HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-07 WSB AGENDA'
WATER& SEWER BOARD
AGENDA
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
5:00 P.M.
PUBLIC WORKS CONFERENCE ROOM
ENGLEWOOD CITY HALL
1. MINUTES OF THE MAY 18 , 2010, 2010 MEETING . (ATT. 1)
2. GUESTS: CITY DITCH -HURON & OXFORD. (ATT. 2)
3. GUEST : GREG DYE -MWH -ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR WASTE
IMPOUNDMENT REGS. (ATT . 3).
4 . HOOGENDYKE CASE. (ATT. 4)
5. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF AURORA
REGARDING WATER DELIVERY OBLIGATIONS. (ATT . 5)
6. NON-EMERGENCY AFTER HOURS SERVICE CALL CHARGE. (ATT . 6)
7. LEGAL UPDATEFROMDAVIDHILLDATEDMAY7,2010. (ATT. 7)
8. OTHER.
**NOTE -THE NEXT WATER BOARD MEETING WILL BE
WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2010 AT 5:00 IN THE PUBLIC
WORKS CONFERENCE ROOM, SOUTH OF THE UTILITIES
DEPT.**
WATER AND SEWER BOARD
MINUTES
May 18, 2010
ATT. I
The meeting was called to order at 5:04 p.m.
Members present:
Woodward,
Members absent:
Also present:
Burns, Clark, Olson, Cassidy, Wiggins,
Woodward, McCaslin, Habenicht
Higday
Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities
John Bock, Manager of Admin. -Utilities
1. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 13, 2010 MEETING.
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received the minutes of the April 13, 2010
meeting.
Mr. Woodward moved;
Mr. Habenicht seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Abstain :
Motion carried.
To approve the minutes of the April ·
13, 2010 meeting as written.
Clark, Olson, Cassidy, Wiggins,
Woodward, Mccaslin, Habenicht
None
Higday
Burns
2. 3120 & 3126 S. LINCOLN ST.
Mr. John Bock, Utilities Manager appeared to discuss 3120 and 3126 S. Lincoln St.,
which are two houses on one parcel that were sold to TCS Homes on August 10, 2009 .
They were divided and sold separately-3126 S. Lincoln to David Quinlivan on October
30, 2009 and 3120 S . Lincoln to Benjamin Barnett on February 19, 2010. The existing
water service line goes to 3120 and branches off to 3126 S . Lincoln. Both properties
have separate sewer lines.
According to the Englewood Municipal Code 12-lB-7, more than one premises to a
service connection is prohibited. The Utilities Department became aware of the situation
when notified of the sale. TCS Homes was notified on August 12, 2009 that 3120 must
go on meter within 90 days after close. So far, the property has not been metered.
Both current owners received certified letters notifying them that separate water services
and meters must be installed within 30 days. The owners were given an option to apply
to the Water and Sewer Board for a variance to the Municipal Code to keep the water
service as it exists , but neither party has come forward
John noted that options are being researched and will update the Board at a future
meeting.
3. HOOGENDYKE-4841 S. PENNSYLVANIA ST.
Mr. John Bock updated the Board on the Hoogendyke litigation between Palace
Construction and Mrs. Hoogendyke at 4841 S . Pennsylvania St. There was a sewer
backup on August 20, 2008 that was caused by a blockage in the main. Englewood had
given Palace Construction a letter of pre-authorized cleanup services that Englewood
would cover. During the cleanup, Mrs. Hoogendyke unknowingly authorized additional
cleanup. Palace Construction performed repairs beyond what Englewood had authorized .
Mr. Hoogendyke believes that the charges from Palace Construction were excessive.
City of Englewood Utilities staff provided support in small claims court where Palace
Construction sued the Hoogendykes for the additional amount. Palace Construction and
Mrs. Hoogendyke subsequently named Englewood a defendant in the case.
The Board received copies of letters from Gillian Fahlsing, of Senter Goldfarb and Rice,
attorney representing Englewood's interests . The first letter noted that the parties had to
provide written notice of their claim within 180 days, which was not done. Additionally,
it was noted that if they proceed with serving the City of Englewood as a third-party
defendant, a motion will be filed to dismiss for lack of subject matter. Another letter
addresses Palace's claim of unjust enrichment. A proposal for Englewood settling the
issue for $2,000 was discussed. Stu noted that Englewood is covered under the
Governmental Immunities Act, and if Palace proceeds, recommends seeking restitution
for attorney's fees.
The Board recommended not settling because of the arguments set forth by Gillian
Fahlsing regarding the 180 day limit and the Government Immunities Act.
4. ACEC Engineering Award.
Brown and Caldwell received the 2010 ACEC Engineering Grand Award for
environmental engineering for its $114 million expansion and upgrade of the Littleton-
Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant. McCaslin recommended a formal presentation
to Council. Woodward recommended the trophy reside at City Hall for a month before
going on permanent display at the Bi-City Plant.
5. WATER RIGHTS UPDATE FROM DAVID HILL DATED APRIL 8, 2010.
The Board received from David Hill, Englewood's Water Attorney, a water rights update
dated April 8, 2010. Stu noted developments in water litigation cases in which
Englewood is involved.
6. ARTICLE, "STERL~ RANCH SETS AMBITIOUS PLANS FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT. "
Stu discussed an article that appeared in the Denver Business Journal on April 30, 2010
that discusses Sterling Ranch, a 3,500 acre development in Douglas County. In order for
Sterling Ranch to have adequate water, they approached the City of Littleton about
annexing to Littleton, enabling the development to receive Denver water. Littleton City
Council denied the request.
7. CITY DITCH -HURON & OXFORD .
The Board requested that a letter be sent to the homeowner' s group that appeared before
the Board regarding piping the City Ditch at Oxford and Huron. The letter will state that,
per the Englewood Municipal Code 2-3, any appeal would have to be made to the District
Court.
The meeting adjourned at 5 :35 p.m.
The next meeting will be Wednesday, July7 , 2010 .
Respectfully submitted,
Isl Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
t
t
t • • • • • • • • . '
• ' •
•· •
Proposal for Engineering Services
City of Englewood
Allen Water Treatment Plant
Section 9 Waste lmpoundment Investigations and Report ing
May 21, 2010
eMWH.
BUILDING A BETTER WORLD
A TT. '3
/:. ~-~7"-,. . .--' . ~
> -. /
· ... · /,
. , / ;.,;·
( .
. ·:··.,
: ...
.
,;. ' _.,
-'"':. · .. -...... -...1 -
. -·---..... ,, __ -
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
•
BUILDIN G A BETTER WORLD
May 21, 2010
Mr. Bill McConnick
Utilities Department
City of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110
RE: Proposal for Engineering Services fo r
Section 9 Waste Impoundment Investigations and Reporting
Dear Bill,
MWH is pleased to present the City of Englewood with our proposal for engineering services related to the
forthcoming Section 9 Waste Impoundment Regulations as promulgated by the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment.
Our approach to completing the project will be interactive from start t o finish through a project kickoff
meeting, two collaborative workshops , and several conference calls. We have phased the work to provide
an opinion of the probable life-cycle costs of the alternatives before June 30, 2010 and to facilitate the
City's decision making regarding the alternative that they wish to implement.
We are committing our best experts to work closely with you to ensure the success of your project. Mr.
Greg Dye will serve as your project manager, and Messrs . Bill Pickens and Phil Crouse will serve as the lead
hydrogeologist and lead engineer, respectively. All of the other team members are from our Denver office.
MWH is excited to be considered for the engineering services and for the opportunity to serve the City of
Englewood in meeting the reporting requirements for the forthcoming Section 9 Waste Impoundment
Regulations.
Respectfully submitted,
F. Michael DeDen, PG
Vice President
:zz;;;+-
Project Manager
1801 Californi a Street
Suite 2900
Denver, Col orado 802 02
TEL 303 291 2222
FAX 303 29 1 2155
www.mwhg lob al.co m
• • • • • • I • • • • • • • • • • • •
•
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
I n t rod ucti o n
This proposal presents the scope and estimated costs for MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH) to perform a preliminary
evaluation of the potential impact of the pending Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
(CDPHE) Section 9 Waste lmpoundment Regulations to the operation of the City of Englewood's (City) Allen
Water Treatment Plant. The proposed regulations, which are currently undergoing public review and
comment, will require facilities to do an assessment of all of their waste impoundments to evaluate potential
threats to human health and the environment . Based on the results of the assessment, facilities may be
required to take further action, which could include lining or closing impoundments that are out of compliance
with the regulations. MWH will provide an interpretation of the proposed regulations related to the operations
at the Allen Water Treatment Plant . In addition, based on the assessment, various options for compliance and
preliminary cost opinions will be generated for use by the City for planning purposes .
The following sections of this proposal present MWH's understanding of the project, the purpose for the
engineering services, the proposed scope of work, the schedule, and t he estimated costs and associated
assumptions .
Proj ect U n d erst anding
The City of Englewood owns and operates the Allen Water Treatment Plant (WTP) for the purpose of providing
potable water to its residents. The WTP removes contaminants from the surface water supplies through a
number of different treatment processes and the contaminants are concentrated into residual wastes by on-
site thickening, dewatering, and d rying operations. The WTP utilizes two impoundments to treat waste
residuals, the South and North Reservoirs .
The layout of the South Reservoir is shown in Figure 1. It is divided into two cells, east and west, by a sediment
curtain. The west cell receives was t e residuals from filter backwashing, filters to waste, and settled solids
removal. The residuals settle out in the rese rvoir and are seasonally removed by a dredging operation. The
dredged residuals are dewatered by a belt filter press located in the Dewa t ering Building and then spread out
on a drying area where they are dried by solar and evaporative processes. The dried residuals are then
collected and stored in an area until they are periodically removed from the site. Overflow from the South
Reservoir is conveyed to the North Reservoir .
1
Proposa.l_for F:.'l{f!,illemiig Sm.1iu.fij/ ·
Section 9Waste Impmmdrnent Investigations and Reporting
• : ({D) MWH
• It Figure 1-Aerial Photograph of South Reservoir Showing Existing Facilities • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Figure 2 shows the facilities for the existing North Reservoir. The use of the North Reservoir has changed over
time since its construction. The North Reservoir currently receives overflow from the South Reservoir and
stores raw water from the various water supply sources . Previously, the North Reservoir was use to settle
solids from coagulated raw water. Overflow from the South Reservoir, flow from the raw water supply sources,
and the previous coagulated raw water all enter the reservoir through t he reservoir inlet. Solids from the
influent flow streams have settled in the reservoir and have primarily accumulated in the area surrounding the
inlet .
Four groundwater monitoring wells, identified as AMW-1, 2, 3, and 4, were previously constructed adjacent to
the South Reservoir. Monitoring We ll AMW-2 was abandoned to provide space for expansion of the water
treatment facility and is no longer in service . The location of Monitoring Wells AMW-1, 3 and 4 are shown in
Figure 1.
Recent analyses of the settled solids from the water treatment processes, the dried residuals, and
groundwater taken from monitoring wells located adjacent to the South Reservoir, have revealed a presence
of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM). The levels of gross al pha activity, a NORM constituent,
detected during prior testing by the City of the dried residuals and in the settled solids are potentially high
enough to exceed the Colorado Basic Groundwater Standards . The levels of gross alpha detected in
groundwater samples collected from wells adjacent to the South Reservoir exceed the Colorado Basic
Groundwater Standard. In addition, a preliminary review of the hydrogeology around the South Reservoir
indicates a potential for seepage from the South Reservoir into underlying groundwater. Based on these data,
the South Reservoir would likely be classified as a Type B Waste lmpoundment as defined in the January 25,
2010 draft of the CDPHE Section 9 Waste lmpoundment Regulations (Section 9 Regulations) .
2
Pmposal.for E1!ef11tmi;g Semi.l:s/Or
Section 9 Waste l rnpoundment Investigations and Rep orting
• : (D}) MWH
• t Figure 2 -Aerial Photograph of North Reservoir Showing Existing Facilities • • • • • • t • • •
t
t • t • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Based on a visual inspection of the materials of construction, facilities, and integrity of the Dewatering
Building, Residuals Drying Area, and Dried Residuals Storage Area, these facilities would likely be classified as
Type A Impoundments as defined in the Section 9 Regulations .
Given that the North Reservoir was previously used to settle solids from coagulated raw water, and currently
receives overflow from the South Reservoir, it is suspected that the North Reservoir would be classified as a
Type B Waste lmpoundment as defined in the Section 9 Regulations .
3
Proposal.for h11~i11mi11g Senia:s for
Section 9 Waste Impoundment 1 nvestig.nions and Rep orting
({D) MWH
Pu rpose of Engineering Services
The proposed engineering services associated with the Section 9 Regulations are to:
> Interpret current Section 9 Regulations related to the WTP operations
> Develop a strategy to attempt to get the North Reservoir classified as Type A lmpoundment
> Identify possible options for the South Reservoir for compliance with the Section 9 Regulations
> Prepare a budgetary-level opinion of probable life-cycle cost, including construction costs, for the
alternatives for operational controls for the North and South Reservoirs
> Prepare an Inventory and Preliminary Classification Report as required by the Section 9 Regulations
> Prepare a Demonstration Plan as required by the Section 9 Regula t ions
> Prepare an Engineering Design and Operation Plan as required by the Section 9 Regulations
Approach to Work
The scope of work has been broken down into two distinct phases, Phase 1 and Phase 2. The reason the work
has been phased is to provide the City with an opinion of probable costs by the end of June 2010, and to
accommodate the City's decision making process as to which alternative for the operations controls for the
South Reservoir would be carried forward for the reporting for the Section 9 Regulations .
Scope of Work
The scope of work for the engineering services is presented in the following sections.
Phase1
Task 1 -Perform a Preliminary Bathymetric Assessment of the North Reservoir
This task involves conducting a preliminary assessment of the bottom elevation of the North Reservoir to
provide information to estimate the volume of sediment contained in the reservoir.
MWH Activities
> Prepare a Health and Safety Plan for the Bathymetric Sampling.
> Perform a bathymetric assessment of the North Reservoir.
> Using the data from the assessment and the as-built bottom elevation of the reservoir, estimate the
volume of sediment contained in the North Reservoir.
MWH Deliverables
> Copy of the calculation to estimate the volume of the sediment.
4
, , ' \ Propo.ra/f(!r E1!~im:miig Srnia:sfor ~ Section 9 \Vaste lmpmmdrnent 1 nvestigat:ions mid R eporting
• •
(fil) MWH
Information and Items Provided by City of Englewood
> Boat, two two-way radios, and safety gear for bathymetric assessment.
> Up to one staff member for two days to assist with the bathymetric assessment.
> As-built drawings for North Reservoir
> As -built information for City Ditch Turnout Structure
Task 2 -Prepare Aerial Photographs Showing Improvements for the Alternatives for Operational Controls
Aerial photographs will be prepared to show the improvements for the following alternatives:
> Alternative No. 1 -Line the South Reservoir. Lining the South Reservoir assuming a Type B
lmpoundment Classification and in accordance with the Section 9 Regulations. The concept for the
liner will be based on the prescribed double liner system as described in the draft Section 9 rule.
> Alternative No. 2 -New Washwater Recovery Basins and Expansion of the Dewatering Building. The
washwater recovery basins alternative consists of two basins constructed of concrete, three decant
return pumps, three thickened sludge pumps, and an enclosed building to house the pumps, electrical
equipment and control system. The existing Dewatering Building will be expanded to include a second
two-meter belt filter press. The existing conveyor belt located in the Dewatering Building will be
relocated to accommodate the new belt filter press . The washwater recovery basins would receive
waste filter washwater, filter to waste, and settled solids .
> Alternative No. 3 -Re-activate Big Dry Creek Bypass Pipeline of Union Avenue Pump Station. The
existing Big Dry Creek Bypass Pipeline would be removed and replaced in kind .
> Alternative No. 4 -Point-o f -Source Treatment of Big Dry Creek Downstream of Uranium Source to
Remove Uranium. The trea t ment plant is comprised of an intake on Big Dry Creek, a raw water
pumping station, piping from the pumping station to the treatment facilities and from the treatment
facilities back to Big Dry Creek, and an enclosed building for the t reatment equipment. A proprietary
adsorptive treatment process would be used to remove the uranium from Big Dry Creek. The company
that provides the proprietary treatment equipment and adsorptive media would also exchange the
adsorptive media and dispose of the uranium residual.
> Alternative No. 5 -Dewater, Dry and Remove Sediment from North Reservoir. This alternative
includes dewatering the impoundment, partial drying the sediments, and then excavating and
disposing of the accumulated sediment.
MWH Activities
> Prepare an aerial photograph showing the improvements for each of the alternatives.
> Present a draft of the aerial photographs of the alternatives at a meeti ng
MWH Deliverables
> Final copy of the aerial photograph showing the improvements for each of the alternatives .
Pi vpo.raUor E1{ej1;em}lj!, Sen:icl'sjor
5
Section 9 \l\!aste l mpmmdment Inve stig ,itions mid Reporting
• • • • • • • • • • • • • t • • • • t
t
t
t • t
~MWH
Information and Items Provided by City of Englewood
> As-built drawings for Big Dry Creek Bypass Pipeline of Union Avenue Pump Station
> As-built drawings for South Reservoir
> Annual costs for disposing of TE NORM residuals
> Annual quantities ofTENORM residuals produced
> City of Englewood's water ri ght on the Big Dry Creek
> Annual volumes of waste filter washwater, filter to waste, and settled solids
> As-built drawings of the Dewatering Building
> Topographical map of the North and South Reservoirs either in Microstation or AUTOCAD format
> Provide review comments on the draft aerial photographs showing the improvements for the
alternatives at a meeting
Task 3 -Prepare Opinion of Probable Life Cycle Costs for Alternatives
Cost opinions will be developed for the following alternatives:
> Alternative No. 1-Line the South Reservoir.
> Alternative No. 2 -New Washwater Recovery Basins and Expansion of the Dewatering Building .
> Alternative No. 3-Re-activate Big Dry Creek Bypass Pipeline of Union Avenue Pump Station.
> Alternative No. 4 -Point-of-Source Treatment of Big Dry Creek Downstream of Uranium Source to
Remove Uranium .
> Alternative No. 5 -Dewater, Dry, and Remove Sediment from North Reservoir.
MWH Activities
> Estimate the cost of construction for each of the alternatives. A contingency factor will be applied to
the base construction costs to account for unknowns. The cost estimates will be classified as Class 5
Opinion of Probable Construction Costs (OPCC) as defined by the Association for the Advancement of
Cost Engineering. OPCCs developed under this task order will be based in current dollars (Q2 2010) and
have an implied accuracy range from a low of-20% to -50% to a high of +30% to +100%.
> Apply a factor to the construction costs for engineering, legal, and administration to develop capital
costs.
> Estimate the cost of power, chemical, labor, and disposal of water t reatment residuals for each of the
alternatives for the calculation of annual operations costs.
> Estimate the costs of the hydrogeologic investigation to be considered for Phase 2.
> Estimate the life-cycle costs for each of the alternatives. The life-cycle costs are to be in the form of a
present worth estimate of the capital and annual costs assuming a life of 20 years, an annual discount
rate of 4% and an annual inflation rate of 2%.
It is important to note that MWH has no control over costs of labor, materials, competitive bidding
environments and procedures, unidentified field conditions, financial and/o r market conditions, or any other
factors likely to affect the OPCC of this project, all of which are and will unavoidably remain in a state of
change, especially in light of the high volatility of the market attributable to Acts of God and other market
event beyond the control of the parties. This OPCC is a "snapshot in time" and that the reliability of this OPCC
-6 9'i' ' ~ \ P1o/JOSi1~/i1r b !ef11mi11g Semi.1r!S for
--'-t1 Section 9 Waste Impoundment lnwstigations <UJd Reporting
({ll) MWH
will degrade over time. MWH cannot and does not make any warranty, promise, guarantee or representation,
either express or implied that proposals, bids, project construction costs, or cost of O&M functions will not
vary from MWH's good faith Class 5 OPCC.
MWH Deliverables
> A draft and final table summarizing the estimated construction, capital, annual and life-cycle cost
opinions for each of the alternatives .
Information and Items Provided by City of Englewood
> Cost of power, labor, and current residuals disposal costs .
> Consolidated, written review comments on the draft cost table .
Task 4 -Conduct Meetings and Conference Calls
Meetings and conference calls will be conducted to exchange information and discuss issues .
MWH Activities
> Conduct a project kick off meeting of up to two hours in duration. Up to three MWH staff members
will attend the meeting.
> Conduct a meeting to present the aerial photographs depicting the alternatives. The meeting will last
up to two hours and up to three MWH staff members will attend.
> Conduct a meeting to go over the review comments on the draft cost estimate. The meeting will last
up to two hours and up to three MWH staff members will attend.
> Conduct conference calls as needed to discuss and resolve issues.
> Prepare agenda and meeting minutes for project kickoff workshop and draft deliverable review
meetings.
MWH Deliverables
> Agendas and meeting minutes for all meetings.
Task 5-Perform QA/QC of Deliverables
Checking and technical reviews of the deliverables will be performed.
MWH Activities
> Conduct checking and technical review of the draft deliverables.
> Conduct checking of the final deliverable .
-..2010 7 ~ ' l \ Propos17~for E1{~inn,1 i;{~ Senim for
-'-t-1 Section 9 W aste lmpoiu1 drn ent l nvestig.ltions aud Rep orting
((}}) MWH
Task 6-Provide Project Management
Oversight of the technical and fiscal aspects of the project including budget, schedule, and quality will be
provided.
MWH Activities
> Prepare a Project Execution Plan .
> Monitor the status of budget and schedule for each of the tasks for the project.
> Provide coordination and communication amongst internal team members.
> Prepare monthly invoice for services rendered .
MWH Deliverables
> Monthly invoices .
Phase 2
The following is a listing of probable tasks for Phase 2 of the engineering services . The tasks will be revised to
reflect the alternative selected for the operational controls for the South Reservoir.
> Task 1-Prepare a Sampling and Analysis Plan for Sampling Sediment Contained in the North Reservoir
> Task 2 -Perform Sampling of the Sediment Contained in the North Reservoir
> Task 3 -Conduct a Hydrogeologic Characterization of North and South Reservoirs
> Task 4-Prepare an Inventory and Preliminary Classification Report
> Task 5 -Prepare a Demonstration Plan
> Task 6-Prepare an Engineering Design and Operation Plan
> Task 7 -Update the Opinion of Probable Construction Cost
> Task 8 -Conduct Meetings, Workshops and Conference Calls
> Task 9 -Perform QA/QC of Deliverables
> Task 10 -Provide Project Management
Schedule
Phase 1
> Bathometric field work to occur within two weeks of notice to proceed.
> Meeting to review the alternatives to occur three weeks after receipt of notice to proceed.
> Draft opinion of probable costs to be submitted five weeks after notice to proceed .
> Final diagrams and cost opinion to be submitted two weeks after r eceipt of comments on draft cost
opinion.
The schedule for Phase 2 will be determined once Phase 1 has been completed .
8
P/'Opo.raljor J-:.11f!/.llming S mitt·s(or
Sec ti on 9 \Naste lmpo rn1d.m ent I nvestig.Hi o n s ;tud Rep orti ng
CID) MWH
Fees
Phase 1
The fee for the Phase 1 engineering services is $49,562.85 . A breakdown of this fee is shown in the following
tables.
Assumptions
> Dewatering Building, residuals drying area and residuals storage area will be classified as a Type A
Waste lmpoundment
> South Reservoir will be classified as a Type B Waste lmpoundment
> North Reservoir will be classified as Type A Waste lmpoundment
> Based on previous Risk Assessments, the South Reservoir is not likely a Type C Waste lmpoundment
> The City of Englewood's water right on the Big Dry Creek will be the hydraulic capacity of the
treatment plant to remove ur anium.
> Results from the City of Englewood's sampling and analysis of the uranium concentrations in Big Dry
Creek will be used to set the loading of uranium to the water treatment plant to remove uranium on
Big Dry Creek.
> The City will provide a boat and one staff member for two days for the bathymetric assessment.
> The elevation of the existing City Ditch Turnout will be used as a benchmark for the bathymetric
assessment .
> For the Opinion of Probable Life Cycle Costs developed in Phase 1:
•!• all of the sediment in the North Reservoir contains levels of NORM that could cause an excedance
of the basic groundwater standard;
•!• the North Reservoir can be taken out of service for a period of time and drained to allow the
sediment to be dewatered, dried, and removed;
•!• and the existing Big Dry Creek Bypass Pipeline has not been used for some time and the condition
of the pipeline and appurtenances is unknown. It is therefore assumed that the pipeline will need
to be removed and replaced.
> January 25, 2010 draft of the Section 9 Regulations is the basis of the engineering services . It is
assumed that significant changes to the regulations will not occur prior to promulgation.
The fees for Phase 2 will be based on the scope of work for the Phase 2 engineering services .
9
Pmpo.raUbr F:.1{~i11millJ.!, Sm:icesjor
Section 9 vVaste l mpoundment I nvestigarions .md Reporting
•
{(D) MWH
Table 1-Total Fee for Project
Client: -City of Englewood, COiorado
Job; WP WQSte Impoundment Stydy
IPrlclna Summaiy
Labor
1099l8 -Pickens, Wilrlam
106250 • Crou~, Phill ip
1023?5 • Dye, Gregory
ll 1116 • Hultgren, Ryan
1129Z.6 -Lee, Christoph er
107722 • Loucks, Jem~
112406 • C..bero, El-r
ll3'4Z4 -Elwell, Gr«chj!n
111760 -Subra,,,..ni•n, Siva rangan
108059 -Fox, Pauft nt
S::?O Mid-level Engineer/Scien\i$\
Labor Profit
LAllORTOTAL
Fitj,,1.lfl.I.i
T4'mp Labor Profit
TEMPORAltV LAIOlt TOTA.L
(-ifl.!i.ifi@O h
. . ,
Subcontract~ overhead
SUBCONTRACTOR TOTAL
As•oci1t~d Project Costs (APC)
S64S CAOO
5685 Dist1,,ce (in Miles):
5500 Material com
5605 Equipment/Supplies
5610 Other fng ineering ODC
56!55 Transporta.tion
S660 lodgir19
5665 Meals
Ad · hot item; revenut/invoic~, no cost
OTltflt DIRECT COSTS TOTAL
I tfi§DMM3·1,,i®JiJ·ii§§. ,tq,IHUH(.(it.Jf#i
5620
5430
5440
Inter /lntre Company Agr4'ements Subtotal
, ...
30 .0
17.0
e2 .o
40.()
28.()
12.0
45 .0
4-0.0
s::.o
8.0 -e.o . .
.
-.
.
Hours
I 'lO.OI
I 0.01
I 600.0I
CGst Code:
: .•. , ' l9l.OO
144.00
161 .00
9.2 .00
57.00
191.00
140.00
69.00
91.00
93.00 -
143.00
-.
-
. . .
:Hliftfii;!fii·
Total
Pro1sct Totals
•r. .
5,790.00
2,«8.00
13,202.00
3,680.00
1,596.00
2,=92.00
6,300.00
<:,760.00
4,732.00
744.00 .
1,144.00 .
. .
-.
-. . .
44,611.00
zg11.1,,1.ll!.•1
' . t-I~
• • ;. '.' ~. ' .~ ! ,' JI~ ,',-
~ G"'4.85 .
345.00 .
575.00 . . . .
. -
4,874,!5
ttl ffl* 1 .. 1.111.11
TOTAL Total Amount
GRAND TOTAL
MWH Project Bu dget Workbook 5/18/2010 • S:ll PM
Proposa{for 1-;_·,{~immilJ', Sen.ia:sfor
10
Section 9 Waste lmpmm drn ent l nvestigations <Uld Reporting
(fi})MWH
Table 2 -Fee for Task 1 -Perform a Bathymetric Assessment of North Reservoir
Client: • City of Englewood, Colorado
)Obj WTf waste Impoupdrneot SWdy
IPrJclng SUrnm•i'y
Labor
109919 • Pickens, w;11;., m
106l50 • Croul!f , Ph illi p
1023 25 • Dye, Gregory
111116 • Hultgru1, R)'lln
1129:6 • Lee, Christopher
10772: ·Louch, James
112406 • Clbero, !lmer
11342.4 • lilwo·ll, Gretchen
111760 • Subramanian, Siv1 rang1n
1080 59 • Fox, Pauli no
szo Mid·levef P:no inee r/Scie nt i st
Labor Profit
LABOR TOTAL
Temp Labor Profit
TIMPORARY LAtlOfl TOTAL
tffi #fui ttft!M·' t
Subeontracton Overhead
SUBCOtlTRACTORTOTAL
Other Direct Costs
Associated ,roject Com (APC)
~8CAOO
56S5 Di stance (in MMes):
550() Ml!terial Co.ts
5605 fquipment/Suppties
5610 Other Eng ineering OOC
565$ Tran5portation
5660 Lodg i no
S66S Mea ls
Ad-hoc item; revenue/invoice, no cost
OTHER DIR!CT COSTS TOTA.l
I Cit§Dftiffli3·1,,i!lll3i4·Uk§,,i g,\Hiffil@M¢j
56ZO
S430
544()
ln~r/lntn Company Agreements Subtotal
e.o
4 .0
32.0
zo.o
4 .0
Hours
Pric ing Summery
Co5tCode: 010101
Tl • Bnthymetric Assessment
3 · , I
"' 193.00 1,544.00
144.00
161 .00 {;44.00
P:.oo 2<944.00
57.00 1,140.00
191.00
140.00
69.00
111.00
93.00 372.00
143 .00
tl!Mf.i "i.!11.11
::, ,-
Total Amount
Z30 .00
1,14!.40
TOTAL Total Amount
GRANO TOTAL 7,?89.40
MW t:I Proj ect flu(loet Wori<book 5/16/2010 · 5:21 PM
Pmpo.ra!for E1{~i11Pmil{!. Semir:s.for
11
Section 9 Waste Jmpoundment Investigations mid Heporting
(fi}) MWH
Table 3 -Fee for Task 2 -Prepare Aerial Photographs Showing Improvements for Alternatives for
Operational Controls
Client: -City of Englewood, Colorado
Job; WIP waste Impoundment Study
I PrltjncfSummarv·:,. · · ·· ,, · ·
Labor
1099Ul • Pickens, Wilr!am
106250 ·Cr~, Phillip
102325 ·Dye, G~o1y
l Ull 6 -Huft9ren, Ryan
ll 29:·6 -Lee, Chratopher
107722 ·Loucks, James
11 Z40f • (;ebcro, Elmu
113424 • Elwell ; Gretchen
11176·0 • Subrom11n i1 n, Sivar1ngan
10805'9 • foK, Pau line
520 Mid -level Eng ineer/Scientist
Laber Profit
LABORTOTM.
•14,,J,jfi ,J.i
Temp Labor Profit
TEMPORARY LABOll TOTAL
lj!1¥fuitffl!.! !.
.. .
Subcontr•ctOI'$ Ov~mead
SUBCONTRACTOR TOTAL
..
ntOCW.ted Project Costs (APC)
~0.00
5685 Oiot1nce (in Mijes):
SSOCI Material Cests
5605 !quipment/Supplies
5610 Other fng iMerin" ODC
5655 Tr11nsport>ition
5660 Lodging
5665 Mea ls
Ad-hoc iltm; revenue/invoice, no cost
OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL
libt§fi ifif%j3.1,,gma•a1.44,,\~i.!NUNtfM#ffi
5620
5430
5440
".
Inter/Intra Company Agreements Subtotal
Hours
Houn;
I
I
I
Pricing Summery
Cost Code: 010102
T2 -Aerial Photo of Alts
.1 .•...
81111119 R a t e
4 .0 193 .00 nz.oo
4 .0 144.00 576.00
~4.0 161 .00 3 ,864.00
6.0 n.oo 736.0()
6 .0 57.00 456.00
191 .00
140.00
40.0 69 .00 2,1co.oo sz .o 91.00 4,73~.oo
93.00
e.o 143.00 1,144.00
15.040.00
•r.
1•a.01 1.6115.fO
O.OJ -
(1.01 --
115.00 ------
TOTAL Tobi Amout>t
GRANO TOTAL 16,771.90
MIWH Project Budget Workbook 5/18/::.010 -5::6 PM
PmfX1s17~(or E1{1!jneni11g Sen.ices for
12
Section 9 W aste Jmponndrnent l nvestigations and Reporting
<Di> MWH
Table 4 -Fee for Task 3 -Prepare Opinion of Probable Life Cycle Costs for Alternatives
Client: -City of Englewood, Colorado
Job; WTP Wasts tmpoupdment Study
I Prlclnci Summary .. r,.
t.abor • ,.
.. .
109919 • Pickens, William
106250 • Crou~, Phillio
10Z3ZS ·Dye, G~ory
1111 U • Huftllren, R)'lln
112926 • Lee, Christopher
1077ZZ ·Louck&, lames
112<4-06 • cabtro, !ilm..r
113<4 Z4 • Elwell, Gret~hen
111760 • Subr•m•nian, S ivar•ng"n
108059 -Fo x, Paufi ne
SZO Mid-level !::nginur/5 cicnti:st
Lal.or Proflt
LABOR TOTAL
Temp Labor Profit
TEMPORAJlY LABOR TOTAL
subeotrtr11c:totS Ovelilead
SUBCONTRACTOR TOTAL
···-M&oci•ted l'roject Costs (APC)
5648 CAOD
5685 Dist1nce (in Miles):
5500 Materi1I Costs
5605 EQuiJ)ment/Supoliu
5'610 other eng ineering ODC
S655 Tr1nsport1tion
5660 lbdfing
5665 Meals
Ad·hoc itemi reve.nue/invoice-, no cost
OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL
1·ffi@mw;.1 .. 1m1.a;1 .1.44, ,14.1nt11 Htfi
5620
5430
5440
Inter/Intra Company Agreements Subtotal
tlOUl'6
I
I
I
Pricing Summary
Cost Code: 010103
T3 -Cost Opinign
' ·'
..:.;
4-.0 1·93.00 nz.oo
4..0 144.00 576.00
zo .o u;1.oo 3,220.00
n.oo
57.00
4.0 191.00 764.00
'45.0 140.00 6 ,300.00
69.00
91.00
93.00
14).00
11,632.00
... ..
n.01 8<41.23 .
fl .01 .
0 .01 .
115.00 . . -. .
-
956.23
TOTA1. " · · TOUI Am11unt
GRAND-TOTAL 12,588.23
MWH Pr oject !l udget Workbook 5/18/2010 • 5:31 PM
Pmpo.ra~for h1{ef.11er1i1tg Senia-sjor
13
Secti.on 9 vVaste lmpoundment l nvestig.trions ;u 1d Reporting
({D) MWH
Table 5 -Fee for Task 4 -Conduct Meetings and Conference Calls
Client: -City of Englewood, Colorado
Job; we waste Impoundment Stlldv
1Prlclna$ummaij< '' \!'
Lubor
109918 -f>ickens, WJlliam
106250 -Crouse, Ph ilfi p
1 OZ325 -[)y•, G.....,ory
111116 -Hultgren, 11.y;m
1129=6 -Lee, Chri~t9pher
1017ZZ • Loucks, limes
1124-06 -C&bero, Elmer
113424 -Elwell , Gretchen
111760 -Subramanian, Sivarangan
108059 -fox, Pauline
5~0 Mid-leve l Engineer/Scient<st
Labor Profit
LAllORTOTAL
jitj11i•i!j.JH
.. ~ .
Temp L•llor Pre>flt
TEMPORARY LA801t TOTAL
Su!K:ontractors Overhead
SUBCOtlTRACTOR TOTAL
.l.uociat.d Project Costs (UIC)
5'.648 CAOO
5'665 Oist;ance (in Miles);
5-500 Mete1i1t Com
5'605 l!quipment/Suppli es
S'610 Othe r Eno ineering ooc
S'65S Tr1nspo rution
5'660 Lodging
5'~65 Meals
Ad-hoc item ; revenue/invoice, no cost
OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL .
IC\@3ftih3·'·mtJU:E·G4 ·'1"4'i!ji!flCftbf§
5~:?0
5'430
H40
Inter/Intr• Company A§reements Subtotal
Houn;
I
I
I
Cost Code:
' .,. , . '·"',
9 .0 193.00
9.0 144.00
18.0 161.00
92.00
57.00
191.00
140.00
69.00
91.00
93.00
143.00
~tl!Uifii;tji ·
36.0
o.o
300.0
Prking Summary
010104
T4 -Meetlgos
-1
1,737.00
1 ,296.00
2,698.00
S.!:U.09
" . ·-,;; '·· . .-
l!lfflf,\11i.]i!.\,
;.";,f._
~1113.30 -
172.50 -
1U.OO
-----
,.
680.l()
TOTA!.. Total Amount
GRAND TOTAL
· MWH Project Budget Worl<bc.ok 5/18/ZOlO -5:34 PM
Pwposa~for l::.1{ej111:1!1 ri(~ Smit:esfor
14
Section 9 \Vaste lmponndment lnvestigations and Reporting
• • • • • • • • t
CDMWH
Table 6 -Fee for Task 5 -Perform QA/QC of Deliverables
Client: -City of Englewood , Colorado
Job: WIP Waste Imooundmept Studv
I PrlclnR .Sµmmary
Labor
109918 -Pickens, William
106250 • Crouse, Phillip
1023:!5 • Dye, Gre9ory
111116 -Hu ltgren , Ryan
l 1Z9Z6 -Lee , Christopher
107722 • Loucks, James
112406 • Cabero, Elmer
1134;:4 • flwe ll , Gretchen
111760 -Subramanian, Sivarangan
106059 • Fox, P~uline
SZO Mid -level Engineer/Scient iat
Lat.or Profit
LAllORTOTAL
T «mp Labor Pro flt
TEMPORARY LABOR TOTAL
E1!1@WfU·ls ·
Subcontractors Overhead
SUBCONTRACTOR TOTAL
Other DI rect Costs
Associated Project Costs (APC)
S64S CAOO
5685 Oistlnce (in Miles):
5500 Material Costs
5405 fquipmenVSupplies
5610 Other Eng ineering ODC
5655 Transportation
5660 Lodging
5665 Meals
Ad-hoc item; revenu~i nvoice, no cost
OTHER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL
I bi@ifitt{i3.J,,iJMiJ·ii§§,,f§,jWlµ1 Cffflt§
5620
5430
5440
Inter/Intra Company Agreements Subtotal
Hours
Units
Cost Code:
'-..: ..
5.0 19!.00
144.00
161.00
92.00
57.00
8 .0 191.00
140.00
69.00
91 .00
93.00
143 .00
3.
0 .0
o.o
Pricing Summary
010105
TS -OA!OC
-1
965.00
1,528.00
ll!ll·l"'"'"·'j
142.03
142.03
TOTAL Total Amount
GRANO TOTAL
MWH Project Budget Workbook 5/16/2010 -5:37 PM
PJ'O/JO.rr1~/0r 1-::.·1{1!j11eeriJ1g Sm.ires_for
15
Se cti on 9 W aste I mpoundment Inves tiga ti o n s aucl Reporting
• • • • • •
~
8 e
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
' ~
' ' '
' ' • _,
' ' ' ' • v
' ' ~
' ~
~
~
~
~
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
~
t
~
@) MWH
May 21 , 2010
Table 7 -Fee for Task 6 -Provide Project Management
Client: -City of Englewood, COiorado
Job; WP waste Impoundmept Stlldv
!Prlclng ~mrnary
Labor
109918 • Pickens, Willilm
1062 50 • Crouse, Ph illi p
10Z3ZS • Dye, Gregory
111116 • Hultgren, llyan
11Z9Z6 • Lee, Christophe r
1077 2Z • Lou·cks, James
U2.ol06 • cabero, Elme r
113-424 • Elwell, Gretcher\
111760 • Subramaniain, Siv8"rangan
l oao 59 • ro x, P1ul ine
520 Mid-level Eno inur/Sdentist
Labor Profit
LAllORTOTAL
ii§,,1.IA .Hi
Temp Labor Profit
TEMPORARY LABOR TOTAL
t1'1§¥ffiffi§i.t;
... ' • '
$ubcontr•ctors Overhead
SUBCONTRACTOR TOTAL . ~
~ssociated ~roject Co"ts (APC)
5648 CAOO
5635 Oistance (in Mi les):
5500 Material Costs
5605 l!quipment/Supplies
5610 other fng i:>etring OC>C
5655 ,.ran.,portation
5660 Lodging
5665 Meals
A.d·hoc item ; revenue/invoice, no cost
OTtfER DIRECT COSTS TOTAL
1mtwmffit;.1,,1w14.ogg,,1g.14m@@
5620
5430
5440
:·
Inter/Intra Company Agreements Subtotal
Hours
" I
I
I
Cost Code:
, ... .
193.<>0
144.00
16.0 161.00
gz.oo
57.00
191.00
140.00
69.00
511 .00
4 .0 93.00
143.00
.I
·,·
2~.lrl
(l.i<I
().01
.
Prki119 Summ.ary
010106
T6-PM
2,576.00
372.00
·.
2,!48.02
.
''H8,!;0 . . . .
.
. .
-.
·-
218.5():
iii!\'if!ul•!ll•\J
TOTAL Total Amount
GAANO fOfAL l,H§.$0
MWH Projea Budget Worllbook 5.116/ZOlO • 5:40 PM
P111){)s11~(0r f-~1{ej1Jmi1tg Semi.cesfor
16
Section 9 \Naste lmpmmdment l nvestigarions ;u1d Rep orting
Cathy Burrage
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
From: Dan Brotzman
John Bock
Friday, June 18 , 2010 11 : 18 AM
Cathy Burrage
FW : Hoogendyk
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 10:03 AM
To: GFahlsing@sgrllc.com
Cc: Dianne Hall; Joan Weber; Stu Fonda; John Bock
Subject: FW: Hoogendyk
A-rr. '-f
Litigation settlements must be approved by the Englewood Council. If this case is active, the Water and Sewer Board
would only be recommending settlement to Council. Outside of Water Court cases, the Water and Sewer Board
traditionally has not participated in case strategy or settlement negotiations. Such a recommendatihn to Counc1l 'WoU1ir
be rather unusual as would a Water and Sewer Board Executive Session to discuss case strategy in a Small Claims Court
case.
My understanding is that the Small Claims Court denied the Motion to add Englewood and a District Court case has yet
to be filed . I guess what you are proposing is not settlement of a court case but rather a settlement of a bi ll to a
homeown e r or a change order from a contractor that did work for the City. That is well within the scope of the Board's
powers. I would not recommend an Exe cutive Session under the guise of potential or threatened litigation with the
confusion surrounding whether the case is active and what powers the Board may or may not have . Gillian's memo
needs to be in a format that is not confidential but rather explains the current status and lays out options that may be
discussed openly and made part of the public packet for the Water and Sewer Board Meeting on the i 1
l of July .
From: Joan Weber
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 7:44 AM
To: Dan Brotzman
Subject: RE: Hoogendyk
My understanding was that Gillian was going to send a memo so that if Stu wanted to take it back to the board for
consideration he would have additional information. I think 7-7 was the anticipated date for the board meeting . John
was going to talk to Stu . There was no agreement at this time .
Joan Weber
Benefits/Risk Manager
City of Englewood
jweber@englewoodgov.org
303-762 -2361
From: Dan Brotzman
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:58 PM
To: Gillian Fahlsing
Cc: Dianne Hall; Joan Weber; Stu Fonda; John Bock
Subject: RE: Hoogendyk
My understanding is that the City has not authorized payment of any kind.
1
From: Gillian Fahlsing [mailto:GFahlsing@sgrllc .com]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:27 PM
To: Joan Weber; Dan Brotzman
Cc: Dianne Hall
Subject: FW: Hoogendyk
Please see attached ema il from Mr. Beck and let me know your thoughts . Obv iously, this significant change needs to be
addressed at the Board meeting . Thanks G
GCUio..¥VM . F~
Senter Goldfarb & Rice, L.L.C .
1700 Broadway , Suite 1700
Denver, CO 80290
gfahlsing@sgrllc.com
Telephone : 303 .320 .0509
Facsimile: 303 .320 .0210
The information contained in this electronic message is privileged and confide nt ial intended only for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient , you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communicat ion is strictly prohib ited . If you have received th is
communication in error, please immed iately notify us by telephone or electronic m ail. Thank you .
From: robert beck [mailto:rbeck@colegalserv .org]
Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2010 1:24 PM
To: Gillian Fahlsing
Subject: Hoogendyk
Hello Gillian,
,-. ; : ~;
I know that you will present a settlement offer to the city on 7/7 . My client was just informed by Palace Const. that they
now want $5000 , not $4000 . Our client can only manage $2000, so that would leave the city with $3000 . Sorry for the
change, but Palace seems rather volatile. I still hope we can resolve this . Thanks.
Bob
" I
2
Date
September 7, 2010
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
ATT. 5
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
Intergovernmental
Agreement with the City of
Aurora Regarding Water
Delivery Obligations
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
None .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board, at their July 7 , 2010 meeting, recommended Council
approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Wate r Delivery Obligations between
the City of Englewood and the City of Aurora .
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
In the 1980 's, the cities of Thornton and Westminster applied i n Water Court for extra water to
fill a big enlargement of Standley Lake. The extra diversions could have potentially harmed
Englewood because it could have caused calls from downstream senior rights on the South
Platte, and those calls would have shut down some of Englewood 's senior diversions.
On October 10 , 1990, a settlement agreement was made whereby the City of Thornton and
Westminster would deliver raw water to Englewood at one or more of Englewood's points of
diversion on the S. Platte River. The water to be delivered varied depending on amounts
diverted to Standley Lake. Deliveries were to be a minimum of 75 acre feet and a maximum of
375 acre feet. Deliveries averaged 238 acre feet per year and came from Thornton 's South
Park water rights. The settlement provided minimal water in drought years and maximum
water in wet years . While it was a very valuable settlement, the lack of deliveries in drought
years reduced the value.
The delivered water was to be reusable as consumptive use wa t e r, which could be captured
and reused to extinction.
In 1998 Thornton applied in Water Court to provide the water in wet years from a 1998 right at
Chatfield Reservoir. Under the application, Englewood was required to re-use the water in
order to perfect Thornton's application, which was not practical. Englewood opposed the
application, low key, for 11 years. During that time, Thornton did not advance the issue in
Water Court. On November 21, 2003 Aurora purchased all of Thornton's water rights
originally decreed in Park County. The application was included in Aurora's purchase of water
rights from Thornton.
As a result of pressure on Aurora from the Water Court to proceed, and Aurora's desire to
keep its consumptive use water, an agreement was reached . The essence of the agreement
is as follows.
Aurora will deliver 509 acre feet of single use water every yea r, in both drought and wet years.
In extreme drought conditions, if Aurora runs out of single use water (which is very unlikely),
Aurora can provide a lesser amount of consumptive use water. In such drought conditions,
Englewood can actually reuse the consumptive use water. The water will be delivered
between July 1 and August 15, which will make it easy for Englewood to sell it to Centennial.
This amounts to an additional 271 acre feet per year, plus the original 238 acre-foot average
has been rendered reliable in a drought year.
Thus the agreement will provide water in a fixed and predictable amount during drought,
fortunately during the driest summer months. The water would be quite useful to Englewood if
there is a severe drought like the one experienced in 2002. A lso, it would help Englewood
meet its quota for delivery to Centennial.
FINANANCIAL IMPACT
The market price for the 271 acre feet of additional water is approximately $10,000 to $20,000
per acre foot for a total amount between $2,710,000 and $5,420,000. The true increase in
value is more than that, since the 238 acre feet previously received is made reliable in drought
years. The additional deliveries to Centennial should enable the price of water sold to
Centennial to ratchet up in 2013.
Englewood has long retained David Hill and his firm to represen t Englewood and ensure that
historical patterns of diversions are protected, and that new diversions by others are lawful and
non-injurious. This favorable settlement is a product of that wo rk.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Bill for Ordinance
Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Water Delivery Obligat ions
Aurora Thornton IGA June 2010 .doc
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT REGARDING
WATER DELIVERY OBLIGATIONS
This Intergovernmental Agreement ("IGA") is made and entered into this _ day of
_____ , 2010, by and between the City of Englewood, Colorado, a municipal corporation of
the County of Arapahoe, whose address is 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, CO 80110
("Englewood"), and the City of Aurora, Colorado a municipal corporation of the counties of
Adams, Arapahoe and Douglas, acting by and through its Utility Enterprise, ("Aurora"), whose
address is 15151 E. Alameda Parkway Suite 3600, Aurora, CO 80012 . Together these two
entities shall be referred to herein as the "Parties ."
RECITALS
On October 10, 1990, Englewood entered into an agreement with the City of Thornton
("Thornton") and the City of Westminster ("Westminster") in settlement of certain litigation then
pending in the Colorado Water Court (the "Settlement Agreement"). The litigation involved
Cases Numbered 86CW397 , 88CW267, 89CW129 and 89CW132, District Court, Water
Division One.
The Settlement Agreement obligated Thornton, and under certain circumstances Westminster, to
provide raw water to Englewood at one or more of Englewood's points of diversion on the South
Platte River. As security for the performance of these obligations, Englewood acquired a profit a
prendre from Thornton binding three water right priorities then owned by Thornton that
historically were associated with the McDowell Ranch in Park County.
On November 21, 2003, Aurora purchased from Thornton all of Thornton's water rights
originally decreed in Park County. In connection with this purchase, Aurora agreed to assume
the obligation under the Settlement Agreement to deliver water to Englewood .
On December 31, 1998, Thornton initiated a conditional appropriat ion of water intended to meet
a portion of the water delivery obligations to Englewood under the Settlement Agreement. The
1998 appropriation was included in Aurora's purchase of water rights from Thornton, and the
application to adjudicate this appropriation in the Water Court for Division 1, in Case No.
98CW458 was dismissed by Aurora on April 21, 2010.
The Parties seek to simplify the existing obligations under the Settlement Agreement in a manner
that is mutually beneficial.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein
and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Purpose: The purpose of this IGA is to define new obligations, directly between Aurora
and Englewood, which will supercede and replace the water delivery obligations created by the
Settlement Agreement. This IGA constitutes Englewood's consent to the assignment of the
Settlement Agreement requested by Thornton on or about April, 2003, as well as an amendment
of the Settlement Agreement with respect to water delivery obligations. Except for those
provisions of the Settlement Agreement which require or describe the delivery of water to
Englewood, the obligations of the Settlement Agreement shall survive this amendment.
2 . · Volume: Aurora agrees to deliver to Englewood or Englewood's lessee five hundred and
nine (509) acre feet per year of "single use water," which shall mean water that cannot be
recaptured or reclaimed for reuse or successive use after the initial use of the water. However, in
a year in which Aurora has insufficient single use water available , it may deliver three hundred
thirty nine (339) acre feet of "fully consumable water," which shall mean water that may
lawfully be recaptured or reclaimed for reuse or successive uses until fully consumed. Further,
Aurora may deliver a combination of single use and fully consumable water, in which event the
total volume of Aurora 's obligation will be calculated by determining what percentage of
Aurora 's total delivery will be comprised of single use water and what percentage will be
comprised of fully consumable water and multiplying the maximum volumes set forth above for
each type of water by the respective percentage. To the extent Aurora delivers fully consumable
water, Englewood or its designee shall have the right to recapture and reuse any return flows
resulting from the initial or any subsequent use of such water. The water delivered by Aurora
may be derived from any water right it owns or controls at the time of such delivery, provided
that the water meets the legal requirements set forth herein.
3 . Timing and Rate of Delivery: Aurora's delivery of water pursuant to this IGA will begin
July 1 of each year, and will be completed by August 15 of that year. The rate of delivery will
be 6 cfs except that, in any year the daily delivery rate may be increased by mutual agreement of
the Parties, which will be binding only for the remainder of that year. If neither Englewood nor
its designee is able to take delivery of the water during all or a portion of the time Aurora is
seeking to deliver it , Aurora's obligation will nevertheless be reduced at the rate of 6 cfs, or the
alternate rate agreed upon for that year. Englewood shall give Aurora twenty four hours advance
notice if it is unable to begin, or to continue, taking such deliveries . Using the notice provision
set forth below, the Parties may designate and revise email addresses for the communications
regarding deliveries contemplat ed by this paragraph.
4. Location of Delivery: Aurora will deliver the water required by this IGA at the High
Line Canal headgate, or at Chatfield Reservoir. If not diverted at the High Line Canal headgate,
Englewood or its designee may divert the water through any of the ditches served by the
Chatfield Reservoir Ditch Outlet Manifold, or may instruct the Water Commissioner to release
the water through the Chatfield Reservoir river outlet for diversion at such downstream point as
2
may be selected by Englewood. It shall be the obligation of Englewood or its designee to obtain
the right to use the diversion and carriage structures through which the water is actually diverted.
Deliveries shall be measured at the High Line Canal headgate if diverted at that location,
otherwise deliveries will be measured at the exit flume or flumes serving the City Ditch, the
Nevada Ditch or the Last Chance Ditch, to the extent Englewood elects to divert the water
through those structures, or at such downstream point of diversion as Englewood or its designee
may employ. Englewood or its designee shall be responsible for transit losses, if any, assessed
on such water if the delivery point is below the Chatfield Reservoir Ditch outlet manifolds
described above.
5. Use and Storage: All water delivered by Aurora must be decreed to allow municipal uses
and storage.
6. Profit a Prendre. Aurora acquired the three McDowell Ranch priorities referenced above
subject to the profit a prendre previously granted in favor of Englewood. Said profit a prendre is
not affected by the execution of this IGA.
7. General Provisions.
a. This writing constitutes the entire IGA between the Parties and supersedes all
prior written or oral agreements, negotiations, representations, and understandings of the
Parties with respect to the subject matter contained herein. However, this IGA does not
modify or supersede any other previously executed agreement between these Parties,
relating to matters other than those described herein.
b. This IGA may be amended, modified, changed, or terminated in whole or in part
only by written agreement duly authorized and executed by the Parties hereto.
c. The Parties agree that this IGA may be enforced in law or in equity for specific
performance, injunctive, or other appropriate relief, including damages, as may be
available according to the laws of the State of Colorado. It is specifically understood
that, by executing this IGA, each party commits itself to perform pursuant to the terms
hereof, and that any breach hereof resulting in any recoverable damages shall not thereby
cause the termination of any obligations created by this IGA unless such termination is
requested by the party not in breach hereof.
d. Venue for the trial of any action arising out of any dispute hereunder shall be in
the Arapahoe County District Court.
e. This IGA is intended to describe the rights and responsibilities of and between the
named Parties and is not intended to, and shall not be deemed to confer rights upon any
persons or entities not named as parties, nor to limit in any way the powers and
responsibilities of Aurora, Englewood or any other entity no t a party hereto.
f. If any portion of this IGA is held invalid or unenforceable for any reason by a
court of competent jurisdiction as to either party or as to both Parties, the remaining
3
portions of this IGA will remain valid and binding on the Parties. Further, the Parties
will immediately enter into negotiations to restore as nearly as possible any portion of
this IGA held to be invalid or unenforceable.
g. Neither Aurora nor Englewood may assign its rights or delegate its duties
hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party.
h . This IGA and the rights and obligations created hereby shall be binding upon and
inure to the benefit of the Parties hereto and their respectiv e successors and assigns if any
are allowed.
i. Waiver of breach of any of the provisions of this IGA by either party shall not
constitute a continuing waiver of any subsequent breach by said party of either the same
or any other provision of this IGA.
j. This IGA may be simultaneously executed in any number of counterparts, each
one of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which constitute one and the same
IGA.
k. Headings and titles contained herein are intended for the convenience and
reference of the Parties only and are not intended to confine, limit, or describe the scope
of intent of any provision of this IGA.
I. Unless otherwise stated herein, any notices, demands, or other communications
required or desired to be given under any provision of this IGA shall be given in writing,
to be delivered personally, or sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid, to the following:
To Aurora: Director of Utilities
City of Aurora
15151 East Alameda Parkway, Suite 3600
Aurora, Colorado 80012
With copy to:
Austin Hamre, Esq.
Duncan, Ostrander & Dingess, P.C.
3600 S. Yosemite Street, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado 80237
To Englewood: Director of Utilities
City of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110
With copy to:
David G. Hill, Esq.
4
Berg Hill Greenleaf & Ruscitti LLP
1712 Pearl St
Boulder, CO 80302
or as to such other addresses as either party may hereafter from time to time designate by
written notice to the other party in accordance with this paragraph. Notice shall be
effective upon receipt.
m. If any date for any action under this IGA falls on a Saturday, Sunday or a day that
is a "holiday" as such term is defined in Rule 6 of the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure,
then the relevant date shall be extended automatically until the next business day.
n. This IGA and its application shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Colorado .
o . To the fullest extent permitted by law , the Parties hereto waive the right to a trial
by jury in any action brought under or in any way related to this IGA.
p. In the event of any litigation, mediation, arbitration or other dispute resolution
process arising out of or related to this IGA each party agrees to be responsible for its
own attorneys' and other professional fees, costs and expenses associated with any such
proceedings.
q. The Parties agree they drafted this !GA jointly with each having the advice of
legal counsel and an equal opportunity to contribute to its content. Consequently, the rule
of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be construed against the drafter shall
be inapplicable in the event of any dispute as to the meaning of provisions herein.
r. The obligations of Aurora under this IGA are the sole obligations of the City of
Aurora acting by and through its Utility Enterprise and, as such, shall not constitute a
general obligation or other indebtedness of the City of Aurora or a multiple fiscal year
direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation whatsoever of the City of Aurora
within the meaning of any constitutional, statutory, or charter limitation. In the event of
default by Aurora or failure to meet any of its obligations under the terms of this IGA,
Englewood shall have no recourse against any of the revenues of the City of Aurora
except for the net revenues of the water utility system available therefore in the City of
Aurora Utility Enterprise water fund , or any successor enterprise fund, remaining after
payment of all expenses relating to the operation and maintenance and periodic payments
on bonds, loans and other obligations of the City acting by and through it Utility
Enterprise. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, nothing in this IGA shall be
construed as creating a lien against any revenues of the Utility Enterprise or the City.
s. Subject to the terms and conditions in this paragraph, no party to this IGA shall be
liable for any delay or failure to perform under this IGA due solely to conditions or
events of Force Majeure, specifically: a) acts of God, b) sudden actions of the elements
such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, or tornadoes, c) sabotage, d) vandalism beyond
5
that which can be reasonably prevented, e) terrorism, f) war, and g) riots; provided that,
A) the non performing party gives the other party prompt written notice describing the
particulars of the occurrence of the Force Majeure; B) the suspension of performance is
of no greater scope and of no longer duration than is required by the Force Majeure event
or condition; and C) the non-performing party proceeds with reasonable diligence to
remedy its inability to perform and provides weekly progress reports to the other party
describing the actions taken to remedy the consequences of the Force Majeure event or
condition. In the event of a change in municipal (or other local governmental entity),
state or federal law or practice that prohibits or delays performance, the obligation to seek
a remedy shall extend to making reasonable efforts to reform the IGA in a manner
consistent with the change that provides the Parties substan tially the same benefits as this
IGA; provided, however, that no such reformation shall increase the obligations of any of
the Parties. In no event will any delay or failure of performance caused by any
conditions or events of Force Majeure extend this IGA beyond its stated term. In the
event any delay or failure of performance on the part of the party claiming Force Majeure
continues for an uninterrupted period of more than three hundred sixty-five (365) days
from its occurrence or inception as noticed pursuant to thi s IGA, the Parties not claiming
Force Majeure may, at any time following the end of such one year period, terminate this
IGA upon written notice to the party darning Force Majeure, without further obligation
by any of the Parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Parties have caused this IGA to be executed the day
and year first written above.
Englewood-Aurora IGA 5-6-10
6
CITY OF AURORA, COLORADO,
ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS
UTILITY ENTERPRISE
Edward J. Tauer, Mayor
ATTEST
Debra A. Johnson, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR AURORA:
Acting by and through its Utility Enterprise
Christine A. McKenney
Assistant City Attorney
Austin Hamre
Special Counsel
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS
COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE )
Date
Date
Date
Date
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of ,
2010, by Edward J. Tauer as Mayor, and attested to by Debra A. Johnson, as City Clerk, acting
on behalf of the Utility Enterprise of the City of Aurora, Colorado .
Witness my hand and official seal. ___________ _
Notary Public
My commission expires: _______ _
SEAL
7
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
Jam es K. Woodward, Mayor Date
ATTEST :
Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR ENGLEWOOD:
David G. Hill Date
Special Counsel to the City o f Englewood
8
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Date Agenda Item
September 7, 2010
STAFF SOURCE
Arr. Gt
Subject
Non-Emergency After Hours
Service Call Charge
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department Stewart H . Fonda , Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board , at their July 7, 2010 meeting, recommended Council
approval , by resolution , of the charges for non-emergency after hours service calls .
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
0
f The Utilities department has no fees in place to recover expenses when customers request an on-call ,
after hours employee to respond to a non-emergency situation. Administration staff encourages
customers to have the service performed during regular business hours, but pe riodically the customer
insists on an evening or weekend appointment.
Utilities technicians have been called out after hours for non-emergency situations such as routine
plumbing repairs, locating curb stops or turn ing on a service that was t urned off for non-payment. The
proposed charges would apply to non-emergency calls only, not situations that can cause damage s x
from water or sewer lines .
The Board has authority pursuant to Amendment XX of the Colorado Constitution and 31-35-501 et sq.
C.R.S ., but there is no reference to the charge for after hours calls in the ordinances.
M"I'\,
X The'°'form has been approved by the City Attorney's office.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
A fee of $150 for the first hour and $75 per hour after would be billed t o the property for non-
emergency, after hours Utilities Department service calls . The resident requesting the service call
would have to sign an "Acknowledgement of After Hours Service Call Charge" form before services are
rendered .
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Resolution
Acknowledgement of After Hours Service Call Charge form
Service Call Charge -After Hours .doc
City of Englewood Water and Sewer Department
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND
AUTHORIZATION FOR AFTER HOURS
SERVICE CALL CHARGE
I _____________________ the owner or occupant of
---------------------'Englewood, Colorado, am the
person legally responsible for the water and sewer bills at this address . I understand and agree
that:
1) I have contacted the City of Englewood's Water and Sewer Department for the
purpose of having their personnel come to my house during non-business hours,
business hours being 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, holidays
excluded.
2) The purpose for my call is not an emergency, I could have the Water and Sewer
Department personnel come to my home during normal business hours, but it is more
convenient for me to have them come during non-business hours.
3) I understand that there is a charge of$150.00 (one hundred fifty dollars) for a non-
emergency, after business hours visit to my home.
4) I agree to pay the $150.00, which will be added to my regular water bill as a special
charge.
Owner or Occupant Date
Nature or reason for the after hours, non-emergency call:
,A 7/. 7
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: April Invoice
Dear Dan:
1712 Pearl Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302
Tel: 303.402.1600 • Fax: 303.402.1601
bhgrlaw.com
May 7, 2010
dgh@bhgrlaw.com
Enclosed please find our invoices for professional services on water matters for April 1,
2010, through April 30, 2010, in the amount of$47,643.43, with a total for the year of$146,514 .74.
The amount for this billing cycle on major cases is listed below:
I Name I Amount I No. I
Main Burlington Appeal (09SA133) $ 35,250.36 722
Denver (01CW286) South & North Reservoir Complex. 642.00 511
Aurora (98CW458) Union Avenue 1,519.50 447
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
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.
I have reduced the bill by $12,975.00 from standard hourly rates, in recognition of budget
issues and our long-standing relationship with Englewood. The bill is large this month, because it
reflects the very happy resolution of a long-standing dispute with Aurora over delivery of water to
Daniel L. Brotzman
May 7, 2010
Page2
Englewood, briefing on what are essentially two appeals to the Supreme Court, and the ongoing
efforts to keep Denver from rendering Englewood 's water "permanently too hard".
First the Aurora matter; which is quite good news. Many years ago Thornton and
Westminster agreed to deliver water to Englewood in settlement of their enormous expansion of
Standley Lake. The an1ount of water varied with stream flow , bein g high in wet years and very small
in drought years. The average deliveries were 238 acre feet per year, but as noted, ve1y little in
drought years. The water was to be delivered as "fully consumpti ve" water. Aurora took over the
delivery obligation when Aurora bought Thornton 's South Park water rights. In an effort to avoid
its obligations , in 1998 Thornton filed a very troublesome Water Court application which sought to
enable Thornton to deliver single-use water to Englewood, and require Englewood to use it so as to
make it fully consumptive. (Without a detailed explanation , suffi ce it to say that would have been
a terrible burden on Englewood.) We disputed the application for years and years. Aurora took over
the application when it bought Thornton's water.
Aurora has now agreed to deliver 509 acre feet each and every year, in lieu of the old
agreement. And Aurora has withdrawn the troublesome Water Court application. This is a very
good deal. Englewood gets the water regardless of drought (with a very limited exception that 238
acre feet of consumptive use water could be delivered if Aurora ran out of single use water). That
will enable Englewood to meet its delivery quotas to Centennial Water and Sanitation ·District in
drought years, thus boosting the price of water sold to Centennial every year. And in the event of
catastrophic drought, Englewood could use the water.
On the open market the delivered water would be worth between $10 ,000 and $20 ,000 per
acre foot, or five to ten million dollars.
The largest bill is for essentially two appeals of the Water Court decision in the
FRICO/United/East Cherry Creek cases. The first appeal is Englewood's appeal of the Water
Cowi's preclusion of the use of the Metro Pumps to fill the res ervoirs which divert through the
Burlington Canal. Denver and the Applicants have joined in that appeal. The inability to speed
reservoir filling with the pumps injures Englewood. Englewood 's opening brief on that issue has
been prepared and filed. Certain aspects of the briefing are ve1y tedious, because au examination
of the transcript of the 16-day trial is required.
The second appeal is Englewood 's defense of the Water Court's dramatic reduction in the
amount of water which the Applicants had historically diverted. (Th e Judge found that much of the
historic diversions were unlawful.) That brief is as yet incomplete, but much work has been done
on it. The other Opposers are joining in this brief.
Daniel L. Brotzman
May 7, 2010
Page 3
Finally, there is the matter of Denver's unrelenting efforts to keep the Chatfield Reservoir
outlet gates closed, so Denver can take the captured water. When the gates are closed, hardness in
the river at Englewood soars to unacceptable levels, forcing Englewood to rely on its limited rights
to divert at Chatfield Reservoir, for a source of dilution water. Denver proposes to exchange water
to Chatfield from newly-created gravel pit reservoirs near Brighton, under an old senior Denver
exchange. The exchange would drastically limit Englewood's ability to take water at Chatfield.
Englewood contends the gravel pit releases were never part of the old senior Denver exchange.
Preliminary discovery has begun in the case , along with preliminary engineering discussions. There
are ongoing settlement discussions with Denver, which thus far have not been productive. Some of
the cases involved are now set for trial in the fall of 2011.
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 ofmany statements of opposition.
2. McDonald (92CW152 and 98CW347) (#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
approving the stipulation for settlement with Englewood.
3. Colorado Springs and Aurora (95CW272) (#357): These cities seek a conditional
water storage right in the amount of 30,000 acre-feet froni 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 disclosures and discovery
pleadings from CWCB and State and Division Engineers .
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 change
cases. This will be dive1ted as many locations between Union A venue and High Line Canal.
Englewood entered this case to ensure that the Standley Lake settlement remains intact. We