentration (mQ/l) Concentration lcfu/100mLl Concentration
Orv weather 1 0 1.97 16% 0.21 3 1% 6 ,900 11,400%
Orv weather 2 50 1.83 8% 0.18 13% 3,480 5,700%
Wet weather 1 0 1.76 4% 0 .17 6% 3 ,525 76%
Wet weather 2 50 1.73 2% 0.17 6% 2 ,762 38%
Via dog waste removal/disposal or BMPs at the dog park site
CDM
Predicted concentrations of both nitrogen and phosphorus show insignificant impacts
on backgrormd levels rmder all four scenarios. In most cases, the percentage increase
predicted for nutrients was small, and in all cases, the increase in terms of absolute
concentration is small. In other words, the proposed dog p ark is not expected to
significantly impact nutrient concentrations in the Union A venue Pump Station intake
water.
DRAFT 2-6
0710-RT-r2WQ\ENGLEWOOO COG PARK\52 .00C 8119/05 CJ"
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
•
I
•
I
•
I
I
I
Se c tion 2
Wa ter Quality Analysis
Significant increases in fecal coliform concentrations are predicted for each of the
simulated scenarios . The dry weather scenarios' results indicate that should a
localized storm event occur at the dog park site during a time when flows and
backgrormd fecal coliform concentrations in the South Platte River are low, very
pronormced effects would be anticipated in lieu of complete removal of waste and
contaminants from the dog park site. In what may be a more likely scenario, a storm
event could occur regionally, which would be expected to elevate flows and
bacl~grormd fecal coliform c.oncentrations in the: South Platte. In that case, as modeled
in the wet weather scenarios, the impacts of the dog park would still be substantial,
but not nearly as dramatic as in the dry weather scenario.
Any one of several factors could affect the dog park 's impact on South Platte River
water quality, including:
• Rate of removal and disposal of dog park waste from the dog park site
• Rate of removal of dog waste contaminants by onsite BMPs , if any
• Number of dogs visiting the park
• Time interval between storm events
• South Platte River flow and upstream (backgrormd) water quality
In all modeled cases, the predicted concentrations lie within the range of historically
observed coliform numbers throughout the South Platte. Figure 2-5 shows an
exceedance curve for fecal coliform numbers measured at various locations
throughout the South Platte River in the greater Denver area. More local recent data
were provided by CWSD and the LEWWTP from sites approximately 6 miles
upstream and 3 miles downstream of the study site, respectively. Fecal coliform
exceedance ctirves for these data are shown in Figure 2-6 . As indicated in that figure,
measured backgrormd fecal coliform numbers are generally low, although still within
range, compared to those predicted in this analysis. However, it is rmknown how
many of these data points correspond to wet weather conditions. Wet weath er
bacteria concentrations are generally elevated in urban areas, relative to dry weather
concentrations.
Regardless, the potential for significant fecal coliform increases has been clearly
identified in this analysis if the proposed dog park is established without proper
management or controls. The recommended controls are described in Section 4 of this
report.
DRAFT 2-7
0710\ol63"\AT· T2WCIENGLEWOOD DOG PAAK\52.00C 8/19tll5 CJ•
..
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
I
•
I.
..J
E
8
~ e
~
0 u
'ii
" if
CDM
,
0%
100000
10000
1000
100
10
0%
• •
.• .
10%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10%
20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percent Equal or Below
70%
Section 2
Water Quality Analysis
80% 90% 100%
Figure 2-5 Denver-area South Platte River Fecal Coliform Samples 1994-2004
l
I I
t : : I !
I !
I
I .
I .
I I I
i I
I J I
I i I I
I I ,.
'
' I /r I
I I / I
i
I I ,. • <Ill(' ! I ~__,..., I ! I
I
. )/ ,.,-I I I
I
/" I I ' i I I _,,,,, I I I
I ' I / I I ! I I I • I I I
I •• ! • . I I • • I I
I I • I I
I I • i I I I
I i I
I
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent Equal or Below
Figure 2-6 South Platte River Upstream of CWSD to Downstream of LEWWTP at Evans Avenue
Fecal Coliform Samples January 1998 -July 2005
DRAFT 2-8
071~AT-1'2WOIENGLEWOO O 000 PARK\52 .00C B/1!Ml5 cie
• ~
-• • I
~
• I
• •
IJ
•
2.5 Parasites
Section 2
Water Quality Analysis
Giardia and Cryptosporidium are cited widely in the literature as potential pollutants of
concern associated with dog waste. Both parasites are relatively prevalent in dog
waste and cause illness in humans when ingested (Walker 2005). Studies throughout
the world have found Giardia in 1to39 percent of fecal samples from dogs and cats
(Leib and Zajac 1999). Other quantifiable data, particularly with respect to numbers of
dogs infected by the parasites and numbers of parasites associated with the waste of
an infected dog, were not revealed in the literature search performed here. These
parasites were therefore not included in the numerical analysis performed here.
Nevertheless, we recognize that the risk of parasite contamination in the receiving
waters of this study will increase with the establishment of the proposed dog park.
DRAFT 2-9
0710\<6U4\AT-T2WOIENGLEW000 DOG PAAKIS2.00C 811!W5 qe
' • • • • • • • • • • • II
• • • • • • •
Section 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
The proposed off-leash dog park at Belleview Park was analyzed in this study for its
potential to affect the water quali ty in Englewood's South Platte River raw water
supply source as it may relate to treatment at the City 's Allen WTP and treated water
quality. The analysis focused on microbiological contaminants ass ociated with dog
excrement and nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) that may be associated with dog
exc r ement and urine.
This study drew on the literature, the practical experience of other communities, and
a spreadsheet-based model developed for this study using site-specific characteristics
of the proposed dog park. The major findings of this study include:
• There has been little scientifi c research on the specific effects of dog parks on
potable water supplies, and on the effectiveness of BMPs in removing contaminants
of concern associated with dog excrement and urine
• Dog excrement and urine is widel y recognized as a potentially significant source of
microbiological and nutrient contaminants in receiving waters
• BMPs focusing on promoting prompt removal and proper disposal of dog
excrement are in common p ractice at dog parks in Colorado and elsewhere, and
comprise one of the most b a si c and effective means of protecting receiving water
quality
• The proposed dog park is n ot expected to significantly affect levels of total nitrogen.
or total phosphorus in the South Platte River
• If not promptly removed and properly disposed, dog excrement from the proposed
dog park could significantl y increase fecal coliform bacteria in the South Platte
River at the Union Avenue Pump Station intake and could pose a risk to water
treatment and treated water quality at the Allen WTP
• If not promptly removed and properly disposed, dog excrement from the proposed
dog park could have the potential to bring a regulatory requirement to modify the
Allen WTP treatment process at a capital cost in excess of $1 million
Given these findings , CDM recommends the following actions with respect to the
proposed dog park:
• The dog park should be clearly posted with highly~visible signage indicating that
the dog park is immediately upstream of Englewood 's primary source of drinking
water and that dog excremen t must be promptly picked up and properly disposed
• Specific rules requiring prompt pickup and disposal of dog excremen t at the park
must be developed, communicated to park visitors, and regularly enforced
DRAFT 5-1
0710\A6J.U\RT· 'f2WQIENGLEWOOO OOG PARK\55 .00C 8/1SI05 <1•
• • • • • • • • • • • • •
II
• • • • •
Section 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
• Bags and trash cans, or similar excrement disposal means, should be made readily
available to park visitors and frequently restocked/ emptied
• Visitors should be warned that failure to adhere to these requirements could mean
that the dog park would be closed
• The City and/ or proponents of the dog park should have the authority to close the
dog park if the dog park is not properly maintained
• Structural BMPs should be incorporated into the design and construction of the dog
park, including a grassed swale, detention pond, and vegetated area to provide
treatment for any residual dog waste in storm runoff from the dog park site
An analysis of applicable water treatment regulations, along with an assessment of
implications of the dog park on water treatment at the Allen WTP and treated water
quality is provided in Section 3. A conceptual layout of the recommended structural
BMPs is provided in Section 4. A preliminary estimate of cos ts to add these features to
the dog park design and construction is $19,000, as detailed in Section 4 .
In conclusion, the proposed dog park has the potential to be a significant threat to
water quality in the South Platte River, and to treatment of South Platte River water
for potable use at the City's Al l en WTP . Diligent implementation and enforcement of
rules requiring prompt pickup and disposal of dog excrement, coupled with
structural BMPs to treat storm runoff from the dog park area, are critical to protect the
receiving water quality and Englewood's potable water supplies. With these
safeguards in place and maintained, Englewood will be able to continue to provide
safe, clean drinking water that meets all regulatory standards .
DRAFT 5-2
0710\46344\AT· T2WCIENGLEWOOO DOG PAAK\S5 .00C 811!0'05 cie
A TT. 9
NOTICE!!
TO: Englewood Residents
FROM: Englewood Utilities Department (303-762-2636)
RE: Water Main Cleaning
DATE: August 1, 2005
Over the next se veral weeks, the Uti lities Department will be cleaning water mains in
your area. This is done to remove calci um, iron and other mineral deposits that have
accumulated on the pipe 's interior, reducing the flow of water through the lines. A
hydro-jet flusher truck will be used to scour out deposits, increasing the line capacity.
In order to jet clean the lines, the water main will have to be temporarily taken out of
service at the curb stop. Prior to flus hi ng, Utilities personnel will be marking and
excavating curb stop valves that are not accessible. Personnel will attempt to reasonably
restore landscaping close to original condition.
Utilities' Department personnel wi ll b e notifying you when your water will be turned off.
Please do not use your plumbing during this time because if a faucet should be turned on
while in the process, minerals cleaned from the main may enter your home's plumbing.
After the main is cleaned, Utilities personnel will visit each house to restore water service
and ensure the service lines are clear.
After the main has been cleaned and water service restored, you may experience rust-
colored water. This is caused by residual iron deposits and is not harmful. In this case,
let the cold water run until water quality improves. It is recommended that you refrain
from washing delicate or white clothing for the first few days after cleaning. Over the
next few months , you may occasionally experience rusty water caused by the bare cast
iron being exposed to water. Over a period of time the interior of the pipe will begin to
develop a coating of calcium and water clarity will return.
The flushing process is a cost-effective alternative to completely replacing old mains.
Replacing one block of water main is approximately $40,000 and several weeks of
inconvenience, while the hydro-flushing method costs less than $1,500 .
If you have any further questions, or wish to address specific concerns, please call the
Utilities Department at 303-762-2636 .
Save the City Ditch Group
July 29, 2005
Englewood City Council
Doug Garrett, Mayor
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110-2373
Re: Saving the Historic City Ditch
Dear Mayor Garrett and City Council:
A TT. JO
The City Ditch has been a part of Colorado and our city for more than 140 years and is a
beautiful, irreplaceable asset in our suburban community . We all sincerely appreciate what
the city, its representatives, and elected officials have contributed in mitigating the reduced
water flow in the City Ditch with the recirculation system.
The Save the City Ditch Group would like to formally thank the City of Englewood for their
support of the City Ditch as it runs through our community . We ask that this letter be read at
the next City Council meeting and entered into public record so that all involved with the
project may be aware of our gratitude.
A thank you goes to Denver Water for their monetary contribution for the recirculation
system and to the Englewood Utilities Department's hard-working engineering staff and
distribution crew who designed and constructed the entire recirculation system.
We give a special thanks to Bill McCormick who has been very faithful in attending our
meetings to work with us , as has Olga Wolosyn. They are fine representatives of a city
which is willing to find positive solutions to a community issue.
Without the much appreciated time, energy, creativity, and unwavering support of the
following people , among others, the project would not have been possible : Gary Sears,
City Manager; Stu Fonda, Director of Utilities; Bill McCormick, Manager of Utilities; Olga
Wolosyn, Mayor Pro Tern; and Beverly Bradshaw, City Councilwoman .
This project has created a great benefit for the residents of the City of Englewood and we
thank you all .
Very truly yours,
Save the City Ditch Group:
Carolyn Derrington-Tate, Diana and Leigh Bray, Barry Gilbert, Patricia Holcomb of
Colorado Preservation, Inc., Jane and Bill Sigler, Mark Mullenax, Christina
Lammerman, Greg and Jessica Pickett, and other community members
cc: Gary Sears
Stu Fonda
vBill McCormick
Olga Wolosyn
Beverly Bradshaw
Denver Water
Date
September 19 , 2005
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
A TT. 11
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
C ity Ditch License
Agreement and Temporary
Construction Agreement with
Wildacres LLC
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart Fonda , Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
None .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Englewood Water and Sewer Boa rd, at their September 13 , 2005 meeting, recommended
Council approval of the License Agreement and Temporary Construction Agreement with
Wildacre , LLC for crossing the City Ditc h.
BACKGROUND , ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
Wildacres , LLC submitted a City Ditch Li cense Agreement and a Temporary Construction
Agreement for crossing the City Ditch along Santa Fe with a 2" water line and an electrical
service line . The Temporary Const ruction Agreement allows for construction of the electrical
and water l ine crossing the City Ditch w it hin the License Agreement parameters.
The License Agreements will allow the 2" water and electrical line to cross 12" beneath
Englewood 's 48 " City Ditch pipe from Santa Fe Drive to the Littleton Large Animal Clinic
adjacent propert ies located west of Santa Fe Drive. Englewood 's City Attorney and the
Utilities Engineer have reviewed and approved the City Ditch License Agreement and
Temporary License Agreement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance
City Ditch License Agreement , Temporary Construction Easement
. ·-
LICENSE -CITY DITCH CROSSING AGREEMENT
THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of this day of
_____ _, 19_, by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, a municipal
corporation of the State of Colorado, herein referred to as "City", and
UJtLDACges . 4-'C
herein referred to as "Licensee".
WITNESSETH: The City without any warranty of its title or interest whatsoever, hereby
autho~es Licensee, its successor, assigns , to install a 2 " WAT/! ,e_ ~/!£ .C l/J CE
ANO £1.A~T"k~ Ltd ~S/A/tS
over the City's rights-of-way for the City Ditch, described as a parcel of land situated in the _
SW ~1 of Section 3a ,
Township s .sovrd Range u B w~sr of the
4 rlz P .M., County of Arapahoe, State of
Colorado described as follows:
The above-described parcel contains ~ S'f1 Sf· fro~(), 08?$ /1QD.ore or less.
1. Any construction contemplated or performed under this License shall comply with and
conform to standards formulated by the Director of Utilities of the City and such construction
shall be performed and completed according t o the plans, consisting of one sheet, a copy of
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. The Licensee shall notify the City's Director of Utilities at le ast three (3) days prior to the
ti.me of commencement of the construction of, or any repairs made to , Licensee 's =------
2 " WA'T"G.8 s'1'~V/U AA.JP Et. ~t:!r.L-1~ LIA/£ ~L"SS/AI ~
-----------------------so that the City may, in its
discretion, inspect such operations.
3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of the commencement of construction of said __ _
2 h' WA/el( Se!lVJC.~ A40 £c.£C,r4./~ ~l'NL C,<"5"5/llV<'
the Licensee shall complete such construction, place and maintain permanent, visible
markers, of a type and at such l oca t ionsas designated by the City's Director of Utilities,
referring to the centerline of the installation and shall clear the crossing area of all
construction debris and restore the area to its previous condition as near as may be
reasonable. In the event the planing of the centerline markers and the clearing and
restoration of the crossing area is not completed within the time specified, the City may
complete the work at the sole expense of the Licensee.
4. The City shall have the right to maintain, install, repari, remove or relocate the City
Ditch or any other of its facilities or installations within the City 's rights-of-way, at any ti.me
and in such manner as the City deems necessary or convenient. The City reserves the
II
exclusive right tq control all easements and installations. In the event the Z. WA retC
SC'/!VJ <c ( £ should interfere with any future use of the City's rights-of-way by the .
City, the Licensee shall, upon request and at its sole expense, relocate, rearran ge, or remove
its installations so as not to interfere with any such use.
5. Any repair or replacement of any City installation made necessary, in the opinion of the
City's Director of Utilities because of the construction of the Z '' fVA?l!..e
SER'/t C.t ANO f<,6t:.r~1C L/~£ 4,e.ss 1~~ or other appurtenant
installation thereof, shall be made at the sole expense of the Licensee.
6. The stipulation and conditions of this License shall be incorporated into contract
specifications if the construction herein authorized is to be done on a contract basis.
7. The rights and privileges granted in this License shall be subject to prior agreements ,
licenses and/or grants, recorded or unrecorded, and it shall be the Licensee's sole
responsibility to determine the existence of said documents or conflicting uses or
installations .
8. The Licensee shall contact and fully coo perate with the City's personnel and the
construction shall be completed without interference with any lawful, usual or ordinary flow
of water through the City Ditch. Licensee shall assume all risks incident to the possible
presence of such waters , or of storm waters, or of surface waters in the City Ditch.
9. All trenches or holes within the City's rights-of-way shall be backfilled and tamped to the
original ground line in layers not to excee six (6) inches loose measure to a co m paction of
ninety percent (90%) Standard Proctor Maximum Density.
10. Licensee, by acceptance of this License, expr4essly assumes full and strict liability for
any and all damages of every nature to person or property caused by water from the ditch
leaking through the ditch banks or pipeline at the point or points where the Licensee
performs any work in connection with the crossing provided by this License. The Licensee
assumes all responsibility for maintenance of the installation.
11. Licensee shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers and employees,
against any and all claims, damagtes , acctions or causes of action and expenses to which it
or they may be subjected by reason of said Z '' WArG,J?-S£ !!V!Ce ~~
Et.ieer,e< (!. 4/#£, uo~SLA/<4
being within and across and under the premises of the City or by reason of any work done or
omission made by Licensee, its agents or employees, in connection with the construction,
replacement, maintenance or repair of said installation.
12. It is expressly agreed that in case of Licensee's breach of any of the within prom ises, the
City may, at its option , have specific performance thereof, or sue for damages resulting from
such breach.
13. Upon abandonment of any right or privilege herein granted, the right of Licensee to that
extent shall terminate, but its obligation to indemnigy a n d save harmless the City, its
officers and employees, shall not terminate in any event.
In granting the above authorization, the City reserves the right to make full use of the
property involved as may be necessary or convenient in the operation of the water works
plant and system under the control of the City.
-2 -
In granting the above authorization. the City reserves the right to make full use of the
property involved as may be necessary or convenient in the operation of the water works
plant and system under control of the City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this instrument has been executed as of the day and
year first above written.
'
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
Stewart H . Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
Chairman
Englewood Water and Sewer Board
The undersigned officer of _________________ has read the
foregoing License and agrees for an on behalf of said
accept and will abide by all the terms and conditions thereof
LICENSEE :
By:~~
Title: N4 ,
Address: 802S S. SANTA f'£ P~11£
J.. 177L..Lro/\.l, u /Jt:'IZ 0 •
Phone: (.30 '3) 7P1 -~ 35!
EXHIBIT A
JULY 22, 2005
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32,
TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6rn P.M., CITY OF LITTLETON, COUNTY
OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO , BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS :
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF AN EXISTING DITCH RIGHT-
OF-W A Y (50 FEET WIDE) AS RECORDED IN THE ARAPAHOE COUNTY CLERK AND
RECORDER'S OFFICE IN BOOK 43 AT PAGE 626 , FROM WHENCE THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SOUTHW EST QUARTER OF
SECTION 32 BEARS S06°16'24"E , A DISTANCE OF 459 .20 FEET ;
THENCE N72°14'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 71.88 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY
LINE OF SAID EXISTING DITCH RIGHT-OF-WAY;
THENCE N63°40 '47"E , ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE , A DISTANCE OF 71.88 FEET TO
A POINT ;
THENCE S72°14 '44"E, A DISTANCE OF 71.88 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY
LINE OF SAID EXISTING DITCH RIGHT-OF-WAY;
THENCE S63°40 '47"W, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 71.88 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 3,594 SQUARE FEET OR 0.0825 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR
UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AN D IS ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
KJ"\JOWLEDGE AND BELIEF .
\
.. ·--
PROPOSED
LICENSE
PROPERTY LINE·
......
!
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
,,,.J)
/ /
ENGLEwa0.0-L:ITY DITCH
50:-6Jrcii R.O. W.
P.SK 43, PG . 626
AGREEMENT ..... /
LITTLETON LARGE
ANIMAL CLINIC
PROPERTY
.-'
SEE WATER SERVICE LINE ,,,. ,,,.,,,.
CROSSING DETAIL .• /-->-'.'."....-,,,.
• · · 'EXtS TI!:W" '-::-
<. / B~IOGE ,,,,,,/'·-..r.:.
/ / ...
-· · . <: _,,,.,,,. SINGLE PHASE
ELECTRIC LINE
.... ··
/
-....... r EXISTING FENCE
LINE
EXISTING WATER
METER
EXISTING 1}2"
WA TER LI NE
fl!
PROPERTY LINE ~ .·. Q:~/
' J:!; ~/
' I ~I
:.r {
i,_, I
EXISTING FENCE I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
,
!
I
I
I
I
I }S!
~ I CJ
I
I
I i,_, I;)'
I 4. <U
I :! >-
/ <:: ~
I 0 J'
I ~!._
I .::i
I !J
PROPOSED 2"
WATER LINE I
I
45" BEND 45· BEND
WA TER SERVICE AND ELECTRIC LINE
CROSSING DETAIL
NOT TO SCALE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PREPARED BY:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 15 30
Scale 1" = 30'
60
LITTLETON LARGE ANIMAL CLINIC
8025 SOUTH SANTA FE DRIVE
LITTLETON, CO 80120 PARAGON ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS. INC .
7852 S. ELATI STREET , SUITE 20.:l
WATER SERVICE LINE CROSSING LITTLETON. COLORADO 80120
OF ENGLEWOOD CITY DITCH
TElVfPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT
This Temporary Construction Easement (the Temporary Easement) is entered into
this -··day of , 2002 by and between the City of Englewood, Colorado, a
municipal corporation of the state of Colorado, acting by the through its Water and Sewer
Board (Granter) and Wlt..D/ICU S, LL ~ •
-------------------(Grantee).
WHEREAS, Tue City of Englewood owns a right-of-way for the City Ditch, a carrier
ditch (City Ditch ROW) which is loca ted as described on Exhibit A.
. . If
WHEREAS, Wlt.£)AC£,£ 5, L l C.. desires to mstall a Z. j ___..;;;_.__ ___ _
WAI£.~ SL.f?.vtC~ ANoLt.rcr,t!tc... I.IN£ c.tosS1Acf"it hin the City Ditch ROW
pursuant to a license between the parties .
NOW, THEREFORE, In consideratio n of the mutual cov enants of the parties,
more particularly hereinafter set forth. the adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby
acknowledged, it is agreed as follows:
l. Temoorarv Construction Easement. Englewood (as Granter) hereby grants
to Wlt..DAC~..S . LL ~ (as Grantee ), its successors, assigns,
contractors , and sub-c;nrracrnrs, a non-exclusive temp orary construction
easement through, over, under and across the City Ditch ROW for the
installation of a Z '' WATE.2. S£/i!.VJ(.,£ Mt"'
£t..e~T~1~ LINC eeaS5NV~ pursuant to a
license agreement (the Project).
2. Tenn of Easement. The Project will begin no sooner than and
will be completed no later than . Completion of the Project
will be deemed to have occurred upon inspection and approval of the Project
by Granter and this Temporary Easement will be deemed to have terminated
upon such completion.
3. Access. Grantee shall have the temporary non-exclusive right to enter the
City Ditch ROW for any reasonable purpose necessary or prudent for the
construction of the Project subject to the following restrictions: 1) normal
working hours shall be consistent with CDOT construction hours, Monday
through Friday and 2) the operation of equipment and heavy trucks will be
pennitted on the Englewood City Ditch ROW only during normal working
hours.
\ ..
4. Restoration. Upon completion of the Project, Grantee will perform such
restoration and regrading as is necessary or prudent to restore the surface area
of the City Oicch ROW to its original condition.
5. Indemnification. Grantee, to the extent permitted by the laws and
constitution of the Stace of Colorado, hereby agrees to be liable and hold
hannless the City of Englewood, its employees, tenants, and guests from any
and all claims, causes of action, and liability which may occur as a result of
the negligent or wrongful acts of Grantee in the construction of the Project,
including the cost of defending against such claims.
6. Liabilirv. Grantee hereby acknowledges that it understands that there is water
flow in the City Ditch from April 1 to November 1 of each year and that it
will assume liability for any damage to adjoining property caused by water
flow resulting from damage to the City Ditch caused by the Grantee's
construction activities .
7. Insurance. Grantee shall maintain in full force and effect a valid policy of
insurance for the Project in the amount of S600,000.00 property coverage and
$600,000.00 liability coverage. Grantee further agrees that all its employees,
contractors and sub-contractors working on the Project shall be covered by
adequate Workers Compensation insurance.
8. Assignment . This Temporary Construction Easement is assignable only with
the written permission of Englewood, which permission will not
unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed.
IN WITNcSS WHEREOF , the parties hereto have executed this temporary
construction Easement on the date and day first vvTitten above.
\
In granting the above authorization, the City reserves the right to make full use of the
property involved as may be necessary or convenient in the operation of the water works
plant and system under control of the City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this instrument has been execut ed as of the day and
year first above written.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
Stewart H. Fonda
Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
Chairman
Englewood Water and Sewer Board
The undersigned officer of ________________ has read the
foregoing License and agrees for an on behalf of said
that it will --------------------------accept and will abide by all the tenns and conditions thereof.
LICENSEE:
W/LPACfiL.S. LL~ No tary:
d)awn M frvmiot
Title: --------------M y commission expires:
Address: Boz S S: SANTA l{L P1Z111t.
I I
LaTUT<tJAl. t'() 801zo
'
Phone: {j~3)794-(p3Sf
EXHIBIT A
JULY 22, 2005
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32,
TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6rn P.M., CITY OF LITTLETON, COUNTY
OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO , BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF AN EXISTING DITCH RIGHT-
OF-WA Y (50 FEET WIDE) AS RECORDED IN THE ARAPAHOE COUNTY CLERK AND
RECORDER'S OFFICE IN BOOK 43 AT PAGE 626, FROM WHENCE THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 32 BEARS S06°16 '24"E, A DISTANCE OF 459.20 FEET;
THENCE N72°14'44"W, A DISTANCE OF 71.88 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY
LINE OF SAID EXISTING DITCH RIGHT-OF-WAY;
THENCE N63°40'47"E, ALONG SA ID NO RTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 71.88 FEET TO
A POINT;
THENCE S72°14 '44"E, A DISTANCE OF 71.88 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY
LINE OF SAID EXISTING DITCH RIGHT-OF-WAY;
THENCE S63°40'47"W, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE , A DISTANCE OF 71.88 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
CONTAINING 3,594 SQUARE FEET OR 0.0825 ACRES OF LAND, MORE OR LESS.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS PREPARED BY ME OR
UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION Al'\T D IS ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF .
PROPOSED
LICENSE
PROPERTY LINE
c::-:~. ;p
:~.-:,, .. :-: !' i ._,
AGREEMENT _.-_.-
SEE WATER SERVICE LINE ,,, "',,,
CROSSlf'.IG DE TAIL . /-'>--:"...-,..,
_...-Ex~T(~ ··:-
<-. / B,a10GE
/ /'-,<_ _ _.
-/ //
·---,( .--:
. I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
,,,J)
/ /
ENGLEwoD.,C--CITY DITCH
5~ 6J.refi R.O . W.
'P..61<. 43, PG. 626
I
I
. r EX ISTING FENCE
LI TTLETON LARGE
ANIMAL . CLINIC
PR OPERT Y
LINE
EXISTING WATER
METER
EXISTING 1/2"
WATER LI NE
EXISTING FENCE
I
I
·.I
!f-1
::;;
0:: I
!::} I
~i
, I ro , -,
~·I
41 I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
I
I
I
I ~
d? I o
I 41 10' I 1.,.,.. eti
I :! .:...
I <: ~
I 0°J
/~~
I .:::i I ~
PROPOSED 2"
WATER LI NE I
I
0
45' BEND
I
WATER SERVICE ANO ELECTRIC LINE
CROSSING PET AIL / I
I
I NOT TO SCALE
15 30 60
Sca l e 1" = .30'
I
I
LITTLETON LARGE ANIMAL CLINIC
8025 SOUTH SANTA FE DRIVE
LITTLETON, CO 80120
WATER SERVICE LINE CROSSING
OF ENGLEWOOD CITY DITCH
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I