HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-12 WSB AGENDA,
WATER & SEWER BOARD
AGENDA
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
5:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONF. ROOM
ENGLEWOOD CITY HALL
1. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2010 MEETING. (ATT. 1)
2. GUEST -JOHN GALLAGHER FROM RED OAK CONSULTING -
WATER& SEWER RATE CHANGES. (ATT. 2)
3. S. PLATTERNERIUNION AVE. BOAT CHUTE. (ATT. 3)
4. WORK TRUCK PURCHASE. (ATT 4)
5. ALLEN PLANT ULTRA VIOLET SYSTEM DESIGN . (ATT. 5)
6. CITY DITCH -HURON & OXFORD. (ATT. 6)
7. ARTICLE FROM YOUR HUB,"ENGLEWOOD WATER PLANT SPILL
PROBED, STAFF LAUDED ." (ATT . 7).
8. JTAC LUNCH PRESENTATION -"CAN YOUR WATER UTILITY BE
FINANCIALLY HEALTH IN STORMY TIMES?" (ATT. 8)
9 . WATER RIGHTS UPDATE DATED JANUARY 7, 2010. (ATT . 9)
10 . OTHER.
WATER AND SEWER BOARD
MINUTES
January 12, 2010
The meeting was called to order at 5 :04 p.m .
Members present:
Members absent:
Also present:
Clark, Olson, Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins,
Woodward, Mc Caslin, Habenicht
Bums
Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities
Bill McCormick, Operations Supt.
Tom Brennan, Utilities Engineer
1. MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 8, 2009 MEETING.
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received the minutes of the December 8, 2009
and phone vote of December 14, 2009 approving the minutes of the December 8, 2009
meeting.
2. EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR SECURITY REASONS PER CRS 24-6-402(b ).
Mr. Clark moved;
Mr. Higday seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
To have the Water and Sewer Board go into
an Executive Session to discuss security
measures pursuant to 24-402-4(b) C.R.S.
Clark, Olson, Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins,
Woodward, Mc Caslin, Habenicht
None
Members absent: Tom Bums
Chairman Clark noted that an affirmative vote of 2/3rds of the quorum was received.
Motion carried.
The Board was in executive session until 5:55 p.m.
Mr. Clark moved;
Mr. Habenicht seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
Mr. Bums entered at 5 :50 p.m.
To close the Water and Sewer Board
Executive Session.
Clark, Olson, Higday, Cassidy, Wiggins,
Woodward, Mc Caslin, Habenicht
None
Tom Bums
3) LITTLETON/CITY DITCH BIKE PATH
The Board received a list of concerns from Utilities Department, the Utilities Engineer
and the City Attorney's office. Mr. Fonda discussed the following concerns and received
the following directives from the Board :
1. Should the bike path be allowed along the open ditch ? Contamination concerns were
discussed . The Board directed that the bike path not be constructed on ditch right-of-way
where the ditch is open. If it is to be constructed on other property near the open City
Ditch, it should be a substantial distance from the open ditch and a fence or barrier must
be constructed where it is in close proximity to the open ditch.
2. To what degree would Englewood be willing to give up its ability to close the ditch,
either temporarily or permanently, at its sole discretion? The Board directed that the City
retain legal rights to close the trail for an y reason.
3. Should the use of the City Ditch right-of-way be minimized, even where piped? The
Board directed that the use of the right-of-way for the bike path should be minimized.
4. Should Littleton recogni ze that the City Ditch will be piped and that Englewood will
not allow historic designation ? Charlie Bloston, Director of Public Works for the City of
Littleton, was present and noted that even though there are no existing plans to pursue
historic designation , he could not vouch for the intentions of future Littleton City
Councils . He also noted that there is an existing ordinance that states that the property
owners must approve historic designation before the City of Littleton will pursue. The
Board noted that the ultimate goal is to pipe the entire City Ditch and Englewood will not
allow historic designation for the City Ditch along the proposed bike path.
5. What entity should Englewood deal with; City of Littleton, South Suburban Parks and
Recreation, or both? The Board directed that Englewood deal with the City of Littleton
directly and all matters regarding the City Ditch bike path in Littleton .
6. Should there be some consideration, such as weed cutting or maintenance , by Littleton
for use of the right-of-way? The Board indicated that Littleton should offer something for
use of the right-of-way. An example would be doing general maintenance and weed
cutting.
7. Englewood's City Attorney will require a legal opinion that the right-of-way may
legally be used for a bike path and will require that an entity step forward to defend this
against neighbors. These rights may need to be acquired. The Board indicated that all
legal issues must be addressed, and an intergovernmental agreement signed by all parties .
8. Englewood's City Attorney will require an entity to be responsible for construction,
maintenance and usage of the right-of-way. The Board indicated that Englewood should
deal with the City of Littleton on issues regarding construction, maintenance and usage of
the right-of-way.
9. Englewood's City Attorney will require an entity to take responsibility for satisfying
all requirements of other utilities crossing the City Ditch. The Board concurred with the
City Attorney's requirements . Charlie Bloston with the City of Littleton expressed his
concurrence with this condition .
10. Englewood will require an entity to actively patrol and control vandalism , dumping
and contamination along the ditch? The Board directed that the City of Littleton must
diligently patrol the ditch and control vandalism, dumping and contamination .
11. Stormwater from the path may not enter the City Ditch . The Board directed that
stormwater from the bike path may not enter the City Ditch.
12. Intergovernmental Agreement. The Board directed that an acceptable
intergovernmental agreement is required between all involved entities. The Board also
directed that Englewood be involved with the design of the bike path in the proposed area
of Littleton.
Mr. Blosten expressed acceptance of the conditions discussed and noted that he will
proceed submitting a grant application to Arapahoe County.
Mr. Wiggins and Mr. Higday excused themselves at 6:30 p .m.
4. PIPING THE CITY DITCH AT HURON & OXFORD.
Alisa Osemwengie and Norm an Henry of 4140 S. Huron St., Daniel & Barbara Fout of
4185 S . Huron St., David Prada of 780 W. Oxford Ave. and Kim Kurczewski of 4160 S.
Huron St. appeared before the Board to discuss the piping of the City Ditch at Huron St.
and Oxford Ave.
Bill McCormick appeared before the Board to discuss the quotes and recommendations
from contractors for repairing the ditch bank at west of Huron St. and south of Oxford
Ave. The bank in this area is in failure and the house below and the road above are in
danger. Mr. McCormick noted the original intent was to line that section of ditch, but the
contractors said the bank was too steep for lining and recommended the most economical
solution without a structural engineers design, would be to pipe the ditch. A structural
engineers design is necessary on banks over 8' deep. This bank is 10.5' deep.
Alisa Osemwengie, Barbara Fout and Kim Kurczewski petitioned the Board to not pipe
the ditch. They noted the advantages of having an area for children to play, that supports
wildlife while preserving an aesthetically pleasing feature adjacent to their yards.
Mr. Prada owns the house below the City Ditch where the bank is in failure. He is
concerned about the ditch bank failing and flooding his house and damaging others,
especially during storms when the water is close to overflowing. He is asking the Board
to pipe the ditch .
The Fouts, Ms. Osemwengie and Mr. Henry appealed to the Board to have an
independent engineer propos e other options that will allow the ditch to remain open.
They requested that all present be given a copy of the quotes received, the engineers
report and notice of any future projects on this section of the ditch. They wish to be
notified of the final decision.
Tom Brennan, the Utilities Engineer, noted the serious condition of the bank in this area
and the need to make repairs before the ditch begins running again on April 1, 2010. Bill
noted that the requested engin eer's report could surpass the cost of the original plan of
piping the ditch .
Linda Olson requested Utilities staff compare alternatives and get a preliminary study to
forward to the citizens that petitioned the Board not pipe the City Ditch.
The Board directed Utilities staff to have an independent engineer study the feasibility of
leaving the ditch open, along with options and costs to do so.
,
5. CITY DITCH LICENSE TO CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE FOR AN EXISTING
1 O" SEWER CROSSING.
The City of Cherry Hills Vill age submitted a license agreement for crossing the City
Ditch with an existing 1 O" san itary sewer main. The sanitary sewer main was installed
prior to 1970 and is located approximately east of 3700 to 3800 S . Clarkson Street and
south of Hampden. No licens e agreement could be found for the existing sanitary sewer
main in this area. The recommended agreement will enable the C ity of Englewood and
Cherry Hills Village to validate the location and address responsibility.
Englewood's City Attorney and the Utilities Engineer have reviewed and approved the
license agreement and construction easement.
Mr. Bums moved ;
Mr. Habenicht seconded :
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried .
To recommend Council approval by
ordinance of the License -City Ditch
Crossing Agreement from Cherry Hills
Village for a 1 O" sanitary sewer main
crossing the City Ditch east of 3700 to 3800
S. Clarkson and south of Hampden.
Bums, Clark, Olson, Cassidy, Woodward ,
McCaslin, Habenicht
None
Wiggins, Higday
6 . TRIHALOMETHANE & HALOCETIC ACID ANALYSES .
The Board received the Total Trihalomethanes and Ha1oacetic Acids monitoring results
for the most recent four quarters. These contaminants are formed when chlorine comes in
contact with naturally occurring organic matter in source water. Concentrations above
the maximum contaminant level are considered cancer-causing and are regulated by the
Safe Drinking Water Act. The contaminants were substantially below the required
standards .
Because of the upgrade to the All en Filter Plant in 2000, Englewood is ahead of the
regulatory curve. The improvements have resulted in lower contaminant levels.
7. GRANULATED ACTIVATED CARBON AGREEMENT .
The Board, at their January 12, 2010 meeting, approved the bid from Calgon in the
amount of $3,655.82 per filter, per month for a total of $548 ,373 over a thirty month
period for the granular activated carbon media for the Allen Filter Plant. Stu noted that
the Granulated Activated Carbon Agreement was approved by the City Attorney and will
be forwarded to City Council.
8. S. PLATTE /UNION AVE. RIVER WALL MODIFICATIONS.
Tom Brennan, Utilities Engineer outlined the proposed South Platte River modifications
and Union Ave. to address safety issues .
The proposed project is 250' north of the Union Avenue Bridge on the S. Platte River in
Englewood, near the raw water intake and pump station. The Colorado Water
Conservation Board was contacted by th e South Suburban Parks Foundation with
concerns about public safety. The project will improve egress from the downstream pool ,
reduce eddy velocities, improve line-of-sight to the pool and site signage. Mayor
Woodward asked if it would alter the kayak run . Tom noted it will make it safer.
Englewood supports these improvements and recommends approving an access
agreement, which will be presented to the Board, after City Attorney approval, at a later
date.
9. WATER RIGHTS UPDATE DATED OCTOBER 9, 2009 FROM DAVID
HILL.
The Board received from David Hill, En glewood's Water Attorney, a water rights update
dated November 9, 2009. Stu noted dev e lopments in water litigation cases in which
Englewood is involved .
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
The next Englewood Water and Sewer Board meeting will be held Tuesday, February 9,
2010 at 5:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room.
Respectfully submitted,
Isl Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
A TTo 2
MEMO
TO: Englewood Water and Sewer Board
FROM:
DATE : February 2 , 2010
RE: Water and Sewer Rate Changes
The attached is a rate study from John Gallagher of Red Oak Consultants. At this time,
this is for informational purposes only.
Mr. Gallagher will be at the Feb. 9 , 2010 meeting to discuss the study. This rate study
will be brought up again at the March meeting for further consideration.
6149004
City of Eng le wood
Wate r and Sewer
Conn e ction Fees
February 2 0 10
Report Prepared By:
. · .:.: RED
·. ·.. CONSU LT ING
• • A DIVIS I ON or MALCOl1'1 Jl'lRMlr:
Table of Contents
Contents
1. Executive Summary 1-1
1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2. Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3. Proposed Water Connection Fe es ................................................................................ 1-1
1.4. Proposed Sewer Collection Sys tem Connection Fees ................................................. 1-2
1.5. Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fees ........................................... 1-3
1.6 . Proposed Mixed Use Connectio n 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 Valu e .............................................................................. 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
: ; ;: RED)\
:·· CONSU LTING
City of Englewood, Colo rado
2009 Water and Sewer Connectio n Fee Study
6149004
Table of Contents
List of Tables
Tab le 1-1 : Compa rison of Exi sting and Proposed Water Connection Fees ................................ 1-2
Table 1-2: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees . 1-2
Table 1-3: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Wastewater Treatment Connection Fees ..... 1-3
Table 2-1 : Water System Value .................................................................................................... 2-2
Table 2-2 : Water Treatment Plant Cap ac ity ................................................................................. 2-3
Table 2-3 : Development of Water Con ne ctio n Fee per Capacity Un it ......................................... 2-3
Table 2-4: Proposed Water Connectio n Fees .............................................................................. 2-4
Table 3-1 : Sewer Collection System V alue .................................................................................. 3-2
Table 3-2: Sewer Collection System Ca pacity ............................................................................. 3-3
Table 3-3 : Development of Sewer Coll ect ion System Connection Fee per Capacity Un it. .......... 3-4
Table 3-4 : Proposed Sewer Collectio n System Connection Fees ............................................... 3-4
Table 4-1 : City Portion of Wastewate r Treatment Plant Value ..................................................... 4-2
Table 4-2 : Wastewater Treatment Plan t Capacity ........................................................................ 4-3
Table 4-3: Development of Wastewate r Treatment Plant Connection Fee per Capacity Unit.. .. 4-4
Table 4-4: Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fees .......................................... 4-4
Table 5-1 : Proposed Multifamily Mi xed 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 Title Here
· ; • · RE ill ~,
: ••• · CONSULTING
Ci ty of Englewood , Col ora do
2009 Water an d Se wer Co nnection Fee Stud y
6149004
1. Executive Summary
1.1. Introduction
The City of Englewood , Colorado (C ity) 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 Connection Fees
• Red Oak calculated water connection fees using four standard valuation
approaches : original cost, ori ginal 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 o f the connection fee per capacity unit (3 /4-inch meter)
multiplied by the meter capacity ratio .
RID '."
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 Y:t 4,000
2" 7 ,200
3" 16,000
4" 28,800
6" 64,000
Table 1-1
Section 1
Executive Summary
Compa ri son of Existing and Proposed
Water Connection Fees
AWWA Proposed Fees
Meter Original Replacement
Capacity Ori ginal Cost Less Replacement Cost Less
Ratios Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation
0 .66 $ 1,050 $ 750 $ 2,910 $ 2 ,2 10
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 46,500 35,400
16 .67 26,200 18,700 72 ,700 55,300
40.00 62,800 44,800 174,400 132,800
1.4. Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees
• Red Oak calc ul ated sewer co ll ection system connection fees using four standard
valuation approaches: orig inal cost, original cost less depreciation , replacement
cost, and replacement cost les s depreciation .
• Table 1-2 compares existing and proposed sewer collection system connection
fees. Ex isting fees have be en in effect since 1982 .
Meter Existing
Size Fees
5/8" $ 500
3/4" 500
1" 833
1W' 1,677
2" 2,667
3" 5,333
4" 8,333
6" 16,667
Table 1-2
Comparison of Existing and Proposed
Sewer Collection System Connection Fees
AWWA Proposed Fees
Meter Original
Capacity Original Cost Less Rep lacement
Ratios Cost Depreciation Cost
0 .66 $ 110 $ 50 $ 800
1.0 0 170 70 1,200
1.67 280 120 2 ,000
3 .33 600 200 4,000
5.33 900 400 6,400
10.67 1,800 700 12,800
16 .67 2,800 1,200 20 ,000
40 .00 6,800 2,8 00 48,000
· ;_ RED
: •••• CONSULTING
City of Englewood , Colorado
2009 Water and Sewer Co nnection Fee Study
6149004
Replacement
Cost Less
Depreciation
$ 350
530
880
1,800
2,800
5,700
8,800
21,200
Section 1
Executive Summary
1.5. Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fees
• Red Oak ca lculated wastewater treatment plant connection fees using four
standard valuation approach es: original cost, original cost less depreciation ,
replacement cost, and replacement cost less depreciation.
• Tab le 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 ;!:," 4,667
2" 7,467
3" 14,932
4" 23,332
6" 46,667
Table 1-3
Compariso n of Existing and Proposed
Wastewate r Treatment Connection Fees
AWWA Proposed Fees
Meter Original
Capacity Orig inal Cost Less Replacement
Ratios Cost Depreciation Cost
0.66 $ 590 $ 490 $ 760
1 .00 890 730 1, 140
1.67 1,480 1,220 1,900
3 .33 3,000 2,400 . 3,800
5.33 4,700 3 ,900 6,100
10 .67 9,50 0 . 7 ,800 12,200
16.67 14,800 12,200 19,000
40 .00 35,600 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
34,400
Red Oak developed connection fees for developments that include a mix of multifamily
and commercial establishments . The proposed mixed use fees are co n sistent 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 .
• : ·.• ~
RED ,, ,,
CONSULTING
City of Englewood , Colorado
2009 Water and Sewer Connectio n Fe e Study
6149004
2. Water Connection Fees
2.1. Methodo logy
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 a nd 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 water connection fees. This is
considered an appropriate method to use for the City's water u tility 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 following steps :
• Identify water system assets
• Estimate value of assets under four different valuation methods
• Determine capacity requirements of one capacity unit
• Detem1ine number of capacity units that can be served by existing facilities
• Calculate connection fee per capacity unit
2.3. Water System Value
Red Oak Consulting calculated the va lue of the City water system for each of the
following standard valuation approaches:
• ; REG>'
·. ••• . CONSULTING
City of Englewood, Colorado
2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study
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 es t imates 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.
Table 2-1
Water System Value
Original Cost Replacement
Line Less Replacement Cost Less
No. Fixed Asset Original Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation
1 Treatment Plant $ 20,542,812 $ 15,300,384 $ 34,600,504 $ 24,284 ,849
2 Pumps and Storage 4,396,834 1,586,681 12,927,468 2,856,956
3 Mains 15,089, 114 7 ,995,125 4,626,418 2,451,356
4 General Plant 11,551,563 9 884 451 62,161,229 57,413,563
5 Total System Value $ 51,580,323 $ 34,766,641 $ 114,315,619 $ 87,006,724
2.4. 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 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 .
. . •• . . . , . REI'.>), I
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 o f 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 Capac ity
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 Rep lacement 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) {O)
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 existing and propo se d water connection fees. Ex isting fees have
been in effect since 1982. Proposed conn ec tion fees for each meter size are the product
of the connection fee per capacity unit (3 /4-inch meter) and meter capacity ratio .
• . . . .. RED ,
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 2 3,300 17,700
10 .67 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 C ity annually review and adjust it s water connection fees to
refl ect chang es in cost inflation , system capacity , and capacity unit service
characteristics .
. ; . RED \I
·. ••• '. CONSULTING
City of Englewood , Colorado
2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study
6149004
3. Sewer Collection System Connection Fee
3.1. Methodo logy
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 utilit ies 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 capac ity 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:
.
• . . . . . RED t
CONSULTJNG
City of Englewood , Colorado
2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study
6149004
Section 3
Sewer Collection System Connection Fee
• Original Cost
• Original Cost Less Deprec iation
• Replacement Cost New
• Replacement Cost Less Depreciation
Original cost values are the historic cos ts of purchasing and installing assets . Original
cost less depreciation is book value o f assets. Replacement cost values are present-day
estimated costs to purchase and install existing assets. Rep lacement cost less
depreciation takes physical depreciation and obsolescence of existing assets into
consideration.
Original cost and original cost Jess 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 fo r the four valuation approa ches .
Table 3-1
Sewer Collection System Va l ue
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, 1 16,907 $ 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 me ter 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 produ ct 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 w ith the wastewater
treatment plant capacity to serve those ins ide city customers.
The City owns 50 % (25 mgd) of the L ittleton/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.
·; · REil> i
: ••• 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 U tility 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 qu otient 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 Wastewate r 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 capac ity 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.
: ; . RED \\
· ... • · CONSULTING
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 Cos t Depreciation Cost Depreciation
1 Existing Assets $ 6,315,003 $ 2,717,117 $ 29,475,515 $ 13,009,236
2 Less Deve loper (2.250,594) (928.732) (0) (0) Contributions
3 Sys tem Value $ 4,064,409 $ 1,788,385 $ 29,475,515 $ 13 ,009,236
4 System Capacity
5
Units 24,500 24,500 24,500 24,500
Connection Fee, $170 $ 70 $ 1,200 $ 530 per Capacity Unit
Table 3-4 compares existing and proposed sewer collection system 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 ratios.
Table 3-4
Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees
AWWA Proposed Fees
Meter Original Replacement
Meter Existing Capacity Orig inal Cost Less Replacement Cost Less
Size Fees Ratios Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation
5/8" $ 500 0.66 $ 110 $ 50 $ 800 $ 350
3/4" 500 1.00 170 70 1,2 00 530
1" 833 1.67 280 120 2,000 880
1W' 1,677 3.33 600 200 4,000 1,800
2" 2,667 5.3 3 900 400 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 adjust its sewer collection system
connection fees to reflect changes in cost inflation, system capacity, and capac ity unit
service characteristics.
• . . . . . . RED \ ~
CONSUL Tl NG
City of Englewood , Co lorado
2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study
6149004
4. Wastewater Treatment Plan t 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 facilit ies 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 eq~ity 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 Proced ur e
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 Treatm e nt Pl ant Value
Red Oak calculated the value of the City wastewater treatment p lant assets for each of the
following standard valuation approaches:
. •• $ "'
REG I'..
CONSULTING
City of Englewood , Colorado
2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study
6149004
Section 4
Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee
• Original Cost
• Original Cost Less Depreciation
• Replacement Cost New
• Replac ement Cost Less Depreciation
Original cost values are the historic cos ts 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 consid eration physical depreciation and obsolescence of
existing assets .
Original cost and original cost less depr eciation values are based on City asset records .
Replacement cost values are based on ori ginal 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 LIE WWTP $ 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 si zes are the product of number o f 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.
• • • .. RED
CON ULTING
City of Englewood, Col o rado
2009 Water and Sewe r Connection Fee Study
6149004
Section 4
Wastewater Treatment Plant 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. 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
Wastewate r 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 an d 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.
: ; . RED \
._-.· CONSULTING
City of Englewood , Co lorado
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 Origina l 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 propo sed wastewater treatment p lant 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
Prol?osed 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
1 Y," 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 annuall y review and adjust its wastewater treatment plant
connection fees to reflect changes in cost inflation, system capacity, and capacity unit
service characteristics .
·; · REnn .,
: . •• •• . CONSUL Tl NG
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 residentia l and commercial customers .
Although the City presently has re lativ e ly 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 reco gni ze the capacity requirements of mixed use
customers served by a single conn ection.
5.2. Proposed Fees
Proposed mixed use fees are consistent with the proposed meter size, single use
connection fees using replacement c ost less depreciation asset values . The mixed use
fees consist of two components:
• Multifamily fee based on nu mber of dwelling units
• Commercial fee based on the number of fixture units
Table 5-1 shows proposed multifamily mixed use connection fees. T he 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
.
• . . . RED
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, Co lorado
2009 Water and Sewe r 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 ba sed 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 recomme nds 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
Tab le 5-3 shows examples of the proposed mixed use connection fee calculation for
sma ll , medium, and large connectors . The mixed use connection fee is greater than the
meter size based fee for the small an d 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"
; RED
. ·.·.CON ULTING
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 , Co lorado
2009 Water and Se we r Connection Fee Study
6149004
Calculated
Meter Size
Fee
$ 4 ,710
15 ,800
50,300
Proposed
Mixed
Use Fee
$ 8,087
18,320
74 , 170
Date
March 15 , 2010
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
ATT., 3
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda It em Subject
West Union Ave/Platte River
Boat Chute Modifications
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart H. Fonda , Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
None .
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board, at the ir February 9, 2010 meeting , recommended Council to
approve the License Agreement from the Colo rado Water Conservatio n Board for river access to
design and build the boat chute improveme nts on the South Platte R iver and Union Avenue .
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALT E R NATIVES IDENTIFIED
The proposed project is 250 ' north of the Union Avenue Bridge on the South Platte River in Englewood ,
near the raw water intake and pump stat ion. The Colorado Water Co nservation Board was contacted
by the South Suburban Parks Foundation wi t h concerns about public safety. The project will improve
egress from the downstream pool, reduce eddy velocities , improve lin e-of -sight to the pool and site
signage . The Colorado Water Conservation Board owns the kayak bo at chutes , but Englewood
supports these improvements and recommends approving an access and license agreement.
The proposed Boat Chute Agreement allows t he Colorado Water Con s ervation Board to modify the
intake structure by cutting an existing wall off to reduce the eddies in t he river flow . Englewood agreed
to let them modify the intake structure per their engineer's recommend at ion , as part of their planned
safety improvements. The Access Agreemen t allows the Colorado Water Conservation Board
permission to cross Englewood's river pump station property to gain access for construction .
FINANCIAL IMPACT
N/A
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance
GRANT OF ACCESS EASEMENT
TIDS GRANT OF ACCESS EASEMENT ("Grant") is made this day of
__________ , 2010 , by the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD ("Grantor'',) a
Colorado municipal corporation, whose address is 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood,
Colorado 80ll0, and the COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD, a division of the
Department of Natural Resources of the State of Colorado ("Grantee").
THE PARTIES covenant and agree as follows:
1. Easement Property. The "Easement Property" shall mean the real property located
at 2285 West Union A venue in the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, more
particularly described on the attached legal description with drawing, Exhibit A.
2. Consideration. In consideration for this Grant, Grantee will pay $10 .00 and other
valuable consideration the receipt of which is acknowledged .
3. Grant of Easement. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee , a temporary construction
easement over, under, across and through the Easement Property for the purpose of
access to structures or improvements of Grantee during the construction of the
Union Avenue Boat Chutes safety improvements .
4. Access . Grantee shall have the right of ingress and egress in, to, over, through and
across the Easement Property for any purpose necessary or desirable for the full
enjoyment of the rights granted to Grantee under this Grant.
5. Subjacent and Lateral Support. Grantor covenants and agrees that Grantee shall
have the right of subjacent and lateral support on the Easement Property for any
purpose necessary or desirable for the full enjoyment of the rights granted to
Grantee under this Grant.
--
6 . Warranty of Title. Grantor warrants and represents that Grantor has full right, title,
and authority, and that this Grant is effective to grant and convey to Grantee the
within described easement.
7. Security. At all times during the performance ofthis project, the Grantee shall be
responsible for maintaining the security of the Grantor's property by securing the
gates to the property.
1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Grant of Access
Easement the day and year first abov e written.
ATTEST:
Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS.
COUNTY OF )
GRANTOR:
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
James K. Woodward, Mayor
GRANTEE:
COLORADO WAT ER CONSERVATION
BOARD
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of
-------~ 201 0, by _____________ as
------------------of t he Colorado Water
Conservation Board.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires :
Notary Public
2
-.......:::::.
......
~
(2E
--+-s:'
~
E:
~
'Q
\--.\.(
~~'.Zo! ~ '!
~~ ~~\\f: ~\\}~ ~.·
t.t-\~~~\.. ~.o\N , .·
~~.t .....
' .,,,,,
\
\
' \.
'\.
'\
\.
\
\,
'},'lf'7'"'
.~
:it
0
0
~
(:Qij ~ 1/4
R68W R67W R66W R6&W
T4SI 1971 1973 1975 l$77
2075 2073 2071
Rt>4W
1979
2-069
\ .. I ~ .. 1
2 ~\
Ji .. ,
~.
R63W
1981
... ~-
26fP7
-·. . -.
010
!SJ; 4i7+-~ !il91
~~ ...
R62W R61W R60W R59W
1963 19.$5 IS.$7 1989
-·--·· .. ·-
2065 2063 206! 20§9
TOWNSHIP CODE MAP
~~".?ifK·iS"·~~~·.:::.:::.~-,~-. :._. ~~'"-. _ .
122 I
'::;;.'-'::
ozi
~
~~.§W R51W
1991 I 19'93 I T4-S
2057 2055 T5.S
. .. -
034 k j ,. I
~.f.
~·
P.48€/il tr
. '7.fi,i1 . I
@
035
D¥ER~~ Qlf.W:E WAREHOUSE
!i1J.B1>1~1!1Al\IER
... i!il fl
11
II
11
··~·~1""\ f'A"" . I ,.~
1i7 : ·~
® l~
II J~I
11
It:: . I (MCEJ. (;'-
214.
x H
I
B
I
T
A
:,.9 <t,
146 :;
Q.Z·8
· ·~.:r..,~z·o
001
OUr,t;AJ/S SUBDMSM>I
€>
2 .
002 ":
·~ "1,®,..Jr i'S9!z;lil>
·~
.:> ~ a
20770~
QUARTER SECTION
I
AGREEMENT REGARDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
UNION A VENUE BOAT CHUTES SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING
A PART OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD'S WATER INTAKE STRUCTURE.
This Agreement made this __ day of , 2010, by and between the
Colorado Water Conservation Board, a division of the Department of Natural Resources of the
State of Colorado (hereinafter called "Board") and the City of Englewood (hereinafter called
"City") collectively known as "Parties".
WHEREAS, the Board wishes to make certain improvements to the Union Avenue Boat
Chutes area on the South Platte River at a location approximately two-hundred and fifty feet
(250') north of the Union Avenue bridge across the South Platte River, near the City's raw water
intake and pump station (hereinafter called "Project").
WHEREAS, the Board's proposed project is designed to improve safety to the public by,
among other improvements, improving egress from the downstream pool, line of sight to the pool
and reducing eddy velocities.
WHEREAS , these improvements require a modification of the City's existing raw water
intake structure.
Now, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the Parties
agree as follows :
1. SCOPE OF AGREEMENT .
This Agreement defines Project along with the responsibilities and financial commitments of
the Parties with respect to the project.
2. SCOPE OF THE PROJECT.
The Project shall include all activities involved in the construction of the improvements to
include the modification of the City's raw water intake as shown on Exhibit A, attached
hereto and incorporated herein.
3 . PUBLIC NECESSITY.
Parties agree that the work performed pursuant to this Agreement is necessary for the health,
safety, comfort, convenience and welfare of the public.
4. COSTS.
All design and construction costs shall be the responsibility of the Board. However, the City
will grant a temporary construction and access easement across th e City's Union Avenue
pump station property at no cost to the Board.
5. PROJECT.
A. The design and construction of the Project shall be the responsibility of the Board.
B. The City does not endorse or approve the final design of the project.
C. The City has no objections to the design of the Project shown in Exhibit A as it
, relates to the City's raw water intake facility.
1
D. Should the Project create a change in the operation of the City's raw water intake
facility, at the request of the City, the Board agrees to make repairs to the Project to
return the City's raw water intake facility to a condition substantially similar to its
condition before the Project and acceptable to the City.
6. INSURANCE .
The District shall require any contractor to provide adequate l iability insurance that includes
the City and copies of said insurance shall be provided to the City before any construction
within the City's Right-of-Ways .
7 . MAINTENANCE.
The Parties agree that the Board shall own and be responsible for maintenance of the
completed and accepted Project, except for ownership the lower wall for which the City will
retain ownership and the Board shall maintain.
8. LIABILITY .
The Board shall be responsible for any suits, demands, costs or actions of law resulting from
the design, construction or maintenance of the Project.
9 . NOTICES.
A. For the City shall be directed to:
Director of Utilities
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110
B. For the Board shall be directed to:
Joe Busto
Colorado Water Con servation Board
1313 Sherman Street -Room 721
Denver, CO 80203
C. Any notices, demands or other communications required or permitted to be given by
any provision of this Agreement shall be given in writing, delivered personally or
sent by registered mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested, addressed to
PARTIES at the addresses set forth above or at such other address as either party
may hereafter or from time to time designate by written notice to the other party
given when personally delivered or mailed, and shall be considered received in the
earlier of either the day on which such notice is actually received by the party to
whom it is addressed or th e third day after such notice is mailed.
10. AMENDMENTS.
This Agreement contains all of the terms agreed upon by and among PARTIES. Any
amendments or modifications to this Agreement shall be in writing and executed by
PARTIES hereto to be valid and binding.
11. PRIOR AGREEMENTS.
This Agreement does not abrogate on modify the rights and responsibilities of the parties
under prior agreements regarding the boat chutes improvement at this location dated,
May 1, 1983, May 1, 1986 and May 19, 1989 . The Board will maintain the responsibility
and liability under those Agreements .
2
12. SEVERABILITY.
If any clause or provision her ein contained shall be adjudged to be invalid or unenforceable
by a court of competent juris4iction or by operation of any applicable law, such invalid or
unenforceable clause or provision shall not affect the validity of the Agreement as a whole
and all other clauses or provisi ons shall be given full force and effect.
13. APPLICABLE LAWS.
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Colorado. Venue for any and all legal actions regarding the transaction covered
herein shall lie in District Court in and for Arapahoe County, State of Colorado.
14. ASSIGNABILITY.
No party to this Agreement shall assign or transfer any of its rights or obligations
hereunder without the prior written consent of the nonassigning party or parties to this
Agreement.
15. BINDING EFFECT.
The provisions of this Agreement shall bind and shall inure to the benefit of PAR TIES
hereto and to their respective successors and permitted assigns.
16. ENFORCEABILITY.
PARTIES hereto agree and acknowledge that this Agreement may be enforced in law or in
equity, by decree of specific p erformance or damages, or such other legal or equitable
relief as may be available subject to the provisions of the laws of the State of Colorado.
17 . TERM AND TERMINATION.
It is anticipated that this Agreement shall remain in effect so long as the structures shown
on Exhibit A remain. However, this Agreement may be terminated by either Party with six
(6) months written notice . In no event shall the Board's responsibility for the design,
construction and maintenance of the Project cease.
18. APPROPRIATIONS.
Notwithstanding any other term, condition, or provision herein, each and every obligation
of CITY and/or BOARD stated in this Agreement is subject to the requirement of a prior
appropriation of funds therefore by the appropriate governing body of CITY and/or
BOARD.
19. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES.
It is expressly understood and agreed that enforcement of the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved
to PARTIES, and nothing cont ain ed in this Agreement shall give or allow any such claim
or right of action by any other or third person on such Agreement. It is the express
intention of PAR TIED that any person or party other than any one of PAR TIES receiving
services or benefits under this Agreement shall be deemed to be an incidental beneficiary
only.
3
WHEREFORE, PAR TIES hereto hav e caused this instrument to be executed by properly
authorized signatories as of the date and year first above written.
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO
James K. Woodward,Mayor
ATTEST:
Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk
COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD
By: ___________ _
STATE OF COLORADO )
) SS .
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this __ day of ____ _
2010,by as ofthe
Colorado Water Conservation Board.
Witness my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires: -----
NOT ARY PUBLIC
4
.r .r....,
,r«AS••
llD'mLU----Nl/O Df!CN .EJT(
PROFILE ED -·-
YllfE!J
11£ fl:IP RAP
WTO WALL OH
CH AH NEl SIOC
"' .cT1Y
.. ~&
---
-~~':*:t'=9'"
~I I ~
,,,.,...,, __
-~-=
DPICAl, Qf .EJT( AT B!'xfB B,t.NK
SECTION ED -·-
Df!CAf tma:ryor" E!TY !pqnd SECTION
SECTION ED -·-
SOUTH PLATIE RIVER UNION AVEN UE BOAT CH UTES IMPROVEMENTS
JEUY PLAN -D'f'ICAL llfi,..., __ --r-• -' _,,-rlrSSM:MllltlGIU.Y AS lA_. .atS ~-.. .....,.--
& .a/I ........ ,,....,.. • '111111:£6#1!£-C-' .. , •• , ....
.. .Wlml ... __,,.,..,,,._wal' .,._....,.,. .....
4 IUIZMl__.M9.....r~u .... ,, ......
& _ __.._,...Jn'f'f..,,,.
,,___,,..,_ M .... Gml'Anllalf -........ ~ • ...,.MIO( ,.,.. ... ..m:
DETAILS
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DECEMBER 2, 2009
03-40.C>e
"Lou~hlin Whitewote,:,.S:: :: 3
0r-1n, Humbw:
Pfl:O..CCT NUMBDll
=..;:,,.;..: • • · ::= I ~~ ;;o.8ER 2009
~
2Q
,,.,,
2Q
1 Ind!• 20 feel
CCNIOUR JNTCRVAJ. • 1•
OATUll-LOCAL
PLNE (IJCARINt:) • LOCAL
..
... CPI-PK NM JN ASFWAJ..T #!"ST ON CONCltl.7C PATH (SW 571C} a. ... 5JO..l:SO
NUl(l(IQOO
00000.00
... CP2-SPtl(C HE'ST OF CONCRCTC PA TH (NW Sire}
a.-52#.16
NI02.llll1
£10000..00
.. CP.J-S1"JK£ ON OOS11NC WEl#NC ARCA DAM A8t/T1il£NT
a.•'"°-107
NI00/19.Pf
0007.J.64
'0NWWC1UW NQTTS·
I. ot/$11NC OM/ UN/JOI DRAIN llANHOLES TO BC A8ANDOH
Ii l't.ACC l'f R£JKMN(; IRAJ£. QeA1£ AD.IJSMNT.
~ C0NC. ANO IAMO. SCC11CNS. AS NCCt'SSARY. TO
A lllNlllfAI or,. llELOW 11MSHt:D ClfAP£. STRtlC1VRC
SHAU 11£ llU£D WIN S.U.O OR QtAl.fl.
CXJS11NC "'20MC1CRS SHAU. B£ A/J.ANDON Ii Pt..ACC IY
CAl'Pl'i~ 2· c:ALVAN.lltD S1lll CASINt; A MNMA1 ,J'
NUW l'1ICSH£D ~ CASINt: SHAU lif1L 8£ fU£D
#fTH ANY SOIL OR OIHC/t J.IAICRJAt.
J. QtAla SHOtlUJ<JI SHAU BC f• llhNU$ Pt.AC£D TO A
lllNiltllMI 1• CGIWACTCD Do-IN.
4. S£ElflP~Pl.ANFORDllSTINl:AN0""'1F'OSU1 ......-.::
" SITC Sl.fl'~r aJNDtJCTCD er Md.ALIQllM ltNl1CWAllJr
Clfot.r or Ot:lOBDI J'.l 2CJ09. IJS&S 111w:11 now
MCASURDICNT FOR THIS 04/C MS "'10 CS"Si. ~
W4mf' Sl.A'"ACF D.IllA'/ION 1'S11/£AM OF DA/ti WAS
!l2!J0.01'. llJWJf WAIDP St.RF.Aa DO#NSTHEAll or aw
WASS2tl4.tht
6. M0P0SED TOP Of' WAU lUVA 110NS CAN 8£ AD.AJSTCD
~J"' TOA~HORl.«WTAl R£llAR.
CXISTWt:llCllAR SHA1.1 BC an A llllliMM or rBaow
N£W lll4lL TOP OF WALi. lUYA110NS. HCUS AND TOP
OF lfAU SHAU. 8£ .&ROl./Tl11 FOR A SM00111 ODI
'1NSHCDSUIFAa
I! EXISlJN(; ~ STONC NtlD 6£.JICH SN.AU BC
lfDIOtCD ANO RCPtAa1J AT 1HC WClllNC ARCA.
~1CCXACTLOCo4TIO'IWTH£NC/NIDt..
Hf1ffNG ARCA PMH SHAU BC I" CONCll£1C O'l'Clt r
csn: CJtl'ANSION JOINT'S ON PATH .PtAl.L I<,. ac:
l'ltOHDC JSa.A 11()N JCINT'S ll£nlCD( DISTWG CONCRETC
PA TH AND NCW PA 'IN AND Ar ra' 1/111DfV.AlS Al.ONG
PATH.
1a KC~ AREA SUI/ SHMl BC ,,. 1HICJ( Sl.A8 •TH p
BM 13• 4C:: 801H DlltCC110NS •TH llPPClt AND lO/tC/t
RDNF'ORCCMCNr MAtt .r ILH"'1ll a.EARMCE" B£ntaN
OUTS/DC or CONC1fF1C AND ~r AU. FACCS.
DOtlf1 NCW SlA8 TO OJSJM; lr4U. Ar 12· ac.
PfWWJC CXPAHSKJN .DN'1S THAr QtCAIC stlUNI£
PANEi.$ OW:r OlltK'NS10NS TO 8£ D£1DbNNCD N THC
naD. PRO KOE Isa.A TJON JOINr llCTWCN lfElffNC' Si.M
AND N£WPA1H.
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
DECEMBER 3, 2009
LOIKR DOST/NC WAU row 0..•5262.50 re o WAU-5282.50
l•.16.4'
APPRQXJMA TC
COIVSTRtJCnON UAllTS
RE1.0CA TC lJSCS STREAM
lil£ASURDl£NT STA TlON
COHCRCT£ SIU. eo...T CHUTE f'J
EL•528&..'JO±
lJ:r,N~;t;Jlifs~~OF /~s1-
awsTRtJCT10N J.JMtrs
£011£7' DtlSllNC WALL~
TOW a.-52112.$() -
l•72..J'
FC 0 WALL-5286.00
APPROXMIA TF
CCNSTRVC110N UUITS
SOUTH PLATIE RIVER
ENGLEWOOD. CO
IJ.5' 1RANS111{)N 1lJ
AIATC11 £DC£~
MITCR PIPE
TO SLCIP£
UNION AVENUE BOAT CHUTES
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
24° CWP CU..'1£RT
LE.•5292.69
....---_ 18"' HET HEU FOR llSCS
PRESS1JRF: TRANSD<ICER ~
RADAR /JN/T
PIPINC f1i0il RIVER TO
H£T #CU. ""
RDIO~ ORGANIC SEDIMENTS
FROM RIVER BOTrotltl
/I---1RANS1"0N WALL F1IOM
£,10S11NC COtD .KJ/NT
C-z<OK
ll.'1-5291.$#
£LP•5282.50
L-2.J.6'
DAM UN0£R ORNH
"""""' RIMQ...•5291 ... 5
t.E..•52?t.t5
l'N CtWH
LINK CAlt
,~
~
TRANSmON WALL AT £XJS11N<;
{;RA/JC {:U:sx) TO £1..-5285.0.
WRnCAJ. a.IT AT EL.-$285.0 m
NEW TOP OF WALL. a.-5282.!ia
L-25.55'
' -CCWCRl"TC l1£1HNC AREA
.J'w ""'lfl SHOllUJt:R
AIATC11 TO= CrJNCRETC
ABANDON DOS11Nt; PICZOMCTCR
IN Pl.At%: SC'E NOTC 2. T'YP. 2
GRADING/SITE PLAN Loughlin Whifewof.
~-=. · ·:=:
SEE NOTE 7.
10' TRANSITION TO
AIATCH = CCWCRETC
OCSICH:RCW
OCTAll.: IAH
0£CIC.:--
o ... n , Na.cweat '009
PR0£CT H\JM£1Cll
OJ-40.06
Cli<a •lnQ Numb..-:
Date
April 5, 2010
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
Purchase of one Work Truck
for the Utilities Dept.
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
None.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Englewood Water Board, at their February 9, 2010 meeting recommended Council
approval, by motion, for the purchase of one Freightliner M2 106 work truck in the amount of
$122, 108. plus $10,394. for options, for a total of $132,645.00 from Transwest Trucks in
conjunction with the City of Boulder State bid.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS , AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The proposed work truck replacement for Un it #1315 is being used by the Utilities Department
Distribution/Collection crew for water and sewer main cleaning and repairs. The purchase is
being recommended to replace the ex ist ing ten year old unit according to the CERF
replacement schedule. The base bid amount is $122,108. An additional option of $8,865.00
is being added for a 3,000 lb. telescopic crane and $1,529.00 for removal of the under deck
compressor from the old truck and instal lation into the new truck.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The vehicle will be purchased from Transwes t Trucks under the Colorado State bid in
conjunction with Boulder Awa rd BID #5248-09. The base price for the truck is $122, 108.00 .
The Utilities Department will pay an additional $8,865.00 for the telescopic crane and
$1,529.00 for the under deck compressor removal and reinstallation for a total of $10,394.00.
The base truck amount will be funded by the CERF Fund. The te lescopic crane and the
compressor removal and installation are 2010 Budget items with the Utilities Department
contributing $10,394.00 for the options from #40-1604-61401.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Quotation Sheet
SERVICENTER GARAGE
SUMMARY SPECIFICATION SHEET
FOR
NEW VEHCICLES
AW ARD# --=B-"-ou=l=d=er~A~w~ar_d~B~ID~#_52_4~8--0~9 ____ _
MANUFACTURER OF VEHICLE -~F-=-re=i=gh=t=lin=e=r ______ _
MODEL OF VEHICLE M2 106
-~~~~~~~~~~
AIR CONDITIONING YES
AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION YES
POWER WINDOWS YES
POWER DOOR LOCKS YES
4 WHEEL DRIVE YES
FLEX FUEL OPTION YES
CERF REPLACEMENT YES
NEW ADDITION TO FLEET YES
DEPARTMENT VEHICLE ASSIGNED TO 401604, Utilities
Transmission
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
COMMENTS: This unit has met both the years of servi ce and hours of use
criteria for replacement. Total cost of this unit is $122,108.00. Utilities is contributing
$8,865.00 for the purchase of a 3000lbs telescopic crane and 1,529.00 to facilitate the
removal and installation of the under deck compressor from the existing truck. The
current unit is a 2000 Chevrolet 8500 single axle truck, Unit 1315.
:'S; .. llVll llVll •----.... -= II<. ....... -= ~
To: City of Englewood
Pat White
Prepared By: Brian Wiest
Date: 02-01-2010
Options for service bodv
Summit (Stellar) model 3315 telescopic crane
o 11,500 ft-lbs
o Hexagonal Boom Construction
Summit Truck Equipment
970-397-7869
o Planetary winch 30ft/min with hydrau lic I mechanical brake
o 20' corded hand held remote control
o 3000lbs @ 3', ...... 1625lbs @ 7' ,,,,,, 1025lbs @ 11 ', ....... 750lbs@ 15'
Summit provided crane .............................. $8865.00
**Includes installation
Installation of customer supplied under deck compressor
o Install shaft driven compressor
o Plumb compressor through coo ler to P-4 compartment
o Customer to do finale hook-up to customer supp lied air delivery components (FLR and
air reels)
Labor and misc parts for installation incl uded in quote ............. $1529.00
Thank you ,
Brian Wiest
BimWet
970 -397-7869 mobile
866-739-5537 ext. 7504
bwiest@_sum_mitbQdks._co111
S .. llVllllVll•T
-.--.. .:11< EllJIU•P-EN-.-
. Date
April 5, 2010
INITIATED BY
AT Tc S
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
Allen Plant Ultraviolet System
Design
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
None.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board , at their February 9, 2010 meeting , recommended Council
approval, by motion, of the contract for engineering and construction management services to Camp,
Dresser & McKee, Ramey Environmenta l Compliance and NEI (CDM/REC/NEI) for ultraviolet (UV)
system design and softening feasibility study.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The Long Term Two Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule was adopted by Congress on January
5, 2006. In this rule, the Environmental Protection Agency required that water systems meet additional
cryptosporidium (crypto) removal requirements. Crypto is a chlorine-resistant pathogen. The system
must be operational by October 1, 2013. The proposed UV system will exceed the minimum
requirements of the L T2ESWTR mandate.
UV operates with a band of light that disinfects water at a certain wave length in the ultraviolet light
spectrum. Water at the Allen Filter Plant will be treated by the UV system after the filtration process
and before chlorination, then pumped into the distribution system.
Allen Plant personnel conducted an inves tigation of the types of treatment available to comply with
EPA regulations and found UV the most effective and beneficial for the inactivation for crypto while
being compatible with future potential regulation requirements. The UV process will reduce sodium
hypochlorite (chlorine) use, is an extremely fast process to inactivate crypto, is proven technology,
requires the smallest footprint and is the most cost effective.
Utilities Department staff recommends awarding the contract for engineering and construction
management services to CDM/REC/NEI. The proposal was very detai led and has conservative cost
estimates . The proposal includes a 3 year, 4 month time line with an 8 month pilot test, 13 months of
construction with additional inspections during critical periods. Construction is expected to take 13
months, with the pilot test beginning April, 2010 and w!ll run through April, 2011. COM is
knowledgeable and the most qualified regarding the process. They have completed several other UV
systems throughout the United States. COM is also familiar with the Allen Water Treatment Plant,
having consulted on other water treatment plant projects. COM will be contracted to design
modifications to the old clearwell, the clearwell roof, the UV system, the reactor system and the new
power supply.
COM will also investigate the feasibility of providing a 2-million gallon per day softening system to be
used in the future for low river flow situations . It is not anticipated that this softening system will be
built at this time.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
CDM's proposal is for $453,264.00 and includes a 3 year, 4 month time line, an 8 month pilot test , and
13 months of construction observation and management (once a week during the 13 month of
construction) with additional inspections during c ritical periods. The COM Allen Treatment Facility UV
Disinfection System Design quote is in the amount of $432,764 plus the additional Softening Fee
amount of $20,500 for a total of $453,264.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
COM Proposal for Engineering Services in the Evaluation and Implementation of a UV Disinfection
Facility
l
I
f
i.
·,_..
'· .. !~"
Engineering Services in the Evaluatio.ri ·
and Implementation of a UV Disinfection FaciliMi
and the Conceptual Design and Cost Estimate~
for a Softening Facili1y at the Allen WTP .
.~ . ,1, J
FEE ESTIMATE ,~: i
The fee estimate for CDM'( profh~f .. ,,.., ........ ,..-
services is based on constr~ctln~itn .,.:..~-·. ·;t~m}Y~tnin .
the existing Chlorine Conta~t, ~~sJfi~~~:~~?gf~~ fcfr ' ·:
Siting Alternative A. It inch.ides 41 montfls ofproject
management support, c6nstructi9n 'rn.anagemen.t~ start-
up assistance, and ten months 6( pilot testing support in
addition to the preliminary and final design efforts . Table
5-1 presents a breakdown of the hours and cost for CDM
labor, subconsultants, and other direct costs.
Table 5-1
Fee Estimate of Engineering Services
r----------------~
' City of Englew ood • Allen Treatme nt Facility UV Disinfection System Design
I
Task 1 _.·Prolect Manaement
1.1 Budaet & Schedule Oevelooment
1.2 Buda et & · SOhedUle Tracklna ·
t, 1.3 M~thlv ln~~na & Pmk!d Status
•• 1
1.4 Construction Man.,..ment
1.5:Coaldlllnte UV & s:..Stem Trelnln'o
Tllik 2 •Eva! Ex Studies and WO
• '" -.• • l.~
·2.1 Evai Ex StudfeS ..
fa Ooitmlza Olslnfectfon Strat"""
Talk 3 • Selection of W Mnfrs
3.1 cOntact w Mnfrs for.§OUID . Info.
·. "' 3.2 Comlia~ UV Design Criteria ·.·•
3.3 Facllldated Oeslan Workshop
3.4 ldenUfv and Procure Pilot Units
Task 4 Pilot Teslina
4.1 Define PilotTesting Requirements
4.2 Develop Pilot Test Protocols
4.3 Installation and Start-op Assistance
4.4 Analvze Pilot Plant Data & Support
Task 5 -UV Facility De sign
5.1 Prepare UV Design Documents
5.2 Prepare Construction Plans & Specs
Task 6 -Bid Package Preparation
6.1 Prepare Bid and Contract Documents ,
6.2 Assist with Pre-bid and Addenda
6.3 Conduct Bid Openin!l and Review
Total Cost:
W Disinfection Facility at the Allen WTP
Total
COM
Hours
32 $
63 $
147 $
754 $
28 $
68 $
24 $
52 $
28 $
16 $
40 $
52 $
44 $
40 $
72 $
136 $
148 $
1,156 $
248 $
50 $
44 $
3,242 $
Total Costs
COM
Labor
4,860
9,450
14,490 $
78,360 $
3,880
7,200
4,200
7,880 $
3,640
2,440 $
6,380 $
7,400
6,000 $
4,600 $
9,880 $
17,960 $
19 ,880 $
131 ,700 $
29,280
6,800 $
5,480
381,760 $
COM
Subconsultants
1,650 $
5,984 $
1,100 $
$
7,590 $
2,420 $
$
2,200 $
2,200 $
1,100 $
2,200 $
2,981 $
10,043 $
$
1,034 $
$
40,502 $
Other
Direct
Costs
842 '.~ $
889 ~ $
I~. $
:.{,i
% $
"' $
140 I~ $ , ..
40 !': $
47 if. $
\;:
100 'Fl· $
" 200 ,_ $
200 ~ $
363 J $
!il:'
867 j; $
640 ~ $
3 ,200 ~. $
Total
Project
Cost
4,860
9,450
16,982
85,233
3,880
7,200
4,200
9,303
3,780
10,070
8,847
7,500
8,400
7,000
11 ,343
21 ,027
23,501
144 ,943
2,200 ~ $ 31,480
350 '~ $ 8,184
100 ·~ $ 5,580
10,502 ~ $
ihe vesseis could be loca-tecT aiong the -weslside 'oi
the treatment plant site between tlie WTP access
road and S. Windermere Street as shown above
The ion exchange equipment consists of two to th ree 1 O
or 12 ft diameter pressure vessels and a salt storage and
brine tank. The total area is approximately 500-600 sq
ft. The ion exchange process operates as a pressurized
system, so the pressure vessel can be located anywhere on
site where there is space. For example forwarding pumps
could pull water from the clearwell near the maintenance
garage and return the water to the high service pump
station wet well.
Task 3 -Comparison of Softening
Alternatives and Siting Options
The advantages and disadvantages of the soften ing
alternatives will be developed and discussed with the
City during a facilitated evaluation workshop similar to
that proposed for the UV Process and Siting Alternatives
Evaluation. Criteria to be considered include power costs
for pumping, chemical costs, residual disposal and space
requirements. A preliminary comparison of these factors
indicates that lime softening has the lowest
operational cost, but also has the highest space
requirements. The lime softening system is also
expected to require significantly more labor to
operate and maintain compared to
the other alternatives.
Task 4 -Conceptual Layout and Opinion of
Capital and O&M Costs ·
CDM will use the preferred alternative selected during
the workshop in Task 3 to develop a conceptua l site plan,
process flow diagram, and design summary technica l
memorandum for the selected alternative. The design
summary will include an opinion of probable construction
and O&M costs based on typical unit price costs for the
unit processes plus allowances for contingencies and
contractor overhead and profit.
e UV Disinfection Facility at the Allen Wf P
. ~;;;tit;;~;,: ~ ··: ~-"\Tt~%~~~s:;·~::-'.""~, .. " : >·. ·1'-.,_
FEE E'STIM'AlE ANO $CH'E.DULE ·
A summary of the est.imated l~bo-rh~urs and costs to
complete Tasks 1-4 is summarized in the t~ble A-2 below.
We have assumed that the work will be done in parallel
with the preliminary UV evaluation, and meetings to
discuss the softening alternatives and siting options can
be coordinated with the UV workshops to reduce overall
costs. No costs have been included for the final design of
the selected alternative.
Table A-2 Softening Fee Estimate
Task Description Labor Extended
Hours Costs
I -Evaluate Project 24 $4,000 Benefits & Objectives
I -Identify Softening
Alternatives & 32 $6.000
Design Criteria
3 -Comparison of
Softening Alternatives & 32 $5,000
Siting Options
4 -Conceptual Layout
and Opinion of Capital so $5.500
and O&M Costs
Total 120 $20,500
FEASIBILITY STUDY TEAM
CDM's comprehensive knowledge of regulatory and water
quality issues for safe drinking water enables us to help
clients anticipate future conditions. Our project execution
philosophy advocates cost and schedule consciousness
while designing effective treatment strategies.
The CDM team for the feasibility study is comprised of
the best technical resources in the industry. As discussed
earlier, Doug Brown has extensive experience in a wide
variety of technologies including large microfiltration
systems, ion exchange, conventional coagulation and
filtration, reverse osmosis, activated carbon filters, and
advanced oxidation. Mr. Brown will lead the study team.
National experts Michael Zafer and Janice Skadsen, will
bring their lime softening experience and technical
understanding to successfully complete an optimized
feasibility study for the softening alternatives. The
organizational chart on the following page shows our
proposed study team.
Cathy Burrage
From: Bill McCormick
Sent:
To:
Wednesday, January 20 , 2010 11 :32 AM
Gary Sears
Cc:
Subject:
Leigh Ann Hoffhines; Stu Fonda; Cathy Burrage
FW : City Ditch near Huron & Princeton
Below is my response to Mr . Gillit's request abou t the Ci ty Ditch at S. Huron near W. Princeton .
From: Bill McCormick
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 9:24 AM
To: Stu Fonda
Cc: Cathy Burrage
Subject: RE: City Ditch near Huron & Princeton
On January 1 ih, 201 O residents of 4100 S. Huron met w ith the Englewood Water and Sewer to discuss an issue with the
City Ditch that is open in this block . In December, I had several contractors meet w ith me on areas that needed bank
improvements done this winter . The contractors observed the ditch at 4100 S . Huron and stated that the ditch was too
steep and deep to do bank improvements withou t a structural engineer design . I then asked the contractors what other
options there were and they stated that piping the ditch would not need a structural design. I asked them to give me a
quote for piping . Just about that time, a resident in th e block came up to us and asked what we were doing . I explained
that we were looking at the problems with the ditch . One of the contractors told her that the only options were piping this
area. At that time she asked who she could address her concerns about the piping. I told her that she could voice her
concerns to the W &S Board. Later in December we received a petition from several residents in the 4100 block stating
that they did not want the Ditch piped . Arrangements were made for them to appear before the Water & Sewer Board in
January. At the Board meeting several residents spoke why they wanted the ditch left open. There was also a resident on
the downstream side of the Ditch that requested the Ditch be piped because of safety issues and possible flooding of his
property.
The Water and Sewer Board requested that we obtain a neutral engineer to investigate the site to determine if alternate
options are available to fix the ditch without piping. They also requested that the engineer provide a preliminary cost
estimate with these options . I am contacting a structural engineer on the Urban Drainage list of approved engineering
firms . A meeting is scheduled with Muller Engineering on January 25 1
h . Hopefully we will have the estimate for our
February meeting. If no repairs are made before spr ing , possible bank erosion could cause curb and gutter damage as
well as street damage . Also there is the possibility of ditch leakage on the downstream side of the ditch which could cause
property damage. Joan Weber our Risk Manager has visited the site and is having CIRSA give an opinion on liability
issues . The steep embankment has a potential to trap children during storm water runoff events .
From: Gary Sears
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 4:25 PM
To: Rick Gillit
Cc: Stu Fonda; Bill McCormick; Leigh Ann Hoffhines
Subject: RE: City Ditch near Huron & Prince
Hi Rick ,
I know that this has been an issue for some time and I understand the Water Board addressed this issue at their meeting
last week. I am asking Stu Fonda and Bill McCormick to put together a short term review of the issues associated with
the City Ditch so that the Council can be aware of the Water Board's decision. Thanks for your note, we'll try to put this
information together as soon as possible .
Gary
1
From: Rick Gillit
Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2010 2:35 PM
To: Gary Sears
Subject: City Ditch near Huron & Prince
Gary,
I just received a call from a resident on S . Huron . He was telling me that the city is going to bury the
city ditch between Prince & Oxford. Cou ld you please forward this to whoever is working on that
project. I guess the residents do not want the ditch covered but would prefer to have it fixed so that the
erosion would be fixed but that the ditch could be seen . I am hearing that the residents find it a quality
of life issue that they like seeing the wate r th ere .
Your help on this would be greatly appreci ated!
Rick Gillit
City Council Member -District #4
Office: 303-762-2300
Direct: (303) 246-4780
Email: rgillit@englewoodgov.org
Personal Web Page -www.EnglewoodCitizen.com
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110-2373
2
--~ --_...,. ____ ._. ____ " r--7--..
J1 u {3 ,, • I 2.S /10_
m w~rks ~der the hood of a GMC ill the service center last week ~t Alpine Buick Pontiac
.rHub.com
.do and
.tmanu-
>S and a
another
!ton, is.
e aright
lVe had
1yapar-
·' ,
ies that
ie same
>rtwiity
.ade the
ninated
)ffering
e in the
tk that's
; before
nmittee
:ts it to
pass the House and then move into the Sen-
ate. · ,
'.'I don't get why," Rice said. "If the busi-·
ness wasn't making money, they wouldn't
be able to stay in .business."
Y. et, he said, a manufacturer can revoke a
franchise, puttirig peOP,le OUt of work -in
one dealer's case 30 or.40 people.
"Many people think Wall Street is out of
touch with Main Street, and what we're say-
ing is we .want to try to tilt.the playing field
hack to the d~gree we can to the person oi;i
Main Street," he added. ·
Rice said he'd like to hear from constitu-
e~ts about the issue -from individual sto-
ries of the impact of dealership closings or
organizations that were supported by deal:
erships. .
Ivette Dominguez, owner of Alpine
Buick Pontiac GMC in Littleton, said she's
always had a gqod relationship with GM
. "It's not that you need .to f!.gree with ev-
erythiilg everybody says, but it's better to
find a fyiend than make a foe today," she
said. . · '
Tho~gh GM is discontinuing the Pontiac
brand, Dominguez said she will increase in-
ventory ofBuick and GMC models to try to
boost new vehicle sales by about 30 per-
cent.
In the wake of thousands of d'ealership
franchises revoked by General Motors and
Chrysler, more than 20 percent of -those
· franchisees have asked for arbitration in ap-
peaJJng the dosing actions. The Associat-
ed Press reported GM Chaimian and CEO
Ed Whitacre Jr., felt that hundreds of deal-
ers could win back their franchises during
the he!lling process, which must. be com-
pleted.by June 14 '•
Informati'on provided by Hank:Held, se-
nior vice president of the Burt Automotive
Network, indicates some. manufacturers
'will fight arbitration by dealers for rein-
'statement. ·
· Constituents. who would like to contact
Rice about the issue can e-mail him at
jQe.riCe.house@state.co.us or call his . of-
fice at 303-866-2953. . . / .
Daniel Smith: 303-C)54-26ji or
smit'fid@yourhub.com
7
·Feds-
jnvestigate
·Englewood
water threat
By Daniel Smith
YourHub.com
Quick action· by water . plant
eniployees in Englewood .pre~
vented a potenyally hazardous
substance from getting into the
city's. drinking water distribu-
tion system Christmas Eve:
The unidentified contaminant
-described as bei.rig like a petro-
chemical or cleaning solvent __:
. , was apparently dumped de],iber,-
ately, and an official said the inci-
dent is under investigation. hy
the Environmental Protection
Agency and Homeland Security.
Englewµod utilities ·cµtector
Stu Fonda saiq a plant employee
on rounds about i .a.m. noticed
the smell from . settling ponds
and investigated. ,
Apparently, .the contaip.lnant
was dumped into the South
Platte River, Fonda faid estimat-
ing it was "about ioo gallo~ ot
more."
"We're. not .really wanting to
-·say mu.ch about it," he s~d, not-·
ing the ongoing investigation,
The water ~plant was ~hut
down immediately, Fonda said.
"It took us about six 'hours of
deaning things so .that we could .
get a treatment train on line, and
then it took us several days after . .. that to get everything else
cleaned up and flushed out," Fon-
da said. .
City manager Gary Sears told
council members recently 'the
work of utilities operations su-
perintendent Bill McCormick
and other water plant staff in de-
tecting the.spill was admirable ..
"They solved the issue before
it actually had gotten to the
plant," he said. ·
EPA regional spok~sperson Ri-
chard Mylott said tl).e c_ontamina-
tion was likely "a type of solvent
or gasoline product that entered
the plant's' · preliminary. treat-
ment system through intakes
from the South Platte River.''
He ~aid the source ls still being
sought and the water distribu-
tion syste~ was not affected.
CI,)
t ~
< ~' City of Englewo
Utilities Department
JTAC Luncheon
Can Your Water Utility Be
Financially Healthy In Stormy
Times?
City of Englewood Utilities Department
Number of Water Accounts:
Car washes
Commercial Accounts
School Accounts
• Industrial Accounts
Mobile Home Parks
Multi-Family Accounts
Municipal Accounts
Single Family Residential Accounts
Special Handling
Total
9
1075
4
9
6
945
58
8702
1
10,810
{'
Average Single Family Annual Water Use = 93, 100 Gallons
{' City of Englewood Utilities Department
Water Sales Rate Structure: Inside City
First 400,000 $3.11
Over 400,000 $1.93
Minimum Water Charge:
Meter Size Quarterly Charge Admin Fee Minimum Included
Usage
5/8 " $8.03 None
%" $9.16 None
1" $78.91 $9.97 $68.42 22,000
1.5" $149.82 $9.87 $139.95 45,000
2" $235.53 $11.61 $223.92 72,000
3" $435.52 $15.67 $419.85 135,000
4" $721.23 $21.48 $699.75 225,000
6" $1,375.40 $34.89 $1,340.50 450,000
{' City of Englewood Utilities Department
Water Sales Rate Structure: Outside City
First 400,000 $4.35
Over 400,000 $3.11
Minimum Water Charge:
Meter Size Quarterly Charge Admin Fee Minimum Included
Usage
518 " $8 .10 None
3,4" $8.69 None
1 " $106.42 $10.80 $95.72 22,000
1.5" $205.77 $9.98 $195.80 45,000
2" $325.08 $11.81 $313.27 72,000
3" $603.42 $16.03 $587.39 135,000
4" $997.21 $18.23 $978.98 225,000
6" $1,933.42 $37.52 $1,895.90 450,000
'' City of Englewood Utilities Department
• Water 2007 2008 2009
Billed January $433,330.41 $483,418.44 $496,971.24
Revenues: February $422,082.88 $444,044 .64 $457,712.30
• *In 2009 March $192,551.82 $208,317.25 $214,625.20
there was a
7o/o rate April $393,782.81 $412,341.96 $424,605.50
increase. May $428,276.56 $428,954.42 $501,005.49
June $192,551.82 $242,353.43 $257,546 .03
July $393,782.81 $515,084.03 $501,963.21
August $544, 143.84 $629,201.36 $544,614.62
September $527,748.91 $645,088.30 $503,929.93
October $707,635.47 $782,368.55 $770,421.35
November $634,977.65 $667,891.93 $643,017.39
December $412 ,419. 16 $435,014.97 $462,045.74
Total $5,283,284.14 $5,894,079.28 $5,778,458.00
Percent Change 0% 12% -2%*
{' City of Englewood Utilities Department
• Financial Impact.
• Billed water revenues for 2008 were $5,894,079.
• With a 7°/o increase for 2009, actual water revenues
were anticipated to be $6,354, 132.
Billed water revenues are 2°/o lower than in 2008.
• The overall revenue loss is 9°/o or about $570,000.
{' City of Englewood Utilities Department
• Percentage of Revenue from Base Charges vs. Volume
Charges:
* Unaudited, incomplete numbers
2007 2008 2009
Base Charges $232 ,931 .95 $263 ,292.00 $285 , 133.01 *
Volume Charges $5,201,640.09 $5,635,353.25 $4,548, 104.86*
Percentages 4.4°/o 4.6°/o 6.3°/o
{' City of Englewood Utilities Department
• Strategies.
Englewood Utilities has its five year cash flow projection models
set up in such a way that we can delay certain, non-critical capital
projects until revenues allow for their accomplishment.
Examples:
• Routine water main replacement.
• Routine ditch lining or piping.
Englewood will package large capital projects and issue bonds to
spread the costs to future customers who will use the facilities.
• Englewood has passed multi-year rate increases. The last two
multi-year increases were both 3 years in duration. The Water and
~ewer Board likes uniform increases as opposed to sudden large
increases.
{' City of Englewood Utilities Department
• Lessons Learned.
• Updating five year cash flow projections every
year provides a useful tool to rapidly make
decisions when revenues fall short. Budget
numbers are viewed only as an authorization
to spend. Division managers prepare the
budget using the projected revenue
requirements and manage their expenditures
within that context.
{' City of Englewood Utilities Department
~ Our Approach.
• 1. Areas of Management -The Vicious Circle.
A. Political
B. Engineering
C. Financial
D. Legal.
When engineering doesn 't work, it will destroy the other
three. The other three often prevent the proper
engineering. Often the political body is gone before
the consequences are realized. All three of these
must be in focus.
{' City of Englewood Utilities Department
• 2 . The Cash Flow.
• The principle management tool is the 5 year
cash flow which is in context of the long range
capital program : 5 -50 years. It projects for
each year income, expenses, bonding and
year end balances as well as bond coverage.
.
{' City of Englewood Utilities Department
Cash Flow:
A. Shows the entire operation in one understandable
summary.
• B. Allows rapid calculation of options, i.e., adding this
project or lowering salaries results in this much rate . vanance.
• C. Can be used to foster engineering, financial and
legal understanding to result in political acceptance
because it shows consequences for various
strategies. Allows the political body to join in strategic
decision making on an informed basis .
{' City of Englewood Utilities Department
Cash Flow :
• Our cash flow is computerized and tied to the
budget line items. Managers budget in context
of the cash flow .
. '
{' City of Englewood Utilities Department
3 . For correct revenue reductions we may do
all or part of:
A. Lower fund balances.
B . Postpone non-critical capital projects.
C. Accept salary freezes with the rest of the
City.
• D. Analyze the cash flow with much lower
increases in operation and maintenance
costs .
•
BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP -------·---------------
ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW
1712 Pearl Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302
Tel: 303.402.1600 • Fax: 303.402.1601
bhgrlaw.com
David G. Hill
Partner
dgh@ bhgrlaw.com
Daniel L. Brotzman, Esq.
City of Englewood
l 000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110-0110
January 7, 2010
_. ,(} .. '
. -~\
·. -·\
,\
\"' J AM 1 ~ 20 10 ~)
\ . Re : December Invoice
Dear Dan:
\--... '. ,,' / -" ·I '~~,·
Enclosed please find our invoices for professional serv ices on water matters for
November 24 , 2009 , through December 31 , 2009 , in the amount of $19 ,073.00 , with a total for the
year of $424 ,255 .37 .
The amount for this billing cycle on major cases is listed below :
I Name I Amount I No. I
FRICO/United 1999 Appeal $ 5,519.00 712
Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project 2 ,852 .00 720
FRICO/United Change and Main Burlington Appeal 1,899 .00 722
Stu Fonda has asked us to provide brief descriptions of th e reasons for Englewood 's
involvement in all cases which appear on our bills each month , as w e ll 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 enclo sed invoices:
Introduction. Please understand that this letter is a confidential attorney-client
communication. Please keep it confidential.
The largest bill for December was for the work on the appeal to the Supreme Court of the
Water Court decision on the 1999 Agreement. The 1999 Agreement, between Denver on the one
hand and the owners of the 1885 Burlington storage right, on the other hand, takes off the call from
•
Daniel L. Brotzman
January 7 , 2010
Page 2
the 1885 right, which diverts at the Burlington headgate near the point where I-270 crosses the river.
It enables Denver to divert an additional 7 ,400 acre feet of water, on average , above Englewood
during the 1885 fill period. The rights on which Denver diverts the 7 ,400 acre feet were out of
priority during the 1885 fill period, prior to the 1999 Agreement. Denver's new di versions injure
Englewood 's rights , particularly those which allow Englewood to divert soft water at Chatfield. The
appeal is set for oral argument at I 0:00 a.m. on January 21st. Preparation for the oral argument
requires extensive review of the Water Court ruling, the transcript, numerous pretrial motions , and
the various briefs.
The next largest bill is for what has been entitled the Chatfield reallocation project. Denver
has taken numerous steps to enable it to pump water out of Chatfield, leaving the Chatfield gates
closed. When the gates are closed, the hardne ss level in the river at Englewood 's Union Avenue
diversion point becomes so bad that Englewood must dilute the river water with water from Bear
Creek or Chatfield Reservoir (if Englewood can get it). Denver has taken its various steps without
obtaining 404 permits and complying with the environmental reviews associated with those permits .
The analysis of Denver's 404 permit problems has been undertaken in an effort to get Denver to
make reasonable provisions to relieve Eng lewood 's hardness problem . The negotiations with
Denver appear to have stalled , and the next decision will be whether to call the 404 permit problems
to the attention of the Corps of Engineers and the EPA.
The third largest bill is for work whi ch has been designated as "Main Burlington Appeal."
This is the appeal by FRICO , Burlington, Henrylyn, United and East Cherry Creek of the Water
Court's ruling which vastly cut back the diversions which those parties could make at the Burlington
Canal headgate. It also includes the appeal by Englewood, Denver and the foregoing parties of the
Judge 's ruling curtailing diversions into the Burlington Canal by means of the Metro Pumps. There
has been motion practice concerning the appea l and argument, the allowable length of the briefs , and
which parties could file opening and reply br iefs on which subjects . There have also been repeated
motions for delay in filing the trial transcr ip t w ith the Supreme Court, which were occasioned by
time difficulties of the court reporter. We have now received the trial transcript, and our opening
brief with respect to Metro Pumps is due in February, as is the opening brief of the Burlington
parties named above.
The remainder of the cases are described below.
1. General (#001): This matter is our general file for w o rk not attributable to specific
cases. In some instances, the work is not specific to a particular matter. In other instances , the time
spent on any individual matter is not large enough to justify a separate bill , but the time on the group
of matters is significant. This includes charg e s related to general calendaring , reviewing various