Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-09-23 WSB AGENDAWATER& SEWER BOARD AGENDA Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM 1. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 12 , 2008 MEETING. (ATT. 1) 2. SOUTHGATE -1st AMENDMENT TO CONNECTOR 'S AGREEMENT #8 . (ATT. 2) 3. UNION AVENUE WATER MAIN REHABILITATION BID (ATT . 3) 4 ARTICLE FROM WEF.ORG MAGAZINE-"THE FUTURE LOOKS BRIGHT." (ATT 4) 5. WATER RIGHTS UPDATES FROM DAVID HILL DATED JUNE 6, JULY 10 AND SEPT. 10, 2008. (ATT. 5) 6. DEMONSTRATION OF RATE INCREASES. (ATT. 6) 7. OTHER. WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES August 12, 2008 The meeting was called to order at 5 :06 p.m . Members present: Members absent: Also present: Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins, Oakley, Habenicht Burns, Clark, Moore, Woodward Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities 1. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 2008 MEETING. ATT. 1 The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received a record of the July 7 , 2008 phone vote approving the minutes of the June 10, 2008 meeting. 2. SOUTHGATE SUPPLEMENT #164. A request was made by the Southgate Sanitation district representing the owner, Colony fuvestments , 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 with 209 single family units anticipated. 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 the Clean Water Plan and it was approved . The request for exclusion from the Parker service area was approved by DRCOG on October 18, 2007 and the inclusion of the site into the Littleton/Englewood service area was approved on July 15, 2008. Mr. Clark entered at 5:08 p.m. Mr. Cassidy moved; Mr. Habenicht seconded: To approve the Southgate Supplement #164 for the owner, Colony fuvestments, for a Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. parcel totaling 53.59 acres for residential and commercial use. Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins, Oakley, Habenicht, Clark None Burns, Moore, Woodward Mr. Moore and Mr. Woodward entered at 5:09 p.m. 3. TRIBALOMETHANEIHALOACETIC ACID CHART. Bill McCormick, Operations Superintendent at the Allen Water Filter Plant, appeared to discuss the Total Trihalomethanes and Haloacetic Acid Analyses Charts distributed to the Board. Trihalomethanes (THM) and haloacetic (HAAS) acids are disinfection byproducts that are produced when organics react with chlorine. These are regulated by EPA because they are contaminants that may cause cancer. Per EPA standards, trihalomethane readings must be under 80 ppb and haloacetic acid readings must be under 60 ppb . THM's have been ranging in the 30's and the most recent reading for HAA's was 27.91. Recent readings are lower because of the total organic carbon removal and the chloramines process that has been added at the Allen Water Treatment Plant. 4. GUEST: LORRAINE SMITH AND CINDY GRAINGER RE: CITY DITCH AND W. RADCLIFF A VE. Ms . Loraine Smith of 1080 W. Radcliff Ave. and Cindy Grainger appeared before the Board to discuss their concerns regarding the City Ditch behind their homes being piped. Ms. Smith voiced her concerns about not being notified before the City Ditch was piped. They noted that the open ditch had provided a separation from an undesirable neighbor and would have prevented another neighbor's car from rolling into her yard. Traffic safety issues were discussed, with Ms. Smith requesting concrete barriers be installed. It was noted that the Traffic Department will be notified to investigate the possible traffic hazard. Tom Brennan, City Engineer, was present and reviewed ditch boundaries and rights-of- way with Ms. Smith and Ms. Grainger. Ms. Grainger noted that sink holes have appeared in her yard after the ditch was piped . Stu Fonda directed Mr. Brennan to inspect her yard to see ifthe sinkholes were caused by the ditch being piped . Mr. Brennan noted that the sinkholes may be caused by drought conditions over the last few years . Ms. Smith and Ms. Grainger will be notified of the findings after Tom's investigation. They also requested to be notified of any changes along the section of City Ditch adjacent to their properties. Mr. Clark noted that because of a potentially dangerous condition of the ditch bank failing, even if the adjacent residents were notified, the outcome would have been the same with the City Ditch having to be enclosed in pipe. 5. WATER RIGHTS UPDATE FROM DAVID HILL DATED MAY 16 , 2008 The Board received from David Hill, Englewood's Water Attorney, a water rights update dated June 6 , 2008 and July 10, 2008. Stu discussed developments in water litigation cases in which Englewood is involved. 6. 2009 BUDGET. The Board received a preliminary draft of the 2009 budget. Stu discussed major upcoming projects including replacing the Union Avenue 16" water main, a 18" water main that needs replacing in front of Swedish Hospital and the two 3-million gallon elevated storage tanks valve modification project. Stu also discussed the upcoming ultra- violet process that will have to be on-line by 2013. Proposed water and sewer rate increases and implementation options were discussed . John Gallagher of Red Oak may be used as a consultant to review the proposed rate increases. The final budget and recommendations will be reviewed with the Board at a future meeting. The Board adjourned at 6:25 p.m. The next Englewood Water and Sewer Board will be held Tuesday, September 23, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONNEC:TOR'S AGREEMENT SEWER CONTRACr NO. 8 - 1. PARTIES. The parties to this First Amendment to Connector's Agreement-Sewer Contract No . 8 (herein; "Amendment") are: the CITY 01= ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, ("City''); and SOUTHGATE SANITATIOtN DISTRICT, a Title 32 special district. 2. RECITALS AND PURPOSES. The parties previc1usly entered into a Connector's Agreement dated June 2Qth 1961, which was subsequently superseded by a Connector's Agreement- Sewer Contract No. 8 dated November 16, 1988, ("Agreementn). The Agreement, by its terms, is due to expire In 2009. The parties de~.ire to extend the term of the Agreement and the purpose of this Amendment is to extend the Agreement by a like-period of years as set forth in the Agreement. Accordingly, the parties covenant, acknowledge, and agree to the following terms and conditions as an amendment to the Agreement. 3 •. MODIFICATION AND AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby modified and amended by the deletion of certain language in existing paragraph 7, as shown l?Y stril<eout, pertaining to the term of the Agreement, and repl~ced by the following new language:. 7. The term of this Agreement is for C:I period of three (3) years from tl=te . sate af e:iceel:ltlen November 16. 2009. and automatically renewed for six (6) subsequent three-(3}-year periods unless either party gives a minimum of six months written notice, during which time the District agrees that all effluent produced from taps within District shall not be in violation of any federal, state or City laws, rules or r~gu/atfons, _c;:ir .arJY Qther applicable governmental regulations or the permits under which the City operates its .sewage .. treatrnent .. system. ·city a·grees, di.iring the 'term ... hereof, to treat said effluent and to rm1intain adequate facilities for treating of the same. 4. ANNU~L APPROPRIATION REQUIRED. Any provision of this Agreement, or its. attachfl)ents, which directly or Indirectly Impose upon either party, any financial obllgatlon whatsoever .to be performed or which may be performed in any fiscal year suJ;>seQuent to the year of ·the execution of this Agreement is expressly made1 contingent upon, and subject to, funds for such financial obligation being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available by the parties' respective governing boards. 5. RATIFICATION. The parties hereby ratify all other provisions of the Agreement which provisions shall remain in full force and effect Dated: ___ 2008 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD ATIEST: Mayor City Clerk Dated: ~fp../2oos ~~~~~ Secretary 1 Date October 20 , 2008 INITIATED BY Utilities Department ATT. 2 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item Subject Southgate Connector's Agreement -1st Amendment STAFF SOURCE Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTlON In 1961 the City of Englewood and Southgate Sanitation District entered into a Connector's Agreement. In 1988 Englewood and Southgate entered into an updated Connector's Agreement. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Water and Sewer Board, at their September 23, 2008 meeting , recommended Council approval of a Bill for an Ordinance approving the Southgate C<;mnector 's Agreement -First Amendment. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The 1988 agreement with Southgate was executed with an effective date of November 16, 2988 for an initial term of three years plus six automatic three year renewals. This agreement will be expiring on November 16, 2009. Southgate and the City of Englewood are mutually agreeable to extending the contract using an addendum to keep the existing Connector's Agreement as written . The proposed addendum will extend the contract by the same terms as originally proposed, with the exception of changes to the Section 7 language, as recommended by the City Attorney's office , to distinguish between the City and the enterprise funds. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Bill for Ordinance Southgate Sanitation District Supplement #163 SGSUPP163 FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONNECTOR'S AGREEMENT SEWER CONTRACT NO. 8 . 1. PARTIES. The parties to this First Amendment to Connector's Agreement-Sewer Contract No . 8 (herein; "Amendmef!t") are: the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, ("City"); and SOUTHGATE SANITATION DISTRICT, a Title 32 special district. 2 . RECITALS AND PURPOSES. The parties previously entered into a Connector's Agreement dated June 20th 1961, which was subsequently superseded by a Connector's Agreement- Sewer Contract No. 8 dated November 16, 1988, (~Agreement"). The Agreement, by its terms, is due to expire in 2009. The parties desire to extend the term of the Agreement and the purpose of this Amendment is to extend the Agreement by a like-period of years as set forth in the Agreement. Accordingly, the parties covenant, acknowledge, and agree to the following terms and cond itions as an amendment to the Agreement. 3.. MODIFICATION AND AMENDMENT. The Agreement is hereby modified and amended by the deletion of certain language in existing paragraph 7, as shown by stril<eout, pertaining to the term of the Agreement, and replaced by the following new language: 7. The term of this Agreement is for a period of three (3) years from the date of execution November 16. 2009. and automatically renewed for six (6) subsequent three-(3)-year periods unless either party gives a minimum of six months written notice, during which time the District agrees that all effluent produced from taps within District shall not be in violation of any fec;ieral, state or City laws, rules or regulations, .or.a1,1y c,>ther appl~ca_bl~.gqvemm~_ntal regulation~ or the p~rr_nits under which the City operates its sewage treatment system. City agrees, during the term hereof, to treat said effluent and to rm:iintain adequate facilities for treating of the same. 4. ANNUAL APPROPRIATION REQUIRED. Any provision of this Agreement, or its attachments, which directly or indirectly impose upon either party, any financial obligation whatsoever to be performed or which may be performed in any fiscal year supsequent to the year of the execution of this Agreement is expressly made contingent upon, and subject to, funds for such financial obligation being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available by the parties' respective governing boards. 5. RATIFICATION. The parties hereby ratify all other provisions of the Agreement which provisions shall remain in full force and effect. Dated: ___ _.2008 CITY OF ENGLEWOOD ATIEST: Mayor City Clerk Dated: ~pp.-/2008 ~#~ Secretary 1 c T y 0 F E N G 0 F F I C E 0 F T H E c July 22, 2008 Duane Tinsley Southgate Water & Sanitation Districts 3 722 East Orchard Road Centennial, CO 80121 Dear Duane: T y LEWOOD ATTORNEY Re: Connector's Agreement-Sewer Contract No. 8 While I agree that both parties to this agreement are enterprises, with the City the line between the enterprise and the City is frequently blurred; therefore, we would appreciate the inclusion of the following language in the proposed "First Amendment to Southgate Sanitation District Connector's Agreement Sewer Contract No. 8": "Subject to Annual Appropriation. Any provision ofthis agreement or its attachments which impose upon the City, directly or indirectly, any financial obligation whatsoever to be performed or which may be performed in any fiscal year subsequent to the year of the execution of this agreement is expressly made contingent upon and subject to funds for such financial obligation being appropriated , budgeted and otherwise made available." Thank you for your help . .......... /~1187- N cyN. Reid Assistant City Attorney bb CC: Stu Fonda/ Daniel L. Brotzman , City Attorney Nancy N. Reid, Assistant City Attorney Dugan 5. Comer, Assistant City Attorney 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 8011 O Phone 303-762-2320 FAX 303 -7 83-6892 www.engle woodgo v.org Date October 20, 2008 INITIATED BY Utilities Department ATT. 3 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item Subject W. Union Ave . Water Main Rehabilitation Project 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 West Union Avenue Pipe Rehabilitation Project. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The 16" water main on West Union Avenue between S. Santa Fe Drive and the S . Platte River has experienced numerous leaks over the past ten years and has been determined to be past its useful life. This water main is a vital link for the Englewood water distribution system, being it is the largest of three mains crossing the South Platte River, serving customers on the west side of the Platte . Loss of this water main would significantly impact the entire water distribution system west of the Platte River. The Utilities Department determined that a no-dig main rehabilitation was necessary due to the high volume of truck traffic and a number of businesses along W . Union Avenue. Waste Management and a local concrete plant access their businesses from Union Avenue. Slip lining, pipe bursting and directional boring were methods evaluated for this rehabilitation project. Trenchless rehabilitation will be the least disruptive and allow businesses to remain operating . The project consists of a potable water main rehabilitation of approximately 1400 feet of 16" schedule 20 steel pipe with 5/16" thick wall. A bypass piping system will provide service to effected customers during construction, along with traffic control, asphalt and concrete removal and replacement. FINANCIAL IMPACT A bid opening was held September 18, 2008 and the following bids were received: LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Ordinance Bid Tabulation Sheet UNION AVENUE WATER MAIN REHABILITATION BID BID OPENING WILL BE SEPT. 18, 2008 RESULTS OF THE BID AND THE ENGLEWOOD CITY ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AT THEW ATER BOARD MEETING SEPT. 23, 2008 Ultraviolet irradiation systems are rapidly gaining traction in the water treatment, wastewater treatment, and water reuse markets B e rtrand W Dus sert !though ultraviolet (UV) irradiation technolo gy has been available for more tha n a century, it only gained prominence in the water management field during the last 2 decades. Now, UV irradiation is a hot growth area in the water treatment market. The worldwide water market for UV tech- nologies currently is estimated to be worth a total of $500 million . This includes municipal wastewater treatment ($120 million), municipal drinking water treatment ($120 million), indus- trial pretreatment ($100 million), commercial use ($80 million), and consumer-residential use ($80 million). This market is forecast to grow to more than $900 million by 2010 (assuming a 10 % growth rate for the industrial , commercial, and • WE&T • WWW .WEF .O RG/MAGAZ I NE consumer-residential markets and a 15 % to 20 % growth rate for the municipal water and wastewa- ter treatment markets). Prompted by Milwaukee While chemical disinfectants, such as chlorine, can treat bacteria and viruses effectively, they are less effective against protozoa (such as Giardia) and almost useless against Cryptosporidium . The 1993 Cryptosporidiosis outbreak in Milwaukee , which resulted in more than 100 deaths, prompt- ed water management professionals to find more reliable technologies for inactivating or removing Cryptosporidium from water. The late-1990s discovery that UV irradiation readily inactivates Cryptosporidium created a huge opportunity for UV disinfection systems in \ the drinking water market. Cryptosporidium oo- cysts are prevalent in surface waterbodies, such as rivers and reservoirs, worldwide. Ozonation and membrane filtration also are effective at removing Cryptosporidium, but UV irradiation is much less capital-and operations-intensive. (Drinking water utilities are not the only ones concerned about Cryptosporidium. Numerous Cryptosporidium outbreaks in swimming pools have been documented recently.) Multiple Uses UV irradiation typically is used to disinfect water (inactivate waterborne pathogens, such as bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and fungi). However, it also can be used to remove chemicals from water. In high-purity applications (pharmaceutical and semiconductor industries), UV irradiation is used alone (a process called photolysis) to remove total organic carbon from water. In other commercial and industrial applications, pho- tolysis is used to remove chemical disinfectants, such as chlorine , chloramines, and ozone, from water. In advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), UV irradiation is combined with chemical oxidants (such as ozone and hydrogen peroxide) or semi- conductors (such as titanium dioxide) to oxidize refractory chemicals, including chlorinated solvents, taste and odor compounds, nitrosodi- methylamine (NOMA), methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), endocrine-disrupting chemicals , and pharmaceuticals. In addition, UV irradiation effectively reduces chloramine levels in swimming pools . A chlorine- disinfection byproduct, chloramines produce the "chlorine smell " in indoor pools . Recent studies indicate that chloramines contribute to dry skin, burning eyes , and respiratory ailments. Such problems especially affect children , professional swimmers, lifeguards , and other people who work in or around swimming pools . UV Benefits and Limitations UV irradiation is an alluring treatment technol- ogy for various water markets . It handles a wide variety of microorganisms (bacteria, viruses, fungi , and protozoa, such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia). It does not use chemicals, so it is not corrosive, susceptible to accidental hazardous overdosing, or subject to chemical transport, storage, handling, or removal rules. It also does not require hazardous-material management plans . UV irradiation systems are compact and easy ---..,~. -. ------_.-:--- to retrofit into existing treatment plants. They have low overall capital and operating costs, and are easy to maintain and operate. UV systems also are safe , environmentally friendly, and do not form disinfection byproducts. The process is not pH-dependent and does not affect the water's aesthetic qualities (taste, odor, or color). However, the efficacy of UV irradiation sys- tems is difficult to monitor during operations. Certain viruses (such as adenovirus) require high UV doses . Also, the technology is not effec- tive as a preoxidant, as a taste-or odor-control method, or when treating water containing high concentrations of solids (such as municipal wastewater). The lamps contain mercury, and the process does not leave behind a residual amount of disinfectant (to handle any pathogens that may exist in the distribution system). Continually Improving UV irradiation systems have evolved over the years. Earlier systems used low-pressure, low- output mercury-gas discharge lamps. They were expensive and difficult to install (large footprint and headloss), operate (sensitive to changes in water temperature), and maintain (numerous lamps to manually clean and replace). Technological developments have reduced the effect of water temperature and increased lamp life and power. Today's UV systems use either low-pressure (low-output, high-output , or amalgam) or medium-pressure lamps . The choice of lamp depends on the application. Meanwhile, manufacturers continue to work to reduce overall operating costs and extend lamp life. For example, costs should drop as a result of continuous hydraulics enhancements that lead to better UV dose distribution in both closed-vessel and open-channel systems. Low-pressure amalgam lamps currently can last as long as 15,000 hours. Manufacturers are trying to develop electrodeless lamps that can Lamp Improve- ments have made ultra - violet Irradiation systems more attractive. JU NE 2 008 . ! i ., r ,' 'I 'f' I ' I '• ~ !· I il ii r· ' ,.• 1,. ! ' ;;i. ' ' I I I ;. I .~ I ~ I I Was tewat er treatme nt plants typically use verti- cal open-channel ultraviolet syst ems . last 30,000 hours or longer, using such technolo- gies as microwave UV. Newly developed coatings also should extend lamp life . Eventually, mercury-free UV lamps may be- come commercially available if regulators ad- dress the perceived environmental concern about mercury in light bulbs. Other options include broadband xenon pulsed lamps , narrow- band di e lectri c barrier discharge excimer lamps , a nd light-emitting diodes (LEDs). To succeed, however, such lamps will have to overcome major hurdles , such as high cost, low power, short life, and poor UVC efficiency (conversion of electricity into UV light). Regu lat ion -Driven Marke t Before the Milwaukee outbreak, few water treatment plants in North America used UV for disinfection . Today, New York City ; Vancouver, British Columbia; Seattle; Cincinnati; and other large municipalities either use or are installing UV irradiation systems in their treatment plants. Most use UV technologies as part of a multiple- barrier approach, in which several complemen- tary technologies are combined to make the overall water treatment process safer and more efficient.) By 2010 , North America's water treatment, • WE&T • WWW.WEF.ORG /MAGAZ I NE wastewater treatment, and water reuse sectors are expected to make up about 45 % of the grow- ing worldwide market for UV irradiation systems . Other growth markets include Europe (waste- water treatment), the Middle East (wastewater treatment and water reuse), and the Asia-Pacific region -primarily China (wastewater treatment) and Australia (water reuse). Regulations greatly affect UV market growth in both Europe and the United States . Th e European Bathing Water Directive , the Water Framework Directive , and the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive are just a few of the many statutes driving the UV market in Europe. In the United States , the Stage 2 Microbials- Disinfection Byproducts cluster of rules, which address the trade-offs between disinfection and th e byproducts of chemical disinfec- tion , is expected to lead to widespread use of UV irradiation systems . These rules includ e the Long-Term Two Enhanced Surfac e Water Treatm ent Rule (LT2ESWTR) and the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 2 DBPR). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated LT2ESWTR in 2006 ; it primarily targets Cry ptosporidium, which is prevalent in most surface water supplies and in groundwater influenced by surface water. The agency also .l . I .~~ ' " promulgated Stage 2 DBPR in 2006 ; this regulates harmful disinfection byproducts . In addition, EPA promulgated the Groundwater Rule in 2006 ; its effect on the UV market is unclear. The rule requires that groundwater be treated via a multiple-barrier system to en- sure that virtually all bacteria and viruses are removed before the public drinks the water. It also requires that disinfection processes reliably achieve 4-Iog inactivation or removal of viruses . One pathogen often found in groundwater -ad- enovirus -is particularly UV-resistant For most waterborne pathogens (bacteria, protozoa, and most viruses), a UV dose of 40 mJ/cm2 is consid- ered largely sufficient for 4-log inactivation; how- ever, the dose must be more than 100 mJ /cm2 for adenovirus removal. That said , Duke University (Durham, N.C.) researchers have found that medium-pressure UV lamps can achieve a 4-log inactivation of adenovirus at a much lower dose (less than 60 mJ /cm2). Meanwhile , stricter regulations for trans- porting, storing, and handling toxic chemicals, such as chlorine (primarily chlorine gas), have speeded up the adoption of UV irradiation systems . About 50 % of all new wastewater treat- ment plants built in the United States use UV technologies. Because the efficacy of UV treatment is diffi- cult to monitor during operations, all UV irradia- tion systems must be validated and certified for various applications to ensure that the proper UV dose is delivered at all times. Certifiers typically use bioassay (biodosimetry) testing to validate reactor performance (dose delivery). To meet EPA's LT2ESWTR requirements , for example, UV reactors must be validated for Cryptosporidium , Giardia , or virus inactivation . Other drinking water requirements for UV sys- tems can be found in DVGW W294 (Germany), ONORM (Austria), EPA's UV Disinfection Guidance Manual, and the National Water Research Institute (Fountain Valley, Calif.) guidelines. In water reuse applications , UV systems must comply with the Title 22 guidelines specified by the National Water Research Institute . In wastewater treatment applications, more and more engineers now specify UV systems that have undergone bioassay testing , because of the uncertainty associated with existing mathemati- cal models. Opportunities Abound In the past 5 years, the number of companies specializing in UV technology has shrunk as ITT (White Plains, N.Y.) acquired Wedeco ; Danaher (Washington , D.C.) acquired Trojan Technologies and Aquafine; Siemens Water Technologies (Warrendale, Pa.) acquired Sunlight Systems; and Severn Trent Services (Fort Washington, Pa.) acquired Quay Technologies. This consolidation trend is expected to continue because small , successful niche players provide excellent op- portunities for large corporations wishing to get in on the UV action. New applications for UV-related AOPs proba- bly will develop as concerns arise over chemicals in the environment (such as endocrine-disrupting chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and algal toxins). Such AOPs also would become more prevalent in both drinking water and water reuse applica- tions. In the years ahead, UV irradiation systems are expected to become more prevalent in the food and beverage, biopharmaceutical, semiconduc- tor, and fish hatchery and aquaculture industries . Other industries are expected to use it to treat their cooling-tower and ballast waters . The municipal market for UV technologies (water treatment, wastewater treatment, and water reuse) is projected to grow steadily. As concerns over water scarcity and droughts in- crease, water reuse will become a more accept- able practice in arid regions, such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia , Europe, and certain parts of the United States . Both UV irradiation and mem- brane filtration probably will be used to reclaim water for reuse . Demand for UV technologies also is expected to increase in both residential and commercial drinking water markets worldwide as a result of renewed public awareness of municipal water quality issues and increasing concerns over bottled water's quality, cost, and environmen- tal effects . Potential commercial users include hospitals (to control Legionella, for example), office buildings , schools , restaurants , and camp- grounds . In these applications, UV systems will be either point-of-use or point-of-entry devices. Meanwhile, the United Nations and other international organizations are encouraging UV-system manufacturers to develop simple, inexpensive UV technologies that can be made available to the more than 1 billion people who currently lack access to clean drinking water. B ertrand W. Dussert is global product manager for ultraviolet irradiation technologies in the Vineland, NJ., office of Siemens Water Technologies (Warrendale, Pa.). JU NE 20 0 8 • q !: 1 11 i II II ii i; ! ! i: i I Ii i 1. .1/ I! I ! i I !I ir ii ATT. 5 BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW D avid G. Hill Partner Daniel L. Brotzman, Esq . City of Englewood I 000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110-0110 Re: May Invoice Dear Dan : 1712 Pearl Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302 Tel: 303.402.1600 • Fax: 303.402.1601 bhgrlaw.com June 6 , 2008 dgh@bhgrlaw.com Enclosed please find our invoices for professional services on water matters for May I , 2008, through May 30, 2008 , in the amount of $74,883 .07 , with a total for the year of$408,202.39. The amount for this billing cycle on major cases is listed below : I Name I Amount I No. I General (No Charged this Month) $ 981.00 001 FRICO (02CW105) Change and Related Cases 66, 156.08 504 CCWCD (01CW264) Fulton Ditch 1,327.00 506 Stu Fonda has asked us to provide brief descriptions of the reasons for Englewood's involvement in all cases which appear on out bills each month, as well as a brief summary of the work performed by this firm during the month. The following paragraphs contain these descriptions with respect to the matters reflected on the enclosed invoices: Introduction. Please understand that this letter is a confidential attorney-client communication. Please keep it confidential. 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 exchanges 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 $3 75. So it's important to keep deliveries to Cente1mial above the thresholds. There are two related palis 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 June 6, 2008 Page 3 BURLINGTON EXPANSION The rights at the Burlington headgate make well over fifty percent of the calls against the McLellan right. So if we can reduce their calls we will get a good deal more water. The 1885 Burlington storage right and the 1885 Burlington direct flow right were effectively "sold" to FRICO in 1909, after which FRICO dramatically expanded the geographical area of use, the gross diversions and the consumptive use. (Both Burlington and FRICO were originally speculative land and water companies, with original promoters who sold stock and to-be-irrigated land under the ditches.) My partner Jon Banashek and Kate Griffin of Martin and Wood put on a "slide show" of the Burlington usage before the FRlCO expansion, using ancient ditch company minutes, water commissioner records, testimony before the referee in the FRI CO and Henrylyn adjudications, and ancient maps. They had worked on it for days. Their presentation got rave reviews from the Court Reporter (best he'd ever seen), Aurora, the Division Engineer, and (reluctantly) Henrylyn. Our assertion is that the Burlington right is limited to what existed prior to the FRICO takeover. The referee in the FRI CO adjudication of 1918 so held, on a now-non-binding point, but his findings are quite persuasive and the Judge in the present case actually knew that referee. We are quite hopeful that a drastic reduction in diversions and consumption from that sought by Applicants for the shares transferred to East Cherry Creek will result. Ultimately that will cause reduced calls. The work needed to assemble the "slide show" was enormous. FRICO disclosed over 20,000 pages of additional historic documents to the opposers on March 20, 2008. Those documents were due in May of 2007. The Maiiin and Wood staff and our staff spent several all-night or nearly all-night sessions and several weekends going through them. Lots of nuggets were found. The significant documents we retrieved from that great mass helped enormously in the presentation by Kate and Jon. With great good fortune (and considerable preparation), I managed to do a very effective cross examination of the FRI CO expert, Duane Helton. I got him to confess a lot of problems with his consumptive use ai1d gross diversion analyses, and got compliments from the bystanders, particularly Jim Hall (Division Engineer) and Aurora. So Jon and I feel good about the Burlington historic expansion case. In addition, a new Burlington headgate has been built without benefit of a decree. It will take more water thai1 the old headgate (these people miss no opportunity to "take a little more"). We and Public Service are seeking to constrain diversion to the old level. Daniel L. Brotzman June 6 , 2008 Page 4 Finally , the Burlington people have historically pumped a lot of Metro effluent into the Burlington canal , when their rights are in priority. We sought the continuation of pumping at historic levels, since pumping reduces calls from the headgate. Aurora made a separate presentation asserting that the Applicant 's farm efficiency rates were too high , resulting in exaggerated consumptive use. THE 1999 AGREEMENT The 1999 Agreement took off the call for the 1885 Burlington storage right, which diverts at the Burlington headgate. It substituted the 1909 Barr Lake call for the 1885 call. Denver 's upstream rights at Chatfield and Strontia have priorities between 1885 and 1909. The agreement was intended to allow Denver to divert on those rights but to keep McLellan and others from dive1iing , by substituting the 1909 call for the 1885 call. Denver has been diverting 4,000 to 6,000 acre feet at Strontia Springs and Cheesman as a result of the agreement. The 1885 storage right still fills, because it is the most senior storage right on the river and it can't be called out. It just takes a lot longer to fill. The extended fill time injures McLellan by putting off the time when McLellan will come into priority because the four storage rights which divert at the Burlington headgate are filled . And it causes rebound calls from reservoirs below the Burlington headgate, because the river is shut off while the 1885 is filling. (The "shutoff' causes calls from downstream reservoirs which extend for some time.) The extra Denver diversions upstream reduce the flow at Chatfield, which reduces opportunity for McLellan diversions and exercise of the 220 exchange to City Ditch. Finally, Denver tells Joe Pershin that they intend to take more water from Bear Creek. The absence of the 1885 call will enable Denver to dive1i from Bear Creek 01rits 1892 Marston reservoir right, which will reduce Bear Creek flows and quality. So Denver gets an additional amount upstream, the 1885 right still fills, and the river gets shorted. (Denver does not replace its upstream diversions to the 1885 right.) Denver used to exchange against the 1885 call, which helped us because 1) sometimes they released the exchange water from Chatfield, which fixed quality, and 2) the exchange caused an immediate "fill" effect on the 1885 right. The Judge's rulings before and at trial gave us some modest progress. He stated it was improper to use the 1909 Ban Lake call to fill the 1885 right. That means that while the 1885 right Daniel L. Brotzman June 6, 2008 Page 5 is filling, there usually will be no call from the Burlington headgate. The 1885 fill generally takes place in November and December, and sometimes January. During that period there are periodic calls from reservoirs downstream of the Burlington. However, there are also days with no calls from downstream reservoirs. So McLellan should get some additional diversion time every winter as a result. In addition, the proposed decree submitted by the Applicants called for the upstream Denver diversions into storage to "paper fill" the 1885 storage right. I e., the upstream diversions by Denver would be treated as having gone toward fill of the 1885 right, which would cause the 1885 right to "get off the river" at the correct time. That would eliminate the delayed fill problem, if that provision survives (see below). I sought to force Denver to replace some of its diversions above Chatfield, or to leave a flow in Bear Creek when Marston diverted. My position, in essence, was that Denver took a whole lot more water upstream, the 1885 right still filled, Englewood and the rest of the river got sh01ied, and the transaction was unlawful for several reasons. The Judge ruled very strongly against me on that, partly in a decision on a motion by Denver entered shortly before trial, and partly at trial. The Judge went so far as to refuse to admit evidence on the amount of water which Denver diverted upstream during the 1885 fill period, a time during which there used to be a call against Denver from the 1885 right. We will not have a final ruling for a long time (see below). But if the final ruling does not include both the preclusion of the 1909 call to fill the 1885, and the paper fill of the 1885 for Denver's upstream diversions, I would like to discuss an appeal at my expense. I.e., I would not charge, except for court filing fees and similar expenses. I offer that because I feel ve1y strongly about it, Englewood has been very good to me over the years, and the appellate brief is already written, for the most pa.ii. RULING SCHEDULE Closing argument at the end of a case usually consists of an oral presentation by the various lawyers. Judge Klein has said he wants written closing ai·guments, including briefs and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. His schedule is as follows: Applicants submit their closing by May 30. Opposers (Englewood, Aurora, Central Colorado and Public Service) must make a joint response by June 20. Then Applicants have an opp01iunity to file a rebuttal argument before July 14. I doubt we will have a decision before sometime in September, although August is possible. We will coordinate our joint response with Aurora and the others. We are not necessarily on the same page with the others on several issues, including Applicants' re-use of seepage and Daniel L. Brotzman June 6, 2008 Page 6 continued pumping of Metro effluent. Aurora wants to allow reuse of seepage, because Aurora has bought some ditch shares where seepage is reused; but reuse is clearly unlawful. For inexplicable reasons Public Service takes the position that Metro pumping in the past was unlawful, even though it helps Public Service. So we will have separate parts of the joint presentation on those issues. Again, it's been exhausting. I was in the office every day but three between January 1 and last Tuesday, and Jon worked terribly hard. I hope it pays off for Englewood. 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 paiiicular 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 motion for substitution of Sandstone for Fazzio as opposer. 3. Buffalo Park, et al. (94CW290) (#341 ): Applicants seek ground water rights, surface water rights , change of water rights and an augmentation plan, including exchange for the purpose of providing augmentation water to four subdivisions located in the Bear Creek/Turkey Creek water shed in the Evergreen area . Englewood entered this case to preserve return flows from Warrior Ditch. We have reached a stipulated settlement with applicant and will continue to monitor the case for compliance with that stipulation. We reviewed order granting stay of bill of costs awarded to Bear Mountain and order clarifying same. 4. Aurora (98CW458) (#447): Applicant seeks a fully consumable 20 cfs priority for Englewood's use as a result of the settlement of Thornton's and Westminster's Standley Lake chai1ge cases. This will be dive1ied as many locations between Union Avenue and High Line Canal. Englewood entered this case to ensure that the Standley Lake settlement remains intact. We corresponded with Applicant's counsel regarding unacceptability of this application . 5. Brighton (99CW142) (#457): This case involves water rights for all municipal purposes from seven tributary wells in the South Platte alluvium. Englewood entered this case to Daniel L. Brotzman September 10, 2008 Page2 We received the Judge's ruling in the current FRlCO/United/East Cherry Creek case. We had a massive victory on the historic use of the FRlCO and Burlington rights. While we do not have the numbers calculated yet, it appears to me that for change purposes we have cut the 1885 Burlington right by well more than half, which is devastating. This case, coupled with the 2006 case which for the first time required proper accounting for the FRlCO and Burlington rights, may have cut their historic use by as much as 25 ,000 acre feet. It is hard to give a precise amount of the reduction, because for years there was no adequate accounting and it was clear that there were substantial over-diversions which could not be "tracked." Again we do not yet have the numbers figured, but it appears we offered perhaps twice as much in settlement as they got from the trial. The Judge was very hard on them ; More information is being developed and is being relayed. The Judge directed drafting of a decree to reflect his ruling, which will require engineering work and negotiations among the lawyers. These cases relate primarily to protection of Englewood's 1948 McLellan reservoir right and Englewood's use of its Bear Creek exchange to supply Englewood and Centennial (Highlands Ranch), although there is some impact on Englewood's more senior rights. Historically McLellan and the Bear Creek exchange and aug plan have been important because they enable Englewood to meet the requirements for a bigjun1p in the price for the water which Englewood sells to Centennial. If the targets are met, there will be a big jump in price in a little over four years . Those rights have become very important for another reason, however. It is now clear that during the non-irrigation months Denver intends to close the Chatfield gates as often as possible. Denver is building a pump station at Chatfield to take water to its Marston plant, and Denver has applied to exchange water to Chatfield from its new gravel pits near Brighton. Denver also intends to exchange from Big Dry Creek (a creek by that name which enters the river below Brighton), using its return flows from Broomfield water. Between the pump station and the new exchanges, Denver will close the Chatfield gates most of the time unless we can protect the McLellan right and the Bear Creek right. Denver is also enhancing its raw water treatment plant at Marston Reservoir which will enable it to use more low-quality water from Bear Creek, to the injury of Englewood's Bear Creek exchange and aug plan. Denver will get more Bear Creek water because of the 1999 Agreement (see below). When the Chatfield gates are closed, hardness in the river at Englewood soars and becomes almost unusable without dilution with water with low hardness. The low-hardness water has to come from Chatfield. Only the McLellan right (and sometimes the Bear Creek exchange) can take water from Chatfield in the non-irrigation season when Denver seeks to exchange. Englewood could build the facilities to treat for hardness at the Allen/Fonda plant, but the amount of sludge with radio Daniel L. Brotzman September 10, 2008 Page 3 nucleides would be almost tripled, as I understand it. (That is only a rough estimate I received from Joe Pershin.) It is expensive to haul and dispose of that sludge. So we need to try to protect the McLellan and Bear Creek rights. While we obtained an exceptional victory on lawful use of the FRICO /Burlington rights, we suffered two losses on which I will probably recommend an appeal. The first is that the Judge said that FRICO/Burlington/Henrylyn could not pump effluent from the Metro Sewer pumps into the Burlington canal to satisfy their rights. That pumping has been going on since 1968 or earlier and it provides a lot of the water to FRICO/Burlington/Henrylyn. Without that water, their calls will increase a lot. I think we can appeal rather inexpensively, and we have a reasonably good case , especially since the pumping was forced upon FRICO/Burlington/Henrylyn by the imposition of the Metro Sewer District, and was recognized by a Supreme Court case . It is likely that others will appeal , it seems to me . The time for filing briefs is a long ways off. The Judge will not enter a final appealable order for some time, since no decree has yet been prepared and there will be controversy over the ultimate form of the decree. The second loss , which we have been aware of for some time , is a ruling on an issue of law about the 1999 Agreement between Denver and FRICO/Burlington/Henrylyn. That agreement enables Denver to take substantially more water at Chatfield and on Bear Creek during the non- irrigation season, by eliminating the historic 1885 call from the Burlington Canal headgate. Before the trial, the Judge had ruled in substance that Englewood had no legal recourse because the 1999 Agreement was a "no call" agreement and not an injurious subordination agreement. There is no case law describing the agreement in question as a "no call" agreement, and indeed there is no case law anywhere in Colorado concerning "no call" agreements. Similar agreements have been treated by the case law as subordination agreements . I think the Judge's ruling was a mistake, and he made further mistakes in dealing with the issue at trial. I think we have a good appeal here, and I have offered to do the appeal at no charge for my time, but with charge for expenses and any time of associates or other partners that I find to be absolutely necessary . I think the briefing should be relatively simple. It was done for the pretrial motion practice, in large measure. As to this issue, a notice of appeal is due roughly October 12. We will be discussing the appeal with you. The Cannon case is a change case by Aurora on the Platteville Ditch, a direct flow irrigation right which is senior to a number of Englewood's core rights. There has been serious unlawful expansion of this right. However, there are several other strong opposers who are going to try the case on expansion and other issues. In light of that, and the budget situation., we elected not to participate in the trial. We did participate in unsatisfactory settlement negotiations, and in a study and numerous discussions of the expansion . We will participate in further settlement discussions , if there are any . MEMO TO: John Bock, Utilities FROM: Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney DATE: RE: September 8, 2008 Review of Contract for Consulting Service to do a Rate Study for Water and Sewer Rates with Red Oak Consulting Red Oak provided their version of "Standard Terms and Conditions for Professional Services , a 7-page contract for approximately $57 ,000 . The scope of the contract is to provide "professional financial consulting services ". The following are comments on the contract: Section 4.1 provides for a draft report within three months of receipt of the Client Notice to Proceed. There is no time frame for final performance that should be addressed. 4.2 and 4 .5 discuss equitable adjustment of compensation should there be a delay. The criteria is very vague and I would recommend clarification. 4.4 makes no sense. It defines completeness of performance as completion of Red Oak's services will occur upon completion of the Services. The second "services" is in caps and that should be clarified -completion of the services described in Attachment A , Scope of Services -"to the satisfaction of the client". 5.5 Collection. Attorney fees and other reasonable costs , the following should be added to that paragraph: "if so ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction". Section 6.2.1 provides that it is secret and confidential. One phrase should be added to the end of that-"subject to statutory requirements for open records 24-72-101 et seq C.R.S ." 6.3 Provides that "Red Oak shall retain ownership and property interests in the Service Instruments whether or not Client completes the Project and Red Oak shall retain sole ownership or pre-existing proprietary property. (Is this ok with Stu?) 6.3.2 There is a typo. It provides that copies of documents that may be relied upon by the Client are limited to the printed copies (also known as hard copies) that are signed or sealed by the Client. That doesn 't make any sense. It should be signed or sealed by Red Oak which would show that the Client, i.e. the City, can rely upon those hard copies. 6.5 Limitation of Liability. While we do allow some limitations on liability for professional services, this complete blanket limitation of liability is not acceptable. Regarding Red Oak's negligence, breach of contract or warranty to allow Red Oak to limit their liability, it needs to be limiting their liability for any damages as a result of the City's actions, not theirs. With those comments, the remainder of the Professional Services agreement is legally acceptable. bb ATT.6 City of Englewood Utilities Department Water Ente rprise Fund Demonstration of Rate Increases Water Rate Increases with the Inclusion of $2.5 Million for Treated Water Tank Repairs Assumes 6% Annual Increase in O&M 2009 7% 2010 7% 2011 7% 2012 7% 2013 7% Water Rate Increases with the Inclusion of $2.5 Million for Treated Water Tank Repairs Assumes 4% Annual Increase in O&M 2009 7% 2010 7% 2011 2012 2013 7% 5% 5% Water Rate Increases excluding $2.5 Million for Treated Water Tank Repairs Assumes 6% Annual Increase in O&M 2009 7% 2010 7% 20 11 7% 2012 6% 2013 6% Water Rate Increases excluding $2.5 Million for Treated Water Tank Repairs Assumes 4% Annual Increase in O&M 2009 7% 2010 6% 2011 6% 2012 4% 2013 4% (' ~ -~ ::. \,:.'---~ t~ ~-·-_,,