HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-03-09 WSB AGENDAWATER& SEWER BOARD
AGENDA
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
5:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONF. ROOM
ENGLEWOOD CITY HALL
1. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 2010 MEETING. (ATT. 1)
2 . ALUM RESIDUAL DISPOSAL. (ATT. 2)
3. PURCHASE OF FRONT LOADER/BACKHOE. (ATT . 3)
4. WATERMETERPURCHASE. (ATT4)
5. LETTER FROM PAUL HOW ALD -2844 E. NICHOLS CIR.
(ATT. 5)
6. CITY DITCH AT OXFORD & HURON.
7. 2009ANNUALREPORTONWATERLAW ACTNITY AND WATER
RIGHTS UPDATE DATED FEBRUARY 5, 2010. (A TT . 6)
8. OTHER.
WATER AND SEWER BOARD
MINUTES
February 9, 2010
ATT. I
The meeting was called to order at 5 :05 p.m.
Members present:
Members absent:
Also present:
Clark, Olson, Cassidy, Wiggins,
Woodward, Mc Caslin, Habenicht
Bums, Higday
Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities
Bill McCormick, Operations Supt.
John Bock, Manager of Administration
1. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 12, 2010 MEETING.
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received the minutes of the January 12, 2010
meeting.
Mr. Wiggins moved;
Mr. Habenicht seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Members absent:
Motion carried.
To approve the minutes of the January 12,
2010 meeting as written.
Clark, Olson, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward,
Mccaslin, Habenicht
None
Burns, Higday,
2. GUEST: JOHN GALLAGHER AND KEVIN BURNETT WITH RED OAK
CONSUL TING.
Mr. Gallagher appeared before the Board to review the proposed changes in water and
sewer connection fees. Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Burnett reviewed the methodology used to
calculate development fees for Englewood . It appears that these fees would still be
comparable to other municipalities in the Denver area.
Mr. Gallagher explained how fees are based on the proportionat e share of capacity in the
City's water treatment plant and distribution system, sewer collection system and
wastewater treatment plant. Fees were calculated using standard valuation approaches to
determine original cost, original cost less depreciation, rep lacement cost and replacement
cost less depreciation.
The Board received this as an informational item only. This item will be discussed at a
future meeting.
3 . CITY DITCH -HURON & OXFORD.
At the January, 2010 Water Board meeting Tom Brennan, Englewood Utilities Engineer,
noted that the City Ditch bank in this area is in failure, putting the house below and the
road above in danger. Alisa Osemwengie, Barbara Fout and Kim Kurczewski petitioned
the Board to seek alternatives to piping the City Ditch in their area .
The Board received a quote from Mueller Engineering in the amount of $5,680 to
evaluate open channel alternatives for the City Ditch at West Oxford and Huron Street.
Mr. Woodward moved ;
Mr. Wiggins seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
That the Director o f Utilities sign the
contract with Mueller Engineering to
evaluate open channel repair alternatives
for the City Ditch at Oxford and Huron.
Olson, Cassidy, Wiggins , Woodward,
Mccaslin, Habenicht
None
Clark
Absent: Bums, Higday
Motion carried.
4. S . PLATTE RIVER/UNION AVE. BOAT CHUTE.
The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) was contacted by the South Suburban
Parks Foundation regarding concerns about public safety in the South Platte River. The
area is located 250' north of the Un ion Avenue Bridge on th e South Platte River in
Englewood, near Englewood's raw water intake and pump stati on . The project will
improv e egress from the downstream pool , reduce eddy velociti es , improve line-of-sight
to the pool and site signage . The CWCB owns the kayak bo at ch utes. Englewood staff
supports these improvements and recommends approving an access and license
agreement.
The Boat Chute Agreement allows the CWCB to modify the intake structure by cutting an
existing wall to reduce the eddies in the river flow. With the Agreement Regarding
Design and Construction of Union Av enue Boat Chutes , Englewood allows the CWCB to
modify the intake structure per their engineer's recommendation. The Access Agreement
allows the CWCB permission to cross Englewood's river pump st ation property to gain
access for construction.
Mr. Cassidy moved ;
Mr. Habenicht seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Motion carried.
To recommend Council approval of the
Grant of Access Easement and the
Agreement Regarding Design and
Construction of Uni on A venue Boat Chutes
Safety Improvemen ts Including a Part of the
City of Englewood's Water Intake Structure,
subject to the City Attorney's final approval.
Clark, Olson, Cassidy, Wiggins , Woodward,
McCaslin, Habenicht
None
Bums, Higday
5. WORK TRUCK.
The Utilities Department Distribution/Collection crew is requesting a work truck
replacement for Unit #1315 used for water and sewer main cl eaning and repairs . The
purchase is being recommended to replace the existing ten ye ar old unit according to the
CERF replacement schedule.
The base bid is $122 ,108. An additional option of$8,865.00 is b eing added for a 3,000
lb. telescopic crane and $1,529.00 for removal of the under de ck compressor from the old
truck and installation into the new truck. The vehjcle will be purchased from Transwest
Trucks under the Colorado State bid in conjunction with Boulder Award Bid #5248-09.
Mr. Habenicht moved ;
Mr. Wiggins seconded :
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Motion carried.
To recommend C ouncil approval 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 .
Clark, Olson, Cassi dy, Wiggins , Woodward,
Mccaslin, Habenicht
None
Bums, Higday
6. ALLEN PLANT ULTRA VIOLET (UV) SYSTEM DESIGN
Stu discussed the Long Term II Enhanced Surface Water Treatm ent Rule that was
adopted by Congress on January 5, 2006 that requires water systems to meet additional
cryptosporidium ( crypto) removal requirements. The system must be operational by
October 1, 2013 .
Allen Plant personnel investigated the types of treatment available to comply with the
BP A regulations and found UV the most effective for the inactiv ation of crypto while
being compatible with future potential regulation requirements. The UV process will
reduce sodium hypochlorite (chlorine) use, is an extremely fast process, 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. CDM's quote for the Allen Treatment
Facility UV disinfection System Design is $432, 764 plus $20,500 for investigating a
possible softening system for use during low river flow periods for a total of $453,264.
Mr. Cassidy moved;
Ms. Olson seconded:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Motion carried.
To recommend Council approval of the
contract for engineering and construction
management services to Camp, Dress &
McKee for ultravio let system design and
softening feasibility study in the amount of
$453,264.
Clark, Olson, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward,
Mccaslin, Haben icht
None
Burns, Higday
7. FRICO/BURLINGTON WATER APPEAL CAST #2009SA133
Stu discussed a Water Court ruling that is being disputed by Englewood, City of Denver,
Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company and Burlington Ditch (FRICO), East Cherry
Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District, Henrylynn Irrigation District, United Water
and Sanitation District, City of Thornton, City of Brighton, Town of Lochbuie and South
Adams County Water and Sanitation District (applicant). The ruling prevented the
applicants from pumping effluent from Metro Sewer District into the Burlington Canal,
causing downstream reservoirs to fill slower, therefore affecting Englewood's McLellan
rights. Englewood, Denver and the other applicants are jointly appealing the ruling.
The Case No. 09SA133 Common Interest Agreement will enable Englewood's legal
counsel to share strategies with Denver and other applicants concerning the appeal of the
Metro Pump ruling. The agreement grants permission for the parties to work together for
this specific litigation to exchange information and share costs and strategy. This
agreement does not compromise Englewood's water rights in any manner.
Englewood has previously retained David Hill of Berg Hill Greenleaf & Rusciti to
represent Englewood in the FRICO litigation to represent Englewood's rights and ensure
that historical patterns of lawful diversions are protected and in accordance with past
decrees.
For the purpose of expediting the agreement, the Board concurred with the staff
recommendnation and directed that it be forwarded directly to City Council for their
February 16, 2010 meeting.
8. "THE HUB" ARTICLE DATED JANUARY 25, 2010, "FEDS INVESTIGATE
ENGLEWOOD WATER THREAT."
The Board received an article from "The Hub," reporting that Allen Water Plant
employees prevented a potentially hazardous substance from entering the City's water
distribution system on December 24 , 2009. Approximately 100 gallons of an unidentified
petroleum-based chemical was apparently dumped deliberately into the South Platte
River. The incident is under investigation by the EPA and Homeland Security.
9. AWWAPRESENTATION -CANYOUR WATER UTILITY BE
FINANCIALLY HEALTHY IN STORMY TIMES?
Stu gave the highlights of a presentation that was made, "Can your water utility be
financially healthy in stormy times?" that was made at an A WW A luncheon. Stu
discussed lessons learned and the importance of updating five year cash flow projections
every year. He also noted that decreased revenues may result in lower fund balances,
postponement of non-critical capital projects and salary freezes.
10. WATER RIGHTS UPDATE FROM DAVID HILL DATED JANUARY 7, 2010.
The Board received from David Hill, Englewood's Water Attorney, a water rights update
dated January 7, 2010. Stu noted developments in water litigation cases in which
Englewood is involved.
11 . WATER RESEARCH FOUNDATION LETTERS.
The Water Research Foundation, as part of the American Water Works Association,
requested letters be sent to Senator Mark Udall, Senator Michael Bennet, Representative
Diana DeGette, Representative Betsy Markey and Representative John Salazar supporting
the Foundation's Fiscal Year 2011 funding request of $5 million for drinking water
research.
The Board directed Stu to sign and send letters of support to the above mentioned
Senators and Representatives supporting the funding from the Interior, Environment and
Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee.
The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p .m.
The next meeting will be Tuesday, March 9, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
Isl Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Date Agenda Item
April 5, 2010
A IT 2
Subject
Allen Plant Alum Residuals
Removal and Disposal
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart H. Fo nda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
Council approved on July 19, 2004 the bid for the Allen Water Filtration Plant Residuals Removal and
Disposal Service to Waste Management in the amount of $163,260 .00 for disposal of one year of
production .
Council approved on June 19, 2006 the bid for Allen Water Filtratio n Plant Residuals Removal and
Disposal Service to Waste Management, Inc. in the amount of $49 ,768.00 for disposal of
approximately 800 cubic yards of production .
Council approved, on February 19, 2008, the proposal for the Allen Water Filtration Plant residuals
removal and disposal to Allied Waste in the amount of $108,775 for disposal of approximately 2,000
cubic yards of production.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Englewood Water and Sewer Board, at their March 9, 2010 meeting, recommended Council
approval, by motion, of the proposal for the Allen Water Filtration Plan t residuals removal and disposal
to E.T. Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $83,520.00 for disposal of approximately 1,600 cubic yards
of production .
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
Alum residuals are produced by the settling process and filter backwashing. Residuals build up in the
washwater reservoir and the settled solids are pumped out by the sludge-handling barge. It then goes
into the belt press, which dewaters the residuals. This process allows us to stockpile up to 2,000 cubic
yards of residuals annually.
Residuals are produced year-round, and it is imperative that the resid uals be processed when the
weather is amenable and stored until disposal. Storage space has s in ce run out, and the Allen Filter
Plant needs to dispose of these residuals in the quickest, most economical and legally compliant
method.
The dewatering process concentrates a naturally occurring radioact ive material (NORM), also known
as technologically enhanced radioactive material (TERM) that falls under State Health Department
requirements with EPA guidelines . For a comparison of relative rad iation exposure -standing next to
the residuals pile for 6 months produces 1 -2 mrem/year, watching TV produces 1 mrem/year and
living in a brick or stone house produces 7 mrem/year (information provided by Joseph Cattafe of
COM). Residuals disposal has been an on-going challenge and debate with EPA for the past several
years for Colorado Front Range utilities.
The disposal site must be approved by the State Health Department as an allowed site for properly
disposing of residuals resulting from normal sludge removal operat ions at the Allen Water Filter Plant.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
E.T. Technologies, Inc. is the recommended acceptable bidder at $83,520.00 for one year's production
(1 ,600 yards). The Utilities Department budgeted $110,000.00 in account #40-1603-55201 in the 2010
Budget for this project. COM reviewed the bids and did a technical evaluation deeming the E.T.
Technologies, Inc. bid the lowest, acceptable bid.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Bid Tabulation Sheet dated March 1, 2010
City of Englewood Bid Tabulation Sheet
Bid Opening Date: March 1, 2010 10:00 A.M. MST I Apparent Low Bidder I
ITEM BID: IFB-10-105 Allen Water Filtration Plant Residuals Removal & Disposal Service
Estimate
1600 Statement of Statement of
Cubic Unit Qualifications Delivery
Vendor Yards Cost Total Bid YIN Accordance YIN Exceptions:
E.T;Technologies, Inc·
10000 s Drari!lh,rdt·Rd s~e 100
Parker; co : 80134 · ..
RobertJ<nimber:gl[lr · .,
(30~) .·68()~94f ii fax":(3"03) 680~5427 ·
..
mbert@eftacbldc net .· 1600CY . $ 52.20 $ 83,520.00 · y y Nc!"e
Waste Management of Colorado
7780 E 96th Ave WM will require pH analvsls for profile approval,
Henderson, CO 80640 & takes exception of the Indemnification clause
Geoff Aardsma In the contract
(303) 968-5339 fax (303) 280-9848
gaardsma@wm.com 1600 CY $ 70.82 $ 113,312.00 N y
Republic Services/Allied Waste Services
8480 Tower Rd
Commerce City, CO 80022
Mike Riiey
(303) 459-8744 fax (303) 371-5150
mdle~@republicse1Yices.i::om No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid
IFB-10-105 Bid Tab Residuals Disposal.xis
CDIVI
555 17th St(eet, Suite 1100
Denver, Colorado 80202
March 2, 2010
Bill McCormick
Operations Superintendent-Utilities
City of Englewood -Utilities Department
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110
Subject:
Dear Bill :
IFB-10-105 Allen Water Filtration Plant Residua ls Removal & Disposal Service
Bid Evaluation and Recommendation
As requested, CDM completed a review of the bids for the abo ve referenced project. This
letter lists the actions taken fo complete this review, as follows :
• Evaluated the original bid documents submitted to the City on March 1, 2010 .
• Verified the estimated quantity arid unit price equals the To tal Base Bid amount.
• Verified completeness of bids
Based on the evaluation of the bids received, it is our opinio11 tha:t a ll contractors submitted
responsive bids. E.T. Technologies, Inc. is the low apparent bidder and did not take any
exceptions to the Contract. TI1erefore, CDM recommends that the Ci ty award the contract for
the referenced project to E.T. Teclmologies, Inc.
Please call with any questions you may have.
Very t~uly your) v
ames J. riss, P.E .
Principal
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.
cc: project files
P:\0710 ·Englewood\59568 ·Residuals Landfill Disposal Assessmenl\2010 Rel sd ua ls Disposan!FB·10-105 Bi.devaluation leller.doc
consul!Jng . engin.eerlng. (.ons.truction ·operations
AIT. 3
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Date
April 5, 2010
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
Agenda Item Subject
Purchase of Loader/Backhoe
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
Existing Rubber-Tired Wheel Loader/Back was approved by Council on June 16, 1997 in
the amount of $89,089.00.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Englewood Water Board, at their February 9, 2010 meeting, recommended Council
approval, by motion, of the purchase of one, new Rubber-Tired Wheel Loader/Backhoe
from Wagner Equipment Co. in the amount of $121,450.00. Options for a hydraulic
breaker ($23,925.00) and a hydraulic compactor ($7,910.00) were added for a total of
$153,285.00.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The proposed loader/backhoe is the primary piece of equipmen t used for excavating dirt
and fill for water, sewer and stormwater projects. The proposed backhoe will have quick-
detaching features that will combine two pieces of equipment -hydraulic breaker and a
hydraulic compactor. The purchase is being recommended to replace the existing 13-year
old Unit #1304 according to CERF replacement schedule.
Bids were received from two vendors:
Honnen Equipment
Wagner Equipment Co.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
$121,731.00
$121,458.00
Wagner Equipment Co. is the recommended bidder at $121,450.00 for the basic backhoe.
The base truck amount will be funded by the CERF Fund. Op tions for a hydraulic
breaker ($23,925) and a hydraulic compactor ($7,910.00) were added for $31,835 .00 .
These options are 2010 Budget items with the Utilities Department contributing
$31,835.00 from #40-1604-61401.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Bid Proposal Tabulation Sheet dated February 23, 2010
City of Englewood Bid Tabulation Sheet
Bid Opening: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:00 A.M.
ITEM: IFB-10-104 Rubber Tired Wheel Loader-Backh_o_e--------------------------------------'
Raaenaum ,,;uooer 11rea upt1on: upuon: upt1on: uptton:
1 Wheel Loader-Parts Shop Extended Mechanical Option: Option : Total Price
Acknowled Backhoe Bid Manual Service backhoe Front Wheel Hydraulic Hydraulic with all 6
Vendor ged Y/N? Price X3 ManualX3 boom Drive Breaker Compactor options: Exceptions:
Rueter's
10000 Brighton Road
Henderson, CO 80640 No Bid
Preston Schwisow (Sales Rep)
303-287-1361 fax 303-287-1256
No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bid No Bi d No Bid
Van's Equipment Gave price sheet for following options:
4046 Joe Collier Dr Okada 6500 plate compactor $4221.00
Dacono, CO 80514 Okada 13,500 plate compactor $7750.00
Kevin Moore (President) Okada Hammer $23, 148.00
303-828-9600 fax 303-828-4733 All in f ormation provided has been sent to
No Bid No Bid No Bi d Fleet Mgr for review
Honnen Equipment Co.
5055 E 72nd Ave None Listed
Commerce City, CO 80022
Steve Stotz (Territory Mgr)
303-286-4819 fax 303-287-0086
stevestotz@honnen.com
y $ 121 ,731 .00 $ 650 .00 $ 365 .00 $ 10,230.00 $ 6,750.00 $ 20,938.00 $ 9,291.00 $ 169,955.00
Wagner Equipment Co.
18000 Smith Rd None Listed
Aurora, CO 80011
Andy Kratt (Sales Rep)
303-739-3299 fax 303-739-3191
akratt@waanereauioment.com Included
y $ 121,450.00 $ 135.00 $ 1,554.00 $ 4,495 .00 No Charge $ 23,925 .00 $ 7,910.00 $ 159,469 .00
STATE AWARD#
SERVICENTER GARAGE
SUMMARY SPECIFICATION SHEET
FOR
NEW VEHCICLES
--------------------
ENGLEWOODBID# __ ~IF=B~-~1 ~0-~1~04-'------------~-
MANUFACTURER OF VEHICLE __ C=A'-"-T=-----------
MODEL OF VEHICLE 450E Backhoe Loader -------------------
AIR CONDITIONING YES NO
AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION YES NO
POWER WINDOWS YES NO
POWER DOOR LOCKS YES NO
4 WHEEL DRIVE YES NO
FLEX FUEL OPTION YES NO
CERF REPLACEMENT YES NO
NEW ADDITION TO FLEET YES NO
DEPARTMENT VEHICLE ASSIGNED TO Utilities 4016 04 ---~---------
COMMENTS: This unit replaces Unit 1304, a 1997 John Deere 71 OB backhoe.
This unit has met the replacement crit eria both in hours of use and age. This is the lowest
bidder; funds are available through the CERF fund. The cost of the unit is $121,450.00.
Date
April 5, 2010
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
A TT. '-/-
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
Water Meter and ERT
Purchase
STAFF SOURCE
Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities
COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION
Council approved the 2005 meter purchase in the amount of $76, 785.10 at their March 21,
2005 meeting. ·
Council approved the 2006 meter purchase in the amount of $51,331.40 at their May 15, 2006
meeting .
Council approved the 2009 meter purchase in the amount of $1 14, 140 at their February 2,
2009 meeting.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The Water and Sewer Board, at their March 9, 2010 meeting , recommended approval by
motion for the purchase of water meters and electronic remo t e t ransmitters (ERTs) from
National Meter and Automation, Inc. in the amount of $46,60 1.10.
BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED
The Utilities Department purchases water meters needed for a n entire year by requesting one
large bid proposal for additional cost saving~. The Utilities Department is converting the
metering system to the ITRON Automatic Meter Reading System . All meters and registers
purchased will be compatible with the ITRON System. A portion of these meters will be resold
to Englewood customers for new installations as part of the flat-rate-to-meter conversion
process. Some of the meter stock will be used to replace inactive or poorly functioning meters
and to convert existing meters to the ITRON system.
A portion of the 2010 order is electronic remote transmitters (ERT's) for updating existing
residential meters, enabling meter reade rs to obtain meter readings using radio frequencies.
This improves accuracy, and at the same time, is a labor saving device.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Englewood's meter and ERT order is being placed in conj u nct ion with Denver Water Board 's
Purchase Order #104918 for the best quantity price. Meters and ERTs will be purchased from
National Meter & Automation for the amount of $46,601 .10 for meters. Of this amount,
approximately $20,000 will be resold t o Englewood customers for flat-rate to meter
conversions.
There is money budgeted for these meters in the 2010 Budget.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Quote from National Meter and Automation, Inc.
{:.~<r~ A. Tl'£> NA L
METER AND AUTOMA T ION, INC.
9800 E. Easter Ave, Ste. 130, Centennial, CO 80112 Tel: (303) 339-9100 Fax : (303) 649-1017
Mr. Randy Pierce
City of Englewood
Water Department
Englewood, CO 80110
Dear Randy:
Per your request please find the following quotation:
70 -5/8x3/4 Badger LP meter with Encoder register for Pit ERT: $64.00 ea
100 -3/4" Badger Meter with Encoder Register for Remote ERT: $70. 73 ea
40-3/4" Badger Meter with Encoder Register for Pit ERT: $70.73 ea
10 -l" Badger Meter with Encoder Register for Remote ERT: $101.17 ea
20 -l" Badger Meter with Encoder Register for Pit ERT: $101.17 ea
130-60W ERT with in-line connector for Remote Series: $89.62 ea
110 -60W ERT with in-line connector for Pit Series: $89.62 ea
50-5/8x/3/4" Badger RTR Register with potted wire: $76.75 ea
50-3/4" Badger RTR Register with potted wire: $76.75 ea
Full Freight Allowed
Delivery: 30-45 Days ARO
Terms: Net 30 Days
Thank you,
Noel Frakes
President
February 23, 2010
Meter and Itron 2010 -National Meter and Automation, INC.
Quanitv Discriprion
70 5/8" x 3/4 Badger Meter LP with Encoder Register for Pit ERT
5' Wire with in-line connector for Itron ERT
100 3/4" Badger Meter with Encoder Register for Remote ERT
5' Wire with in -line connector for Itron ERT
40 3/4" Badger Meter with Encoder Register for Pit ERT
5' Wire with in-line connector for Itron ERT
10 1" Badger Meter with Encoder Register for Remote ERT
5' W ire w ith in -line connecto r for Itron E RT
20 1" Badger Meter with En coder Reg ister for Pit ERT
5' Wire with in-line connector for Itron ERT
130 60W ERT with in-line conncetor for Remote Series
110 60W ERT with in-line conncetor for Pit Series
50 5/8" x 3/4" Badger RTR with Potted wire for Pit ERT
50 3/4" Badger RTR with Potted wire for Pit ERT
Cost per Unit
$ 64.00
$ 70.73
$ 70 .73
$ 101 .17
$ 101.17
$ 89.62
$ 89.62
$ 76.75
$ 76.75
total
Total Idem
$4,480.00
$7,073.00
$2 ,829 .20
$1 ,011 .70
$2,023.40
$11 ,650.60
$9,858.20
$3,837 .50
$3 ,837 .50
$46,601.10
National Meter & Automation, Inc
9800 E Easter Ave.
Suite 130
Centennial, CO 80112
303-981-9330 Phone
303-649-1017
Attention Noel Frakes
c
ATT. s
T y
March 1, 20 IO
Paul Rowald
2844 E. Nichols Cir.
Centennial , CO 80122
0 F E N G L E
RE: Account Number: 36939028440 Sanitary Sewage Treatment Billing
Dear Mr. Rowald,
Thank you for your letter of February 22 , 2010.
w 0 0
At your request, we have reviewed the charges on your account. The present balance of $306.31
is correct and is the minimum charge for a single family residence.
This charge is made up of three parts:
$199.56 ($187.14 + $12.42) is what Englewood collects for sanitary sewage treatment.
The approved rate increase over 2008 was 8%.
$13.18 is for maintenance of the Big Dry Creek Interceptor (IBA) which serves five
sanitation districts. Everyone in this drainage basin contributes to the upkeep of this conduit.
$93.57 is collected by Englewood for the South Arapahoe Sanitation District.
Englewood does not own the sewage collection pipes in your area , South Arapahoe does .
There is no question that wastewater treatment is getting increasingly expensive. The reason for
the marked increase since 2002 is the recently completed, major construction project at the
Littleton I Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant. This $114,000,000 project increased the
capacity of the plant and kept the plant in compliance with State and Federal clean water
regulations. If you have internet access, complete information about the project can be seen at
http://englewoodgov.org/Index.aspx?page=420. If you do not have int ernet access and would
still like the information, call me and I will have it mailed to you.
I would be more than happy to discuss our rates with you either in person or over the phone.
Please feel free to contact me.
~c.ergr, BuJ..-
\~k
Utilities Manager of Administration
303-762-2643
Fax 303-783-6894
jbock@englewoodgov.org
1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone 303-762-2300
D
. February 22, 20 I 0
City Manager
City of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110
Paul E. Howald
2844 E. Nichols Circle
Centennial, CO 80122
RE: Sewer Account 00036060 36939028440
Dear City Manager:
:·::'-' 2010
I hereby formally protest the amount you have billed me for sewer services for year
2009. The total amount is $586.97 ........ THIS IS MORE THAN A 100% INCREASE
OVER LAST YEAR.
Can't you people run a tighter ship? Sticking the publi c for incompetent management
and the inability to stay within a budget is not acceptable. Let's get all new bureaucrats
to run this department ...... they can't do any worse.
Also the letter sent in December (unsigned and no date supplied) was about as poorly
written as it could have been. It made very little sense w ith all the fancy word labels
and misnomers. What does a "concrete utility charge" hav e to do with sewer service in ,
the first place? And what the hell does "Cycle Billing fo r 2009 Rates Recover" mean.
Come on ......... use simple common words to communicate.
I'm not going to pay this balance due. One would think that Englewood could exercise
a little more restraint and take a little more proactive ro l e in helping its customers,
especially in such a severe economic time as this. But n o, instead you ask for more than
a 100% budget increase. This is what is wrong with govertunent today. Spend .... spend
...... spend. Tax .... tax ... tax. I say get rid of every bureaucrat who is not fiscally
responsible and hire business people who know how t o trim fat and get rid of waste
(pun intended).
Before you assess me further with the county, I would suggest you look at this invoice,
just to be sure it is correct.
p
tax payer"
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD
ENGLEWOOD CIVIC CENTER' 1000 Enalewood Pkwv. *Enalewood CO 8
ACCOUNT NUMBER BILLING DATE
00036060 12/01/2009
36939028440
11 •• 1.11 ...... 11 .. 1.1 .. 1.11 ... 11
PAUL HOWALD
KATHRYN HOWALD
2844 E NICHOLS CIR
CENTENNIAL CO 80122-3476
DUE DATE
01/11/2010
..
0110
BILL NUMBER 893216
MAKE CHECK. OR MONEY ORDER PAYABLE TO:
CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. THERE WILL BE A $25 .00
CHARGE ON ALL RETURNED CHECKS.
$306.31
SERVICE LOCATION
2844 E NICHOLS CIR
I~~ 111 1 ~ 11111 ~I I~ 11~1I~11111111~ ~~I I~~ 11~1 ~11~~111~111111~ II~ 11~11~1111111~ l~l 11~1111
0 0 0 3 6 0 6 0 3 6 9 3 9 0 2 8 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 6 3 1
WHEN PAYING BY MAIL INCLUDE TOP PORTION OF BILL WITH FULL PAYMENT.
ACCOUNT NUMBER SERVICE LOCATION
00036060-36939028440 2844 E NICHOLS CIR
BILLING DATE DUE DATE PREVIOUS READING PRESENT
12/01/2009 01/11/2010 0 0
TYPE OF SERVICE FROM SERVICE DATES TO
PREVIOUS BILLING
SEWER CYCLE BILLING FOR 2009 R TES RECOVER
PAYMENT-THANKYOU
WATER CHARGE
SEWER CYCLE BILLING
IBA CYCLE BILLING
SOUTH ARAPAHOE SANITATION BIL ING
12/01/2009
12/01/2009
12/01/2009
12/01/2009
12/01/2010
11/30 /2010
11/30/2010
11/30/2010
. . .
'. TOTAL AMOUNT DUE . .
. . .
CONSUMPTION
0
AMOUNTS
280 .66
12.42
-280.66
0.00
187.14
13.18
93 .57
$306.31
COMMENTS WATER CONSUMPTION HISTORY .
PLEASE WRITE THE ACCOUNT NUMBER ON THE PAYMENT
CHECK. PLEASE ENCLOSE THE TOP PORTION OF THE BILL
WITH THE FULL PAYMENT.
DATE DAYS USAGE
PAY YOUR BILL ON LINE@ WWW.ENGLEWOODUTILITIES .ORG
OR ON THE PHONE'@ 303-783-6930 WITH CHECK OR CREDIT
CARD .
,,,,.,~ PAYMENTS DUE IN FULL. IF PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS ARE NECESSARY, PLEASE CALL (303) 762-2635
~~ PLEASE SEND PAYMENTS AND ANY INQUIRIES TO:
.... ~ ~ ENGLEWOOD UTILITIES DEPT., 1000 Englewood Parkway, Englewood, CO 80110. ~ ,, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
SOUTH ARAPAHOE WEBSITE FOR QUESTIONS
WWW .SOUTHARAPAHOE .ORG
CONCRETE QUESTIONS
BILL NUMBER
303-762-2635
303-762-2360
Notice to Englewood's Water, Sewer and Concrete
Utility Customers
Dear Englewood Utilities Customer:
On your most recent bill , the line item "Cycle Billing for 2 009 Rates Recover" may
appear for the water, sewer and/or concrete utility charges along with a dollar amount.
This charge reflects the change in the rates from 2008 to 20 09.
In late 2008, the Englewood City Council approved rate increases recommended by the
Water and Sewer Board and the Englewood Public Works Department (for concrete
charges only). When the new rates were approved and enacted, many customers had
already been billed and paid for 2009 services at the 2008 r ates. Other customers had
been billed and paid for all 2009 services at the new 2009 rates.
The Rate Recovery charge is intended to equitably and fairly apply all the 2009 rates
among all of our customers.
Not all of our customers will see all o_f these recovery charg es . You will see only those
that apply to your account.
If you have questions or concerns regarding the water and s ewer charges, feel free to call
us at 303-762-2635. For questions related to the concrete charges, call 303-762-2360.
Also, our customers may now pay their Englewood Utility bil1s either online or over the
telephone using a credit card or checking account. To pay online, visit the Englewood
Utilities Depaiiment web site at www.englewoodutilities.org and follow the instructions,
or call 303-783-6930 and follow the verbal prompts. If you have difficulties, give us a
call at 303-762-2635.
ATT. ~
2009 ANNUAL REPORT ON WATER LAW ACTIVITY
To: Water and Sewer Board and City Council of the City of Englewood
THIS IS A CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION. KEEP
IT CONFIDENTIAL.
The predominant legal work during 2009 related to the changes of the water rights
ofFRICO (Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Company), Burlington (the Burlington
Ditch, Reservoir and Land Company), and Henrylyn (Henrylyn Irrigation District). The
changes involve Barr Lake, Prospect Reservoir, Horsetooth Reservoir, Milton Reservoir,
Lower Latham Reservoir and various direct flow rights. It is the largest change of water
rights from agricultural use to municipal use in Colorado history. The rights which
ultimately can be changed to municipal use in accordance with the requested decrees
probably exceed 90,000 acre feet of annual diversions. As an aid to understanding the
magnitude of that change, Denver's average annual diversions from the eastern slope and
the western slope are around 345,000 acre feet, and Denver is the state's largest diverter.
The dollar value of the rights being changed is enormous; the value per acre foot may be
somewhere between $7500 and $10,000 dollars.
The changes are being pushed by Robert Lembke, a water investor who formed
United Water and Sanitation District, which he controls, as an entity to hold title to the
rights being changed. A large block of the shares in the various companies have been
bought by United, and then sold by United to East Cherry Creek Water and Sanitation
District, which will pump the changed water uphill for some 30 miles or more to serve
homes in the Cherry Creek valley. Those homes presently get their water from deep
wells, which are being exhausted.
The changed rights with which Englewood has been concerned to date are those
which divert at the Burlington Canal headgate. Those rights have a long and sad history
of major diversions in excess of their decreed amounts, with no proper accounting, and
no adequate supervision by the Water Commissioner. Back toward the outset of the
proceedings, an engineer for one of the other opponents (i.e. one on our side) made a
rough guess that the Burlington Canal diversions exceeded the lawful amounts by
perhaps 30,000 to 50,000 acre feet per year. While that amount is unsubstantiated, it
gives an idea of the magnitude of the problem.
The over-diversions primarily injured Englewood's 1948 McLellan Reservoir
priority and Englewood's Bear Creek exchange, which allows Englewood to take its Bear
Creek water at the City Ditch outlet from Chatfield Reservoir. Those two rights enable
Englewood to take soft water from Chatfield and alleviate Englewood's hardness
problem, as well as providing water which is sold to Centennial Water and Sanitation
District (Highlands Ranch). However, the over-diversions have been so immense that in
times of drought they probably impacted Englewood's core senior rights which divert at
Union A venue.
Englewood entered the cases to constrain the future Burlington headgate
diversions to their lawful historic amounts, and to deal with the 1999 Agreement (see
below re the 1999 Agreement).
The results so far are as follows:
1. The 1885 Burlington storage right, the most senior on the river, has been
reduced from 11,081 acre feet of allowable annual diversions to 5,456 a/f. Essentially its
allowable diversions were cut in half.
2 . The 1885 Burlington direct flow right was cut from 350 cubic feet per second
to 200 cfs, and its use below Barr Lake was forbidden .
3. The Applicants (FRICO , Burlington, Henrylyn, East Cherry Creek) sought a
finding that 69 percent of the historic lawful diversions were "burned up", that is
constituted consumptive use through evaporation and transpiration . (East Cherry Creek
can pump all of the consumptive use uphill to East Cherry Creek.) Instead, the Water
Court determined that only 50 percent of the historic lawful diversions constituted
consumptive use and could be pumped uphill. That reduces by 27.5 percent the claimed
amount of water which East Cherry Creek could take out of the river.
4 . The average annual amount which could be diverted on the FRICO 1909 Barr
Lake right was reduced from 21,930 a/f to 11,616 a/f.
5. As part of the efforts to remove Globeville from the flood plain, the Burlington
Canal headgate was recently moved some 900 feet upstream and rebuilt by Denver Public
Works and Urban Drainage and Flood Control. As part of the move, FRI CO insisted that
the new headgate be able to take the entire flow of the river up tol ,000 cfs, whereas the
old headgate could take the entire flow only up to 700 cfs. But the Water Court ruled that
diversions at the new headgate could not exceed diversions at the old headgate.
6. For generations the Burlington diverters had captured seepage and return flows
and re-used them for irrigation, which is unlawful. The Water Court forbade
continuation of that practice.
7. The Burlington Canal intercepts Sand Creek, which has become a perennial
stream readily visible from highway I-270. The Burlington Company had a decreed right
to divert from Sand Creek. The Water Court declared that right to be abandoned .
8. The Burlington Canal intercepts First, Second and Third Creeks, which were
once intermittent prairie streams, and takes their water. Those streams are now perennial,
because of development. The Water Court required that the water so taken count against
the decrees which divert at the Burlington headgate.
9. The Water Court imposed strict accounting standards .
10 . Very importantly, the D ivision Engineer appointed a special Water
Commissioner whose job is to enforce all the rules about diversions at the Burlington
headgate. The Division Engineer appears to have been embarrassed at the evidence of
widespread decree violations which had gone on for generations .
All of the foregoing items are being appealed (except for the accounting standards
and the new Water Commissioner and the rulings on Sand Creek and First, Second and
Third Creeks). The rulings created great consternation among the shareholders ofFRICO
and Burlington and the Henrylyn landowners. Among other results of the consternation,
FRICO, Burlington and United have new and separate counsel for the appeal.
Previously, John Akolt had represented FRICO, Burlington and United. Opening briefs
are due in April. While it does not matter now, before trial, Englewood and Aurora
offered the Applicants a settlement which was vastly better than the results of the trial.
The Applicants turned it down as too stingy.
On the downside, Englewood lost on two issues in the Water Court. The first was
the 1999 Agreement, and the second was a ruling on the Metro Pumps.
Denver and the Burlington div erters entered into the 1999 Agreement. In brief it
provided 1) that the Burlington diverters would cease complaints about the quality of the
Denver's reusable effluent which Denver provided to them to enable Denver to take
water by exchange upstream; 2) Denver would give the Burlington diverters 5,000 a/f of
reusable effluent (which the Burlington diverters sold to South Adams for $60 million);
and, 3) the Burlington diverters would no longer place an upstream call to fill the 1885
Burlington storage right. However, 4) the parties agreed that the 1909 Barr Lake call
would be used to fill both the 1885 decree and the 1909 decree. Elimination of the 1885
call enabled Denver to take, on average, an additional 7 400 a/f upstream during the 1885
fill period. The additional Denver diversions have two bad effects on Englewood's
McLellan right and Englewood 's Bear Creek exchange. The first is that the fill of the
1885 right is greatly delayed, thus delaying the fill of the other reservoirs which divert at
the Burlington head gate, which call out McLellan while they are filling. The second is
that there is less water in the river for Englewood to divert at Chatfield.
Denver and the FRICO diverters cleverly planned to use the 1909 call to fill the
1885 right, because Denver's upstream rights are senior to 1909 (and junior to 1885) and
could continue to divert despite the 1909 call. However, the 1909 call would eliminate
Englewood's diversions on its 1948 McLellan right. So the Burlington diverters could
continue to call out McLellan, but allow Denver to divert.
The Water Court ruled that the 1909 call could not be used to fill the 1885 right.
That ruling is beneficial to Englewood. However, the Water Court ruled, in essence, that
Englewood had no legal right to complain about the elimination of the 1885 call which
enabled Denver to take the additional 7400 a/fupstream. Englewood separately appealed
that ruling. Englewood essentially asked the Water Court and is asking the Supreme
Court to make new law on the issue; there are no definitive cases at this time.
Oral argument on Englewood's appeal was held on January 21st. I am
discouraged about the probable result at this point. Jon Banashek and Heidi Potter,
partners with our firm, attended the oral argument, as did Joe Tom Wood. Jon, Heidi and
I felt that Justice Hobbs, who usually sways the Court on water matters, was against us.
He expressed a desire to preserve the 1999 Agreement as a settlement, despite the injury
it caused, again on a strictly legal basis. On the other hand, Joe Tom Wood felt the Court
was generally undecided and hard to predict.
The final matter for discussion is the Water Court's ruling on the Metro Pumps.
In about 1968 the outfall of the greater Denver sewage treatment plant was moved from
above the Burlington headgate to a new plant below the Burlington headgate. To
partially compensate the Burlington diverters for the loss of the effluent which they had
previously diverted, pumps were built to enable the pumping of Metro Sewer effluent
into the Burlington Canal, and that pumping continued from 1968 until the Water Court's
ruling. The pumping provided water in addition to that which was in the river at the
Burlington headgate. The Water Court ruled that the Metro Pumps could not be used to
take any water in excess of that which was already available in the river. The use of the
Metro pumps benefits Englewood because it hastens the fill of the reservoirs which divert
at the Bulington headgate, and eliminates their calls against McLellan Reservoir. Denver
is similarly affected.
Denver, Englewood and the Applicants are jointly appealing the Metro Pumps
decision. There is a good legal basis for the appeal. Opening briefs are due in April.
Finally, and significantly, at Englewood's direction we obtained evidence that
Denver and the Corps of Engineers had failed to obtain or require proper 404 permits for
facilities which enable Denver to keep the Chatfield Reservoir outlet gates closed for
longer periods of time, thus exacerbating Englewood's hardness problem. Negotiations
with Denver on the matter have not thus far been productive.
Respectfully Submitted,
David G. Hill
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
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110-0110
Re: January Invoice
Dear Dan:
February 5, 2010
.. ~.
Enclosed please find our invoices for professional services on water matters for January 1,
2010, through January 31, 2009, in the amount of $39,877.27 .
The amount for this billing cycle on major cases is listed below:
I Name I Amount I No. I
FRICO/United 1999 Appeal $ 25,499.58 712
Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project 933.00 720
FRICO/United Change and Main Burlington Appeal 7,439.73 722
Stu Fonda has asked us to provide brief descriptions of the reasons for Englewood's
involvement in all cases which appear on our bills each month, as well as a brief summary of the
work performed by this firm during the month. The following paragraphs contain these descriptions
with respect to the matters reflected on the enclosed invoices:
Introduction. Please understand that this letter is a confidential attorney-client
communication. Please keep it confidential.
I have written down my time by $2,500.00 and Pat Gabel's paralegal time by $1,000.00.
The two billings which are large enough for discussion are the 1999 Agreement appeal and
what we call the Main Burlington appeal. Both billings arise from the largest water right change in
Daniel L. Brotzman
February 5, 2010
Page 2
Colorado history, the change of the irrigation rights which divert at the Burlington headgate from
agricultural to municipal use. The joint applicants are of course the Burlington Company, FRI CO,
United Water and East Cherry Creek Water and Sanitation. Associated with the change is the 1999
Agreement between Denver and the Burlington diverters, which injures Englewood's ability to divert
soft water at Chatfield to blend with the hard water in the river at Union A venue, and injures
Englewood's ability to sell water to Centennial (Highlands Ranch). The historic over-diversions
have on occasion been severe enough to potentially injure Englewood's core Union Avenue
diversion rights. A more complete description of these cases and our progress will be included in
the annual report, which is due shortly.
The 1999 appeal billing results from preparation for oral argument before the Supreme Court
which was held on January 21, and presentation of oral argument. I did very extensive preparation,
and several members of the firm criticized "practice" oral arguments, asked me "tough questions"
simulating those which the Justices might ask, and offered their suggestions about my presentation.
We will not get a decision for several months. From the arguments, it appears likely that we
won on the question of whether FRICO could use its 1909 storage right call to fill the 1885
Burlington storage right, instead of using the 1885 call. Use of the 1909 caJI would have prevented
McLellan from diverting (it has a 1948 right), but would have allowed Denver's rights to Strontia
Springs and Cheesman Reservoir to divert, since they have priority dates between 1885 and 1909.
The other question was whether Englewood could legally complain about the extended fill
and call periods for the Burlington storage rights which are caused by Denver taking a lot of extra
water into Cheesman and Strontia Springs. The prolonged call periods injure the McLellan right and
the extra water taken at Strontia and Cheesman injures Englewood's Bear Creek to Chatfield
exchange. Those two rights provide soft water and provide water to sell to Centennial. One can only
speculate on the Court's likely ruling on this issue. From our firm, Jon Banashek, Heidi Potter and
I were present; and Joe Tom Wood was an observer as well. Jon and Heidi and I were discouraged
by the questions of Justice Hobbs on the Englewood position, although he asked tough questions of
the other side. On the other hand, Joe Tom was not so discouraged, saying it was impossible to tell
which way the Justices were leaning. No further work is due on this matter until the Court's ruling
comes down.
The Main Burlington appeal involves the appeals of the Applicants (Burlington, FRICO,
United, East Cherry Creek) from massive losses which they suffered, and the appeals of the
Applicants and Englewood and Denver from the Water Court's ruling on the use of Metro Pumps
to fill the reservoirs which divert at the Burlington headgate. The principal losses suffered by the
Applicants were these: 1) the 1885 storage right, the most senior right on the river, was cut from
11,081 a/f of annual allowable diversions to 5,456 a/f; 2) the Burlington direct flow right was cut
Daniel L. Brotzman
February 5, 2010
Page 3
from 350 cfs to 200 cfs; 3) the consumptive use fraction of the water rights, which will be pumped
up hill by East Cherry Creek and others , was cut from 69 percent of diversions as requested by
Applicants, to 50 percent as contended for by Englewood and others; and 4) the Division Engineer
appointed a special water commissioner just to watch over diversions at the Burlington headgate,
because of evidence that substantial unlawful diversions had occurred in the past. There were other
cutbacks as well. Those are huge losses for the municipal users, and the cutbacks have been applied
to the remaining farmers as well. The decision and the appeals are attended by a high level of
emotions on the part of the farmers and the directors of the Applicants, so much so that the farmers
have forced a change of counsel upon the Applicants. A flurry of motion practice has resulted, in
which Englewood had to participate. The decision, if sustained, will be quite beneficial to
Englewood.
On the other hand, the Water Court ruled that the Applicants could no longer use additional
water gained by pumping Metro Sewer effluent into the Burlington Canal to fill their reservoirs.
That practice had been going on since 1968. That ruling is not beneficial to Englewood, in that it
slows the fill of the reservoirs; but it is helpful in that it leaves an additional 90 cfs in the river to
alleviate or prevent calls from downstream reservoirs senior to the McLellan right. The Applicants,
Denver and Englewood are appealing that ruling .
The work has involved getting the transcript and evidence properly transmitted to the
Supreme Court, and responding to numerous motions by the Applicants seeking extra-long briefs
and separation of various issues in the briefs . Opening briefs are now due in April.
The remainder of the cases are described below.
1. General (#001 ): This matter is our general file for work not attributable to specific
cases. In some instances, the work is not specific to a particular matter. In other instances, the time
spent on any individual matter is not large enough to justify a separate bill, but the time on the group
of matters is significant. This includes charges related to general calendaring, reviewing various
daily incoming pleadings and correspondence, overall case management and other activities that are
not case specific. It usually includes preparation of many statements of opposition.
2. McDonald (87CW321) (# 14 7): This case involves an application for direct flow and
storage rights on unnamed tributaries of Plum Creek. Englewood's interest is to monitor the case
to see that administration of very junior rights is proper. We reviewed motion to dismiss and order
granting same.
3 . Colorado Division of Wildlife (90CW123) (#215): Applicant seeks 75 acre-feet of
storage in Chatfield Reservoir for fish, wildlife and maintenance of storage reserve. It also seeks