HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-12 WSB AGENDAWATER & SEWER BOARD
AGENDA
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
5:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM
1. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 2008 MEETING (PHONE VOTE). (ATT. 1)
2 . GUEST: LORAINE SMITH -CITY DITCH AT 1080 W. RADCLIFF AVE.
(ATT. 2)
3. SOUTHGATE SUPPLEMENT #164. (ATT. 3)
4 TRIHALOMETHANEIHALOACTIC ACID CHARTS. (ATT. 4)
5. WATER RIGHTS UPDATES FROM DAVID HILL DATED JUNE 6, 2008
AND JULY 10, 2008 . (ATT. 5)
6. OTHER.
A 17. I
ENGLEWOOD WATER & SEWER BOARD
PHONE VOTE
JULY 7, 2008
A phone vote was taken from the members of the Englewood Water and Sewer Board for
the June 10, 2008 minutes:
Mr. Wiggins moved;
Mr. Clark seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Motion carried.
To approve the minutes of the June 10, 2008
Water and Sewer Board meeting as written.
Clark, Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins,
Woodward, Oakley, Habenicht, Moore
None
Burns
The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be held at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August
12, 2008 in the Community Development Conference Room.
Sincerely,
~~
Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
ATT., 2
C athy Burrage
From: loraine smith [lovnmom@usa.net]
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 8:40 PM
To: Cathy Burrage
Subject: city property along the 1000 blk of Stanford
Here are my issues regarding the vacant property directly behind my property:
We were told this property is "City Property", yet it appears the multiple families living at 1050 W
Stanford Dr. use this property as their own personal, private parking lot. They are also using it as a
playground (there a swing set on "City Property"), a dog yard (they have old beat up, ugly doghouses on
"City Property") and their own personal junk yard (no explanation needed). Do they have a special deal
with the City of Englewood whereas the City maintains the property (sort of), and they just get to do
whatever they want on it??
Before the City Ditch was covered, we enjoyed a certain amount of protection and safety from the traffic
on Stanford Dr. Also, there was a feeling of seclusion and privacy for our property . Now we are openly
exposed with no concern for our safety, protection, privacy or property. On the portion of Standard Dr.
that fronts Rotollo Park, the city has installed concrete and metal barrier posts to protect the people who
might be playing in the park. We have been told that any kind of fencing or barriers to protect our
property and lives would just "cost too much"! We need an explanation as to why people playing in the
park and the grass in the park have a higher priority than long-time Englewood citizens and property
owners??
Why were the home owners on Radcliff Avenue NOT consulted prior to the covering of the ditch?? It
seems the only people who were considered in the ditch covering project were the people at 1050 W
Stanford Dr. I just keep wondering what kind of a hold they have on the City of Englewood? That
project has affected the homeowners on Radcliff also!! We were never notified in any way, shape or
form of that project. Our earliest knowledge of the ditch covering was when the heavy equipment
showed up. This was totally unfair!! We were never offered any compensation or consideration
regarding the exposition of our property. The only thing we get is, "It would cost too much to protect
the tax paying, property owning, Englewood citizens on Radcliff'. How do you justify this??
In the original survey of our property at 1080 W Radcliff Ave, our property actually goes all the way to
Stanford Ave behind us, with the easement for the City Ditch. We were told that when and if ditch was
covered, all that property would belong to us, still allowing the easement. What ever happened to that
promise??
As you know, or should know , on June 13 the neighbors truck rolled out of their driveway, across
Stanford Ave, rolled across where the ditch was covered, through our fence, knocked down a 25 year old
cherry tree, which landed on top of the garden shed. The accident destroyed the fence, a stone bench,
several railroad ties, many, many treasured perennials. If I had been up there on the hill, or if my dog
had been up there, I would have been killed, undoubtedly! Apparently, none of this has concerned the
City of Englewood in any way whatsoever. If the ditch was still there, none of this would have
happened, yet the City still insists it would "cost too much" to protect us. How does this happen
anyway?
After the ditch was covered, we were told that if ever we saw anyone parking on that property, we were
7/10/2008
Page 2of2
supposed to call the Police. Yesterday, when the huge semi-truck was parked directly behind our
property, the Police dispatcher we called insisted that they couldn't do anything about it because "Code
Enforcement" wasn't working. My neighbors called, then I called and got the exact same explanation.
However, I'm sitting in my back yard staring at an enormous, blue semi-truck pointed directly at the
huge hole in my fence (created by another truck) and I was not giving up. The dispatcher on duty was
someone called "Scott". He was extremely surely and rude, telling me "We do have other more
important issues in the City of Engl{1wood than a parking problem, you know. As long as no one is
dying, you are low priority." (This was not news to us, obviously we are low priority!) When an officer
finally did show up, the officer stated he was "just sitting down at the end of the block doing nothing
much at all". The officer, Tracy Jones, was extremely understanding and promised he would go on
Stanford and check it all out, which he did. He later reported that he issued the semi a "parking ticket".
I would like to know why a ticket for trespassing was not issued?
There is absolutely no indication that the property on Standard Ave where the ditch was covered is
private property -NONE!! There are not any "No Trespassing" signs, there are no "Keep Out" signs, no
fencing, no barriers -NOTHING!! When the ditch was covered on either side of Quincy, 10 ft. fences,
with locks, were installed. "Keep Out" signs were posted. The homeowners affected by that project
were obviously considered. I would like to know what gives them more priority than us?? Were they
ever told that there "just wasn't enough money" to protec~ them?? I know some of those people and I
can assure you, they were not!! Why us then?? Why are we not worthy of the same protection and
consideration other Englewood citizens enjoy??
My name is Loraine Smith. My phone number is 303-781-5083. I will talk to you on the phone, but
please don't assume you are going to appease me. I'm not an idiot. I'm not "too old" to understand. I'm
mad as hell at being treated like an insignificant citizen and that I will somehow or some day just forget
about all these issues. I won't! I promise! My property value has decreased due to the covering of the
ditch behind me. I was never consulted regarding any of the decisions in that project. I deserve
compensation, protection and consideration just as equally as other Englewood citizens .
I will be attending the August Water Board meeting. I want my questions answered. Make time for
me!
7/10/2008
Page 1of1
Cathy Burrage
From: Cathy Burrage
Sent: Monday, July 07 , 2008 9:35 AM
To: 'loraine smith'; John Bock; Bill McCormick; Stu Fonda; Gary Sears
Cc: Cathy Burrage
Subject: Semi on City Ditch property
Dear Ms. Smith :
We are in response to your e-mail dated July 6, 2008 regarding a semi parked on City Ditch
property at 1050 W . Stanford Dr. I was notified by Englewood Police Department this morning
that the semi is no longer there.
You expressed an interest in attending the next Water Board meeting.
The July Water Board meeting has been cancelled, with the next meeting being August 12,
2008 at 5:00 p.m. If you still have concerns you would like to have addressed, please forward an e-
mail
or letter to me so it could be included in the August Water Board Agenda . This gives the board time
to review your concerns.
Also, in the meantime, if you would forward your phone number, someone from the
Utilities Department
could call you to discuss your issues further.
My phone number is 303-762-2636 and my e-mail is cburrage@englewoodgov .org
Cathy Burrage
7/10/2008
Page 1of1
Cathy Burrage
From: loraine smith [lovnmom@usa.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 9:07 PM
To: Cathy Burrage
Subject: ditch issues
I was up on Stanford Drive today taking pictures, as I am compiling a portfolio I intend to present to the
investigative reporters and some letters to editors I am working on regarding my situation and that of my
other neighbors on W Radcliff Ave. In the process of photographing the enormous junk yard up there, I
discovered the address of the house I referred to earlier as "1050 W Standford Dr", is actually "1045
W Stanford Drive". Not that there could ever really be any confusion as to who owns and operates that
filthy mess. The neighbors at "1050 W Stanford Drive" are immaculate!! I apologize for having the
wrong address; however, there really couldn't be any confusion, if you were to drive down the 1000
block ofW Standford Drive.
711012008
Cathy Burrage
-------------------
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Bill McCormick
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 8:14 AM
Tom Chesher; Tom Riotte
Don Coatman ; Cathy Burrage ; Stu Fonda
Subject: No Trespassing at Sarges.
Page 1of1
The Sarges area where the ditch was piped has become a hot potato! Neighbors are complaining about the ROW
being used by Sarge and others ii.legally. We have the 25 foot Right of Way from the existing fence on the north
and east fence lines . We need to place no trespassing signs every 200 feet or so . They should be mounted on
permanent posts the are concreted in on the 25 foot boundary.The sign that is hanging on the neighbors fence
east of Sarges must be removed and a permanent sign and post must be placed facing the drive into the ditch
Row at Stanford Dr. If you have questions on what the heck I'm saying let me know and I'll show you . Once the
signs are placed , if you notice illegal parking or equipment in our ROW call Code Enforcement to issue a citat ion .
A warning for first offense would be ok, but 2nd offense needs to be ticketed. Several of the neighbors are coming
to the August Water Board meeting . If we don 't get this taken care of we may have to fence the entire area, which
will be very expensive .
7/18/2008
·:~ e--yL{
-c ~"S
..
:. .·:·
.· .· ..
·. ··.:_ .. ·.
<r\-Nb Y~ See-Ti L'1 vi °/
72 ro¥cJ
·-----------·---
W . O X FOR.D AVE.
I
.:\
· .. • ..
..
Right of Way .
Joseph M. Brown
to
The Platte Water Co.
Filed for Record
12 o'clock M
May 26 -th 1877
1'1. C. Lathrop
He corder
····-----....;..~~-....:.::....·.::.-·---
Deed of Right of Way
For and in consideration of the sum of one dolla1
in hand 1iaid by the l 'la ·tte 1/ater Company
the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged
the undersigned Joseph hl. Brown of Arapahoe
Uounty, Colorado, do here hereby grant to said
Company its successors or assigns the right to
enlarge, repair, maintain E1nd forever use itsDitc
01· Uanal over und throu[;h the following described
lun&, where and as said .1Jitch or Uanal is now
located made and constructed in the County of .n.ravahoe and Territory
of Colorado., viz.
'i'he Horth half of tho North East c1ua.rter (N/2 of Nt:f 4) of Section
nine (9) and the South Bast quarter of the South ~ast quarter (SE t SEt )
of Section l!,our (4) all in '.l'ownship l!'ive (5) :Jouth of Hrulge Sixty
Eight (68) west,
It is expressly stipula·ted by the undersigned as follows viz
Thut said l0 lat ·te V11:1·t;er· Company its succeusors or assigns shall from
year to year sell wute:c to the undersigned, his heirs or assigns for
irrigation if applied for on or before the 15th J.uy of May each year undE
and i:.ccoi:;ding to the same rules, conditions and regulations under which
the compimy s old Wliter for irrigation to farmero along the line of their
Uanal in the year 1874 out at a deduction oi' one sixth from the rates
charged for said yem.·, 'l'hat the rules 1:1nd regulations herein referred
to are modified to ·the ex·tent that the limi ·to.tion of time shlill not appl~
hereto, ·that the said Brown muy receive not e x ceeding ·the amount of wate1
that will pase:; through a box ten by ten :i.nches in the clear taken out
in one o r more boxes and set acconiing to the Hules of the Oon11,any
and these stipulations shall also ap1Jly to any ditch which may hereafter
be constructed on u hig her line by the Conqicmy.
And it is :t'urther stipuluted by the undersigned that said Company
its successors or assigns shall not use a tract of land for said ditch
over ~wenty five fee ·t wide in the bottom with the necessary additional
ground for slopes and embankments and necessary space for men
and ·teams, -to pass 1::1.long to keep said Ditch in repair and with the right
to t ake and use m::i.teria l to mend breaks f'or Ii l:'air compensation and if
said d itch shall at any time be aoandoned or the conditions of this grani
shall not be complied with this grant shall be deemed void and thEI lands
affected thereby shall be 11holly released tJJerei'rom.
In 'i'estimony whereof I have her·eunto set my hand and seal
this 20th day of i.pril 1 U75.
1.1.'he interlineation on the margin to fnllow
after line 27 made befor·e execution
ti illia.m D. Dodd
Territory of Colorado )
County of'. __ Arapahoe )
Joseph M. Brown
-I William D. Dodd a Notary .Public in and for
said Uounty in the 'rerri tory aforesaid do hereby certify that Joseph M.B;
personally lmown to me as -~he person whose name is subscribed to the
annexeddeed apµeared before me this day in person and acknowledged
that he signed scaled unJ delivered the said instrument of writing
as his :free and Yoluntary act for the uses and purposes therein set fortl
Given under my hand and no ·tarial seal this
20th day of April AD 1B75.
v{illiam D. Dodd
Notary 1-'ublio
)
)
J .. ..
' D
L.J
!>
~ \ \t
7l
.. >-1..., c..... ----z G :)~~~ =>u ~iv
/) --\.-
n ~
l. J:
-<( I: Q.
'/) <( z 0:: 3= <( ~I
af
z
0
i= u w
(/)
~
w z
~~o~
t
'<,-0
-oi \:.--,...,
0 .5 l.>"'
~
l-o
_J
-c cc ·o c;. a_ ..
ID
CCI
::i
If) -1
:z:
ld C\ (/) er:
:z: rt) hl
""")
(J)
N
ci ('\J z ::.:: .g a _J Z CD
0 u
_J w.,, w I-I-0
(f) ..J
-N
t-
------~
'1 1.:f Gl\JZ
·sns N3SM3r
LEGEND
. ·~ I ~-~d>
• .I
,~,·
·o
~· :1 • I •
ci z
19 z
w z
~
w z
I . . I
•
J: u
1-
5
>-1-u
~
. Ll -~,01 I ,02~
,0£
• ,0£ ,. i
CROSSING NO. I
Exhibit 11A11
L....
<(
_] U)
0
PARCEL CONTAINS 0 .059 ACRE MORE OR LESS
E·-·MJ BOUND AR Y D.M . w. W. RIGHT-OF-WAY
F/////J. RIGHT-OF-WAY RETAINED AT CITY DITCH
-----· CROSSING
THE DENVER MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER
CONDUIT NO. 29
RIGHT OF WAY RETAINED AT CITY DITCH
CROSSING FROM THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
DOCUMENT DATED
SEC'Y FILE DOC.
SCALE ~ :_JQ'._ _ _ DATE _&R.!h_ 2],J 70
DAN. W. ..1. .a_ TR . W. ...L. !L CK . t£
floo r"u c..,.. no F.7 ••~ IAAQ
~
1.:
.c. .Os -tD
r-i\i
Cf) f....· lJJ ") 3:
00 & <O
w ~ t!)
~I ~ )-.
~· "' u "' .. >-~ L.. J: I-
~~ w => =>o Ou z m OJ cnw
~ I.{) 0
Q..I
-<( w I a. z Cf) <( za: != <( gl "' N
m.
z
0
~ u w
Cf) Q
0:::
~ 11) ~ z
LLJ z
LEGEND ~
z F ·-·-i BOUNDARY 0 . M. w. w RIGHT -OF-WAY
™RIGHT-OF -WAY RETAINED AT CITY DITCH
CROSSING
U)
LL]
0:::
l)
<(
0
N
;::
(/)
~ L.. ~ 0
(::) U)
>
a ra
=>
U)
z ~-E ~ 0 c -<( ~ c 'O ,g o O c en .
_J O'l --;:: 2 ·~ ~ ~~
...<::, ~·~ f'at WC\J _] w -gsai -: 1-0 0 ~ ~ 3 ~~ (/') z .~~ ~ :gj = ci u 2 a~ ~'° Nz en .oo oi.: r--o .
w <:¥U I-
0 z
~¢\-----
Ex h I b It 11 8 11
CROSSING NO. 2
PARCEL CONTAINS 0 . 256 ACRE MORE OR
THE DENVER MUNICIPAL WATER WORKS
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER
CONDUIT NO. 29
RIGHT-OF-WAY RETAINED AT CITY DITCH
CROSSING FROM THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
SCALE : _!!O_?~L~ _ DATE: Af>R.!b...2Jt.l!ITQ
DAN . 'J1. ..I. _a TR. 1L. J.. ..8... C K.G:. . , -'-
APP. _____ CH . ENG. DR . ..Q.7_N0 .18_69_
Date
September 15, 2008
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
AT T~ 3
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
Southgate Supplement #164
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
None.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Water and Sewer Board, at their August 12, 2008 meeting, recommended Council
approval of a Bill for an Ordinance approving Southgate Supplement #164.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The City of Englewood provides sewage treatment to approximately 32,000 accounts outside
the City through contracts with numerous connector districts. The area is defined by the
natural drainage and extends south and east from Broadway to the Valley Highway and from
Hampden to Lincoln Ave. excluding Highlands Ranch. By contract the City of Englewood must
approve any additions of land to be served by the districts. These are usually in-fill situations
that are within what the City considers to be the area it has committed to serve. Adequate
capacity has been provided in the treatment plant to accommodate all such future inclusions.
Annexation of this parcel of land will not increase the tap allocation of the Southgate
Sanitation District.
Before the proposed inclusion into the Southgate Sanitation District could be considered, the
DRCOG sewer treatment service area map needed to be amended to reflect the inclusion.
DRCOG reviewed the request for consistency with f·he Clean Water Plan and approved. The
request for exclusion from the Parker service area was approved by DRCOG on October 18,
2007 and they approved inclusion of the site into the Littleton/Englewood service area on July
15, 2008.
A request was made by the Southgate Sanitation District representing the owner, Colony
Investments, for inclusion of Supplement #164 consisting of a parcel totaling 53.59 acres into
the Southgate Sanitation District for residential and commercial use. The property is currently
zoned residential and 209 single family units are anticipated. The legal is attached as Exhibit
"A". The property is located between 1-25 and Yosemite, south of Lincoln.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Bill for Ordinance
Southgate Sanitation District Supplement #163
SGSUPP163
SUPPLEMENT NO. I (p L/ TO CONNECTOR'S AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the CITY OF
ENGLEWOOD, acting by a·nd through its duly authorized Mayor and City Clerk, hereinafter
cal.led the "City,'' and SOUTHGATE SANITATION DISTRICT, Arapahoe and Douglas
Counties, Colorado, hereinafter called the "District,"
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, on the 20th"day of June, 1961, the City and the District entered
into an Agreement in which the City agreed to treat sewage originating from the District's
sanitary sewer system within the area served by the District, which Agreement was most
recently renewed by Connector's Agreement dated November 16, 1988; and
WHEREAS, said Connector's Agreement provides that the district may not
enlarge its service area without the written consent of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
undertakings herein set forth, the parties agree as follows:
1. The City hereby consents to the inclusion of certain additional area
located In Douglas County, Colorado, owned by Colony Investments and more fully
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, into
Southgate Sanitatic;m District. The City agrees that said additional area may be served With
the sewer facilities · of the District, and that the City will treat the sewage discharged into the
City's trunk line from said additional area, all in accordance with the Connector's
Agreement dated November 16, 1988. Accordingly, Exhibit A referred to in Paragraph 1
of the Connector's Agreement dated November 16,.1988, is hereby amended to include
such additional area.
2. Each and every other provision of the said Connectors Agreement
dated November 16, 1988, shall remain unchanged.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands and seals th.is
__ day of , 200 .
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
(SEAL)
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
By: ________ _
MAYOR
SOUTHGATE SANITATION DISTRICT,
ARAPAHOE AND DOUGLAS COUNTIES,
COLORADO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION NO. 1 EXIIlBlT "A"
Page 1 of2
; LEGAL DESCRIPTION -DISlRICT SANITARY SEWER INCLUSION BOUNDARY
A PARCEL OF LANO LOCA1ED IN "THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUlH, RANGE 67 v.£Sr Of"
11 "THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF LONE 7REE. COUNTY OF OOUGtAS, STATE Of COLORADO MORE
P ARTICULARIL Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEARINGS FOR THIS LEGAL DESCRIPllON ARE BASED UPON lHE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTH\\£ST QUARTER OF
SECTION 22. TO\ltNSHIP 6 SOUTli, RANGE 67 VEST OF 61H PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN YlttlCH WAS ASSUMED TO BEAR
NORlH 89"26'42• WEST AIJD IS MONUMENTED BY A J-1/4• ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 69~5 FOR lHE
NORlHWEST CORNER AND BY A J-1/4• ALUMINUM CAP STAMPED LS 10945 FOR lHE NORlH QUARTER
CORNER; .
BEGINNING AT THE NoRTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID NORlHYIEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22;,
THENCE SOUTH 89"26'53• EAST ALONG lHE NORTH LINE OF lHE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAJD SECTION 22 A
DISTANCE OF 236..C..17 FEET;
TiiENCE SOUTH 00"26'29• EAST A DISTANCE OF 598.37 FEET;
THENCE NORlH 82'#' ..c-2• VEST A DISTANCE OF 97.89 FEET:
lHENCE NORlH 69'49'or WEST A DISTt\NCE OF 275.# FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 70"25'12• WEST A DISTANCE OF 201.98 FEET;
THENCE SOUlH 2911'23"' \\£ST A. DISTANCE OF JSS.94 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 15'48'1r \\£ST A DISTANCE OF 369.17 FEET;
'THENCE NOR1H 50•43•32• VEST A OISTAN~ OF .418.38 FEET;
'THENCE SOUTH 80".18'06"' \\£ST A DISTANCE OF 471.59 FEET;
THENCE NORlH 23'02'51• \\£ST A DISTANCE OF 263.57 F,EEt:
lHENCE SOUlH 83'-4-7'-48• \EST A DISTANCE OF 191.55 FEET;
THENCE SOUlH 2518'38"' \\£ST A DISTANCE OF 303.Sl FEET:
THENCE SOUTH 45•49•25• \EST A DISTANCE OF 1238.80 FEET;
THENCE SOUlH '461>2'22• VEST A DISTANCE OF' 329.04 FEET;
lHENCE SOUTH 65"55'53• ~A DISTANCE OF' 205.10 FEET;
THENCE NORlH 6813'45"' VEST A DISTANCE OF 172.37 FEET;
THENCE NORlH 39"23' 43"' "'6T A DISTANCE OF' .264.55 FEET:
THENCE NORlH 63"27'oa· ~ST A DISTANCE OF 200.20 FEET:
. ,
LEGAL DESCRIPTION NO. 1 EXHIBIT "A"
Page2 of2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (CON'T)
"THENCE NORTH 33"42'42" WEST A DISTANCE OF 121.01 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 07"46'08• WEST A DISTANCE OF 124.17 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 19'59'49" EAST A DISTANCE OF 130.92 FEET;
TI-IENCE NORTH 82"24'38" EAST A DISTANCE OF 169.38 FEET;
TI-IENCE NORTH 53·45•59• EAST A DISTANCE OF 2oa,.,1 .4 FEET;
lHENCE NORTH 2215'52" EAST A DISTANCE OF 132;94 FEET;
lHENCE SOUTH 84'28'36" EAST A DISTANCE OF 174.30 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 45'01'15'" EAST A DISTANCE OF 284.82 F'EET;
TI-fENCE NORTH 14"45"18'" EAST A DISTANCE OF 219.75 FEET;
TI-fENCE SOUTH 83'09'45"' EAST A DISTANCE OF 281.83 FEET;
lHENCE NORTH 63'27"04"" EAST A DISTAN.CE OF 125.12 FEET;
lHENCE NORlH 17"24'15" EAST A DISTANCE OF 201 . .32 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID NORTI-f LINE OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22;
lHENCE SOUJH 89"26' 42" EAST ALONG SAID NORTH LINE Of THE NORTHWEST QUAR1ER OF SECTION 22 A
DISTANCE OF 254.76 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 53.59 ACRES, MORE OR LESS;
i, THOMAS D. STAAB, A SURVEYOR
DO HERESY CERTIFY THAT THE AB
BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUn111111 ... "'-'
THOMAS 0. STAAB, P.LS. 2596 ·.;~.~. .-•~
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF CARROLL & ~~\,\ ~ . ...,-~
/Q-2.-7:-05: . ·-
DATE
m S~fo~~~,!,,~~~EL~!
165 Soulh Union Blvd .. Suite 156
laleewood, Colorado 80220
PHONE: (303) 980.C200
FAX: (303) 980•0917 .
WWW.CARROLL·LAHGE .COM
P:\2JOl\L£GALS\WATER DISTRICT BDUNOARY\ElOHHa.USIOH.OWI>, SHEET 2 CF -4', f'REPAAm 10/28/05, R£V.
·I
SANITARY SEWER DISTRICT BOUNDARY~ . ~
PROPOSED
SANITARY SEWER
DISTRICT BOUNDARY
SCALE: 1•=800'
LEGEND:
\V '\
,r---111';,I I I
EXISTING SANIA lRY ~ DISTRICT BOUNDARY
PROPOSED SANIA lRY SE~ DISlRICT BOUNDARY
I
I
I
ffi ~l~~~?e~~~~IS ~~~S~~Of~
1 6 5 South Ur.ion Blvd ., Suite 156
Lakewood, Colorado 80228
(3 0 3) 980-0 2 0 ~
/
!.; . , ... ,~
DRC:Q 'G
DEHV£R Rrnrnm rouHm ··ur 6ovmMEHTS
October 18, 2007
Mr. Jim Nikkel
Parker Water and Sanitation District
19801 East Mainstreet
Parker, Colorado 80138
Dear Mr. Nikkel:
Re: Parker Service Area Amendment
Board Officers
Rick Garcia, Chair
Nancy McNallv, Vice Chai
Ed Peterson, SecrCtllI)'
Rod Bockenfeld , Treasurer
Nancy N. Sharpe, Immediate Past C hair
Jennifer Sc ha ufele , E xecutive Director
The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DR COG) wastewater utility plan review process
determines the consistency of wastewater utility plans with the Metro Vision Clean Water Plan
and Metro Vision Utility Plan Guidance. DRCOG-approved plans meet requirements of the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment site approval regulation number 22.
These plans contain a defined set of technical information (location, sizing, staging, service
area, process system, effluent quality, and financi~l arrangements) and respond to appropriate
state or federal requirements. Plans implement the Metro Vision 2020 Clean Water Plan,
support site approval applications. provide backgro1,.1nd and planning information for the
pennitting process, and form the basis for a revolving loan application.
The revised boundary of the Parker service .area in the Ridgegate area was reviewed for
consistency with the aean Water Plan. Based on the infonnation in your letter of July 3, the
area in question would no longer be considered part of the Parker service area. We are working
with the Southgate Water and Sanitation District to shift the area to the service area of the
Littleton/Englewood wastewater treatment facility through Southgate. DRCOG acknowledges
this change in boundary and will update our coPY of the Parker utility plan.
We should note that area west of Interstate 25 is not currently within the Urban Growth
Boundary/Area of the City of Lone Tree or Douglas County. Therefore, DRCOG vvill consider
this part of Parker's CWP Planning Area rather than the Wastewater Utility Service Area.
Should either the city or the county revise their UGB/A, we would expect Parker to amend the
utility plan to add the UGB/A area to the WUSA.
DRCOG as the water quality planning agency finds the service area adjustment consistent with
the utility plan and the Metro Vision 2020 Clean Water Plan. ·
Sincerely,
4 {\ ,• ;-;J-~2 /.,,. }.0;~/> / ~ -~ //"'Z, &~
· _..,,,{arryJG. Mugler AcP ·
Pla()iling Services Manager
Enhn11ci11g and protecting the q11aliry ef life in our region
4500 CHERRY CREEK DRIVE SOUTH SUITE 800 DENVER COLORADO 80246 • 1531 TEL 303-455-1000 FAX 303-480-6790
· ---• ----· •·• ••• -.... n ,,. ""' n n ~
c: Mayor Jack O'Boyle , Lone Tree DRCOG Board Representative
Chuck Reid, Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority
Dennis Stowe, Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant
Duane Tinsley, Southgate Water and Sanitation District
Kent Kuster, Water Quality Control Division
July 15 , 2008
Mr. Dennis Stowe
Plant Manager
:
I !"!'.
JU L 1 6 2008
':... _____ _
-----...--
Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant
2900 S. Platte River Dr.
Englewood, CO 80110
Dear Mr. Stowe :
Board Officers
Nancy l\kNaUy, Chair
Ed Peterson, Vice Chair
Rod 13ockcnfcld, Secretary
Jim Taylor, Treasurer
Rick Garcia, Immediate Past Chair
Jennifer Schaufelc, Executive Director
The Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) wastewater utility plan review
process determines the consis tency of wastewater utility plans with the Metro Vision
Clean Water Plan and Metro Vision Utility Plan Guidance. DRCOG-approved plans
meet requirements of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment site
approval regulation number 22 . These plans contain a defined set of technical
information (location , sizing , staging, service area, process system , effluent quality, and
financial arrangements) and respond to appropriate state or federal requirements .
Plans implement the Metro Vision 2020 Clean Water Plan , support site approval
applications , provide background and planning information for the permitting process ,
and form the basis for a revolving loan application.
The revised boundary of the Englewood service area iri the Ridgegate area was
reviewed for consistency with the Clean Water Plan . Based on the information in your
letter of May 9, the area in question is now considered part of the Englewood service
area and no longer considered part of the Parker service area . DRCOG acknowledges
this change in boundary through action of the Water and Environment Planning
Committee and will update our copy of the Englewood utility plan .
DRCOG as the water quality planning agency finds the service area adjustment
consistent with the utility plan and the Metro Vision 2020 Clean Water Plan.
cc: Patricia Braden, Lone Tree DRCOG Board Representativ~
Duane Tinsley, Southgate Water and Sanitation District
Chuck Reid , Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority
Jim Nikkel, Parker Water and Sanitation District
Enhancing and protecting the q11aliry of life in 011r region
1290 BROADWAY " SUITE 700 •DENVER COLORADO 80203 -5606 " TEL 303 -455·1000 e FAX 303-480 -6790
r .,. • • 1 . n n ,.. n ro r."\ n n,. n n ,.. n n -111 .-n " 1 or r . 01 1u ur n n ,. " "' n n ,.,
. .,....,•· . .,..·....-.--
J
/
·:,··,.··,,,.
Boundaries
---Englewood WUSA Boundary
N + 0 0 .5 1.5 2
Miles
" \
\'.
1\
\\
f ,
/ \
,, '
\
" Belleview Ave ~ ........... ,..,...---:,, .,. ""--"~-;,,. -:-~--1-
\ ' '
' ' '
·~._.
.,
" I ~ ' ' ., ~ ! ,
;
' i ~ _...,..·-~······-···-·----------i
: i
.. ·-;:;::
UncotnA'ie
I.
I
I
' !
.. . •·
Service Area Boundaries
Englewood Seivlce Other
• Cheny Hills Village llJI Cemetary
-Greenwood Village ... Septic
... South Arapahoe
flllj South Englewood
lit~;~~~ Southgate
l>'/;J Chenyvale
UEWWTPWUSA
Southgate
BROWN A!'\D
CALDWELL
E11viro1tmmtal Emnneers & Cmsultants
c T y 0 F E N G LEWOOD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Englewood Water and Sewer Board
~·
FROM: Bill McCormick, Operations Supt. -Utilities
DATE: June 12 , 2008
RE: Trihalomethanes/Haloacetic Acid Charts
Attached are the Total Trihalomethanes and Haloacetic Acid spread sheets from the Allen
Water treatment Plant. Trihalomethanes and Haloacetic Acid (HAAS) are disinfection
byproducts . When raw water is chlorinated and reacts with organics in water it forms
disinfection byproducts, which are regulated by EPA because they are contaminants that
may cause cancer.
On the Trihalomethanes chart, the RAA column illustrates the running annual average,
which are all samples compiled and averaged over the last four quarters. The LRAA
column shows the locational running annual average, which means each site is averaged
annually. This tends to be a more restrictive method of accounting. Per EPA standards,
trihalomethanes readings must be under 8-parts per billion and HAA readings must be
under 60 parts p·er billion (ppb ).
The Allen Water Treatment Plant historically has never had problems with HAA's, so the
primary concern has been the THM's. Prior to 2002, THM readings at certain sites read
120 ppb, but because these readings are averaged, Englewood was in compliance. Since
2002 our normal range has been in the 30's. The most recent reading was May 29, 2008
at 27.91. The recent readings have been lower than average because of the total organic
carbon removal and chloramines processes used at the Allen Water Treatment Plant.
1000 En glewoo d Parkw ay Englewood , Colorado 80110 Phone 303-762 -2 300
v.1\A/\AI onola'"'"nrian\1 r.ro
Results in ug/I PWSID# -CO 0103045 Total Trihalomethanes Sheet 10
Date Sample Site Chloroform Bromodichloro-Chlorodibromo-Bromoform THM4 RAA LRAA methane methane Concentration
4811 S. Broadway 4.87 6.36 5.67 1.31 18.21 28.65
1000 Englewood Prky 3.77 6.04 5.51 1.25 16.57 24.67
31-Aug-06 3380 S. Lincoln 3.96 6.47 6.04 1.41 17.88 24.66
2323 W. Baker 5.44 8.99 5.84 1.11 21.38 22.04
Averaqe 4.51 6.97 5.77 1.27 18.51 25.00
4811 S. Broadway 5.09 13 .20 19.20 6.94 44.43 32.00
1000 Englewood Prky 3.21 9.11 13.40 5.64 31 .36 24.44
14-Nov-06 3380 S. Lincoln 3.33 9.08 12 .80 5.55 30.76 24 .55
2323 W. Baker 4.30 9.87 9.88 3.47 27.52 22.92
Averaoe 3.98 10.32 13.82 5.40 33 .52 25.98
4811 S. Broadway 4.73 9.86 16.90 9.25 40.74 36 .76
1000 Englewood Prky 1.62 5.63 10.70 5.57 23.52 25.94
22-Feb-07 3380 S. Lincoln 1.89 6.27 11 .20 6.31 25.67 26.40
2323 W. Baker 2.58 7.00 9.29 4.40 23.27 24.94
Averaae 2.71 7.19 12.02 6.38 28.30 28 .51
4811 S. Broadway 8.18 9.81 7.19 1.02 26.20 32.40
1000 Englewood Prky 6.49 8.98 6.77 0.93 23.17 23.66
16-May-07 3380 S. Lincoln 7.28 9.28 6.5 3 0.86 23.95 24 .57
2323 W. Baker 6.61 10.50 6.78 0.84 24.73 24.23
Averaqe 7.14 9.64 6.82 0.91 24.51 26.21
4811 S. Broadway 16 .00 14 .10 6.74 36.84 37 .05
1000 Englewood Prky 16 .60 13.00 5.87 35.47 28.38
17-Aug-07 3380 S. Lincoln 18.10 14 .50 6.43 39.03 29.85
2323 W. Baker 16 .50 14.60 0.51 31.61 26.78
Averaoe 16.80 14 .05 4.89 35 .74 30.52
4811 S. Broadway 6.11 10.70 8.94 1.43 27 .1 8 32 .74
1000 Englewood Prky 6.79 11.80 9.67 1.61 29.87 28 .01
7-Nov-07 3380 S. Lincoln 5.85 11 .20 10.30 2.33 29.68 29.58
2323 W. Baker 6.56 12 .10 10.60 2.27 31 .53 27.79
Averaqe 6.33 11.45 9.88 1.91 29 .57 29.53
4811 S. Broadway 3.81 9.77 11 .20 3.48 28.26 29.62
1000 Englew ood Prky 3.67 9.88 11.80 3.93 29.28 29.45
20-Feb-08 3380 S. Lincoln 3.81 10.20 12.20 4.35 30.56 30.81
2323 W. Baker 4.08 9.91 11 .50 4.14 29 .63 29.38
Averaqe 3.84 9.94 11.68 3.98 29.43 29 .81
4811 S. Broadway 2.46 3.89 5.28 1.27 12.90 26.30
1001 Eng lewood Prky 3.60 6.40 6.61 1.70 18 .31 28.23
27-May-08 3381 S. Lincoln 3.41 5.97 6.25 1.50 17 .13 29.10
2324 W. Baker 4.16 6.28 6.89 2.02 19 .35 28.03
Averaae 3.41 5.64 6.26 1.62 16 .92 27 .91
4811 S. Broadway
1001 Englewood Prky
3381 S. Lincoln
2324 W. Baker
Averaqe
4811 S. Broadway
1002 Englewood Prky
3382 S. Lincoln
2325 W. Baker
Averaae
Sampled from Results not used in
13-Nov-07 Entry Point to 3.04 7.03 8.46 2.17 20.70 compliance Distribution
System calculations
· Results in ug/I
Date Sample Site
481 1 S. Broa dway
1000 Englewood Pky
27-May :o8 3380 S. Lincoln
2323 W. Baker
Average
4811 S. Broadway
1000 Englewood Pky
3380 S. Li ncol n
2323 W. Baker
Average
4811 S. Broadway
1000 Englewood Pky
338 0 S. Linco ln
2323 W. Baker
Average
4811 S. Broadway
1000 Englewood Pky
3380 S. Li ncol n
2323 W. Baker
Average
4811 S. Broa dway
1000 Eng lewood Pky
3380 S. Li ncol n
232 3 W. Baker
Average
4811 S. Broa dway
1000 Eng lewood Pky
338 0 S. Li ncol n
2323 W. Baker
Average
4811 S. Broa dway
1000 Englewood Pky
3380 S. Linco ln
2323 W. Baker
Average
4811 S. Bro adway
1000 Eng lewood Pky
3380 S. Lincol n
2323 W. Baker
Average
4811 S. Broadway
1000 En glewood Pky
3380 S. Lincol n
2323 W. Bake r
Average
4811 S. Broadway
1000 Englewood Pky
338 0 S. Lincoln
2323 W. Baker
Average
Dibromoacet ic
acid
2.1
1.9
2.5
2.7
2.3
Ha loacetic Acid (HAA5) Analyses
PWSID -103045
Dichloroacetic Monobromoacetic Monochloroacetic Trichloroacetic
acid ac id acid acid
1.4 1.2
2.3 1.3
2.3 1.3
2.7 1.8
2.2 1.4
Averages include compliance data on ly.
Shee t 3
Total HAAS Runn ing Annual Four Quarter
Concentration Average {AAA) Site Average
4.7 7.5
5.5 9.2
6.1 7.0
7.2 8.1
5.9 7.5
5.7
Daniel L. Brotzman
June 6 , 2008
Page 2
Again, almost all of the work relates to the Denver/FRICO 1999 Agreement, the closure of
the Chatfield reservoir outlet gates , and the FRI CO/United/East Cherry Creek change. (All of them
are related, of course.)
The trial ended about noon on Tuesday (May 13). We will not have any decision from the
Judge until maybe September; see schedule of written closing arguments below. But here are my
impressions and some rulings.
SIGNIFICANCE TO ENGLEWOOD
Englewood faces increasing quality problems because Denver intends to greatly expand its
ex changes to Chatfield Reservoir. When Denver exchanges to Chatfield, the Chatfield gates close
and hardness , manganese and other quality problems soar at Union Avenue on the river. In addition,
the 1999 Agreement between Denver and FRICO will enable Denver to divert more winter water
from Bear Creek into Marston Reservoir, which will reduce Englewood 's quality at its Bear Creek
diversion point (McBroom headgate). In the past the water quality in Bear Creek has often been
much better than that in the river when the Chatfield gates are closed, and Englewood has used good
Bear Creek water to blend with South Platte water. But good quality in Bear Creek may not last.
Englewood 's "escape" from quality problems are the 1948 McLellan right and the 90CW220
exchange from Bear Creek to City ditch. Both allow Englewood to divert from Chatfield, where
quality is much better. The Chatfield water can be blended with river water to reach acceptable
quality. ,
In addition , the McLellan right and the 220 exchange provide a good deal of water to sell to
Centennial. If Englewood can continue to meet its delivery "thresholds" with Centennial , the price
of the water sold to Centennial will jump markedly at the end of 2012 , from a present price of $108
per acre foot to perhaps $375 . So it's important to keep deliveries to Centennial above the
thresholds.
There are two related parts to the FRICO case . The first is the expansion of the 1885
Burlington storage and direct flow rights. The second is the 1999 Agreement between Denver and
FRICO . Both create injuries to the McLellan right, and the 1999 Agreement creates injuries to the
220 exchange and the Bear Creek diversions .
Finally , the over-diversions on the various rights at the Burlington headgate have been so
extreme , over the years , that in times of drought they could injure Englewood's 1865 Nevada right,
one of Englewood 's core rights.
Daniel L. Brotzman
July 10, 2008
Page2
The FRJCO /East Cherry Creek/United cases, together with the 1999 Agreement aspect of that
case , are again the bulk of the bill. The current aspect of those cases is about to wind down, and this
should be the last really large bill related to the current case. I will not repeat the information about
the significance of those cases to Englewood, which you have read many times. We have made
significant progress , in the current case and the earlier case , but we will not have a final ruling on
the current case until probably August or September.
The June activities, which were substantial , were as follows: The Judge declined to hear oral
arguments at the close of the case . Instead, he directed each side to submit a written closing
argument (which was to include a brief). Each factual point in the written argument had to be
supported by a citation to particular pages in the temporary trial transcript. The temporary transcript
filled several file boxes , so it was a laborious matter indeed to search the transcript for testimony on
a particular fact which one wanted to point out to the Judge , and identify the pages where it
appeared .
There was an exceptional number of issues to be decided by the Judge. The facts on each
issue had first to be located in the transcript, and then an argument had to be drafted on the particular
issue. The argument had to be briefed, i.e., supporting cases and statutes had to be cited. Then the
position of each opposer on each issue had to be worked into a unanimous position of all opposers ,
whenever possible. (Sometimes that could not be done , and separate opposer positions were set
forth.) The final submittal by the opposers was well over 100 pages. Before that was submitted , it
was necessary to review and study the written argument of the Applicants, which was also enormous
in length, and was submitted some 20 days before the opposers' argument was due.
The Applicants will submit their rebuttal argument in early July , and that will have to be
studied. But no further pleadings should be due from our side, at this point.
In addition to the task of preparing the written argument, there was some work associated
with sorting out the files , discarding duplicate materials, and organizing the remaining documents
into a form which could be readily accessed in future , if need be . We anxiously await the Judge 's
ruling .
Other cases on which significant time was spent were the Cannon case and the Aurora lawn
irrigation return flow case . The Cannon case was filed by Cannon and Aurora. It seeks to change
shares in the Platteville Ditch to municipal use. The Platteville Ditch priority is senior to many of
Englewood's core rights , and can call them out. The Platteville Ditch rights have been significantly
expanded beyond what is allowed by the decree . So ordinarily Englewood would be heavily
involved in the case . However , in this instance, there are a number of other powerful players who
are seeking to reduce the right to the proper amount. So we are attempting to play a "spectator" role
so far, and doing just enough to keep us in the case. Hopefully a sensible settlement will be reached ,
rather than a trial. If a trial appears likely , we may not appear and participate, given the budget
Daniel L. Brotzman
July 10, 2008
Page 3
situation and the other strong opposers. We will check with you before any decision to participate
is made.
In Aurora's lawn irrigation return flow case, Aurora seeks to quantify its reusable lawn
i~rigation return flows and use them to augment wells. Aurora's first engineering report was so
deficient that Aurora postponed the trial and filed a new engineering report. The new report is
acceptable except for a few remaining points, which others are strongly contesting. We are likely
to stipulate out before trial, it appears. At this point, we hope to trade a stipulation in this case for
withdrawal of Aurora's application described in number 4 below, (98CW458), which is very
troublesome. It is an attempt to substitute direct flow water with a 1998 priority for the reusable
storage water which we now receive as part of the Standley Lake settlement of long ago. Aurora
inherited this case from Thornton when Thornton sold its South Park rights to Aurora. The case
makes no sense, and we hope to be able to convince Aurora to drop it.
There are consequential senior priority change cases which have been filed on numerous
rights below Brighton, by Broomfield, South Adams, Aurora, Central Colorado, and others. But
none of those cases requires substantial work at the moment.
The remainder of the cases are described below.
1. General (#001): This matter is our general file for work not attributable to specific
cases. In some instances, the work is not specific to a particular matter. In other instances, the time
spent on any individual matter is not large enough to justify a separate bill, but the time on the group
of matters is significant. This includes charges related to general calendaring, reviewing various
daily incoming pleadings and correspondence, overall case management and other activities that are
not case specific. It usually includes preparation of many statements of opposition.
2. McDonald (92CW152) (#297): This case involves an application for direct flow and
storage rights on unnamed tributaries of Plum Creek. Englewood's interest was to monitor the case
to see that administration of very junior rights is proper. We reviewed order granting motion for
substitution of Sandstone for Fazzio as opposer.
3 . Colorado Springs and Aurora (95CW272) (#357): These cities seek a conditional
water storage right in the amount of 30,000 acre-feet from Homestake Creek; a conditional water
storage right for aquifer storage in the amount of 90,000 acre-feet in the Camp Hale area; a
conditional water right for an underground aquifer called the Eagle Park aquifer; and other diversion
rights and storage rights. They also seek to augment the out-of-priority depletions caused by the
pumping of their well fields. Englewood entered this case because of the magnitude of the
appropriations and to monitor the augmentation plan. We reviewed a notice of Referee status
conference.