Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-03 WSB AGENDAWATER & SEWER BOARD AGENDA Tuesday, February 3, 2009 5:00 P.M. I • 11 PUBLIC WORKS CONFERENCE ROOM,-) j SOUTH OF THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT' 1. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 13 , 2009 MEETING AND PHONE VOTE OF JANUARY 21, 2009. (ATT . 1) 2. SOUTHGATE CONNECTOR 'S AGREEMENT -1 sT AMENDMENT . (ATT . 2) 3. BIG DRY CREEK INTERCEPTOR FINANCES. (ATT. 3) 4 SEWER BACKUP REMEDIATION. (ATT. 4) 5. RECENT RESULTS FOR NORM IN WATER TREATMENT PLANT RESIDUALS . (ATT . 5) 6. WATER RIGHTS UPDATE DATED JANUARY 13, 2009 . (ATT . 6) 7. OTHER. WATER AND SEWER BOARD PHONE VOTE January 21 , 2009 ATT,,I I The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received the minutes of the January 13 , 2009 Water and Sewer Board meeting. Mr. Habenicht moved : Mr. Cassidy seconded : Ayes: Members not reached : Nays: Abstain: Motion carried. To recommend approval of the January 13 , 2009 Water and Sewer Board minutes. Wiggins , Habenicht, Burns , Oakley, Cassidy, Woodward None None Moore, Clark, Higday The next meeting will be held February 3, 2009 at 5:00 p .m. in the Public Works Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES January 13, 2009 I ! i The meeting was called to order at 5:04 p.m. . Members present: Members absent: Also present: Bums, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward, Oakley, Habenicht Clark , Moore, Higday Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities 1. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 9 , 2008 MEETING AND PHONE VOTE OF DECEMBER 17, 2008 . The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received a copy of the minutes of the December 9, 2008 meeting and the December 17 , 2009 phone vote approving the meeting minutes. 2 . WATER RIGHTS UPDATE DATED OCTOBER 9, 2008. The Board received from David Hill, Englewood's Water Attorney, water rights updates dated November 10 and December 8, 2008. Stu discussed developments in water litigation cases in which Englewood is involved. 3 . 3200 S. LINCOLN ST. -ST. LOillS SCHOOL -MOVING THE CITY DITCH FOR CONSTRUCTION. The Family of the Nazareth, Inc . representing St. Louis Parish submitted a Grant of Right of Way, Grant of Temporary Construction License and Exchange of Right of Way Agreement. The existing City Ditch location does not allow the church to use their lot, located at S. Lincoln St. and E. Floyd Ave., in an optimum manner to allow construction. I The proposed agreements would permit the church to relocate the existing 36" City Ditch pipe to the easterly section of the lot and allow building on the southwest section. The old right of way will be abandoned after construction. The piping project must be completed prior to April 1, 2009 , the starting date for water flow for ditch users . The project will not impede the operation of the City Ditch and will allow replacement of the 50 year old pipe with new 36" concrete pipe. The Utilities Engineer has reviewed and approved the plans. The City Attorney's office have reviewed and ap~rove~ the documen~s. After the project is complet~d and insp~~te~, a quit claim deed will be issued conveymg the area of the abandoned nght of way ~at is not part of the new right of way to the Family of the Nazareth. · Mr. Bums moved; Mr. Habenicht seconded; of Ayes: Nays : Members absent: Motion passed. To recommend Council approval of the Grant of Right of Way, Grant of Temporary Construction License, Exchange of Right of Way Agreement and Abandonment of Right Way submitted by the Family of the Nazareth for relocating the City Ditch at 3200 S. Lincoln St. A subsequent Quit Claim Deed will be issued by the City after project completion for the unrequired portion of the abandoned right of way. Burns , Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward, Oakley, Habenicht None Moore, Clark, Higday 4 . GRANT OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LICENSE FOR WINDERMERE AND BELLEVIEW. The Public Service Company of Colorado (Excel) submitted a Grant of Temporary Construction License for repairing an underground electrical line in a conduit. The repair i s in a dedicated City Ditch right of way, located north of Belleview on Windermere on the east side of Windermere next to Cornerstone Park. The Board received a copy of the temporary agreement for informational purposes. The permanent License Agreement, which will reflect the completed crossing after the repair, will be forthcoming. I 5. LITTLETON SEWER RATE COALITION. The Board received a letter from Patrick Fitzgerald representing the Littleton Sewer Rate Coalition. The letter requests copies of the Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant annual budgets and financial reports from 1981 through 2Q08. I\?ir· Fonda explained the background of the request and pending legislation that would re'qu ,~e rates to be fair and equitable. .. 6 . WATER METER PURCHASE. The Utilities Department purchases water meters needed for an entire year by requesting one large bid proposal. A portion of the purchased meters will be resold to Englewood customers for the flat-rate-to-meter conversion process and some will be used to replace inactive or poorly functioning meters. The Utilities Department is converting meters to the ITRON Automatic Meter Reading System. The majority of the 2009 order is for electronic remote transmitters for updating existing residential meters , enabling meter readers to obtain meter readings using radio frequencies. This improves accuracy and is a labor saving device. Englewood 's meter order is being placed in conjunction with Denver Water Board's order to ensure the best quantity price. National Meter and Automation's bid is $114, 140 for meters. Of this amount, approximately $33 ,000 will be resold to Englewood customers. Mr. Habenicht moved; Mr. Burns seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: To recommend Council approval of the purchase of water meters, yokes and electronic remote transmitters from National Meter and Automation, Inc. in the amount of $114,000. Burns, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward, Oakley, Habenicht None Moore, Clark, Higday I Motion passed. 7 . SANITARY SEWER BACKUP REMEDIATION. Mr. John Bock appeared to discuss the existing policy regarding cleanups after a sanitary sewer backup resulting from the City's main. Currently, the City proj·des "gross cleanup" to extract the water or sewage and sanitize. In past cases , 'th iutilities Department has replaced carpet and authorized drywall flood cuts to 1ow the area behind walls to dry. , ' The Utilities Department is seeking direction on approved cleanup services for future cases . From a legal standpoint, the City is under no obligation other than to maintain its mains , and is not liable for any loss or damages that result from a blockage. The Board requested additional information on what typical homeowner' s policies cover in such cases. The issue was tabled pending additional information. 8. LETTER TO RHONDA BRINKOETER AT 4020 S . FOX ST. RE: E-COLI. A letter was sent to Rhonda Brinkoeter of 4020 S. Fox St. giving notice that tests were positive for the presence of certain coli form bacteria, indicating a source of contamination inside the house. It was noted that coliform bacteria is an indicator of bacteria, but not e-coli. The letter recommended that the resident hire a plumbing company to identify and correct any sources of contamination. The next Englewood Water and Sewer Board will be held Tuesday, February 3, 2009 at 5 :00 p.m. at the Community Development Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary Date March 2, 2009 INITIATED BY Utilities Department II COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item Subject Southgate Connector's Agreement -1st Amendment STAFF SOURCE " IH Stewart H. Fonda, Dirf.!.ctor of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION 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 February 3, 2009 meeting, recommended Council approval of a Bill for an Ordinance approving the Southgate Connector's Agreement -First Amendment. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The 1988 agreement with Southgate was executed with an effective date of November 16, 1988 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 CHy and the enterprise funds. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Bill for Ordinance Southgate Sanitation District Supplement #163 Southgate Sewer Contract Amend . // 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,· "Amendmert") 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 intom Connector 's Agreement dated June 20th 1961, which was subsequently superseded 'by J 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 rm of the Agreement and the purpose of this Amendment is to extend the Agreement by a lik.e-pe r iod 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 !?Y stril<eout, pertaining to the term ofthe 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 exoeution 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;feral, state or City laws,· rules or regulations, or any other applicable governmental regulations or the permits under which. the ciiy operates its .sewage .treatmentsyst.em. City a·grees, ciui-inidiie ·term ·· hereof, to treat said effluent and to ~intain 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 availa.ble by the parties' respective governing boards. 5. RATIFICATION. The parties hereby ratify all other provisions of the Agreement which provisions shall remain In full fo~ce and effect. Dated:. ____ 2008 CllY OF ENGLEWOOD ATIEST: Mayor City Clerk Dated: ~J~/2oos ~~ Secretary 1 Date March 16, 2009 INITIATED BY Utilities Department // COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item Subject Big Dry Creek Interceptor Finances STAFF SOURCE· ,, W Stewart Fonda, Direcwi of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Big Dry Creek Basin Interceptor Agreement between the City of Englewood, Southgate Sanitation District, South Arapahoe Sanitation District and the South Englewood Sanitation District No. 1 was approved by Council as Ordinance No. 30, Series 1990. A Resolution was passed October 18, 2004 establishing maintenance fees for Big Dry Creek Basin Interceptor. Council approved an Ordinance on March 19, 2008 for the maintenance fee for the Big Dry Creek Interceptor finance charge of $0.108406 per thousand gallons. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Englewood Water and Sewer Board, at their January 13, 2009 meeting, recommended Council approval, by Ordinance, of the Big Dry Creek Interceptor finance charge increase to $0.159123 per thousand gallons. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The Big Dry Creek Basin Interceptor is a major trunk line serving the Southgate, South Arapahoe, South Englewood and part of the City of Englewood Sanitation Districts for sanitary sewer transport. The interceptor begins at Clarkson and Orchard, runs northwesterly along Big Dry Creek to Santa Fe Drive, and then north to the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant. In 1990 the City of Englewood entered into the Interceptor Basin Agreement (IBA) with Southgate Sanitation District, along with other connecting sanitation districts. At the time of the agreement, eight capital construction projects were anticipated. Line and advanced tap fees for capital construction, along with a small charge for repair and maintenance, were established. After completion of three capital projects, Southgate Sanitation District reassessed the condition of the interceptor and determined that it has capacity adequate to meet the existing and future demands and that no further capital projects are needed. Under // the 1990 Agreement , funding must now be provided to proceed with a repair, maintenance and rehabilitation program. FINANCIAL IMPACT The original financial arrangement scheduled periodic increases; the next one is to be effective for the 2009 b illing period . The per thousand gallon ch?rge ~ill increase from $0.108406 to $0.159123 . The typical residential customer will see 'th 1f bill go from $9.00 per year to approximately $12 .00 per year. . .. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Ordinance Letter from Southgate dated November 5, 2008 Southgate Wate r & Sanitation Districts 3722 Eas t Orchard Road Centennial, Coloradff8012 1 Te leph one (303) 779-0261 ·· FAX (303) 779~0220 . Mr. Stu Fonda City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110 Re : Big Ory Creek Interceptor Agreement Dear Stu : // November 5, 2008 Ii ... In 2006 we implemented a restructuring of the financing for the Big Dry Creek Interceptor. On the basis of a twenty five year projection of rehabilitation needs the annual BIA Line Charge was increased (effective 2007) to $0.108406 per 1 ,000 gat1ons of winter water consumption . That finance restructuring scheduled periodic increases in the BIA Line Charge. It is time to implement the increase effective for 2009. Please adjust the 81A Line Charge to $0.159123 per 1,000 gallons of winter water consumption. For your convenience I have attached a copy of the 12/28/06 BIA financing spread sheet. • BDCl.Bebabilitation and ReP-lacement 12/30/05 as R'&iiised 1212a1os · · $0.005434 $15 ;UUCl' $0.45 1 $1 .66 $0.45 ervice charge/1 k winter water = Generates per year: O&M= SGSDLoan: Service Chg -Rehab: . Interest Earnings• Subtotal Re b ~Rehab/Replace :,; .erumtil .f V-11 to VR-16 ~ Subtotal ·~; V-5toV-11 i:·; Subtotal V-OtoV-3R Subtotal t( WR-2 to V-0 1: Subtotal ;c W-20 to WR-18 .~ Subtotal ':. Z-59 to Z-25 ,v ~ Subtotal i'! ElliHilY.2 1 Z-12 to W -20 \ Subtotal Z-14 to Z-12 Subtotal •· 1 Z-25 to Z-14 A' Subtotal ··'~ : .\ WR-18 to WR-2 ' Subtotal No Priority VR-16 to VR-1 & Vault Subtotal V-3R toV-5 Subtotal Tunnel to Z-59 Subtotal Rehablllation Subtotal SGSD Repay:- Subto Rehab= .:•:• ," .. ........ ~ •' 2005 Est $957,000 $997,200 $406,800 $363,000 $589,600 $736,800 $1 ,605,600 $599,000 $1,115,600 $3,228,750 $4,176 $1,371 "-lli $10,606,080 $2,643.750 13 249 830 ,; ··;\ • Interest Earnings = 3.5% on Beginning funds available -Inflation factor= 3.5%/yr from 2005 base $0.15912 $15,00 . $424,24 $13.1 $48.6 $13.i $11 18.0 ' . ' 2016 2011 2006 2006 2011 2006 : .. · 2021 «> 2016 2025 i' ,.. '! 2030 './; 2030 \~' 2030 '• 2030 $0.108406 1994.96% $15,000 $284,243 $8.83 $32.57 $8.83 $421,038 $375,705 $762,588 ;I ,. ''$p.t~.~.12· . $15,00 $424,243'' )~\;:' .. :•· -Initial loan of $1,800,000 plus 3.75% Interest (straight line), 24 payments beg inning 2007 $0.189861 $15,000 $509,092 2012 1855 836 $1,225,813 $724,769 ;/ • 1' 11 I $0.220599 $0.251334 $0.282074 $0.312812 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 I $593,940 $678,789 $763,637 $848,486 •' $18 $21 $24 $26 $68 $78 $87 $97 $18 $21 $24 $26 i1,565 ~1,789 i2,012 l~236 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 $369,144 $865,848 $1,379,936 $1,996,867 $2,635,391 $1,202,296 $1,897,857 $2,702,612 $3,535,533 $4,397,607 $2,599,913 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $593,940 $593,940 $678,789 $678,789 $763,637 $763,637 $848,486 $848,486 $848,486 $848,486 $848,486 mm no.ill i48.m. ~ mm ~ ™.ill ™.5.91 S123,744 S153,916 l9.0.99.l $606,860 $624,245 $727,087 $748,679 $855,876 $805,717 $914,911 $943,077 $972,230 $1,002,402 $939,483 /"'. $1 ,304,293 (:.:;; $2,689,940 $874,522 $2 ,178,815 $2,689,940 S110,Hi6 S110,156 S11!:!,156 $110,156 S11!:!.1S!i SHMS!i S11!!.1 S!i S11!!.156 UH!,156 S11!MS6 S11!!.156 $110,156 $110,156 $110,156 $110,156 $2,288,971 $110,156 $110,1 56 $110,156 $110,156 $2,800,096 $110,156 $865,848 $1,379,936 $1,996,867 $2,635,391 $1,202,296 $1,897,857 $2,702,612 $3,535,533 $4,397,607 $2,599,913 $3,429,240 -..... ,_ 2024 3429 240 $0 $848,486 $120.023 968 509 $0 $848,486 $150.066 998 552 $0 $848,486 $181.160 1029646 $2,219,808 $2,219,808 $0 $848,486 $166.238 1014724 $110.156 $110.156 $110.156 $110.156 110156 $2 329 964 110 156 110 156 3 875 671 4 749 649 5 654 217 $0 $848,486 $197.898 1046384 I ;I $7,630,327 $9,869 $3,240 $2,796 $7,646,232 1/Total Cathy Burrage From: Sent: To: Cc: John Bock Wednesday, January 21, 2009 12 :14 PM Cathy Burrage Stu Fonda Subject: FW : BDCI Attachments: R&R5 .pdf / . I J I Hi Cathy, ., Page 1of1 Here is the information in from Duane for the council communication and the board meeting. Note the attachment. Jon --------- From: Duane Tinsley [mailto:dtinsley@southgatedistricts.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 10:57 AM To: John Bock Subject: RE: BDCI John ... Per your request... In 2006, (pursuant to the provisions of the Basin Interceptor Agreement), the capital capacity projects were deemed to have been satisfied and funding for capital rehabilitation/replacement was determined to be necessary . The BIA provides that such improvements are to be funded via the customer service charges. A twenty-five year rehabilitation/replacement program was documented and revenue needs were identified , (see R&R5.pdf attached). At the request of the City of Englewood the customer service charge increase necessary to fund the 25 year rehabilitation/replacement program was modified to phase-in over a number of years, (the first in 2007 and smaller increases every other year there after through 2019). The funding plan has the next scheduled increase in 2009 . Regards, Duane Tinsley, Manager Southgate Water and Sanitation Districts 303-713-7742 dtinsley@ southgatedistricts.org From: John Bock [mailto:jbock@englewoodgov.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 4:22 PM To: Duane Tinsley Subject: BDCI Hi Duane, I'm looking for a little background information for the BDCI rate increase . Could you give me a few bullet points on the need for the maintenance rate increase? Many thanks John 1121/2009 A TT!> Y I NOTICE TO ENGLEWOOD SANITARY SEWER CUSTOMER SANITARY SEWER BACKUP REMEDIATION Dear Englewood sanitary sewer customer: You are receiving this notice because you have had a sanitary sewer backup in your residence or business caused by a blockage in an Englewood sewer main, and because it is the City of :~::::~s ~::::~::,d:: ::c::~: i:h::::::: Englewood ;,· pr~ti I ~ m conrract wifu a company that specializes in water and sewage damage remediation. The rbmediation company is authorized to perform the following services only: );;>-Water/sewage extraction );;>-Sanitize with an anti-microbial treatment );;>-Make drywall flood cuts. );;>-Clean and deodorize by mopping. );;>-Move the furniture and contents of the affected rooms as necessary. > Pack books in boxes );;>-Wipe down furniture );;>-Run drying blowers as necessary );;>-Run dehumidifiers as necessary );;>-Lift carpet and pads for drying. );;>-Lift and dispose of carpets and carpet pads if necessary. );;>-Replace carpet with equivalent if necessary );;>-Replace carpet pad with equivalent if necessary > Laundry -anti-microbial treatment );;>-Laundry -Pack in bags );;>-Laundry -leave disinfectant soap for washing. From a legal standpoint, the City of Englewood is under no obligation to do anything other than maintain its sewer mains. So long as the City has made a good faith effort to adequately maintain its sewer mains, it is not liable for any loss or damage a property owner may incur as the result of a blockage and backup in those mains. A property owner accepts a certain amount ofrisk by connecting to the City's sewer system which can become blocked for reasons out of the City's control. By agreeing to authorize the performance of these cleanup services, the City of Englewood in no way accepts or acknowledges any liability for losses or damage to the affected property caused by a blockage and backup in its sewer system . If the property owner desires services beyond those listed here, they may contract directly with the remediation company or contact their individual insurance company for direction. I/We, owner(s) of the property at _________ _ _ Elect to allow entry into our premises by City personnel for inspection of damage and evaluate cleanup needs. _Chose to decline the City's offer of cleanup services. Englewood Utilities Department 303-762-2635. Page 1of1 I Cathy Burrage From: Cathy Burrage Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1 :48 PM To: John Bock; Stu Fonda Cc: Cathy Burrage Subject: Sewer backup claims . I . . . ! I Received the following information regarding what insurance compan es pay after sewer backups: coverage . 1122/2009 State Farm Coverage for sewer backups requires a separate endo rsement. $10 per year for $10,000 Allstate Insurance Will cover $1 ,500 in damages . Homeowner would have to go after City if City's fault. Farmers Insurance Is covered by their basic policy . If City's fault, investigator would determine. American Family Insurance Coverage for sewer backups requires a separate endorsement. Covers up to $5,000 All companies indicated that if it was determined that the City was at fault, the homeowners would have to file a claim with the City of Englewood . CDM 1331 17th Street, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80108 tel: 30 3-298-1311 fa x: 303-293-8236 Wednesday, January 21, 2009 Mr. Stewart Fonda Utilities Department 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110 A TTo S I Ii .. Subject: Recent analytical results for NORM in water treatment plant residuals Dear Mr. Fonda: I have reviewed the most recent data for naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in samples from residuals from the Englewood water treatment plant. I conclude that the current results are consistent with results reported previously from similar samples collected from 2004 through 2007. Thus, I believe that residuals currently ready for offsite disposal can again be taken to the Foothills landfill. The uranium mass in residuals reported in the most recent samples is still in the range of concentrations previously reported (110 to 484 mg/kg) (Table 1). The average of three discrete residuals samples collected in December 2008 was 212 mg/kg-range 141to243 - and the concentration in a composite was 169 mg/kg. In the most recent three years, uranium concentrations have ranged from 239 to 312 mg/kg. The data thus support the conclusion that uranium concentrations are not changing substantively over time. Activities of radium-226 and radium-228 reported from recent samples were somewhat greater than values reported in the last three years, but similar to activities reported from several samples collected in 200Ll. In 2004 and again in 2008, r adium activities were reported in the 2 to 5 pCi/ g range. In intervening years, activities were about 1 pCi/ g. Given the consistency of the uranium results, and the finding that Big Dry Creek is the source of NORM to the South Platte just above the Englewood water intake (CDM 2006), these results most likely reflect variability in analyses rather than changes in radium content of residuals. That is, no evidence exists for a separate source of radium in residuals . Gross alpha activities in the current data are also consistent with activities measured in the past. Gross alpha activity for three discrete samples were in the range of 70 to 100 pCi/ g (average of 90) and activity in a composite sample was 84 pCi/ g. These activities are reasonable uranium mass of residuals in the range of 141to243 mg/kg, given the coarse nature of these measurements. In the past, gross alpha activities have been reported in the Document code CDM Stewart Fonda Wednesday, January 21, 2009 Page2 I range of 80 to 241 pCi/ g. Again, current data are consistent with th~s j ~eported previously and support the conclusion that NORM activities are not changing sui;J~tantively over time. Overall, the current data support continuation of the current practice of disposal at the Foothills landfill. Average Average Composite T bl 1 C a e ompanson o f R .d I S est ua s r t amp1mg rom 2004 2005 2006 2007 d 2008 ' ' ' an Gross Total U Mass U-238 1 U-2352 U-2342 Total U Activity alpha Ra-226 (mg/kg) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) (pCi/g) Results from December 2004 Sampling 110 36 2.3 45 84 80 3.1 133 44 2.8 55 101 81 2.7 235 78 5.0 97 179 122 2.9 244 81 5.2 100 186 167 3.0 264 87 5.6 109 201 114 3.0 484 160 10 199 369 241 2 .5 245 81 5.2 101 187 134 2.9 Results from December 2005 Sampling 307 101 6.5 126 23 4 86 1.1 Results from October 2006 312 106 6.8 132 245 220 0.6 Results from December 2007 239 79 5.0 98 182 140 1.1 Results from December 2008 243 80 5.2 100 185 100 2.9 253 85 5.4 104 193 100 3.6 141 47 3.0 58 108 69 2.4 . 212 70 4.5 87 162 90 3.0 169 56 3.6 70 129 84 4.2 Estimated from Total U and a specific activity of 3.3E-07 Ci/g 2 Estimated from ratios to 238 U activity observed in samples collected in 2002 Ra-228 (pCi/g) 4.9 4 .1 3.5 5.2 3.7 4.9 4.4 1.5 0.7 1.5 3.3 4 .1 5.3 4.2 4.2 CDNI Stewart Fonda Wednesday, January 21, 2009 Page3 Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Very truly yours, James M LaVelle, Ph.D. Associate Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. / ' !.11 CDM (2006) Evaluation of Source of Uranium in Big Dry Creek Surface Water, Letter to Philip Egidi, Radiation Services, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, August 2006. cc: Bill McCormick File A IT., (o BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW David G . Hill Partner Daniel L. Brotzman, Esq. City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110-0110 Re: December Invoice DearDan: 1712 Pearl Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302 Tel: 303.402.1600 • Fax: 303.402 .1601 bhgrlaw.com January 13, 2009 dgh@bhgrlaw.com Enclosed please find our invoices for professional services on water matters for December 1, 2008 , through December 31 , 2008 , in the amount of $26,613.16, with a total for the year of $607 ,405.90 . The amount for this billing cycle on major cases is listed below: I Name I Amount I No. I General $ 1,782.69 001 Aurora (98CW458) Union Avenue 1,601.50 447 FRICO (02CW105) Change and R.elat~d Cases 3,151.00 504 Well Water Exchange (03CW139) Diligence 1,299.00 551 Pulte & Broomfield (05CW290) Brighton Ditch 1,913 .50 . 670 Aurora (06CW104) Wattenberg Area 2,532.50 678 FRICO 02CW403 Appeal 6,971.97 712 Stu Fonda has asked us to provide brief descriptions of the reasons for Englewood's involvement in all cases which appear on our bills each month , as well as a brief summary of the Daniel L. Brotzman January 13 , 2009 Page 2 II work performed by this firm during the month. The following paragraphs contain these descriptions with respect to the matters reflected on the enclosed invoices: ···· · • · Jl J Introduction . Please understand that this letter is a con 1 ential attorney-client communication. Please keep it confidential. The bill for the FRl CO/United/East Cherry Creek change case (the ongoing case) reflects the following efforts: The Applicants (FRJCO et al) submitted an initial proposed decree, which was supposed to reflect the Judge's order determining the amount of water which Applicants were allowed. It did not, and the numbers in the decree were not supported by an engineering study. (Needless to say, the initial proposed decree granted more water than did the Judge's order.) The Opposers then submitted a response decree , supported by a great deal of engineering, primarily done by Martin & Wood. In reply , the Applicants submitted their second decree, which contained numbers which were far different from those in the Applicants' initial decree, and were considerably at variance from the Opposer 's decree. When the Applicants submitted their second decree , they also asked for a trial on the varying numbers, and a re., hearing on certain aspects of the Judge 's order. Opposers objected to having a tri al , and submitted criticisms of the numbers contained in Applicants ' second decree. (Opposers requested permission to submit the criticisms, which are technically called a surrebuttal.) We are awaiting a ruling from the Judge. The bill. for the FRICO/United/East Cherry Creek appeal reflects the following efforts: Englewood submitted a motion -for an early appeal of the Judge's ruling on the 1999 Agreement. Under the 1999 Agreement, Denver "bought off' the 1885 Burlington storage call, which has enabled Denver to divert some 4 ,000 acre feet, more or less , during the period when the 1885 call used to be on. Those diversions are made upstream from Englewood , presently reducing the winter flows available to Englewood at Chatfield, and in future reducing the flows available to Englewood from Bear Creek. The motion is technically called a Rule 54(b) motion. The Judge made no ruling on the motion itself; instead, he ordered-the parties to disclose what they each would designate as the transcript and other record on appeal, if he granted the motion. That is a most tmusual ruling; the nature of the record on appeal is usually a matter for the appellate court, not the trial court. In compliance, Englewood reviewed the transcript and the pleadings and orders in the present case and the related earlier case, and submitted a proposed transcript and record on appeal on January 5. We believe the Applicants have until January 15 to make their disclosure. We are awaiting their disclosure and the Judge's ruling. The Aurora "Prairie Waters" case involves primarily the gravel pit storage for Aurora 's massive purchases of South Platte ditch rights. The water will be pumped from the gravel pit reservoir uphill to Aurora's Senac Reservoir, far to the southeast. Because of the very large amounts of water which will be stored in the reservoir (resulting from the changed ditch rights), the Daniel L. Brotzman January 13, 2009 Page 3 I; accounting for the water put into the reservoir and released , and the effects of evaporation and precipitation, is quite important. In the past, Aurora's accounting ha~>"n0t~~n all that we had come to expect Therefore, we have made significant efforts to assure that the de ·~e will include detailed accounting procedures. It presently appears that Aurora is likely to give ·what we need , without trial, although the negotiations are not complete. The change of the Brighton D itch by Pulte Homes and Broomfield is the first change of the Brighton Ditch. The Brighton Ditch rights are senior to some of Englewood's core rights, and can call them out. It is important that Pulte and Broomfield take no more than the farmers lawfully took, both for this case and future change cases of the Brighton Ditch. Future changes of that ditch will no doubt follow the ruling in the present case. Negotiations with Pulte and Broomfield are progressing satisfactorily, and it appears that we will end up with a good decree, without trial. Aurora's application to force Englewood to take 1998 direct flow water, and re-use it to extinction, will be the subject of an entire separate letter. The application is bizarre and potentially damaging, and we have been resisting it, "low key," since 1998. The application was originally Thornton's, and was intended to relieve Thornton (now Aurora) of providing some of the water required under the Standley Lake settlement agreement of long ago. Again, a separate letter is commg. 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 paiticular matter. In other instances, the time spent on any individual matter is not lai·ge 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 ai1d correspondence, overall case management and other activities that are not case specific. It usually includes preparation of many statements of opposition. 2. McDonald (87CW321) (#147): This case involves an application for direct flow and storage rights on unnamed tributaries of Plum Creek. Englewood's interest is to monitor the case to see that administration of very junior rights is proper. We reviewed a delay prevention order and a notice of substitution of Felt, Monson and Culichia as counsel for Applicants. 3. McDonald (92CWI 52) (#297): This case involves an application for direct flow ai1d 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 a delay prevention order and a notice of substitution of Felt, Monson and Culichia as counsel for Applicants.