Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2010-08-10 WSB AGENDA
WATER& SEWER BOARD AGENDA Tuesday, August 10, 20 10 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM ENGLEWOOD CITY HALL 1. MINUTES OF THE JULY 7, 2010 , 2010 MEETING. (ATT . 1) 2. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT BUDGET & CASH FLOWS . (ATT. 2) 3. LETTER OF RECOGNITION RE: BOB KUNSELMAN (ATT. 3). 4 . OTHER. WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES July 7, 2010 A 7 T. I The meeting was called to order at 5:07 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Bums, Clark, H igday, Cassidy, Wiggins, Habenicht Olson, Mccaslin , Woodward Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities Bill McCormick, Operations Supt., 1. MINUTES OF THE MAY 18, 2010 MEETING. The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received the minutes of the May 18, 2010 meeting. Mr. Bums moved; Mr. Higday seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried . To approve the m inutes of the May 18, 2010 meeting as written. Bums, Clark, H igday, Cassidy, Wiggins, Habenicht None Olson, McCaslin, Woodward 2. CITY DITCH -OXFORD & HURON. The following Englewood citizens appeared regarding piping the City Ditch at Oxford and Huron: Warren Nedry of 4150 S. Huron St., Norman Henry of 4140 S. Huron, David Prado of 780 W. Oxford Ave., Chester Pack of 4125 S . Galapago St., Jim Burrage of 4301 S. Bannock St., Joyce Faires of 4237 S. Galapago St., Larry Faires of 4237 S . Galapago St., Shannon Faires of 4237 S . Galapago St. and Jim Golden of 4161 S. Galapago St. Mr. Henry spoke noting that a vote was taken at a previous meeting to pipe the City Ditch at Huron & Oxford because piping was the cheapest option. Mr. Henry stated that he talked to Arapahoe County Commissioner, Susan Beckman about an Open Space Grant. He requested that the City Ditch piping project be put on hold so state or federal money could be sought for alternative options to piping. Mr. Prado , Mr. Pack, Joyce Faires, Larry Faires, Shannon Faires, Jim Burrage and Jim Golden spoke for piping the City Ditch. The citizens discussed reasons for piping the ditch such as safety concerns , damage to downstream properties, burrowing animals that weaken the bank, rodents that are attracted to the water and water quality. A resident adjacent to the City Ditch noted that the site used to be a gravel pit. He discovered, during an excavation to replace his water service line that the bank and surrounding area is mainly sand, an unstable material for a bank of that grade. Mr. Fonda and Mr . McCormick noted that the road at Huron Street is being undermined and if not piped, could wash out. Mr. Prado , whose house is located below the City Ditch, discussed the existing danger of the ditch overflowing during a storm event and 6' of water could flood his house. Shannon Faires expressed her concern that this issue would drag on by going to City Council. Board Chairman Gray Clark noted that , as the residents were informed by letter, any appeal would have to go to District Court. Mr. Higday no ted that it has been a long- term Utilities Department goal to eventually pipe the entire City Ditch. Mr. Fonda said that the City would have to approve the are a becoming an Open Space Project before anyone can apply for a grant, and that could restrict the City's use of the City Ditch. Applying and receiving funds for a project can take one to five years. After this section of City Ditch is piped, the residents have the option of applying for a License Agreement to use the area as a common amenity -provided all adjacent owners agree. Chairman Clark reviewed the initial safety and flooding issues that prompted the need to pipe the ditch and did not feel that any new information or options were brought forth. The Board concurred and reiterated their original motion to pipe the City Ditch at Oxford at Huron. The Board also stated that any future appeals should be with the District Court. 3. GREG DYE -MWH -ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR WASTE IMPOUNDMENT REGS. Greg Dye, with MWH appeared to discuss the proposal for En gineering Services for the Allen Water Treatment Plant Section 9 Waste Impoundment Investigations and Reporting. The Allen Water Treatment Plant removes contam inants from water which are concentrated into res i dual wastes by dewatering and drying. Two impound areas are used to treat waste residuals -the South and North Reservoirs at the Allen Water Treatment Plant. The dried residuals are collected, stored and removed from the site. A preliminary review indicated a potential for seepage from the South Reservoir into the underlying groundwater. The new proposed Section 9 of the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment solid waste regulations is directed at protecting groundwater supplies. Mr . Woodward entered at 5:50 p .m. The proposed engineering services would interpret the current Section 9 regulations as related to the Allan Water Treatment Plant, develop a strategy to get the North Reservoir classified as a Type A lmpoundment (which would not be regu lated), identify options for South Reservoir compliance, prepare an opinion of constructions costs and engineering and design an operation plan. MWH 's fee for the proposed Phase 1 engineering services is $49 ,562.85. Greg Dye noted that promulgating of the rules has been delayed from September to November. Mr . Habenicht moved; Mr. Bums seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. To recommend City Manager approval of the MWH Proposal for Engineering Services for Section 9 Waste Impoundment Investigations and Reporting. Bums, Clark, Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins, Habenicht, Woodward None Olson, McCaslin On July 8, 2 01 O Mr. Fonda directed staff to delay proceeding with the study until November in the event that regulation requires changes before being finalized. 4. HOOGENDYKLITIGATION-4841 S. PENNSYLVANIA ST. The Board received correspondence from the City Attorney's office and Gillian Fahlsing, counsel retained to represent the City, regarding the Hoogendyk litigation. 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. Hoogendyk authorized additional cleanup. Both parties involved are now going through the liti gation process. Small Claims Court denied the motion to add Englewood as a party. Mr. Fonda noted that the next step for the Hoogendyks or Palace Construction w ould be to file a claim in District Court, which has yet to be filed . Ms . Fahlsing will be sending an update to the Board explaining the current status and options. 5. GUEST: DA YID HILL -AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF AURORA REGARDING WATER DELIVERY OBLIGATIONS . Mr. Hill appeared before the Board to discuss the Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Water Delivery Obligations between the City of Englewood and the City of Aurora. Mr. Hill explained that in the 1980's, the cities of Thornton and Westminster applied in 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 tho se calls would have shut down some of Englewood's senior diversions. On October 10 , 1990, a se ttlement 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 m inimum of 75 acre feet and a maximum of 375 acre feet. Deliveries averaged 238 acre fe et 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 water, 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 year, 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 ac re feet per year, plus the original 238 acre-foot average has been rendered reliable in a drought year. The agreement will provide water in a fixed and predictable amount during drought , fortunately during the driest summer months. The water wou ld be quite useful to Englewood if there is a severe drought like the one experienced in 2002 . Also, it would help Englewood meet its quota for delivery to Centennial. 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. Mr. Habenicht moved; Mr. Bums seconded: Ayes: Nays: To recommend Council approval of the Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Water Delivery Obligations between the City of Englewood and the City of Aurora. Bums, Clark, Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins , Habenicht, Woodward None Members absent: Olson, Mccaslin Motion carried. 6. LEGAL UPDATE FROM DAVID HILL DATED MAY 7, 2010. Mr . Hill was present to update the Board on developments in water litigation cases in which Englewood is involved. 7. NON-EMERGENCY AFTER HOURS SERVICE CALL CHARGES . The Utilities Department currently has no fees in place to recover expenses when customers request an on-call, after hours employee to respond to a non-emergency situation. Staff encourages customers to have services performed during regular business hours, but periodically the customer will insist on an evening or weekend appointment, for example routine plumbing repairs or locating curb stops. The proposed charges would apply to non-emergency calls only, and not situations that can result in damages from water or sewer lines . A fee of $150 for the first hour and $75 per hour thereafter would be billed to the property for a non-emergency, after hours Utilities Department service call. The resident requesting the service call would be required to sign an "Acknowledgement of After Hours Service Call Charge" form before services are rendered . Mr. Bums moved; Mr. Habenicht seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. To recommend Council approval of the charges for non-emergency after hours service calls o f $150 for the first hour and $75 per hour thereafter. Bums, Clark, Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins, Habenicht, Woodward None Olson, Mccaslin 8. ANNUAL BOARD AND COMMISSION APPRECIATION NIGHT-AUGUST 9, 2010 . The Board received an invitation to the City's Annual Board Appreciation Night on Monday August 9, 2010 at Pirates Co v e. Board members are invited to bring their families from 5:00 to 6:30 p.m. At 6:30 p.m. the appreciation ceremony will commence. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. The next meeting will be held Tuesday, August 14, 2010 in the Community Development Room . Respectfully submitted, Isl Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary ' lfu~ 13, 2010 A IT. 2 ---· t-----. . ... -------. -----· -. . ; f3e>~ )( U£J~0~. _ ~ /.A__.A·~_I../-/ .. ---· -. --. ---. ---. . -----·-. -. ·--. ... ; ~\JuV . . .~~;{ d. h~Sb. ----~ . ---.. ---. ---. . ------.. . ,.,_. Cathy Burrage From: Bill McCormick Sent: To: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 11 :27 AM Cathy Burrage Cc: Stu Fonda Subject: FW: 4800 S Sherman St Stu would like you to attach this to the next Water Board agenda. Our guys did good!!!! From: Webmaster Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 4:36 PM To: Stu Fonda; Bill McCormick Subject: FW: 4800 S Sherman St FYI -a nice note from a satisfied customer. Perhaps you can pass it along to t he crew. Leigh Ann Leigh Ann Hoffhines Englewood City Manager's Office From: Joanne North [mailto:joannemnorth21@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 2:21 PM To: Webmaster Subject: 4800 S Sherman St I just wanted to say thank you for all of your help with the water line. Ev eryone has been so nice and helpfull. The men came out this morning , worked hard and they just finished up. M y grandson had a ball watching the men and the machines . Please tell them all Thank You Very Very Much !!! Joanne North 1 WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES August 10, 2010 AT/. I The meeting was called to order at 5:07 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Bums, Clark, Higday, Wiggins, Woodward, McCaslin, Habenicht Olson, Cassidy Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities 1. MINUTES OF THE JULY 7, 2010 MEETING. The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received the minutes of the July 7, 2010 meeting. Mr. Wiggins moved; Mr. Habenicht seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. 2. RATE COMPARISON STUDY. To approve the minutes of the July 7, 2010 meeting as written. Bums, Clark, Higday, Wiggins, Woodward, Mccaslin, Habenicht None Olson, Cassidy The Utilities Department received a Council request to compare Englewood's water and sewer rates with other cities in the Denver area. The Board received copies of summary sheets for water and sewer rates that John Bock had compi led from each city's web site. John discussed how water rates can vary according to the number of gallons used . Some municipalities have various tier structures where rates increase as consumption increases. It was noted that Englewood's outside City sewer customers pay less than the inside City customers. This is because of a sewer maintenance fee that is directly assessed to inside City customers, with outside City customers paying this fee to their respective sanitation districts. Overall, Englewood's rates are in the low range when comparing Denver Metro area providers. The Board received an article from Water News, "The Price of Water: A Comparison of Water Rates, Usage in 30 U.S. Cities." Stu announced that there will be a Community Meeting on Sep tember 23, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. at the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant to discuss water and sewer rate comparisons. 3. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT BUDGET. The Board received copies of the Cash Flow Models for Budget Year 201 lfor water, sewer and stormwater and a chart of proposed 2011 Capital Items . Stu discussed the upcoming funding and construction of the ultraviolet water dis infection system that must be completed by 2013 . Mr. McCaslin inquired if surrounding municipalities must also construct an UV system. Stu responded that it would depend on the results of a two year monitoring program showing the amount of cryptosporidium in that municipalities' source water. Various scenarios of projected rate increases were discussed along with the resulting five- year outcomes. 4 . LITTLETON/CITY DITCH BIKE PATH. South Suburban Parks requested a letter of recommendation fr om the City of Englewood for a GOCO grant for constructing the Littleton/City Ditch Bike Path. It was noted that an agreement for constructing the bike path along the City Ditch h as not yet been negotiated . Due to prior agreed-upon conditions that must be met before construction, the Board noted that they support the project but declined to send a letter of support at this time. 5. LETTERS OF RECOGNITION. The Board received a letter from Joyce Voss of 3034 S. Galap ago St. complimenting Bob Kunselman and an e-mail from Joanne North of 4800 S. Sherman St. complimenting the Distribution/Collection crew . Both parties received kudos for their helpfulness and professionalism. The meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. The next meeting will be held Tuesday, August 21, 2010 in the Community Development Room. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary c T y August 20, 2010 Mr. Frank Brandse Pro GTS , Inc. P.O . Box 2923 Littleton, Co 80161 0 F E N G RE: Appeal to Administrative Compliance Order Chipotle Mexican Grill -333 W . Hampden Ave. Dear Mr. Brandse: A IT. 2 LEWOOD As the City of Englewood's City Manager designee, I have revi ewed your letter concerning your appeal to the Administrative Compliance Order. At this time I find no reason to overturn the decision of Pam Arnold, the Industri al Pretreatment Administrator. However, I have scheduled this for a hearing before the Englewood Water and Sewer Board at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 at Englewood Civic Center, 1000 Englewood Parkway in the Community Development Conference Room. Please call Cathy Burrage at 303-762-2636 if you wish to appear before the Board to appeal this issue. Please advise her if you have additional materials you would like the Board to receive with their agenda for that meeting. Sincerely, Stewart H . Fonda Director of Utilities 1000 En glewood Park way En glew oo d, Co lo rad o 80 11 0 Ph o ne 303-7 6 2-230 0 www.englewoodgov.o rg LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PRETREATMENT DIVISION City of Littleton TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CC: Stu Fonda Pam Arnold 8/16110 MEMORANDUM Frank Brandse Appeal -letter dated 8/4110 to Gary Sears Mary Gardner City of Englewood Recall that you provided a copy of the Brandse 8/4/10 letter, which requests an appeal to the Division's Administrative Order via the City Manager or Water and Sewer Board. You asked that I address the items of defense that Mr. Brandse discussed in his letter. Following are my responses: I telephoned Mr. Brandse requesting an inspection of his facility, equipment, and an interview regarding his pumping processes. I specifically told him that it was an investigation regarding the Chase Bank incident. Mr. Brandse informed me that he had no garage and that his one pump truck was parked in a field out near Titan Road (southwest of Santa Fe), which is in a remote, undeveloped area. He said that he would meet the inspectors on the road parked in his vehicle as he had to unlock the gate to the storage yard. Due to the remote location , I sent two male inspectors for safety. When the inspectors arrived, Mr. Brandse denied them entry for inspection and did not wish to be interviewed. Waste oil and grease (FOG) pumpers provide a business service that is regulated under the Clean Water Act via Pretreatment regulations. FOG is prohibited from the sanitary sewer system; pumping service professionals are expected to know how to remove FOG properly. The interceptor should have been pumped and all waste removed, secured from accidental loss, prior to attempting to clear out plugged lines. Plugged lines should have been jetted towards the empty interceptor for proper pumping and waste handling. There was no mitigation performed. The damage to the carpet resulted in removal and replacement of both carpet and the underlying glue. The odor resulting from the discharge could not be mitigated; businesses were adversely affected. In some cases, customers left because they could not stand the smell. There has been subsequent replacement of the carpet. Pro GTS may be financially responsible, but the damage caused could not have been lessened or alleviated (i.e ., mitigated). In the Arapahoe County Sheriffs Office Report, Frank Brandse stated that he dumped about 1000 gallons of mud and water from a construction site into the drainage way that flows to Windmill Creek in the Cherry Creek Basin. The drainage way is in unincorporated Arapahoe County. Mr. Brandse was arrested and charged with the only enforcement mechanism available in unincorporated Arapahoe County, which is littering. Mr. Brandse told the investigator that he knew it was wrong but he needed to dump the mud and water because he had another grease trap run the next day. The investigator visited th e area two subsequent days and said that it smelled like fast food grease. Mr. Brandse pumped out the drainage way the day following the dumping and put some small rocks down the slope and bottom of the drainage. Note that Mr. Brandse apparently used his only pump truck (he told me that he only had one truck), which is used to pump oil and grease. August 23 , 2010 The Division 's EPA-approved and required Enforcement Response Plan describes how to detennine fines based on a minimum fine considering a history component and a hann component. Then that fine can be increased or decreased based on , 1) magnitude , 2) duration , 3) effe ct on the environment, and 4) good faith. The minimum fine in this case is $3 ,000, which takes into account the recent history in Arapahoe County and the hann to the bank building. There was no cooperation from Mr. Brandse. There was no mitigation . Mitigation can occur when , as an example , a spill occurs and the source is immediately stopped , the spill is contained , clean-up is perfonned . These actio ns "reduce " the hann that could have resulted. Finally, Mr. Brandse is expected to know how to control pump ing and jetting operations such that FOG is controlled . • Page 2 ~ PHOGTS1nc. Professional Grease Trap Service, Incorporated August 4, 2010 Gary Sears City Manager of Englewood Englewood Civic Center (3rd Floor) 1000 Englewood, CO 80110 303-762-2310 Re: Appeal to Administrative Compliance Order Dear Mr. Sears, r ····-····· . . t I 1 I t I AUG -!i iOO \ \ -.. ; On July 26th of this year, I received an administrative compliance order from the Littleton I Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant. I have attached a copy of the order for your review. The pretreatment administrator, Ms. Pam Am.old, makes several assumptions in the order, and ultimately falsely accused my employee and my company of performing an illicit act. The penalty for this act is a $5,000 fine on top of a penalty for economic benefit that Ms. Arnold incorrectly calculates. Ms. A.mold informed me that the proper channel for appeal would go through the City of Englewood. This is why I write to you today. · On June 23, 2010, my company dispatched two technicians to 333 West Hampden Avenue in Englewood. We were hired for two jobs. The first was to jet the plumbing lines -a regular service of injecting high pressure water through a small tube to clean out the inside of the pipes. The second was to remove the liquid waste from the grease interceptor and clean the interceptor and surrounding area . Our first Tech, Mr. Frank Pilone, entered the building with a portable jetter. The jetter is capable of shooting water at 1700 psi with a flow of up to 15 gallons per minute. At the same time, a second tech, Mr. Matthew Fish, was outside of the restaurant and monitored the level of flow to the grease trap while beginning to use our large jetter for the sewer lines. The large jetter is a 3000 psi, 25 gallon per minute unit. P.O. Box 2923 Littleton, CO 80161-2923 Phone (303)319-2169 Fax (303)77Q.4123 www.progts.com As the dual jetters began to inject fresh water into the system, Mr. Fish noticed that the level of liquid was rising slightly in the trap. He continued to feed his tube into the sy stem to hopefully dislodge any obstruction. In 99% of grease interceptor systems, any blockage in the plumbing causes the liquid to flow back into the trap. The trap level did not rise , thus Mr. Fish concluded that the obstruction was minor and had been cleared by the jetter. It was then that Mr. Kevin Farris of Situs (the building management company) came out of the basement and yelled for Mr. Fish to stop what he was doing. He stated that the drains in the basement bathroom had begun to back up. Mr. Fish immediately began using the tanker truck's vacuum to empty out the interceptor and thus relieve pressure from the system. Mr. Fish asked if he could help clean the basement, but Mr. Farris asked him to leave the premises. Mr. Fish finished with the removal of all the liquid waste in the interceptor, cleaned the surrounding area, and left . Mr. Pilone concluded his job inside the building and left. The cause of the spill was due to using an aggressive jetting operation on a system that was incorrectly plumbed. Our company is working with Situs to bring the lower level of the building back to its original condition. This is a costly operation for m y company , estimated at several thousands of dollars. Ms. Arnold claims that Pro GTS , Inc . performed no mitigation. This is incorrect. The miti gation for a spill of this magnitude requires weeks , not hours or labor. I assure you, we have no economic benefit from this operation, as Ms. Arnold claims. Mr. Fish met with the regional manager, Ms. Anne McCabe of Chipotle shortly after the backup. Mr. Fish assured Ms. McCabe that Pro GTS , Inc. would stand behind our work and take care of the cost associated with mitigating the lower level of the bank. Ms. McCabe was pleased and stated that she planned to continue working with Pro GTS , Inc. in the future. On top of the repair costs, Ms. Arnold i s attempting to fine Pro GTS , Inc . $5 ,000 for "knowingly and willfully discharging FOG (fats oils and grease) into the sanitary sewer sy stem on one occasion". Ms. Arnold asserts that Mr. Fish tried to empty the contents of the tanker truck into the grease interceptor in an effort to improperly dispose of the liquid waste. My company has been in business since 2006 , and we are fully aware that this is an illegal and potentially dangerous act. Ms. Arnold was not aware that we were there to jet the lines and therefore she did not know that the onl y liquid introduced to the system was fresh water. I have included the original purchase orders that show we were hired to jet and to service the grease interceptor. .. Ms. Arnold called me in early July to schedule an inspection of my truck and facility as well as a chance for her representatives to interview me regarding the incident and our normal operating procedures. Ms. Arnold sent Mr. Harold Sheel and Mr. Jonathan Bridges to inspect the truck and interview me. When I met these gentlemen, I asked if they had any inspection sheets or any paperwork to support an interview. They did not. In fact , they stated that they did not know what they were looking for , but anything they found could be used against me in a court of law. Their intimidation tactics were successful , as I terminated the inspection and the interview. Thus, Ms. Arnold never spoke to anyone at m y company before issuing this order. In section III of the order, Ms. Arnold correctly quotes my tech , Mr. Fish, as saying "it was normal practice to push water through the lines before vacuuming it out". But she assumed that we were pushing liquid waste , not water, through the lines. One other assumption made by Ms . Arnold was that Pro GTS , Inc. has a history of noncompliance. She found a court case in Arapahoe County where we were accused of dumping water into a vacant field. Ms . Arnold assumed that we were guilty. This case was involving water on a construction site and has since been dismissed. We have never been tried for illegal dumping. Our request is to dismiss the fine Ms . Arnold has ordered us to pay. Pro GTS , Inc is paying the bulk of the repairs that are made to the lower level of the bank building. The financial burden will reach well past $5 ,300. Thank you for your time in considering our request. I am available for interview or discussion anytime . Frank Brandse Pro GTS , Inc P .O . Box 292 3 Littleton, CO 80161 303-319-2169 fax 303-770-4123 frank @progts.com City of Littleton City of EnglewOod ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE ORDER REGARDING: PROGTS, INC P. 0. Box 2923 Littleton, CO 80161 BY CONTROL AUTHORITY: Date: July 22, 2010 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PRETREATMENT DIVISION 2900 South Platte River Drive Englewood, Colorado 80110 CONTENTS: I Description of Company II Description of Violation III Discussion of Subsequent Mitigation IV Discussion of Response to Violation V Penalty Deferment and Compliance Schedule VI Calculation of Penalty VII Appeal Procedure and Order I Description of Company PROGTS, INC. (Professional Grease Trap Service, Incorporated) is an interceptor pumping company that pumps gravity grease interceptors for their restaurant customers. Restaurants and other types of food service businesses generate large volumes of animal fats, oil and grease (FOG) in their wastewater as a result of food preparation. Food service businesses are required to install and maintain a gravity grease interceptor that meets engineering specifications including sizing and configuration to handle the volume of FOG generated. Gravity grease interceptors are generally double chambered with the larger chamber comprising two thirds of the interceptor volume and the second chamber one third. The wall in between the chambers acts as a baffle to slow down the flow. The FOG-laden wastewater enters the first chamber where it is slowed down to allow separation of FOG to the top, water in the middle, and other solids to the bottom. The two chambers are connected by a pipe near the middle of the baffle to drain the water layer. The second chamber behaves similarly to the first, collecting a little more of the FOG and solids and finally discharging the water portion of the wastewater into the sanitary sewer system. Hundreds of food service businesses in the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant (LIE WWTP) service area are regulated under the Pretreatment Division's (Division's) FOG Policy that regulates gravity grease interceptor engineering and maintenance. These food service businesses rely entirely on pumping companies, like PROGTS, to regularly pump their interceptors dry, clean the sides of adhered fats and grease, and dispose of that FOG waste properly. Such service is generally performed quarterly and costs approximately $200 to $300 each time it is pumped and cleaned. PROGTS collects wastewater, including the FOG and solids, from interceptors using its one pumping truck and is required to dispose of the whole load at one of several disposal facilities designed to receive such waste. Depending on the size of each interceptor pumped, one truck could pump up to five interceptors in one load. Disposal costs for a pumper truckload run about $300. II Description of Violation On June 23, 2010, the building at 333 W. Hampden Ave. in Englewood, suffered a serious sanitary sewer overflow caused by an illicit oil and grease pumping operation at the Chipotle restaurant in the same building. The restaurant was having routine oil and grease interceptor pumping performed by a third party, professional pumping company, PROGTS, INC. The pumping was performed in an illicit manner directly resulting in a backflow of interceptor waste into the building's lower level. The building management, Situs, responded to the emergency situation with clean up of the liquid/solid waste material and ultimately, with the removal and discard of all affected carpet and underlying water-based glue. As the restaurant's pumping operation began, the pumper discharged material from his tank into the interceptor tanks. Pumpers may never discharge material into the sewer system; they are only allowed to extract interceptor wastewater, oil, grease, and other solids that have accumulated in the tanks and collect that waste material for disposal at a proper disposal facility. Page 1 o/5 The action of the pumper truck discharge caused the waste material to plug the building 's sanitary sewer line , prior to the sanitary sewer outfall, and back flow through lower level shower drains , toilets , and any other sewer drains in that area. The volume of pumper truck discharge was several hundred gallons , which was sufficient to involve two public restrooms and shower facilities , more than 30 feet of hallway, the bank 's lower vault area, and other smaller areas. The material included the pumper truck discharge along with interceptor waste. City of Englewood Municipal Code : Title 12, Chapter 2, Section 2 (B) 2, " It shall be unlawful to discharge from any premises within the City, or into any area under the j urisdiction of the City, or into a district or jurisdiction under contract with the City for treatment of sanitary sewage, into and upon any public highway, stream, watercourse, or public place, or into any drain, cesspool , storm or private sewer, or natural water outlet, any sewage or other polluted waters, except where suitable treatment has been provided in accordance with provisions of this Chapter and local, State and Federal laws ." Title 12, Chapter 2, Section 5 (B) 1, "General and Specific Prohibitions : A user may not introduce into a POTW any pollutant(s) which causes pass-through or interference. These general prohibitions and the specific prohibitions of this section apply to each user introducing pollutants into a POTW whether or not the user is subject to other pretreatment standards or requirements. It shall be unlawfu l for any user to discharge or deposit or cause or allow to be discharged or deposited into the wastewater treatment system of the city any wastewater which contains the following: (n) Any water or waste containing free or floating oil and grease, or any discharge containing animal fat or grease byproduct in excess of two hundred milligrams per liter (200 mg/I)." Title 12, Chapter 2. Section 5 m 3 (e)(l) "When the city finds that a user has violated, or continues to violate, any provision of this chapter, an industrial wastewater permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, the city may fine such user in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per day per violation. Such fines shall be assessed on a per violation, per day basis. In the case of monthly or other long term average discharge limits, fines shal l be assessed for each day during the period of violation." III Discussion of Subsequent Mitigation PROGTS performed no mitigation. During the time of the incident, the pumper spoke with the building manager, Mr. Kevin Farris, Situs Real Estate Corp., and specifically told Mr. Ferris that "it was normal practice to push water through the lines before vacuuming it out". The pumper representative accompanied Mr . Ferris to the lower level of the building to examine the damage and verified that the waste was, in fact , interceptor waste consisting of"grease and food debris". IV Discussion of Response to Violation The Division contacted PROGTS ' owner, Mr. Frank Brandse, by telephone to schedule an inspection of the company 's facilities, equipment, and to discuss pumping practices. The pumping incident was indicated as the primary impedes for the inspection. An appointment was Page2 o/5 agreed to and an inspection was attempted, but Mr. Brandse refused to cooperate indicating that it might be advisable for his attorney to be present. V Penalty Deferment and Compliance Schedule There are no mitigations pending, no compliance actions pending, and no compliance schedule. Therefore, there are no penalty deferments. VI Calculation of Penalty Pursuant to Environmental Protection Agency requirements under the Clean Water Act's Pretreatment regulations, maximum penalties allowed by the Division's legal authority are required to be calculated and must include economic benefit and any costs associated with the violation including sampling and analyses. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PENAL TY Table 1. Maximum Enforcement Calculation, Economic Benefit, and Costs Violation # of Maximum Illegal discharge of FOG wastewater where no suitable treatment was rovided (2) $300.00 per truckload if properly discharged Violations Penalty $5,000 Average Cost to User (economic benefit $300.00 The purpose of enforcement actions including fines, penalties, and other enforcement actions is to affect compliance with regulatory requirements and to act as a deterrent against any such future violations. Economic benefit is the avoidance of costs associated with compliance activities, and such benefit is expressly addressed in EPA's Guidance for Developing Control Authority Enforcement Response Plans, September 1989. Some industries may deliberately avoid compliance, because the penalties of noncompliance are less than the costs of achieving compliance. Penalties are calculated considering the maximum penalty available under legal authority, the mitigation factors, the cooperation and attitude of the violator, and the harm or potential harm to the WWTP. PROGTS is a commercial user subject to Municipal Code under Title 12, Chapter 2, Section 5 and benefited economically by avoiding its regulatory obligations. PROGTS did not cooperate with inspectors, and the actions perpetrated could not be mitigated or in any way undone. Page 3 o/5 ENFORCEMENT ACTION PENAL TY Based on maximum penalty calculations and factors for consideration, the Division has determined the penalty for PROGTS as follows: T bl 2 Enfl a e . orcement A . P al ct10n en lty Description Amount Knowingly and willfully discharging FOG into the sanitary sewer system $5 ,000.00 on one occasion. Economic benefit to violator for avoidance of compliance costs $300.00 Total penalty $5 ,300.00 Other costs associated with the violation none Total due City of Englewood (managing City) $5 ,300.00 The factors for consideration which can escalate the penalty include: • Magnitude of the violation (as it relates to Significant Noncompliance criteria) • Duration of the violation (prolonged or a pattern of similar noncompliance) • Effect on the· environment (pass through, interference, CDPS permit violation, WET test failure) • Compliance history (previous violations and/or a pattern of non-related noncompliance) • Good faith (corrective actions) The enforcement action penalty is taken from the EPA-approved Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) table entitled, Penalty Frame-work Based on History and Harm. With respect to the history component, there is a history of noncompliance for PROGTS. With respect to the harm component, harm resulted to one of the four systems. The four systems to which harm can be attributed include: worker, treatment works, collection system, and environment. Harm is attributed, in this case, to the treatment works as prohibited waste was discharged directly to the WWTP. VII Appeal Procedure and Order Title 12, Chapter 2, Section 6 C . Appeal Procedure and Order. Any permit applicant, permit holder, or other User affected by any decision, action, or determination, including cease and desist orders, made by the City other than any judicial action filed or under litigation in any court including the Englewood Municipal Court, or any permit issued hereunder, may file with the City a written request for reconsideration and a stay of the decision within ten (10) days of such decision, action, or determination, setting forth in detail the facts supporting the request, whereupon the City shall hold a hearing. The request for reconsideration shall be acted upon by the City within ten (10) days from the date of filing. The decision, action or determination may be stayed during such period of review by the City Manager or desi gnee. If the decision of the City Manager or designee is unsatisfactory to the person appealing, they may file a written appeal to the water and sewer board within ten (10) days after receipt of the Pa ge 4 o/5 decision. The water and sewer board may hear the appeal and shall make a final ruling on the appeal within thirty five (35) days of receipt of the user's written appeal. The decision, action or determination of the City Manager or designee may be stayed during such period of review by the water and sewer board. After the water and sewer board has reviewed the evidence, it may issue an order to cease and desist to the user responsible for the discharge directing that, following a specified time period, the sewer service be discontinued unless adequate treatment facilities , devices or other related appurtenances are properly operated. Further orders and directives as are necessary and appropriate may be issued. The decision of the Water and Sewer Board shall be binding on all entities and the user until and unless ruled otherwise by an appropriate court. Page5 o/5 05128/2010 04:06 PM BAO PURCHASE ORDER # ___ GR;..;..;;;;;:0~52=s1:..;:;.;0009;.;:::;.::;;..__ PO DATE: 05128/2010 BAO PO TYPE: Jetting CMG0390 Active PO Billing Address: ATTN:~F=ra=n=k--~~~~- SLM Waste & Recycling Services, Inc. 5000 Commerce Drive Green Lane, PA 18054 VENDOR INFORMATION SERVICE ADDRESS PROGTS Inc Chipotle Mexican Grill -#0390 Po Box 2923 -3833 East Long Place, Centenni~ 333 W. Hampden Ave Suite 110 Littleton, CO 80161 Englewood, CO 80110- PHONE: 303-319-2169 FAX: 303-770-4123 Phone: 215-258-3822 Fax: 215-258-3823 . Requested By: Craig Buck Hauler Sales Rep: Frank FIRST SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED: SERVICE FREQUENCY: CONTAINER DELIVERY: 06/21/2010 Semi-Annual (180 days) PAYMENT TERMS: Per Service SERVICE CONT PER PER MIN. PER OTHER TYPE QTY SIZE DESCRIPTION SERVICE MONTHLY LB/GAL CHARGE BOX COST TAXES Grease Trap 1 ~'~9 :i:J~!ef,!OUtfilt!;J~ --225.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 LINE TOTAL 225.00 MONTHLY TOT AL $225.00 1 Vendor is responsible for all service requirements as of:06I01/2010 -First scheduled service: 06121 /201 o VENDORS, DO NOT LEA VE BEHIND WORK ORDE S WITH PRICING, OR THERE WILL BE A 20% PENALTY CREDIT AGAINST YOUR BILL AND LOSS OF THE ACCOUNT. Independent Contractor, hereinafter known as ("IC") agrees all Invoices provided to SLM will be sent to Its corporate offices at 5000 Commerce Drive, Green Lane, PA 18054 and contain the following: purchase order#, store#, location address, work order number, Itemized services, break down of all taxes and or fees. IC agrees at no time will It leave behind any work orders with pricing and/or Invoice SLM's customer; otherwise IC agrees Invoice will be reduced by 20"/o. By specific service perfonnance, IC agrees to all terms and conditions both on the front and back sides of this purchase order. IC agrees all prices contained herein, will remain In full force and effect for a period of two (2) years from the service start date; there are no automatic renewals of this purchase order. IC agrees all applicable state, local taxes and fees are to be paid by the servicing IC to the municipality in question, and are Included In the total cost of this purchase order. IC agrees prior to performing services to have a Certificate of Insurance naming both SLM and It's customer as an addltlonal Insured with respect to the work performed in the amount of $2,000,000 general aggrugate, $1,000,000 each for general llabllity, worker's compensation and automobile prior to performing services. IC agrees by performing services to be held responsible and pay for all liability due to loss, damage, EPA/Hazmat, fire, Injury and negligence as a result of performing services for subject location. Payment will be made as outlined in this purchase order or attachment thereof. No payments will be withheld from IC with the following: hood cleaning = before & after pictures, Vertfication form; grease = signed work order or manifest from customer; all must have Information above and agreed upon charges. *** 14 DAY OUT FOR ANY REASON*** ***SLM Facility Solutions requires NO LESS than 45 days written notice of any prices changes on accounts*** Vendor agrees to notify SLM of any damage or repair that is required within 48 hours of service. Vendor also agrees to place on the signed work order, at the time of service, any and all repairs or damages and forward this along with the invoice to SLM. Vendor agrees to pay any fines if Customer receives a violation due to vendor negligence and/or non-performance. [ ~ED SIGNATURE DATE " ~ t~J.-;lo10 ) PLEASE SIGN & RETURN. Otherwise you will lose this account! 512812010 04:03 PM BAO PURCHASE ORDER # ____ GA~o:;..;:;:;;.;;52=81 ____ 000~8 _ PO DATE: 05128/2010 BAO PO TYPE: Grease Trap CMG0390 Active PO Billing Address: ATTN:_F_ra=n~k=--~~~~~ SLM Waste & Recycling Services, Inc. 5000 Commerce Drive Green Lane, PA 18054 V~NDOR INFORMATION SERVICE ADDRESS PROGTSlnc Chipotle Mexican Grill -#0390 Po Box 2923 -3833 East Long Place, Centenn i; 333 W. Hampden Ave Suite 110 Englewood, CO 80110-Littleton, CO 80161 PHONE: 303-319-2169 FAX: 303-n0-4123 Phone: 215-258-3822 Fax:215-258-3823 Hauler Sales Rep: Frank Requested By: Craig Buck FIRST SERVICE TO BE PERFORMED: SERVICE FREQUENCY: CONTAINER DELIVERY: 06/21/2010 3x/Year (17 wk schedule) PAYMENT TERMS:Per Service SERVICE CONT PER PER MIN. PER OTHER TYPE QTY SIZE DESCRIPTION SERVICE MONTHLY LB/GAL CHARGE BOX COST TAXES LINE TOTAL Grease Trap 1 800 Gf98S8 Tra~ Pumping -Interior 104.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.00 104.00 ( COMMENTS MONTHLY TOT AL $104.00 ] Vendor is responsible for all service requirements as of:Q6/01/2010 . First scheduled service: 06/21 /201 O VENDORS, DO NOT LEAVE HIND WOR 0 W H RI I G, R HERE WILL BE A 20% PENALTY CREDIT AGAINST YOUR BILL AND LOSS OF THE ACCOUNT. Independent Contractor, hereinafter known as {"IC") agrees all invoices provided to SLM will be sent to Its corporate offices at 5000 Commerce Drive, Green Lane, PA 18054 and contain the following: purchase order#, store t, location address, work order number, Itemized services, break down of all taxes and or fees. IC agrees at no time will it leave behind any work orders with pricing and/or Invoice SLM's customer; otherwise IC agrees Invoice will be reduced by 20%. By specific service perfonnance, IC agrees to all temlS and conditions both on the front and back sides of this purchase order. IC agrees all prices contained herein, wlll remain in full fon:ie and effect for a period of two (2) years from the service start date; there are no automatic renewals of this purchase order. IC agrees all applicable state, local taxes and fees are to be paid by the servicing IC to the municipality In question, and are included In the total cost of this purchase order. IC agrees prior to performing services to have a Certificate of Insurance naming both SLM and It's customer as an additional Insured with respect to the work perfonned In the amount of $2,000,000 general aggregate, $1,000,000 each for general llabillty, worker's compensation and automobile prior to performing services. IC agrees by performing services to be held responsible and pay for an liability due to loss, damage, EPA/Hazmat, fire, Injury and negllgence as a result of performing services for subject location. Payment will be made as outlined In this purchase order or attachment thereof. No payments will be withheld from IC with the followlng: hood cleaning = before & after pictures, Verification form; grease = signed work order or manifest from customer; all must have Information above and agreed upon charges. *** 14 DAY OUT FOR ANY REASON*** ***SLM Facility Solutions requires NO LESS than 45 days written notice of any prices changes on accounts*** Vendor agrees to notify SLM of any damage or mpair that Is required within 48 hours of service. Vendor also agrees to place on the signed work order, at the time of service, any and all repairs or damages and forward this along with the Invoice to SLM. Vendor agrees to pay any fines if Customer receives a viol ation due to vendor negligence and/or non..perfonnance. HAULER AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE DATE ~ {r-) ...... 2.o lo PLEASE SIGN & RETURN. Otherwise you will lose this account! Created Date/Time : 08/25/2010 04 :36 :02 PM Customer Number : 00056112 Account Number: 30000072483 Service Address : 7248 S BROADWAY Mail i ng Address : OWNER OR OCCUPANT 7248 S BROADWAY CENTENNIAL CO 80122-1168 Customer I Account Transaction History A I 7. 3 Trans Date Transaction Amount Balance c reated By Modified By 8/5/2010 0:00 Payment-TeleWor ks 7/12/2010 o·oo Cycle B'll ' ($287 .65) $344 85 LFAIRES • 1 mg Due · 08/25/2010 $ · 5/4/2010 0:00 Sewer Balance L~t e Fee 299 .99 $632 .50 ASUNDINE 6/11/2009 0 :00 Cycle Billing Due : 07 /11/200 p 44.86) $332 .51 ASUNDINE 5/14/2009 0 :00 Transfer to Sewer A/R $282 .33 $287 .65 ASUNDINE $5 .32 $5 .32 ASUNDINE Jn th 1·u mail -vJMtf,o UM~ /D b,jMd Jo lnj -fa UJ)cr J};15 f ..s !ef-f . Updated By Status Date/Time Updated Batch ID SWOREK Adjustable 8/6/2010 8:03 6921 ASUNDINE 7 /1/2010 15:57 3584 ASUNDINE Adjustable 5/4/2010 14:26 6475 6/12/2009 10:43 2900 Adjustable 5/14/2009 9:31 5092 MEMORANDUM TO: vStu Fonda -Utilities . i . I John Bock -Utilities £ Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney, J FROM: DATE: REGARDING: September 13 , 2010 Outside City Sewer Collection Costs -your inquiry as to whether or not we can collect the costs for certified mail, which is now over $5 .00, for billing of a notification of past due sewer service. The ordinance currently provides for delinquency charges as well as a percentage amount for interest. All of these charges are assessed and subsequently included in a notice of lien against the property. The ordinance anticipates this delinquency charge within the cost of certified mail. In order to add the cost of certified mail you need to change the ordinance to allow a resolution regarding setting up the charges and fees. Until that time the cost of certified mail is included in that delinquency charge. The second question regarding, "Is there other law in addition to our ordinance that requires notice of lien?" no there is not. The Englewood Municipal Court Ordinance is sufficient to allow us to file a lien with the County regardless of whether there has been a change in the ownership ----)~ of the property. When a person purchases a property, part of their due diligence is that they should ensure that all utility fees are paid. The sewer charges and any lien runs with the land not with the owner. NNR/ss Certification Letter September 16, 2009 JORDAN BRAUNSTEIN 3786 BUCKNELL DR HIGHLANDS RANCH CO 80129-4398 Regarding: 7248 S BROADWAY Account For: RESIDENTIAL ANNUAL Account # 30000072483 Customer# 00056112 Dear JORDAN BRAUNSTEIN, Past Due Amount:$ 287.65 The amount listed above remains unpaid for sewer service billing from the City of Englewood. Failure to pay will result in late fees up to 25% of the unpaid balance in accordance with Englewood Municipal Code 12-2-3 (H) (1) and the full amount will be certified to the appropriate county for collection. The original bill was sent out on 06/11 /2009 and a late notice on 07 /11/2009. If you purchased the residence after these billing dates, contact your closing agent or your title company. If the original bill was sent incorrectly, it is the owner's responsibility to provide the correct mailing address. Full payment is due immediately to avoid the pending lien. If the payment has a lready been sent, thank you, and please disregard this notice . Any questions regarding this matter should be directed to billing at 303-762-2635 . Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated . Sincerely, John Bock Manager of Administrations -Englewood Utilities Department · Arapahoe County Website -Parcel Search Parcel#: Situs Address: Situs City: Owner Name: Co-Owner Name: Owner Address: City/State/Zip: Neighborhood: Neighborhood Code: Acreage: Land Use: Legal Desc: 2009 Appraised Value 2009 Assessed Value Sale Book B715 Ir { 2077-27-4-05-007 7248 S . BROADWAY .. CENTENNIAL *Photo Sketch BRAUNSTEIN, JORDAN 3786 BUCKNELL DR . HIGHLANDS RANCH , CO 80129-4398 SOUTHWIND SUB 3RD FLG 1 ST AMND 2080 0.214 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY LOT 6 BLK 7 SOUTHWIND SUB 1ST FLG Total 164,500 13,090 2008 Mill Levy: 87 .239 Page Date 7186 12/07/2007 Building 147 ,000 11 ,700 Instr WY Trans Other as of 9/10/2009 Treasure~s Ta x Information Residential Sale s by Tax Year and Neighborhood 2009/2010 2007/2008 2005/2006 Complete Neighborhood Sales Information History Tax District Levies Land 17 ,500 1,390 Price 165 ,000 A706 4951 05/30/1997 WY Joint Tenants 100 ,000 3866 52 1 05/01/1983 WY Joint Tenants 75 ,500 3278 0224 09/01/1980 WY Othe r 67,500 Misclmpr ID Type Line Units LenDia WdtHgt Qua I Eco Life 01 RYARD IMPRV 2EA 0 0 3 20 02 RWOOD BRN ST 1 EA 0 0 3 15 Buidling 01 Quality Grade: AVERAGE Bedrooms: 03 Improvement Type: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Fireplaces: 01 Architectural: RANCH Air Conditioning: N Year Built: 1960 Range/Oven: 00 Roof Type: HIP Disposal: 01 Roof Cover: WOOD SHAKES Compactor: 00 Page 1 of2 http://www.co.arapahoe .c o. us / Aoos/ParcelSearch/PPINum .asox?PPINum=2077-27-4-05-0 ... 9/16 /2 009 · Arapahoe County Website -Parcel Search . J} I Parcel #: 2077-27-4-05-007 Situs Address: 7248 S. BROADWAY .. Situs City: CENTENNIAL *Photo Sketch Owner Name: BRAUNSTEIN , JORDAN Co-Owner Name: Owner Address: 3786 BUCKNELL DR . City/State/Zip: HIGHLANDS RANCH , CO 80129-4398 Neighborhood: Neighborhood Code: SOUTHWIND SUB 3RD FLG 1 ST AMND 2080 Acreage: Land Use: Legal Desc: 2009 Appraised Value 2009 Assessed Value Sale Book B715 0 .214 DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY LOT 6 BLK 7 SOUTHWIND SUB 1ST FLG Total 164,500 13,090 2008 Mill Levy: 87 .239 Page Date 7186 12/07/2007 Building 147,000 11,700 Instr WY Tra ns Oth er as of 9/10/2009 Tr eas ure~s Ta x Info rm ation Residential Sales by Tax Year and Neighborhood 2009/2010 2007/2008 2005/2006 Complete Neighborhood Sales Information History Tax District Levies Land 17 ,500 1,390 Price 165 ,000 A706 4951 05/30/1997 WY Joint Tenants 100 ,000 3866 521 05/01/1983 WY Joint Tenants 75,500 3278 0224 09/01/1980 WY Other 67 ,500 Misc/mpr ID Type Line Units LenDia WdtHgt Qual Eco life 01 RYARD IMPRV 2 EA 0 0 3 20 02 RWOOD BRN ST 1 EA 0 0 3 15 Buidling 01 Quality Grade: AVERAGE Bedrooms: 03 Improvement Type: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTI A L Fireplaces: 01 Architectural: RANCH Air Conditioning: N Year Built: 1960 Range/Oven: 00 Roof Type: HIP Disposal: 01 Roof Cover: WOOD SHAKES Compactor: 00 Page 1 of 2 http://www.co.araoahoe.eo.us/Aoos/ParcelSearch/PPINum.asox?PPINum=2077-27-4-05-0 ___ 9 /1 6 /2 009 ·Property Tax Details : Douglas County Page 1 of 2 ~~DOUGLAS cq~~ Doug la s Count y GGv emment I 100 Thi rd Street I Castl e Rode., Co fGra do 80104 I 3 0 3 .. 660 . .7 400 Property Tax Inquiry Douglas County Treasurer's Office Property Tax Details Property Taxes for 2009 Due 2010 This information reflects current status of tax liability and assessments due, including current payments received, prior year balances and activity, penalties, fees, interest, applicable taxing entities, etc. This information is not to be used in place of a certificate of taxes due. Parcel Information Property Account Number: R0425180 Tax Rate: 8.2001 % State Parcel Number: 2505-300-01-021 Tax District: 0570 Owner Information Name: JORDAN BRAUNSTEIN & ELAINE NGUYEN Mailing Address: 2935 BALLARD CT CASTLE ROCK I co 801090000 Property Information Property Address: 2935 BALLARD CT Property Type: REAL Subdivision Name: KEENE RANCH Sub. Reception 00020102 Number: Lot: 153 Block: 0 Property Valuation Assessed Real Value: $113, 150 Personal Property $0 Value: New Growth Value: $0 Total Assessed $113, 150 Value: Total Actual Value: $1,421,473 Current Year Owner Payments Due as of 08-26-2010 Legal Description LOT 153 KEENE RANCH FILING # 3 10 .030 AM/L Taxes & Fees Billed The total taxes billed are initially calculated in January and are subject to change at any time during the year . Total General Tax: $9,278.41 Total New Growth Tax: $0 .00 Doc Fee: $0 .00 Late Filing Fee: $0.00 Misc. Fees: $0 .00 Qualified Exemption: $0 .00 Improvement District Details SID/LID Name Installment Amt Billed N/A $0 .00 Total Current Year Taxes and Installments Billed to Owner Total: I $9,278.41 Tax Liens & Delinquencies Total current year taxes do not reflect outstanding tax liens and delinquencies. Tax Sale Lien None Number{s): Delinquent Prior None Year{s) Taxes Due: Note{s): Payment Type Due Date Taxes+Fees Due Interest Due Total ·Amount Full Amount Due: April 30 $0.00 $0.00 $0 .00 http ://apps.douglas.co.us/apps /treas ur er/tidi/parce1Details.do?propertyld=R0425180&valu ... 8/26/2010 ·Property Tax Details : Douglas County Page 2 of2 First Half: Last day of Feb. $0.00 $0 .00 $0.00 Second Half: June 15 $0 .00 $0.00 $0.00 Current Year Tax Liability To Owner: $0.00 Current Year Payments Received Date Amount Type 06/15/2010 $4,639 .21 Payment 02/26/2010 $4,639 .20 Payment Payment information may reflect additional fees or penalties not included in the billing. Prior Year Transaction History Date Amount Type 07/31/2009 $9,199.52 Payment 09/09/2008 $4,237 .64 Payment 09/09/2008 $4,940.99 Unknown 09/09/2008 $13 .00 Payment 11/16/2007 $4,523 .73 Payment 09/13/2006 $0.01 Unknown 09/13/2006 $2,603 .23 Payment 06/01/2005 $4,847.08 Payment 06/01/2004 $4,751.17 Payment 06/01/2003 $5 .52 Payment Information for paym~nts made prior to 2006 reflects the sum of all payments made for that year and does not represent individual payments or actual payment dates. Please call the Treasurer's Office for payment detail prior to 2006. Tax District 0570 Details ID District Name Tax Rate Regular Tax New Growth Tax 0001 DOUGLAS COUNTY GOVERNMENT 1.8774 % $2,124.28 $0 .00 0001 DOUGLAS COUNTY GOVERNMENT DISABILITIES 0.1000 % $113.15 $0 .00 2000 DOUGLAS COUNTY RE-1 SCHOOL DISTRICT 4 .6681 % $5,281.95 $0 .00 0002 LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY 0.4500 % $509 .17 $0.00 4033 JACKSON 105 FIRE PROTECTION 0.7030 % $795.44 $0.00 4390 DOUGLAS COUNTY LIBRARIES 0.4016 % $454.41 $0.00 Totals: 8.2001 % $9,278.41 $0.00 ©2006 Douglas County Government I 100 Third Street I Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 I 303.660. 7400 http ://apps.douglas.co. us/apps/treasurer/tidi/parcelDetails.do ?property Id=R0425180&valu ... 8/26/201 O N0\1-28-2007 WED 01 4B PK SECURITY Tl TLE FAX NO 7205205097 Security Title Guaranty Co. - Todays Date November 28 2007 To The City ofBn&lewood UtihtJca DcpartmCllt 3400 S Elati St. Englewood co &0110 Plloiw 303-702 2Cl36 Piu: (303) 783-6894 From Stacey Pemberton Secur11y11de Guaranty Co Pllone-(720) 529 S060 P-.x -20) '\2'/ 50-j"' Rcmc:mbd' 48 hours or two busmczis days arc rCQ111fed for final R$d& Please write lc11bly The following stanis I final is requested for SBiWlCB ADDRESS 'Il4R South Br91dwJy. CC!ltenru&I, CO fill 122 DATB OF 'REQU2STED l!JNAL Decemb« 6, 2007 FrLE NO SOl48660 SEND PINAL BILL TO SecW"lty Title Giw11nty Co DIRECT QUESTIONS TO DATE OF CLOSJNC STATUS NAME OF NEW OWNER. 464J Sooth Ulster Street, Svite 500 Denver, CO 80237 Siacey Pemb«to11 Decembe( 6, 2007 W6Il!R ~~WER. SlOBM~AI~ Qlll.EB. CHA&~ Ji!O!la Dr11m1t~a p 01 MAJ.LtNG ADDRESS OFNBWOWNER 7248 C)outh BrOldw11.y,Centennta.l CO 80122 __ _ OTHER INFORMATION REQUESTED PlyK Fg back Statua It. Wi>.ISEWST S~ Pemberton (720) 529-5097 l'D•No 802'lk!6<\ ~ ror P1no1w ..... & Bcwcr I I l_ I I / , I 'i I ,,-. "r.._:' -\ ) • 1 6149004 A TT. Y City of Englewood Water and Sewer Connection Fees February 2010 Report Prepared By : ·:· RE I{ ••• · ••• CONSULTING . • • A DIVISION or MALCOLM PIRNIE Table of Contents Contents 1. Executive Summary 1-1 1.1 . Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1-1 1 .2. Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1 .3. Proposed Water Connection Fees ................................................................................ 1-1 1.4. Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees .................................................. 1-2 1.5. Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fees ............................................ 1-3 1.6. Proposed Mixed Use Connection Fees ......................................................................... 1-3 2. Water Connection Fees 2-1 2.1 . Methodology .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2. Calculation Procedure ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3. Water System Value ...................................................................................................... 2-1 2 .4. System Capacity ............................................................................................................ 2-2 2.5 . Fee Calculation .............................................................................................................. 2-3 3. Sewer Collection System Connection Fee 3-1 3.1 . Methodology .................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2. Calculation Procedure ................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3. Sewer Collection System Value .................................................................................... 3-1 3.4. System Capacity ............................................................................................................ 3-2 3.5. Fee Calculation .............................................................................................................. 3-3 4. Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee 4-1 4 .1 . Methodology .................................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2. Calculation Procedure ................................................................................................... 4-1 4.3. Wastewater Treatment Plant Value ............................................................................... 4-1 4.4. System· Capacity ............................................................................................................ 4-2 4.5. Fee Calculation .............................................................................................................. 4-3 5. Mixed Use Connection Fees 5-1 • • • • .. 5.1 . Background ................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 . Proposed Fees .............................................................................................................. 5-1 REI]_ CONSULTING City of Englewood, Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Table of Contents List of Tables Table 1-1 : Comparison of Ex isting and Proposed Water Connection Fees ................................ 1-2 Table 1-2 : Comparison of Ex ist ing and Proposed Sewer Collect ion System Connection Fees .. 1-2 Table 1-3: Comparison of Ex isting and Proposed Wastewater Treatment Connection Fees ..... 1-3 Table 2-1 : Water System Value .................................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-2 : Water Treatment Plant Capacity .................................................................................. 2-3 Table 2-3 : Development of Water Connection Fee per Capacity Unit... ....................................... 2-3 Table 2-4 : Proposed Water Connection Fees ............................................................................... 2-4 Table 3-1 : Sewer Collection System Va lue ................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2 : Sewer Collection System Capacity .............................................................................. 3-3 Table 3-3 : Development of Sewer Collection System Connection Fee per Capacity Unit ........... 3-4 Table 3-4: Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees ................................................ 3-4 Table 4-1 : City Portion of Wastewater T reatment Plant Value .................................................... .4-2 Table 4-2: Wastewater Treatment Plant Capac ity ........................................................................ 4-3 Table 4-3 : Development of Wastewater Treatment Plant Connect ion Fee per Capacity Unit ... .4-4 Table 4-4 : Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fees ......................................... .4-4 Table 5-1: Proposed Multifamily Mixed Use Connection Fee ....................................................... 5-1 Table 5-2: Proposed Commercial Mixed Use Connection Fee ..................................................... 5-2 Appendices • . . . .. A. Enter Title Here B. Enter Title Here C . Enter T itle Here REEO CONSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 1. Executive Summary 1.1. Introduction The City of Englewood, Colorado (City) provides water and sewer service to 8,400 and 43,000 customer accounts, respectively . About 75% of sewer accounts are located outside the City. The City's water and sewer utilities are funded primarily from rates and connection fees. The connection fee is a one-time charge that allows new users to pay for their proportionate share of capacity in the City's water treatment plant and distribution system, sewer collection system, and wastewater treatment plant. The City authorized Red Oak Consulting to update the City's water and sewer connection fees. This report summarizes study assumptions, procedures, findings and recommendations. 1.2 . Assumptions This connection fee study is based on numerous assumptions. Changes in these assumptions could have a material effect on the study findings. Red Oak made the following assumptions in this study: • The buy-in methodology is the best method to calculate the connection fees • Capacity requirements of a 3/4-inch meter represent the requirements of one capacity unit • Water and sewer mains smaller than 12 inches are contributed by developers • Replacement cost of water and sewer mains are based on estimated rehabilitation cost • Replacement cost of water and wastewater treatment plants are based on original cost trended to current cost using the 20-city Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index 1.3. Proposed Water Connect ion Fees • • • • .. • Red Oak calculated water connection fees using four standard valuation approaches: original cost, original cost less depreciation, replacement cost, and replacement cost less depreciation. • Table 1-1 compares existing and proposed inside City water connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982. Proposed connection fees for each meter size are the product of the connection fee per capacity unit (3 /4-inch meter) multiplied by the meter capacity ratio. RE CONSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Meter Existing Size Fees 5/8" $ 1,000 3/4" 1,000 1" 1,800 1 Yi" 4,000 2" 7,200 3" 16,000 4" 28,800 6" 64 ,000 Table 1-1 Section 1 Executive Summary Comparison of Existing and Proposed Water Connection Fees AWWA Proposed Fees Meter Original Replacement Capacity Original Cost Less Replacement Cost Less Ratios Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 0.66 $ 1 ,050 $ 750 $ 2,910 $ 2,210 1.00 1,570 1, 120 4,360 3,320 1.67 2,620 1,870 7,270 5,530 3 .33 5,200 3,700 14,500 11, 100 5 .33 8 ,400 6 ,000 23,300 17,700 10.67 16,700 11 ,900 46 ,5 00 35,400 16.67 26,200 18,700 72 ,7 00 55,300 40.00 62 ,800 44,800 174,400 132,800 1.4. Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees • Red Oak calculated sewer collection system connection fees using four standard valuation approaches: original cost, original cost less depreciation, replacement cost, and replacement cost less depreciation. • Table 1-2 compares existing and proposed sewer collection system connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982. Table 1-2 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees Meter Existing Size Fees 5/8" $ 500 3/4" 500 1" 833 1}'2" 1,677 2" 2,667 3" 5,333 4" 8,333 6" 16,667 . • • • • .. RE [[ CONSULTING AWWA Proposed Fees Meter Original Capacity Original Cost Less Ratios Cost Depreciation 0 .66 $ 110 $ 50 1.00 170 70 1.67 280 120 3.33 600 200 5.33 900 400 10.67 1,800 700 16.67 2,800 1,200 40.00 6,800 2,800 City of Englewood, Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Replacement Cost $ 800 1,200 2,000 4,000 6,400 12,800 20,000 48,000 Replacement Cost Less Depreciation $ 350 530 880 1,800 2 ,800 5,700 8,800 21 ,2 00 Section 1 Execu tive Summary 1.5. Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fees • Red Oak calculated wastewater treatment plant connection fees using four standard valuation approaches: original cost, original cost less depreciation, replacement cost, and replacement cost less depreciation. • Table 1-3 compares existing and proposed wastewater treatment plant connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982. Meter Existing Size Fees 5/8 " $ 1,400 3/4" 1,400 1" 2,333 1%" 4,66 7 2" 7,4 67 3" 14,9 32 4" 23,332 6" 46 ,66 7 Table 1-3 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Wastewater Treatment Connection Fees AWWA Proposed Fees Meter Original Capacity Original Cost Less Replacement Rat ios Cost Depreciation Cost 0.66 $ 590 $ 490 $ 760 1.00 890 730 1, 140 1.67 1,480 1,220 1,900 3.33 3 ,00 0 2,400 3 ,800 5.33 4 ,700 3 ,900 6 ,100 10.67 9,50 0 7 ,800 12 ,20 0 16.67 14,80 0 12 ,200 19 ,000 40 .00 35 ,60 0 29 ,200 45,600 1.6. Proposed Mixed Use Connection Fees Replacement Cost Less Depreciation $ 570 860 1,430 2 ,900 4 ,600 9 ,200 14,300 34 ,4 00 Red Oak developed connection fees for developments that include a mix of multifamily and commercial establishments. The proposed mixed use fees are consistent with the proposed meter size and single use connection fees using replacement cost less depreciation asset values. Section 5 shows the proposed mixed use connection fees . . • • •• .. RE CONSULTING City of Engl ewood , Colora do 2009 Water a nd Sewer Connecti on Fee Study 6149004 2. Water Connection Fees 2 .1. Methodology Connection fees are usually based on one of the following industry-standard evaluation methods: • Equity buy-in • Incremental cost • Hybrid The equity buy-in method bases connection fees on the value and capacity of existing facilities. This method is best suited for existing facilities with excess capacity. The incremental cost method bases connection fees on the value and capacity of future facilities. This method is best suited for utilities that have limited unutilized capacity in and have prepared detailed growth-related capital project plans. The hybrid method b ases the connection fee on the combination of the value and capacity of existing and future facilities. This method is appropriate for utilities that have some unused capacity in existing facilities and capacity expansion planned in the near future. Red O ak used the equity buy-in method to calculate the water connection fees. This is considered an appropriate method to use for the City's water utility since it has ample capacity in its existing facilities to serve future growth. 2.2. Calculation Procedure Red Oak calculated water connection fees using the fo ll owing steps: • Identify water system assets • Estimate value of assets under four different valuation methods • Determine capacity requirements of one capacity unit • D etermine number of capacity units that can b e served by existing facilities • Calculate connection fee per capacity unit 2.3. Water System Value Red Oak Consulting calculated the value of the City water system for each of the following standard valuation approaches: . • • • • .. RE n CONSULTING City of Engl ewo od, Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Stu dy 6149004 • Original Cost • Original Cost Less Depreciation • Replacement Cost New • Replacement Cost Less Depreciation Section 2 Water Connection Fees Original cost values are historic costs of purchasing and installing assets. Original cost less depreciation values are the book value of the assets. Replacement cost values are present-day estimated costs to purchase and install existing assets. Replacement cost less depreciation takes into consideration physical depreciation and obsolescence of existing assets. Original cost and original cost less depreciation are values based on City asset records. Replacement cost values for water line assets are based on estimates by line size. Replacement cost values for all other assets are based on original costs trended to present day value using the 20-City ENR-CCI. Table 2-1 compares water system asset values for the four valuation approaches. Line No. Fixed Asset 1 Treatment Plant 2 Pumps and Storage 3 Mains 4 General Plant 5 Total System Value Table 2-1 Water System Value Original Cost Less Original Cost Depreciation $ 20,542 ,812 $ 15,300,384 4 ,3 96 ,834 1,586 ,681 15,089,114 7,995, 125 11,551,563 9,884,451 $ 51,580,323 $ 34,766,641 2.4. System Capacity Replacement Replacement Cost Less Cost Depreciation $ 34 ,600,504 $ 24 ,284,849 12 ,927,468 2 ,856 ,956 4 ,626,418 2,451 ,356 62 ,1 61,229 57,413 ,563 $ 114,315,619 $ 87,006,724 Red Oak assumed the capacity requirements of a 3/4-inch meter represent the capacity requirements of one capacity unit. The 3/4-inch meter is commonly used for new single family residential connectors and represents the majority of water meters in service. Capacity units for all other meter sizes are a product of the number of customers for each meter size and capacity ratios of the respective meter sizes. The City's water treatment plant peak day capacity is 28 million gallons per day (mgd) and is sufficient to serve the projected build-out population of the water service area. Red Oak assumes the number of capacity units that can be served by the water system is commensurate with treatment plant capacity. • • • • .. RE CONSULTING City of Englewood, Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Section 2 Water Connection Fees Red Oak estimated peak day demand per capacity unit using City billing data and peak day demand data. The peak day demand per capacity unit of 1,070 gallons per day (gpd) is the product of 483 gpd average day demand for a 3/4-inch meter and the water system's peak day to average day demand ratio of 2.22. Table 2 -2 shows the calculation of the number of capacity units of the water treatment plant. System capacity of 26 ,200 is the quotient of peak day capacity of the water treatment plant and peak day demand of one capacity unit. Table 2-2 Water Treatment Plant Capacity Line No. Description Calculation 1 Peak Day Capacity of Water Treatment Plant (GPO) 28 ,000,000 2 Peak Day Demand of One Capacity Unit (GPO) 1,070 3 Water System Capacity (Capacity Units) 26,200 2.5. Fee Calculation The proposed water connection fee for a capacity unit is the quotient of the total system value and the capacity units of the system. System value is the value of existing assets less developer contribution. Red Oak assumed water mains 12-inches and smaller were contributed by developers. Table 2-3 shows the water connection fee calculation for a capacity unit. Table 2-3 Development of Water Connection Fee per Capacity Unit Original Cost Replacement Line Less Replacement Cost Less No. Fixed Asset Original Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 1 2 3 4 5 Existing Assets $ 51,580,323 $ 34 ,766 ,641 $114,315 ,619 $ 87,006,724 Less Contributions (10,321 ,094) (5,468,740) (0) (0) System Value $ 41 ,259 ,229 $ 29 ,297 ,901 $114,315 ,619 $ 87 ,006 ,724 System Capacity Units 26 ,200 26,200 26,200 26 ,200 Connection Fee, per $ 1,570 $ 1,120 $ 4,360 $ 3,320 Capacity Unit Table 2-4 compares exi sting and proposed water connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982. Proposed connection fees for each meter size are the product of the connection fee per capacity unit (3/4-inch meter) and meter capacity ratio . • . . . .. RE CONSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Meter Existing Size Fees 5/8" $ 1,000 3/4" 1,000 1" 1 ,800 1W' 4,000 2" 7,200 3" 16,000 4" 28,800 6" 64,000 Table 2-4 Section 2 Water Connection Fees Proposed Water Connection Fees AWWA Proposed Fees Meter Original Replacement Capacity Original Cost Less Replacement Cost Less Ratios Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 0 .66 $ 1,050 $ 750 $ 2,910 $ 2,210 1.00 1,570 1,120 4,360 3,320 1.67 2 ,620 1,870 7,270 5,530 3.33 5 ,200 3,700 14,500 11, 100 5.33 8,400 6,000 23,300 17,700 10 .6 7 16,700 11,900 46,500 35,400 16.67 26,200 18,700 72,700 55 ,300 40 .00 62,800 44,800 174,400 132,800 Red Oak recommends the City annually review and adjust its water connection fees to reflect changes in cost inflation, system capacity, and capacity unit service characteristics . . • • •• .. RE CONSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 3. Sewer Collection System Connection Fee 3.1. Methodology Connection fees are usually based on one of the following industry-standard evaluation methods: • Equity buy-in • Incremental cost • Hybrid The equity buy-in method bases connection fees on the value and capacity of existing facilities. This method is best suited for existing facilities with excess capacity. The incremental cost method bases connection fees on the value and capacity of future facilities. This method is best suited for utilities that have limited unutilized capacity in and have prepared detailed growth-related capital project plans. The hybrid method bases the connection fee on the combination of the value and capacity of existing and future .facilities. This method is appropriate for utilities that have some unused capacity in existing facilities and capacity expansion planned in the near future. Red Oak used the equity buy-in method to calculate the sewer collection system connection fees. This is considered an appropriate method to use since it has ample capacity in its existing facilities to serve future growth. 3.2. Calculation Procedure Red Oak calculated sewer collection system connection fees using the following steps: • Identify sewer collection system assets • Estimate value of assets under four different valuation methods • Determine capacity requirements of one capacity unit • Determine number of capacity units that can be served by existing facilities • Calculate connection fee per capacity unit 3.3. Sewer Collection System Value Red Oak calculated the value of the City sewer collection system for each of the following standard valuation approaches: . • • • • .. RE CONSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Section 3 Sewer Collection System Connection Fee • Original Cost • Original Cost Less Depreciation • Replacement Cost New • Replacement Cost Less Depreciation Original cost values are the historic costs of purchasing and ins talling assets. Original cost less depreciation is book value of assets . Replacement cost values are present-day estimated costs to purchase and install existing assets. Replacement cost less depreciation takes physical depreciation and obsolescence of existing assets into consideration. Original cost and original cost less depreciation values are based on City asset records. Replacement cost values for sewer collection main assets are based on estimates by main size. Replacement cost values for all other assets are based on original costs being trended to a present day value using the 20-City ENR-CCI. Table 3-1 compares sewer collection system asset values for the four valuation approaches. Table 3-1 Sewer Collection System Value Original Cost Replacement Line Less Replacement Cost Less No. Fixed Asset Original Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 1 Sewer Mains $ 5 ,078,528 $ 2,327 ,874 $ 27,116,907 $ 9,234 ,583 2 General Plant 1,236,475 389,243 2,358,608 1,206,237 3 Total System Value $ 6,315,003 $ 2,717,117 $ 29,475,515 $ 13,009,236 3.4. System Capacity Red Oak assumed that the capacity requirements of a 3/4-inch meter represent the capacity requirements of one capacity unit. The 3/4-inch meter is commonly used for new single family residential connectors and represents the majority of water meters in service. Capacity units for all other meter sizes are the product of number of customers for each meter size multiplied by each meter size's respective capacity ratio . The existing collection system is sufficient to serve projected population at build-out without any additional expansions. Red Oak assumes the number of capacity units that can be served by the sewer's collection system is commensurate with the wastewater treatment plant capacity to serve those inside city customers. The City owns 50% (25 mgd) of the Littleton/Englewood wastewater treatment plant capacity. The City's collection system serves only inside City customers and requires about 25% (6.25 mgd) of the City's treatment plant capacity. • • •• .. RE , CONSULTING City of Englewood, Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Section 3 Sewer Collection System Connection Fee Red Oak estimated wastewater flow per capacity unit using City planning data from the 2003 Wastewater Treatment Plant Utility Plan and Site Application Report. Wastewater flow per capacity unit of 255 gpd is the product of 85 gallons per capita per day for a 3/4- inch meter and 3 persons per household. Table 3-2 shows the calculation of the number of capacity units that can be served by the sewer collection system. The system capacity of 24,500 is the quotient of the capacity of the sewer collection system and the demand of one capacity unit. Table 3-2 Sewer Collection System Capacity Line No. Description Calculation 1 Capacity of Wastewater Treatment Plant Serving City Sewer Collection System (gpd) 6,250,000 2 Wastewater Flow per Capacity Unit (gpd) 255 3 Sewer Collection System Capacity (Capacity Units) 24,500 3.5. Fee Calculation The proposed sewer collection system connection fee for a capacity unit is the quotient of the total system value and the capacity units of the system. System value is the value of existing assets less developer contribution. Red Oak assumed sewer mains 12-inches and smaller were contributed by developers . Table 3-3 shows the sewer collection system connection fee calculation for a capacity unit. • • •• .. RE 1 CONSULTlNG City of Englewood , Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Section 3 Sewer Collection System Connection Fee Table 3-3 Development of Sewer Collection System Connection Fee per Capacity Unit Original Cost Replacement Line Less Replacement Cost Less No. Fixed Asset Origina l Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 1 Ex isting Assets $ 6 ,3 15,003 $ 2 ,717 ,117 $ 29,475 ,515 $ 13 ,009 ,236 2 Less Developer (2 ,25 0,594 ) (928 ,732) (0 ) (0) Contributions 3 System Value $ 4,064,409 $ 1,788 ,385 $ 29,4 75 ,515 $ 13 ,009 ,236 4 System Capacity 24 ,500 24 ,500 24 ,500 24 ,500 Units 5 Connection Fee, $170 $ 70 $ 1,200 per Capacity Unit Tabl e 3-4 comp are s existing and proposed sewer co llectio n syst em connection fees. Exis ting fees have b een in effect since 1982. Pro posed connectio n fe es fo r each meter size are th e pro duct of the connection fee p er cap a city unit (3 /4-in ch meter) and meter capacity ratios. Table 3-4 Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees AWWA Proposed Fees $ 530 Meter Original Replacement Meter Existing Capacity Original Cost Less Replacement Cost Less Size Fees Rat ios Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 5/8" $ 500 0 .66 $ 110 $ 50 $ 800 $ 350 3/4" 500 1.0 0 170 70 : 1,200 530 1" 833 1.6 7 280 120 2 ,000 880 1~" 1,677 3 .33 600 200 4 ,000 1,800 2" 2 ,667 5.33 900 400 6 ,400 2 ,800 3" 5 ,333 10 .67 1,800 700 12,800 5 ,700 4" 8 ,333 16.67 2 ,800 1,200 20 ,000 8 ,800 6" 16,667 40 .00 6 ,800 2 ,800 48 ,000 21 ,200 Red Oak recommends the City annually review and adj u st its sewer collection sys tem co nn ection fees to reflect change s in cost infl atio n , system cap ac ity, and cap aci ty unit service characteristi cs . • • • • .. RE CONSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado 2009 Wate r and Sewe r Co nnection Fee Study 6 149004 4. Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee 4.1. Methodology Connection fees are usually based on one of the following industry-standard evaluation methods: • Equity buy-in • Incremental cost • Hybrid The equity buy-in method bases the connection fee on the value and capacity of existing facilities. This method is best suited for existing facilities with excess capacity. The incremental cost method bases connection fees on the value and capacity of future facilities . This method is best suited for utilities that have limited unutilized capacity in and have prepared detailed growth-related capital project plans. The hybrid method bases the connection fee on the combination of the value and capacity of existing and future facilities. This method is appropriate for utilities that have some unused capacity in existing facilities and capacity expansion planned in the near future. Red Oak used the equity buy-in method to calculate the wastewater treatment plant connection fees. This is considered an appropriate method to use since there is ample capacity in existing facilities to serve future growth. 4.2. Calculation Procedure Red Oak calculated wastewater treatment plant connection fees using the following steps: • Identify wastewater treatment plant assets • Estimate value of assets under four different valuation methods • Determine capacity requirements of one capacity unit • Determine number of capacity units that can be served by existing facilities • Calculate connection fee per capacity unit 4.3. Wastewater Treatment Plant Value Red Oak calculated the value of the City wastewater treatment plant assets for each of the following standard valuation approaches: • • • • .. RE CONSULTING A DIVlllOJI or lllAlCOl-. ,1•NU City of Englewood, Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 • Original Cost • Original Cost Less Depreciation • Replacement Cost New Section 4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee • Replacement Cost Less Depreciation Original cost values are the historic costs of purchasing and installing assets. Original cost less depreciation values are the book value of assets. Replacement cost values are the present-day estimated costs to purchase and install existing assets. Replacement cost less depreciation takes into consideration physical depreciation and obsolescence of existing assets. Original cost and original cost less depreciation values are based on City asset records. Replacement cost values are based on original costs trended to present day value using the 20-City ENR-CCI. The City owns 50% of the Littleton/Englewood (LIE) wastewater treatment plant capacity. Table 4-1 compares the City portion of wastewater treatment plant asset values for the four valuation approaches. Table 4-1 City Portion of Wastewater Treatment Plant Value Original Cost Replacement Line Less Replacement Cost Less No. Fixed Asset Original Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 1 L/EWWTP $ 43,629 ,042 $ 19,745,680 $ 87 ,829 ,825 $ 32,658,581 2 LIE WWTP Expansion 56,500,000 56,500,000 56,500,000 56,500,000 3 Subtotal $ 100, 129,042 $ 76,245,680 $ 144,329,825 $ 89 , 158 ,581 4 Less WWTP Replacement ($11,871,209) ($11,871,209) ($11,871,209) ($11,871,209) 5 Less Grants (9,209,268) (721,000) (28,902,051) (721,000) 6 Total Value $ 79,048,565 $ 63,653,471 $ 103,556,565 $ 76,566,372 4.4. System Capacity Red Oak assumed the capacity requirements of a 3/4-inch meter represent the capacity requirements of one capacity unit. The 3/4-inch meter is commonly used for new single family residential connectors and represents the majority of water meters in service. Capacity units for all other meter sizes are the product of number of customers for each meter size and each meter size's respective capacity ratio. The wastewater treatment plant capacity is sufficient to serve projected population at build-out without any additional expansions . The City owns 50 % (25 mgd) of the Littleton/Englewood wastewater treatment plant capacity . . • . .. .. RE City of Englewood , Colorado CONSULTING 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study A OIYHIOJll or .. .u ·ou1 """'" 6149004 Section 4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee Red Oak estimated wastewater flo w per capacity unit using City planning data from the 2003 Wastewater Treatment Plant Utility Plan and Site Application Report. The wastewater flow per capacity unit of 255 gpd is the product of 85 gallons per capita per day for a 3/4-inch meter and 3 persons per household. Table 4-2 shows the calculation of the number of capacity units that can be served by the wastewater treatment plant. System capacity of 98,000 is the quotient of the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant and the demand of one capacity unit. Table 4-2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity Line No. Description Calculation 1 Capacity (City portion) of Wastewater Treatment Plant(gpd) 25,000,000 2 Wastewater Flow per Capacity Unit (gpd) 255 3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity (Capacity Units) 98,000 4.5. Fee Calculation The proposed wastewater treatment plant connection fee for a capacity unit is the quotient of the total system value and capacity units of the system. Financing costs are included in the total system value and are equal to the net present value of growth-related interest payments related to the 2004 CWRPDA loan. Table 4-3 shows the wastewater treatment plant connection fee calcu lation for a capacity unit. • • • • .. RE CONSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Line No. 1 2 3 4 5 Section 4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee Table 4-3 Development of Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee per Capacity Unit Original Cost Replacement Less Replacement Cost Less Description Original Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation Total WWTP Value $ 79,048,565 $ 63,653,471 $103,556 ,565 $76,566,372 NPV of Existing Debt Service 8,084,272 8,084,272 8,084,272 8,084,272 Interest Payments Total System Value $ 87,132,837 $ 71,737,743 $111,640,837 $ 84,650,644 Existing System Capacity-Capacity 98,000 98,000 98,000 98,000 Units Connection Fee, $ 890 $ 730 $ 1,140 $ 860 per Capacity Unit Table 4-4 compares existing and proposed wastewater treatment plant connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982. Proposed connection fees for each meter size are the product of the connection fee per capacity unit (3/4-inch meter) and the meter capacity ratio. Table 4-4 Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fees AWWA Proposed Fees Meter Original Replacement Meter Existing Capacity Original Cost Less Replacement Cost Less Size Fees Ratios Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 5/8" $ 1,400 0.66 $ 590 $ 490 $ 760 $ 570 3/4" 1,400 1.00 890 730 1,140 860 1" 2,333 1.67 1,480 1,220 1,900 1,430 1W' 4,667 3.33 3,000 2,400 3,800 2,900 2" 7,467 5.33 4,700 3,900 6,100 4,600 3" 14,932 10.67 9,500 7,800 12,200 9,200 4" 23,332 16.67 14,800 12,200 19,000 14,300 6" 46,667 40.00 35,600 29 ,200 45,600 34,400 Red Oak recommends the City annually review and adjust its wastewater treatment plant connection fees to reflect changes in cost inflation, system capacity, and capacity unit service characteristics . . • • • • .. RE~ CONSULTING City of Englewood, Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 5. Mixed Use Connection Fees 5.1. Background Mixed use developments have multiple intended purposes within a single structure and typically include a combination of multifamily residential and commercial customers. Although the City presently has relatively few mixed use customers, growth in this type of development is likely . The City's current connection fee structure is based on meter size, which may not equitably assess new mixed use connectors for their capacity requirements. Red Oak has developed connection fees that recognize the capacity requirements of mixed use customers served by a single connection. 5.2. Proposed Fees Proposed mixed use fees are consistent with the proposed meter size, single use connection fees using replacement cost less depreciation asset values. The mixed use fees consist of two components: • Multifamily fee based on number of dwelling units • Commercial fee based on the number of fixture units Table 5-1 shows proposed multifamily mixed use connection fees . The fees consist of a minimum fee and three fee tiers that are based on the number of dwelling units. Dwelling Units Base Fee Unit Fee First 4 units Next 30 units Over 34 units • . . . RE ]]) CONSULTING .. Table 5-1 Proposed Multifamily Mixed Use Connection Fee Sewer Wastewater Water Collection $ 2,920 $ 460 Per Unit Per Unit 400 70 350 50 220 40 City of Englewood , Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Treatment $ 760 Per Unit 100 80 70 Total $ 4 , 140 Per Unit 570 480 330 Section 5 Mixed Use Connection Fees • Table 5-2 shows the development of commercial mixed use connection fees. The fees consist of a minimum fee and four fee tiers that are based on the number of fixture units. Fixture Units Base Fee Unit Fee First 25 fixture units Next 65 fixture units Next 160 fixture units Over 250 fixture units Table 5-2 Proposed Commercial Mixed Use Connection Fee Sewer Wastewater Water Collection Treatment $ 1,660 $ 265 $ 430 Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit 80 13 20 45 7 12 30 5 8 25 4 6 Total $ 2,355 Per Unit 113 64 43 35 Red Oak recommends the proposed mixed use connection fee be the greater of the following: • Sum of mixed use multifamily and commercial connection fees • Meter size based connection fee Table 5-3 shows examples of the proposed mixed use connection fee calculation for small, medium, and large connectors. The mixed use connection fee is greater than the meter size based fee for the small and larger customers. • • •• .. Table 5-3 Proposed Mixed Use Connection Fee Examples Mixed Use Meter Customer Size Small 3/4" Medium 1 1/2" Large 3" RE CONSULTING A OIYlllOlt or ...... LCOLlll '""'"'' Multifamily Commercial Calculated Dwelling Fixture Mixed Use Units Units Fee 2 4 $ 8,087 16 40 18,320 120 500 74,170 City of Englewood, Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Calculated Meter Size Fee $ 4,710 15 ,800 50,300 Proposed Mixed Use Fee $ 8,087 18,320 74 ,1 70 Date October 4, 2010 INITIATED BY Utilities Department A TT. 5 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item Subject City Ditch Crossing Agreement and Temporary Construction Easement -for First Church of Christ, 3701 S. Logan St. STAFF SOURCE Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION On September 8, 1998 City Council passed a Grant of City Ditch Easement for the First Church of Christ, Scientist at 3701 S . Logan St. On October 6, 2003 City Council passed a Construction Easement and License Agreement from the First Church of Ch rist, Scientist to allow the City to pipe the City Ditch. The Construction and License Agreement that was passed at the same time alloWed .-tHe«::hurch to install a river rock dry creek bed for landscaping purposes over the existing easenieht. r -'. ',·. •. , "':' '\ l ' ~ RECOMMENDED ACTION The Englewood Water and Sewer Board , at their September 21, 2010 meeting, recommended Council approval of the License -City Ditch Crossing Agreement and the Temporary · Construction Agreement for the First Church of Christ, Scientist at 3701 S. Logan St. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The property located at 3701 S. Logan St. is owned by the First Church of Christ, Scientist. The Church originally granted the City a 25 ' easement to pipe the City Ditch that runs through the front portion of their property, along S. Logan Street. This agreement was mutually beneficial in that the easement allowed the City to pipe the City Ditch and improve i,.yater flow . and in turn stabilize the church's front concrete porch which was being undermined -~Y ditch seepage. The attached Construction and License Agreement will allow the First Church of Christ to install a replacement electrical line and additional electrical line for construction of four bollard lights for the front of the church facing S. Logan St. Englewood will maintain their easement and the right to install, repair remove or relocate the City Ditch at any time deemed necessary. The License Agreement allows the . Fir?t Church of Christ, Scientist to install and maintain the electrical lines and bollard lights for the front of the church. The Licensee expressly assumes full and strict liability for any and all damages of every nature to person or property caused by the point or points where the Licensee performs any work in connection with the crossing provided by the Licensee . The City reserves the right.to make full use of the property necessary in the operation of the City Ditch. Englewood's City Attorney has reviewed the agreements. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS License Agreement and Construction Easement Bill for Ordinance LICENSE -CITY DITCH CROSSING AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of this day of ______ ,·ii_, by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, a municipal corporation of the State of Colora~o, herein referred to as "City", and f"1rdc.Jurvh ~fl/,risf; Sc.tta f/Sf herein referred to as "Licensee". WITNESSETH: The City without any warranty of its title or interest ,whatsoever, hereby authorizes Licensee, its suc~e~sor , assigns, to install a 4 &/12,u/L 'rJ), fs dnJ.e_ /u_,,fc ,· k al {4/Lr I ht over the City's rights-of-way for he City Ditch, described as a parcel of land situated in the _ Wvne.fka. fle'.Jbfs 5uhit'v/1un1 ofSection_:3 _____ _ Tow'nship_ 5" S"vth Range 4?g We .sf-of the (, :fl1 P .M., County of Arapahoe , State of Colorado described as follows: /I ~5 roof JAl10E DJ"Tc.)J, Loe.II TE_[) /)J i."T.J .t// Tfl.R~vG/f 1~ '{3LCJ~k '-I aF W6YNETK4 f/EJCftf/75 5VBf)/vl.fit!JN, 7J/££A5T R.lr;Hr-t!JF-WfiY !3£1.Nc:, 1 F££T £/ISTOF/J.AlfJ ·r11& WE5T Rfc,;1r- tJF-VVllY 8£1).14 o/ FEET WE.Si eJF /l#O P,,t1f?IU..Lt=L ~ -r/IF CENffRLIN£ OF S/1-/0 D1rcll The above-described parcel contains _..,.CJ._.,._/.....,'CJ"'--'-;2..-"-'f/ .......... c."'-'-r_e~S~----''~m=or~e~o=r~l=e=s=s. 1. Any construction contemplated or performed under this License shall comply with and conform to standards formulated by the Director of Utilities of the City and such construction shall be performed and completed according to the plans, consisting of one sheet, a copy of which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. , I ~ -----------------------so that the City may, in its discretion, inspect such operations. 3. Within thirty (3 ) days from the date of the commencement of construction of said __ _ R ·' , e,. ,,, t e Licensee shall complete such construction, p ace and maintain permanent, vis1 le markers, of a type and at such locationsas designated by the City's Director of Utilities, referring to the centerline of the installation and shall clear the crossing area of all construction debris and restore the area to its previous condition as near as may be reasonable . In the event the planing of the centerline markers and the clearing and restoration of the crossing area is not completed within the time specified, the City may complete the work at the sole expense of the Licensee. 4. The City shall have the right to maintain, install, repari, remove or relocate the City Ditch or any other of its facilities or installations within the City's rights-of-way, at any time and in such manner as the City deems necessary or convenient. The City reserves the exclusiv right to control all easements and installations . In the event the!/ /3,,// 4 rd " ' ' should interfere with any future use of the City's rights-of-way by the ity, the Licensee shall, upon request and at its sole expense, relocate , rearrange , or remove its installations so as not to interfere with any such use . 5. Any repair or replacement of any City inst a llation made necessary, in the opinion of the City's Director pf Utilities _!:iecause of the construction of the £ 8a!br</ if(& {r at;d Elu:.fc 1 c. ;z/ WJr 1 ng or ot er appurtenant installation thereof, shall be made at the sole expense of the Licensee . 6. The stipulation and conditions of this License shall be incorporated into contract specifications if the construction herein authorized is to be done on a contract basis . 7. The rights and privileges granted in this License shall be subject to prior agreements , licenses and/or grants, recorded or unrecorded, and it shall be the Licensee's sole responsibility to determine the existence of said documents or conflicting uses or installations. 8. The Licensee shall contact and fully cooperate with the City's personnel and the construction shall be completed without interference with any lawful, usual or ordinary flow of water through the City Ditch. Licensee shall assume all risks incident to the possible presence of such waters, or of storm waters, or of surface waters in the City Ditch. 9. All trenches or holes within the City's rights-of-way shall be backfilled and tamped to the original ground line in layers not to excee six (6) inches loose measure to a compaction of ninety percent (90%) Standard Proctor Maximum Density. 10. Licensee , by acceptance of this License, expr4essly assumes full and strict liability for any and all damages of every nature to person or property caused by water from the ditch leaking through the ditch banks or pipeline at the point or points where the Licensee performs any work in connection with the crossing provided by this License. The Licensee assumes all responsibility for maintenance of the installation. 11. Licensee shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers and employees, against any and all claims, damagtes, acctions or causes Qf action and ~enses to which it or t?er may be subjected by reason of said /./ /kl/df'tf I J!t ff <tnE/.:&fcfc2.j Mr1nj . being within and across and under the premises of the City or by reason of any work done or omission made by Licensee, its agents or employees, in connection with the construction, replacement, maintenance or repair of said installation. 12. It is expressly agreed that in case of Licensee's breach of any of the within promises, the City may, at its option, have specific performance thereof, or sue for damages resulting from such breach. 13. Upon abandonment of any right or privilege herein granted, the right of Licensee to that extent shall terminate , but its obligation to indemnigy and save harmless the City, its officers and employees , shall not terminate in any event. In granting the above authorization, the City reserves the right to make full use of the property involved as may be necessary or convenient in the operation of the water works plant and system under the control of the City. -2- In granting the above authorization, the City reserves the right to make full use of the property involved as may be necessary or convenient in the operation of the water works plant and system under control of the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF this instrument has been executed as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD Stewart H. Fonda Director of Utilities City of Englewood Chairman Englewood Water and Sewer Board The undersigned officer of,6~ /!'/wrc,J /)£ Clzr/s~ 5?1~ nf,'$f foregoing License and agrees for an on behalf of said has read the ,_E,_,...1 r'"-'' :S ...... l ....... C.~h ..... tJ._rw~h~".......,_f_.,· C. ..... i~r_._t.,..sf,....,......5?~1~~~.11-1---f ...... l,..._5.._f ___________ that it will accept and will abide by all the terms and conditions thereof. LICENSEE: 15;5/f!lz11rcA a fCAc;st>' /~12/;s 1 By: fi/~.fl~ Title:;1k;/;/e11 a12 c e 4.j>Meec Address:,57?'1 $'; Ly::zo st Dz.;/ew~ ea <(uOl/12 ~p~ M ~. y comm1ss10n expires: NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF COLORADO My Commission Expires May 29, 2014 / - / / / / r_,.;-~~. :L(.,(:f'\ 1:\1'\~_ .. ELECTRICi,L W IRE E.ITl1!R UF DIRECT BUR/AL OR THHN PLUS CONDUIT __ IN A !El " 0£EP DITCH ----/ ----- OLD BOLLARD .,., LIGHT ::!).·~wrn __, ,, .. . T1= --~- 331 " I -+- I C HI IR l.H F AS T f N TRANC E ,, /\ '··,/'t \ ·v CO NC SLAB CONC. "WALK X · CITY OF ENGLEWOOD EA SEMENT LOCATIONS - ,, . --+~- --i - l ' I'' 25 2.. BOLLAA D LIGHT 3,-.!.• 4 ~ 1o'•D!A. e ;J.7"DUf'8A5f I ""i ~ / ', t_r---_,-,.--::-_ j -J I , •.. r :2 •'.f-' --~ -/ ,,,.---------,->f1 I -i -t_.J. -- / / / "CITY OF ENGLEWOOD I RRI GATION DITCH / / / / -,.. I i,O't!·f I J,-~'" i '''f . I j /f,.,J/ I I (:NC.IC:' __ .:'._:::: ,1, ------------- ------------ -------/---------------/ ------,,,.---/ CITY OF ENGLE.WOOD / /IRRIG ATI ON DITCH _.- -------/ / / // / / / / / / _..,,,.,- .I I ,,,.,,,,., ss'at-' 5s'10" -------/ / / <;ntJni l.OC.Af\I <;TREET I I I -•'1f' "4~ t I ,, L"' ' FtRSTC H URCH OFCHR IS T, S CIENTIST 3701 5 0LJTH LOGAN ST., ENGLEWOOD, COLORADC OCAL_,t "•/' ,-.. --·•-••· oAn :AuG.2.3,.lo i;, EAST YARD BOLLARD LIGHTS · t I 0-AWING ""' i I • LAND SURVEY PLAT OF A PORTION OF WYNETKA HEIGHTS SUBDIVISION BEING A PART OF THE N 1 /2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST, O F THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, ARAPAHOE COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET 2 OF 2 P.O .C. NW COR, SW -,7;o:-NE I /4 SEC. 3 T5S. R68W. 6 H1 PM FOUND NO . ~ REBAR NO CAP 3<'" 1s · BASIS or BEARING S ()..>>-~ FOUND CHISELED __ _ _ __ N 89"~7:~5:: E _____ 13~128 .(t.<) I / x· i ~ 30' ~C AL(' !' • 30" EA§.1 KEN'(9N ______ _ Joa 1Ja1 ac:.·rnhcb1~ ~nc'o~w?~0s~Af51gso -132 4'-(PLAT or. W'!'NETK L HE;GHT SJ° ___ _ AVENUE I , ::::---+ ....,-.~-,·,H , -~;,5J· 1 iR . • FOUND MON UMEN I AS SHOWN <OUND PROPERTY CORNER FOUND CH•SL EO "x" 0 SET NO ." REBAR & CAP LS NO . 93~q LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 s 44 ·~tf52" w 42.69' L2 s 89"07'35" w 64.39' u S 18"32°16" E 90.5D" L4 s 2D"l 3·59" w 41 .96' L5 s 23"16 °25" w 54.67" / / so· /: -' .._ Vl <.:>CD z er ~a ?'o ~ "' ~ z < a: CJ CJ) -------------------- ____ -~ 2 ~ ~·~L _____ q_~:CFD ___ _ a: ."' "' ie. ':~~ --·····-·-·· ·-·--·-·-· 1 t. ~ ~ INV. 36 - ~ ---l23 .64"(_~ ' ,,, 1~ 16 ' <r---· -------E 2 I L ..;:, !------ i-- 4 R()O(y ~UNT.4JN CONSULTANTS INC. .... c.. ' Vl" 'v ~ \:NOP< NAIL ---- ' --c:i -___.__ SET 5' 'i{I; · -~~ • NAIL & 9 3-•9 Q; "' LS NO . ' :--~ '(:_ ';j t, ! "o er .~1 ........ JO" 0 ~ a I/I~ ~· ~ ~ ~ ~ e:, ~ -0 V1 :>0 "' 1o'1 :--o ...-,... .,,;. ~ ~'j 5 ~ ~~" _w ~ ~I 0 Vl >--~o -0 "-'1'"} _.., er "' :--.. · "' ' wOC . ..., · ........ 0 .,.,..., z $-~ g - ------------,~ ---- '1- 1 W w 'a: 1- , "' :z '< . <!J ,0 . ...J :I: I- ::> 0 "' -~ r!(A()Wt.L L ,.~ .. I ----=-----------~ I N0.4 REBA ' ooa· t../o & 2 St' E/O PROP . COR SE COR. SW 1/4 . NE 1/4 ·------nfa,J ~gs.SR~~~AR6TH PM NO CAP =tmc DESIGNED BY· ·IR • RE\/1SIONS CHECl<ED BY: OP DESCRIPTION CML Ar.NO ENVIRONt.IEN'Tl.L ENCINE£R1HG • Pt>NNLNC 8JOI [. Pr•nlic• Av•. NO .I . I S!Jit• 101 ORA'M-4 BY: "'" .,._a.""°' [ngl•wood. CO 80111 (JOJ \ 741-6000 60' I O•TE J E I"""° I " TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT This Temporary Construction Easement (the Temporary Easement) is entered into this_ day of , 20f/D by and between the City of Englewood, Colorado, a municipal corporation of the state of Colorado, acting by the through its Water and Sewer Board (Granter) and Fir2IC A 11r<-h of Chcizi; ¥.1'e!z f/s¢ &z{le.w121Pc(C0, 3 7&! 5, L ey2 a Si; Eizjde. lt!t!l«ti; CCJ, St2110 ( Grantee . WHEREAS, The City of Englewood owns a right-of-way for the City Ditch, a carrier ditch (City Ditch ROW) which is located as described on Exhibit A. .;sc.fen f1.sf WHEREAS/)'es/Civcd12£Chi'5~ desires to install#4 B~Jla.t:c/ L ~A t~ ahd Wi c1 °;; within the City Ditch ROW pu suant to a license be een the parties. NOW, THEREFORE, In consideration of the mutual covenants of the parties, more particularly hereinafter set forth, the adequacy and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is agreed as follows: 1. Temporary Construction Easement. Englewood (as Granter) hereby grants tof-_,l:s/f'l11rGlaff'J,,..1sfSc!o,fisf(as Grantee), its successors, assigns, contractors, and sub-contractors, a non-exclusive temporary construction easement through, over, under and across the City Ditch ROW for the install~tion of# 11 BIP!lard L ':fJ,/i and'7he/r· Wl c t'!J pursuant to a licenseagreement (the Project). 2. Tenn of Easement. The Project will begin no sooner than.5'1 0 i112"'1Dand will be completed no later than . Completion of the roject will be deemed to have occurred upon inspection and approval of the Project by Grantor and this Temporary Easement will be deemed to have terminated upon such completion. 3. Access. Grantee shall have the temporary non-exclusive right to enter the City Ditch ROW for any reasonable purpose necessary or prudent for the construction of the Project subject to the following restrictions: 1) normal working hours shall be consistent with CDOT construction hours, Monday through Friday and 2) the operation of equipment and heavy trucks will be permitted on the Englewood City Ditch ROW only during normal working hours. 4. Restoration. Upon completion of the Project, Grantee will perform such restoration and regrading as is necessary or prudent to restore the surface area of the City Ditch ROW to its original condition. 5. Indemnification. Grantee, to the extent pennitted by the laws and constitution of the State of Colorado, hereby agrees to be liable and hold harmless the City of Englewood, its employees, tenants , and guests from any and all claims, causes of action, and liability which may occur as a result of the negligent or wrongful acts of Grantee in the construction of the Project, including the cost of defending against such claims. 6. Liability. Grantee hereby acknowledges that it understands that there is water flow in the City Ditch from April l to November l of each year and that it will assume liability for any damage to adjoining property caused by water flow resulting from damage to the City Ditch caused by the Grantee 's construction activities . 7. Insurance. Grantee shall maintain in full force and effect a valid policy of insurance fo r the Project in the amount of $600,000.00 property coverage and $600,000.00 liability coverage. Grantee further agrees that all its employees, contractors and sub-contractors working on the Project shall be covered by adequate Workers Compensation insurance. 8. Assignment. This Temporary Construction Easement is assignable only with the written permission of Englewood, which permission will not unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this temporary construction Easement on the date and day first written above. In granting the above authorization, the City reserves the right to make full use of the property involved as may be necessary or convenient in the operation of the water works plant and system under control of the City. IN WITNESS WHEREOF this instrument has been executed as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD Stewart H. Fonda Director of Utilities City of Englewood Chairman Englewood Water and Sewer Board The undersigned officer of 6ts iC,/;11rc/i "£ Chc:.s? Sc.1'e.a l £i foregoing License and agrees for an on behalf of said has read the ,,_£µr_,.,.5_,_f ..._C-1-1-bJLJ.11r__,,,e-~h'-"1J'-1-f--1.C,,....ALI..Lr_,_i41-.l5 t'+--"5'-"'~:..L..;-e=a~fl-L-;.-£..5 .;L_f __________ that it will accept and will abide by all The terms and conditions thereof. LICENSEE: Title:/lJ!i/11./-e-h 211c c:_ ~in ee r Address: 3 7~1 5, Lt'PJ4L1 St. LJ/)e_ k!Mct; co <Dt?l/Q Phone: 30r 78 -3 -3~3-'614-'6'?71 My Commission Expires May 29, 2014 / - / / / / .. r,,.;-.."~. :LG CK 1.'\A~~-· ELEC.TRICH WIRE £/THE~ UF DIRECT BURIAL OR THHN PLUS CONDUIT __ IN A 10" OEEP DITCH ---/ ------- OLD BOLLARD C HI IRl.H F AST F. NTR ANCE -,,, I \ ·,,/ ~ v CO NC. SLAB -:::z'!:' LIGHT .. ~~~-I CONC ·wALH T•-~0 -, ---1 .33¥" I I I I -.+- -- EJOl.LARD I IGHT 3 1 '.(;" 4@ lo'•O/A. :>.?"OUPBASE X · CITY OF ENGLEWOOD EASEMENT LOCATIONS - ./ --f'---1· 11·1 ~ / "L~ / ' I -...---"" -y - --j , ,,, 25 2.-; :2•:r I I 2 .,,···i-"" _.,,.--~ / / ,........-,...-, .• I ,-:t-r I '''£' : I -·-t-J. --. I / / 'CITY OF ENGLEWOOD IRRIGATION DITCH / / / -,.,,,,.,- 40'11., I J-r~, .. . I I J1i 11 / ~ ------ / / ss'sF ,.I I I ~s ·1 0" / / ,.,,,,.,- <;n1JTll l.OC.A/\I <;TAHT I -•'1f' I "4--x-f I ,, L" ' / / C: NC. I:'_.: '.:::. A " - ------ _,.--------------,,...,- -/--~ / /- / / CITY OF ENGLE.WOOD -- -- ,.,,,,.,-IRRIGATION DITCH _.--,,,---- / /- / / / / / / / F !R STCHVRCH OFC.HRIST, SC!eNTIST 3701 50UTH LOGAN sr, ENGLEWOOD, CDLORADC >OCAL" f "•I ' I •-O•<O•" fg? o .... n::AuG.23,.J.oio 1tcv..:o EAST YARD BOLLARD LIGHTS t "'T CMllAWIHC N~ I I • LAND SURVEY PLAT OF A PORT ION OF WYNETKA HEIGHTS SUBDIVIS ION BEING A PART OF THE N 1 /2 OF THE SW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUT H, RANGE 68 WEST, OF THE SIXTH PRI NCIPAL MERIDIAN, CIT Y OF ENGLEWOOD, ARAPAHOE COU NTY, STATE OF COLORADO SHEET 2 OF 2 P.O.C. NW COR. -'f/N >A-NE 1/• SEC. 3 T5S . R68W. 6 TH PM FOUND NO. ~ REBAR NO CAP ]l1' I C\' BASIS OF BEARING S C}>J... ~ FOUND CHISELED ·-__ ·-_ N_ 89"()7"~5~: E ·-__ 13~1.W"(M) I / x· ! ~ •o· SC ALE ' l' = 30" Jos 'Jd .. 6<?..rnhcbb\ ~p;c'D~w?~DsW¥'s,gso 1324'-(PLAT Of" WYNETKt HE;GHTS) ·--· I , ::: -=--+ 3~ ~~:1 1~. AV_ENUE l;_A~T KE_N'(9N _____ _ • FOUND MONuMEN T AS SHOWN ~OUNO PROPERTY CORNER FOUND CHt5LED -x- 0 SET NO .~ P[8AR & CAP LS NO . 93c9 LINE BEARING DISTANCE L1 s •··~e·52" w 42 .69" L2 s s9·o"i' J5"" w 64.39" L3 s 18"32'16" [ 90.50' L4 s 20"13'59"" w 4\.96' L5 s 23"16'25'" w 54.67' / / 60" /: ~ ... Vl '-'CD zo: :;;a )'O t-en 1-z < a: CJ ct) ---------------------~2~~·~L ____ ,~5:(Rj ___ _ "' "' ~ ~! !:.. ····---·-·--·-· --. j ~. ~ 9s. INV. 36- ~ .. --,,_-=._i_2J ._§~'_(!-<j____ ( ID\~ 16' a> t a i--·-- ..!f. "• 1----- .i _; 4 T.P.O.B. CHURCH >-! I I ..!<_· IN \". ROCKY r.IOUNTAIN CONSULT.t.NTS INC. "' "'· ' VJ' " ~ '\..: P>< NAIL ~ w l SET 5' ·vs . ~--..,... NAIL & g~~9 Q; ..: LS NO. • ::--~ :<:'. '2l ~· ~,;€ 0 JD' ~ 0 ., 1:1 Vl~ .... 9( ~ ~ ~~ ~ -o Vl ::l;O ""l 1.n :-O ..... r-"';;: :i :;d ~ ~ ~z'' _w~ '--:i: 0 Vl ?: 0 -0 ._.,., _..., Q; "' ~rl• wOC =-~ 0 .,,,.,., z -~-~ 0 -0 . : 1- : W w . a: 1-. en :z ·~ . (!) 0 . ....J r I- :> 0 Cl) ........_____ .~ ---"'·-~ rlUDW•Ll. ~·~~~ . I ' N0.4 REBh • 008" "/O & 2.51' E /O PROP . COR SE COR, SW 1/4 . NE 1/4 • SEC . J T5S, R68W, 6TH PM FOUND NO . 5 REBAR NO CAP DESIGNED BY· .,,., R(V1SlONS =tmc CH(CK(O BY: OP DESCRIPTION NO.I CML ANO ENVIRONMENT "L ENClN(£RIHG • F\.N-IN1HC 8.)01 E. Prentice ,,...,e . . I Suite 10 1 ORA°M'I BY: VRI 04N« 0.. AUON Englewood, CO 60111 fJOl) Hl-61X>O I DATE J 8 l""""I" A Tl. t;, MEMORANDUM To: Stu Fonda, Utilities Director From: John Bock, Utilities Manager of Administration Date: August 9, 2010 Subject: Water and Sewer Service Rate Comparisons Attached to this memo is the comparison of water and sewer service rates as requested by Council. As can be seen, Englewood's rates are in the low range among metro area providers . The report consists of summary sheets for water and sewer. Because the water rates proved to be far more complex than the sewer fees, the water rate detail sheets are also included. All supporting data was collected from each service provider's internet web site. Water rates vary widely across the metro area and are greatly influenced by the number of gallons a customer uses . For this reason four different monthly consumptions are presented: 6,000 per month, 12,000 gallons per month, 22,000 gallons per month and 35,000 gallons per month. The effect of the various rate tier structures can be seen as the monthly consumption increases . It will be noted that Englewood 's outside city sewer customers pay less than the inside city customers. The difference is the sewer main maintenance fee component of the inside city rate. What is not shown here is the maintenance charge most of our outs ide city customers pay to their respective sanitation districts. Also, the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District, which t r eats sewage from inside Denver, has not as yet constructed the upgrades to their treatment plant which were recently completed at the Littleton/Englewood Plant. I am available to answer any questions . Water Rate Comparisons Water Rate Comparisons Based on a Usage of 6,000 Gallons Based on a Usage of 12,000 Gallons Per Per Month Month Water Provider Monthly Charge Water Provider Monthly Charge Longmont Inside $ 16.57 Denver Inside $ 32 .41 Denver Inside $ 18 .24 Arvada $ 37 .95 Arvada $ 20.43 Denver Outside $ 39.25 Northglenn $ 21.10 Longmont Inside $ 39.85 Denver Outside $ 21 .12 Englewood Inside $ ~ Englewood Inside $ 21.71 l Northglenn $ 41 .20 Westminster Inside $ 22 .30 Thornton Inside $ 42 .51 Thornton Inside $ 22 .83 Westminster Inside $ 44.14 Westminster Shaw Hts $ 24.51 Broomfield $ 45 .20 Longmont Outside $ 24.87 Westminster Shaw Hts $ 48.51 Highlands Ranch Winter $ 27.80 Parker $ 52 .04 Highlands Ranch Summer $ 27 .80 Highlands Ranch Winter $ 54.08 Westminster Outside $ 27 .86 Englewood Outside $ 55.10 Broomfield $ 28.40 Westminster Outside $ 55 .16 Englewood Outside $ 29.00 I Castle rock $ 55 .40 Castlerock $ 29 .96 Lakewood $ 58 .07 Lakewood $ 34 .03 Longmont Outside $ 59.83 Thornton Outside $ 34 .25 Highlands Ranch Summer $ 61.95 Parker $ 38 .60 Thornton Outside $ 63 .77 Arvada Outside City $ 40 .87 Aurora $ 75 .30 Aurora $ 43 .68 Arvada Outside City $ 75 .91 Water Rate Comparisons Water Rate Comparisons Based on a Usage of 22,000 Gallons Based on a Usage of 35,000 Gallons Per Per Month Month Water Provider Monthly Charge Water Provider Monthly Charge Longmont Inside $ 64.47 Broomfield $ 109 .60 Englewood Inside $ 71 .47 Longm ont Inside $ 111.01 Arvada $ 72.19 Englewood Inside $ 111.901 Broomfield $ 73.20 Thornton Inside $ 134.35 Denver Inside $ 75 .21 Arvada $ 137.81 Thornton Inside $ 75 .31 Denver Inside $ 140.62 Parker $ 79 .08 Parker $ 151.36 Northglenn $ 81.94 Northglenn $ 151.75 Highlands Ranch Winter $ 83 .08 Westminster Inside $ 154.11 Westminster Inside $ 84.04 Englewood Outside $ .ill:ill Denver Outside $ 91.05 Longmont Outside $ 166 .60 Westminster Shaw Hts $ 92 .35 Westminster Shaw Hts $ 169 .31 Longmont Outside $ 96 .79 Lakewood $ 170.59 Englewood Outside $ 98.60 Denver Outside $ 171.34 Highlands Ranch Summer $ 101 .4 5 Highlands Ranch Winter $ 187.48 Lakewood $ 104 .47 Westminster Outside $ 192.51 Westminster Outside $ 105 .02 Thornton Outside $ 201.53 Thornton Outside $ 112 .97 Aurora $ 207.46 Castlerock $ 117 .40 Castle rock $ 208 .92 Aurora $ 129 .46 Highlands Ranch Summer $ 243 .65 Arvada Outside City $ 144.53 Arvada O utside City $ 275 .93 Sewer Rate Comparison (using information available on each city's internet site) Based on Single Family Home with a 3/4 " Meter and one month typical winter water consumpt ion . 6 ,000 Per Month Billing Period Denver Inside Monthly Englewood Outs ide• Annual Broomfield Monthly Lakewood Bi -Monthly Englewood Inside • Quarterly Thornton Inside Monthly Aurora Mont hly Northglenn Mont hly Highlands Ranch Bi-Monthly Longmont Monthly rvada Inside City Bi-Monthly rvada Outside City Bi-Monthly Westm inster Inside Monthly Westminster Shaw Hts Monthly Thornton Outside Monthly Westminster Outside Monthly Castlerock Monthly ,_P_ar_ke_r ______ _.Monthly Months in Billing Period 1 12 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Typical MonthlyWinter Average Service Charge Charge Per 1000 Gallons Minimums Consumption $ $ $ .$ $ $ $ 7.4 0 $ $ $ $ $ $ 2 .97 S.8S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 19.28 $ 7 .29 $ 2.44 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 2.44 8 .78 7 .04 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.95 $ 10.68 2.34 $ 187 .51 2 .76 $ 11 .04 2 .18 $ 2.65 $ 50 .69 2 .22 $ 2 .73 $ 3 .31 $ 9 .93 2 .35 $ 2.46 $ 3.48 $ 3.48 $ 4 .03 $ 4 .03 $ 3.33 $ 5 .03 $ 5 .35 $ 56 .93 $ 56.93 6 .0 6.0 6 .0 6.0 6.0 6 .0 6 .0 6 .0 4.5 6 .0 6 .0 6 .0 6 .0 6 .0 6.0 6 .0 6 .0 1 0 $ Normal Bill (Monthly, Bi -Monthly Monthly or Annual) Bill 11 .70 $ $ 187.57 $ $ 16.56 $ $ 33.56 $ 11.70 187.57 16.56 33.56 50 .69 19.17 19.35 19.86 40.43 22 .05 44.20 44.20 24.18 24.18 28.76 30.18 39.14 56.93 $ 11.70 $ 15.63 $ 16.56 $ 16.78 $ 16.90 $ 19 .17 $ 19.35 $ 19.86 $ 20.22 $ 22.05 $ 22 .10 $ 22 .10 $ 24 .18 $ 24.18 $ 28.76 $ 30.18 $ 39.14 $ 56 .93 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 50.69 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 19.17 19.35 19 .86 40.43 22 .05 44.20 44.20 24.18 24.18 28 .76 30.18 39.14 56.93 Sewer Rate Comparison (using information available on each city's internet site) Based on Single Family Home with a 3/4 " Meter and one month typical winter water consumption . 7 ,000 Per Month Denver Inside Englewood Outside • Englewood Inside • Lakewood Broomfield Thornton Inside Aurora Highlands Ranch Northglenn Longmont Inside Arvada Inside City Arvada Outside City Westminster Inside Westminster Shaw Hts hornton Outside Westminster Outside Castle rock Parker Billing Period Monthly Annual Quarterly Bi -Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi -Monthly Monthly Monthly Bi -Monthly Bi-Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Months in Billing Period 2 12 3 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Typical Monthly Winter Average Service Charge Charge Per1000 Gallons Minimums Consumption $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 7 .40 $ $ 5.85 $ 2.97 $ 19.28 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 7 .29 2 .44 2 .44 8 .78 7 .04 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1.95 $ 10.68 2.34 $ 187 .51 2.65 $ 50.69 2 .18 $ 2 .76 $ 11 .04 2 .22 $ 2 .73 $ 2 .35 3 .31 $ 9.93 2.46 $ 3 .48 $ 3.48 $ 4 .03 $ 4 .03 $ 3 .33 $ 5.03 $ 5.35 $ 56 .93 $ 56.93 7 .0 7 .0 7.0 7 .0 7 .0 7.0 7 .0 5.5 7 .0 7 .0 7 .0 7 .0 7 .0 7 .0 7 .0 7 .0 7.0 1 0 Normal Bill (Monthly, Bi -Monthly Monthly or Annual) Bill $ 27 .30 $ $ 187.57 $ 27 .30 187 .57 55 .62 37.92 19 .32 21 .39 22.08 45 .13 23 .17 24.51 51.16 51 .16 28 .21 28 .21 32.09 35.21 44.49 56.93 $ 13.65 $ 15.63 $ 18.54 $ 18.96 $ 19.32 $ 21.39 $ 22.08 $ 22.57 $ 23 .17 $ 24 .51 $ 25 .58 $ 25 .58 $ 28 .21 $ 28.21 $ 32.09 $ 35.21 $ 44.49 $ 56 .93 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 55.62 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 37.92 19.32 21 .39 22.08 45 .13 23 .17 24.51 51.16 51.16 28 .21 28 .21 32.09 35.21 44.49 56 .93 * NOTE : Why do inside Englewood customers pay more than outside Englewood customers? Inside customers pay for sewage treatment and sewer main cleaning and maintenance . Outside Englewood customers are charged for sewage treatmen t only, but are charged for sewer main cleaning and ma intenance by their sanitation districts. /~ 7 7 1 7 STATE OF COLORl\DO Bill Ritter, Jr ., Governor Martha E. Rudolph, Execut ive Director Dedicated to protecting and improv ing the health and environmen t of the peop le of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd . Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692-3090 Located in Glendale, Colorado http ://www .cdphe .state .co .us August 20 , 20 l 0 Jason Clark City of Englewood -Allen Water Treatment Plant 1500 West Layton Avenue Englewood , CO 80126 Subject: Notification of Bronze Environmental Achievement Award Dear Mr. Clark: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment I am writing to announce and congratulate City of Englewood -Allen Water Treatment Plant for being nominated and awarded a Bronze Environmental Achievement Award from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (the department). The Bronze tier of the department's Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) is the entry-level tier that recognizes the voluntary and significanfenvironmental achievements of Colorado businesses , organizations and state and local government agencies . Earlier this year, Nicole Graziano of the department nominated City of Englewood -Allen Water Treatment Plant for its sustainability achievements . As a Bronze level member of the ELP, the department will publicly recognize the voluntary environmental achievements of City of Englewood -Allen Water Treatment Plant at the department 's annual fall awards event, and throughout the next year . In addition , the program offers a number of incentives as a reward for achieving environmentally beneficial results such as use of the Bronze member logo and participation in the awards event. Again , welcome to the Environmental Leadership Program . I encourage you to contact Lynette Myers, Administrator of the Environmental Leadership Program at (303) 692-3477 or lynette .myers @state.co.us at any time with questions you may have related to the program. Martha E. Rudolph Executive Director cc: Jeff Lawrence , Division of Environmental Health and Sustainability Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP ATTORN.EYS & COUNSE:~T 1712 Pearl Street • Boulder, C<>)yrad~ ~9302 ·:' Tel: 303.402.1600 • Fax: 3,p~~02.1601 ·' David G. Hill Partner Daniel L. Brotzman, Esq. City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110-0110 Re: July Invoice Dear Dan: bhgrlaw.comf' , August 10, 2010 L'A-W ' '· A 77. 8 clgh @ bhgrlaw .com Enclosed please find our invoices for professional services on water matters for July 1, 2010, through July 31, 2010, in the amount of $61,437.29, with a total for the year of $308,285.57. Our computer-generated summary is not accurate as to the matters included in this billing. We have included explanations for those matters which have recorded time, whether billed or written off. The amount for this billing cycle on major cases of particular significance is listed below: I Name I Amount I No. I Main Burlington Appeal (09SA133) $ 53,737.15 722 FRICO/United/ECCV (02CW404 & 03CW442) Change 345.00 504 & 603 Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project 647.77 720 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. Daniel L. Brotz man August 10 , 2010 Page 2 The bill for this month is very large. In light of that , I have written the bill down by $16.981 .55. That includes a write off of all my time spent on Englewood matters during July (i .e., I will forego my pay for the July work) and a significant write down of time spent by others. The only bill for July of serious consequence is for the drafting of the answer brief in the appeal of the FRI CO/United/East Cherry Creek victory. If you will recall, the significance of that case to Englewood is this: The FRICO/Burlington rights, which in this case were being changed from agricultural to municipal, had been grossly and unlawfully expanded over many years. The record keeping was so poor (possibly deliberately) that it is difficult to say how much water was being taken illegally; but clearly it was a lot. The over-diversions injured Englewood's McLellan right every year, and the over-diversions were so large that they probably injured Englewood's key Union Avenue rights in drought years. The McLellan right is essential, first because it provides "clean" water from Chatfield Reservoir which can be used to solve Englewood's hardness problem, second because McLellan provides a "drought reserve," and third because some of the McLellan water is frequently sold to Centennial. The results we achieved at the trial court level were quite significant. The Judge cut the 1885 Burlington storage right essentially in half; and that's the most senior storage right on the South Platte River. The Burlington direct flow right was cut from 350 cfs to 200 cfs; and other rights were cut back as well. (Before trial, Englewood and Aurora, the main "players," had offered a settlement which was far, far better to the Applicants than what the Judge held at trial; but the settlement offer was turned down.) The trial court ruling was of course very damaging to the FRICO/Burlington shareholders, hence a very agitated and extensive appeal. Although perhaps not important to the appeal, the disappointed shareholders forced appointment of new counsel to handle the appeal, and the manager of the FRI CO /Burlington system has resigned. For better or for worse (some of each), the Englewood appeal has to be coordinated with the other main participants on our side of the appeal, namely Aurora, Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, Public Service Company, the State Engineer, and to an extent Denver. As a result, counsel for all those parties (except Denver) had to agree upon the "statement of facts" which is the opening portion of the brief. Englewood did the initial drafting, and received comments from all the other counsel. Sometimes those comments were indeed helpful , and they were always meant to be helpful, but sometimes they added significant difficulty to the drafting, and in every instance there had to be communication with the lawyer making suggestions. Sometimes those communications were very lengthy before agreement could be reached. Daniel L. Brotzman August 10, 2010 Page 3 Finally, in the "argument" portion of the brief, agam comments were received from co-counsel, and communications followed. As I have advised before, the trial consumed essentially three weeks, and every statement of facts in the brief has to be supported by a citation to the transcript of testimony or an exhibit admitted by the trial Judge. Poring through the transcript to obtain proper citations was very time consuming. The answer brief has now been filed. The consequential remaining effort in the case will be the reply brief on the Metro Pumps issue, which should be far simpler. The next two largest significant billings for July were work on the ongoing FRICO change cases, which deal with diversions into Milton Reservoir, which again impacts McLellan, and work on the Chatfield Reservoir storage reallocation. The latter includes the efforts to get Denver to make releases from Chatfield Reservoir which would resolve the hardness problem. There are other slightly larger bills, but those are on matters which I expect ultimately will settle. 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 pmiicular matter. In other instances, the time spent on any individual matter is not large enough to justify a separate bill, but the time on the group of matters is significant. This includes charges related to general calendaring, reviewing various daily incoming pleadings and correspondence, overall case management and other activities that are not case specific. It usually includes preparation of many statements of opposition. 2. City Ditch Municipal Use (#166): This matter will encompass the research being made into the proof of Englewood's entitlement to dive1i on the 1860 City Ditch decree, which was originally decreed for irrigation. We researched an additional case and legal issues to update the research memo on the history of City Ditch. 3. Not-nontributaiy Application (89CW062) (#187): This application was Englewood's application to increase the amount divertable under its not-nontributary well rights near McLellan Reservoir. We reviewed file information, discussed case and discussed same with our water engineers . 4. Colorado Division of Wildlife (90CW123) (#215): Applicant seeks 75 acre-feet of storage in Chatfield Reservoir for fish, wildlife and maintenance of storage reserve . It also seeks augmentation and exchange rights for replacement of depletions the Chatfield Fish Unit. Englewood c /177. 9 T y 0 F E N G LEWOOD MEMORANDUM TO: Englewoo~ C~tt::r;il Stewart Fo1Wi:rniFctor of Utilities FROM: DATE: September 15, 2010 RE: 2010 Ballot Measures: Amendments 60 and 61 Since 1876, Colorado's constitution has provided that public property is exempt from taxation. Amendment 60 would require municipal utilities to pay property taxes. Amendment 61 would limit the term of bonds to ten years, limiting the ability to issue long-term bonds and more evenly distributing future infrastructure costs. The City of Englewood is a city of approximately 32,000. Englewood's water and sewer facilities are funded from billing 10,815 inside City water and sewer accounts and 33,000 outside sewer accounts. The sewer service area serves about 125,000 population from the Valley Highway to Broadway and from Englewood to Highlands Ranch . The attached chart, "Estimated Property Taxes for City of Englewood Utilities Department Properties ," shows the estimated value of each parcel and the respective facilities, along with the estimated property tax that would be assessed by the county. The Utilities Department's facilities that could be taxed under the proposed Amendments 60 and 61 would include the Allen Water Treatment Plant, water tanks and storage reservoirs, the Englewood/Littleton Wastewater Treatment Plant and the farmland in Byers used for biosolids application, along with the McLellan and Meadow Creek Reservoirs. The Meadow Creek property is 148 acres in Grand County, in a prime real estate area. McLellan Reservoir is 251 acres in a progressively developing area. These facilities are used to produce our source water , water treatment and sewerage treatment. 1000 Englewood Parkway Engle woo d, Colorado 80110 Phone 303-762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org If amendment 60 passes this could mean $7,275,963 in property taxes that must be paid by the City of Englewood Water Fund and $2,380,263 by the Sewer Fund. Cash flow projections show revenues from water service charges at $6,735,380 and from sewer service charges at $14,016,782 for 2012. If these amendments pass, it therefore, would require substantial rate increases, without improvement in service or infrastructure upgrades. In the Water Fund this would result in a calculated increase of about 108%, meaning that rates would be about double current rates. In the Sewer Fund this would result in an increase of about 17%. These results are at best crude estimates that indicate the range of property taxes that might be paid. It means rate increases could be between 50% and 150% in the Water Fund as opposed to an increase in the rates by four or five times. In the Sewer Fund it means that rate increases will be between 10% and 30% as opposed to doubling. PROCESSES AND BLDGS PRJOR TO PHASE IA CONSTRUCTION (1990) Number , .!tern ·Unit Cos t Estimated ReeJacen1ent Cost I Headworl<s Bldg -Structure na ··s,2so,ooo 2 Grit Tanks 390 ;0QO 7so.ooo 4 . Pdn1ary Clarifier Tanks 775 ,000 3;100,~oo 5 Aeration Basins s~s.ooo · ,. ?,675 ,000 5 .· Secondary Clarifiers .. l,425,00Ci " 7 125 0'00 ' ~ .. 3 · Chlorine.Cpntact Tanks ". 600 .cioo ·. 1,.800,0.0.0 . . -~. .. . . 4 Digester ra~ks . .. 1,200,000 ~;80(),Q-00 1 Administration J3 idg na .. ,6,QQO,QOO · Sub-Total: · ·31,s6o;oool ~~ANSION PROJECTS . ·-·.;· ·.·. I, ;·. :.: . . . ·Year · ·· •· ~.·&oansion " · .: .. Oiiigina{Cosi ... · ·· · ENR Constructfon Cost Index.· · · .. -· Estimated20iff Revidcei1ierltC€>st · .. : ' , . . · 20o4 Pbase:2 ... · 1990 PhilSe IA , 10 000 000 : . .-:.'· ·.· .. '· .. . . . . 24i000,000 . . ' i 14 '000 -000 ,;•.:. .,, .. ,_ .. · i 997 Phase l~ ·. ·.··. . : .. · ·t:n· ' ·· ·· .·. < .·::,, .: sfs1s~661 L46 . ' ... · · · • : .34'923 i o1 . l:.W · · ':< :. ':· 1i6;jc;4}60 · ... :: .. ·· · ... ·L__;_· ..... · ,....;.. ·_· ...___;_ .. ....o-...-·· ..:.....:....su_b_~ T....;.. o. _ia_1: ..... __. _ _.___ .. ..;;..;. _ .. ~· ,_.:,. ·! ........ : .'""'"· .-...;.. .. ·~2_22...,.·. g_. ·~..;..;:~:...5-'-'~s I --.. : ' . ~. . ' . .J,, . - . . .. _:: :-',· ;::- . ·' ., ~ . .. . . ..... •, '.!. . ' UE WWTP LAND PROPERTY .·. . . . . :. . ' . . . . . · ... · ···:,;'. . / . . . :.i .. '. . ~-:' . ,· -· .. · .-: . . -; . iArea lac) · ·. · .. Arei:i · · · : Estimated Co# pe;..squateFeet . . .·· · .. · . ·" $4 ', . •''. :· .. ~· . ' .... ~--. : . ·.· .. ,. . . ' ~ .... -. . . . ·, .-. '·"· . ,.· .. : . •,: .·,.· .. ·LIE WWTP BIOSOLIDS LAND PROPERTY '. : ~ . . . . . .. : . . . . . . . . . . ·.' ' . . : . . .... .. · .. Site ·Area (acL . · · · . &timdtid Co.St , ' :. . ·. ·.·· . ·.·. ArapCty 6,611. .. :· 2;i4o '· · 433 . '·,, ·:.·· . . .. · .. .. .... ·, '. .·.. -·· . . TOT AL ltSTIMATBD l,iE. ASSETS VALUE~ . . . -. . '1 . . . •.. •·. ' .· 2_6'!,568~73• I Englewood's share equa1s $133,784~365.50 Estimated Property Taxes for City of Englewood Utilities Department Properties Facility Zuni Tank Sherman Tank (200,000 Gal) Overhead Storage (1-6 MG & 2-MG) Bear Creek Mclellan Reservoir Meadow Creek Reservoir Allen Filter Plant Total Water Fund LE WWTP Englewood Sewer Fund . ... Parcel Area 10,886 sq ft (0 .25 acre) 48,142 sq ft (1 .1 acre) 220,879 sq ft (5.1 acre) 88,014 sq ft (2 acre) 10,950,984 sp ft (251 acres) 6,446,880 sq ft (148 acres) 2,609,680 sq ft (60 acres) Facility Replacement Value Land Value Total Dollars $1,000,000 (2010 dollars) $43,544.00 ($4.00/sq ft) $ 1,043,544.00 $700,000 (2010 dollars) $192,568.00 ($4.00/sq ft) $ 892,568.00 $3,300,000 (1-3mg tank, 2003 dollars) $4,970,000 (1 -6mg tank, 2008 dollars) $883,516.00 ($4.00/sq ft) $ 9,153,516.00 None $352,056.00 ($4 .00/sq ft) $ 352,056.00 $194,000,000 $10,950,984.00 ($1 .00/sq ft) $ 204,950,984.00 $1,213,600.00 ($8,200/acre provided by Grand County $91,000,000 Assessor Office) $ 92,213,600.00 $60,000,000 $10,438,720.00 ($4.00/sq ft) S 70,438, 720.00 $ 133, 784,365.SO ·- Assessed Valuation (29%) Taxing Entity Mill Levy Tax $ 302,627.76 Englewood 61.351 $ 18,566 .52 $ 258,844.72 Englewood 61.351 $ 15,880.38 $ 2,654,519.64 Greenwood Village 66.429 $ 176,337.09 $ 102,096.24 Sheridan 60.28 $ 6,154.36 $ 59,435,785.36 Littleton 67 .415 $ 4,006,863.47 $ 26,741,944.00 Grand County 67.27 $ 1,798,930.57 $ 20,427,228.80 Englewood 61.351 $ 1,253,230.91 $ 7,275,963.30 s 38,797,466.00 Englewood 61.351 s 2,380,263 .34