The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2011-03-08 WSB AGENDAWATER & SEWER BOARD AGENDA Tuesday, March 8, 2011 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM ENGLEWOOD CITY HALL 1. MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 2011 MEETING. (ATT. 1) 2. GUEST: BRIAN EWERT -ENGLEWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS - RE: LONG-RANGE PLANS FOR ENGLEWOOD SCHOOLS 3. WATER METER PURCHASE. (ATT. 2) 4 . NOTICE OF CONTRACT CANELLATION FOR CHERRYRIDGE & CHERRYMOOR SANITATION DISTRICTS. (ATT. 3) 5. WATER RIGHTS UPDATE FROM DAVID HILL DATED 2-7-11. (ATT . 4) 6. GREENWAY/PURE TRASH STUDY-REQUESTFORFUNDS. 7. OTHER WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES February 9, 2011 The meeting was called to order at 5: 10 p .m. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward, Habenicht, Mccaslin, Olson, Higday, Clark, Burns Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities Dwayne Tinsley, Southgate Sanitation District 1. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 11, 2011 MEETING. The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received the minutes of the January 11, 2011 meeting. Mr. Habenicht moved; Mr. Wiggins seconded: Ayes: Nays: Absent: Motion carried. I -I To approve the minutes of the January 11, 2011 meeting. Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward, Habenicht, Mccaslin None Olson, Higday, Clark, Bums 2. GUEST: DWAYNE TINSLEY-SOUTHGATE SANITATION DISTRICT . Mr. Tinsley distributed a history of the Big Dry Creek Interceptor and a map of projects and how they were prioritized . The Big Dry Creek Basin Interceptor is a major trunk line serving the Southgate, South Arapahoe, Greenwood Village, South Englewood Sanitation District and part of the City of Englewood for sanitary sewer transport. In 1990 the City of Englewood entered into the Interceptor Basin Agreement with the connected sanitation districts. Englewood still owns the interceptor north of Mansfield, but all the connected districts share responsibility for the repairs , maintenance and replacement of the line. Mr. Tinsley reviewed the restructured financing for the Big Dry Creek Interceptor implemented in 2006 . The restructuring scheduled periodic increases in the Big Dry Creek Interceptor Agreement line charge. Mr. Tinsley discussed the proposed line charge which will increase the rate from $0.159123 to $0.189861per1,000 gallons of winter water consumption. This will average out to approximately $3 .00 per household, per year. Mr. Wiggins moved; Mr. Habenicht seconded: Ayes: Nays : Absent: Motion carried. To recommend Council approval , by Ordinance, of a Big Dry Creek Interceptor maintenance fee increase to $0.189861 per thousand gallons. Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward, Habenicht, Mccaslin None Olson, Higday, Clark, Bums 3. REQUEST FOR FUNDS FROM PURE/GREENWAY FOUNDATION. The Board discussed the request from Jeff Shoemaker for the PURE Project to study trash that pollutes the South Platte River. Discussion ensued about the subject of the study, the amount requested and , if a contribution was made , what fund should be used. Mr. Wiggins moved; I -2. Mr. Cassidy seconded: Ayes: Nays : Absent: Motion carried. To table a motion regarding the PURE request for funding . The issue will be discussed at a future meeting to allow absent Water Board members to vote on this issue. Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward, Habenicht, Mccaslin None Olson, Higday, Clark, Bums 4. UTILITY SERVICE PARTNERS -SERVICE LINE INSURANCE. Mr. Woodward distributed a sample letter used by Utility Service Partners (USP) in conjunction with a municipality, to illustrate how a participating cities' logo would be used in their promotions . Conditions discussed at the January 11 , 2011 Water Board meeting would be implemented to emphasize to residents that the Utilities Department would not be responsible for USP 's services. Any resulting transactions would be between the company and the customer. Mr. Woodward suggested that instead of proposed royalty payments, the monthly rates could be reduced for Englewood customers. It was noted that their company is endorsed by the National League of Cities . Mr. Woodward recommended that the request be considered by City Council in a study session. Habenicht moved; Mr. Cassidy seconded : Ayes : Nays: To recommend that the request by Utility Service Partners, Inc . to use the City of Englewood logo for promoting their water and sewer service line warranty insurance be forwarded to City Council for a study sess10n. Cassidy, Wiggins , Woodward, Habenicht, Mccaslin None J -3 Absent: Olson, Higday, Clark, Burns Motion carried . 5. WATER RIGHTS UPDATE FROM DAVID HILL DATED 1-10-11 . The Board received an update from Mr. David Hill dated January 10, 2011 on developments in water litigation cases in which Englewood is involved. 6. UV DISINFECTION AT THE LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WWTP. Mr. Fonda noted that the City of Littleton voted to hire an independent engineering firm to review the Brown and Caldwell proposal recommending UV disinfection as an alternative disinfection method to comply with recently proposed discharge limits. The long-range advantages of an UV disinfection system were reviewed. Mr. Woodward noted that the UV issue was a last-minute agenda item and recommended that future agenda items have an earlier deadline to allow members to review materials . 7. WATER RATE COMPARISON. The Board received a Water Rate Comparison chart as an approximate guide of water rates in the Denver metro area. It was noted that Englewood ranked fifth from the lowest out of twenty-two. The meeting adjourned at 6:21 p.m. The next Englewood Water Board meeting will be March 8, 2011 in the Public Works Conference Room . Respectfully submitted, Isl Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary I -L./ Date May 2, 2011 INITIATED BY Utilities Department 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 $114, 140 at their February 2, 2009 meeting. Council approved the 2010 meter purchase in the amount of $46,601.10 at their March 9, 2010 meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Water and Sewer Board, at their February 9, 2011 meeting, recommended approval by motion for the purchase of water meters and electronic remote transmitters (ERTs) from National Meter and Automation, Inc. in the amount of $69, 145.00. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The Utilities Department purchases water meters needed fo r an entire year by requesting one large bid proposal for additional cost savings. 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 2011 order is electronic remote transmitters (ERT's) for updating existing residential meters, enabling meter readers to obtain meter readings using radio frequencies. This improves accuracy, and at the same time , is a labor saving device . 2 -/ FINANCIAL IMPACT Englewood 's meter and ERT orde r is being placed in conjunction w ith Denver Water Board 's Purchase Order #104918 for the best quantity price. The purchase order is based on a previous b id by Denver Water. Meters and ERTs will be purchased from National Met er & Automation for the amount of $69 , 145.00 for meters and ERTs. Of this amount, approximately $20 ,000 will be resold to Englewood customers for fl at -rate to meter conversions. There is money budgeted for these meters in the 2011 Budget. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Quote from National Meter and Automation , Inc . 2. ... 2. ··~fqATIONAL METER AND AUTOMATION, INC. 7220 5 Fraser St, 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: January 28, 2011 70-5/8x3/4 Badger LP Meters with encoder registers and 60W ERT's: $159.76 ea -.-l 11 18 3, 20 200-% Badger meter with encoder registers and 60W ERT's: $166.76 ea ·:: 33 1 3 'i ~ · 00 30 -1 Badger meter with encoder registers and 60W ERT's: $198.46 ea -.::. 51 ~ 17 3 · 2o 80-60W ERT's: $93.20 ea ;:; 7, J./ Eil ,e.o 100-M35 Encoder registers : $80.00 ea ::. e, (!)60. OC> 40-M25 Encoder registers: $80.00 ea :: 3 1 1. o 0 · o0 Terms: Net 30 Days Full Freight Allowed Thank you, Noel Frakes President/CEO 2. -3 -~-~ATIQNAL METER AND AUTOMATION, INC. 7220 S Fraser St, Centennial, CO 80112 Tel: (303) 339-9100 Fax: (303) 649-1017 Mr. Randy Pierce City of Englewood Utilities Department Englewood, CO 80110 Dear Randy: January 25, 2011 Per your request I am pleased to offer from National Meter & Automation, Inc. to the City of Englewood the same pricing as was extended to Denver Water on December 13, 2010. All terms and conditions extended to Denver Water shall be applicable to the City of Englewood. Pricing shall remain firm thru 12/31/2011. Full Freight Allowed Terms: Net 30 Days Th~ you for your consideration, Noel Frakes President/CEO National Meter & Automation, Inc. 2 -'-I MEMORANDUM TO: Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities FROM : Tom Brennan, Utilities Engineer DATE: February 28, 2011 RE: Cherryridge and Cherrymoor Sanitation Districts The Utilities Department staff is recommending that we do not renew our maintenance contract with Cherry Hills Village for sanitary sewer cleaning services. At the inception of this agreement in 1995, Cherry Hills Village desired to take ownership of the many private sanitary sewer districts served in their jurisdiction, with the City of Englewood providing sewer maintenance services. This agreement would have allowed the City to add equipment and personnel, enhancing our abilities to serve our residents. This objective was not realized as Cherry Hills Village contracted with Cherry Hills Sanitation District to provide these services for all but the 120 customers that the City serves . To consolidate and simplify, Cherry Hills Village is arrang i ng to contract all maintenance services from Cherry Hills Sanitation District. Cherry Hills Village residents will then have one contact number in the event of a sewer back-up or emergency. 3 -I c T y March 10, 2011 City of Cherry Hills Village Attn: Mr. Jay Goldie 2450 East Quincy Avenue Englewood, CO 80113 0 F E N G RE : Wastewater Collection System Maintenance Agreement Dear Mr. Goldie, L E w 0 0 D The letter will serve as notice that the City of Englewood will not renew the Wastewater Collection System Maintenance Agreement which ends pursuant to its terms on October 2, 2011 . The agreement provided maintenance for Cherry Ridge and Cherrymoor areas. These areas will be cleaned before October 2, 2011 per the agreement. The exist i ng Connector's Agreements will remain in effect for the above mentioned areas . If you have any further questions, please give me a call at 303-762-2636 . Sincerely , Stewart H. Fonda Director of Utilities City of Englewood 1000 En glewood Parkway Eng lewood, Co lo rad o 80 11 0 Ph o ne 303-762-2300 www.englewoodgov.org 3 -2. 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 DearDan: February 7, 2011 RECEIVED FEB 1 O 20U ENGLEWOOD, CO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Enclosed please find our invoices for professional services on water matters for January 1, 2011 , through January 31, 2011, in the amount of $69 ,309 .69 , with a total for the year of $119 ,135.52. The amount for this billing cycle on major cases of particular significance is listed below: I Name I Amount I No. I FRICO (02CW404 and 03CW442) Change $ 49 ,092.17 504 Denver (01 CW286) South I North Complex Reservoirs 4 ,742.29 511 Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation 4 ,973.50 720 Main Burlington Appeal (09SA133) 6,763.90 722 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. 4-1 Daniel L. Brotzman February 7, 2011 Page 2 The bill has been written down by $10,942.50, in the interest of the budget. That includes, among other things, no fees for the attorneys from the office (including me) who attended the Supreme Court argument on the FRICO/Burlington/East Cherry Creek appeal but who did not sit at counsel table and he lp with the argument. Those whose attendance time was written off had nevertheless spent huge amounts of earlier time in assisting with brief writing and argument preparation, and they much desired to hear the argument. The largest bill, of course, is for the ongoing FRI CO/United/East Cherry Creek change and "transient groundwater storage" case. Rapid developments in that case over the last few days give some grounds for optimism about a much shorter trial or even a possible settlement. (The case is presently set for six weeks of trial starting in April.) The case began as a sort of "house of cards" scheme to divert 100,000 acre feet or so on rights with priority dates of 2002 and 2003, on those occasions when such junior rights would actually be in priority, put that water into "transient groundwater storage" through recharge ponds, and pump the "stored" water back out over time for municipal use. The application drew a storm of protests, innumerable opposers, and over 40 expert witness reports. It proposed new legal theories, as well as unacceptable engineering and unacceptable computer models defining the storage. Within the last few days (in February, not the January billing period), the Applicants have filed rebuttal reports from their expert witnesses, and promise a new proposed decree by the night of February 7 (tonight, as this is being written). Based on the reb uttal reports and Applicants' verbal statements as to the contents of the forthcoming proposed decree, the Applicants have cut way back on their claims, to a level which is at least within the realm of reason, if still not fully acceptable. For example the Applicants are apparently dropping claims to I) store 68,000 a/fin transient groundwater storage on 70 Ranch; 2) store 15,000 a/fin transient groundwater storage in Beebe Draw; 3) store water behind a series of shallow dams in Beebe Draw which neither reached bedrock nor stretched across the entirety of the water flow; and 4) keep the "stored" water from escaping by the use of "re-timing wells" which would pump the water back uphill to keep it from escaping to the nver. Other claims have also been dropped, it now appears. Based on our as-yet incomplete information, it appears that what will remain could be a relatively standard plan for augmentation of wells. That plan has serious flaws, but at least it fits within a number of existing legal and engineering theories. Englewood's principal concern has long been that Applicants would pump out the flows in Beebe Canal which have partially filled Milton Reservoir, use them for municipal purposes, and expand Milton's diversions from the river to make up the shortfall in Milton. Milton is of course I-{ -z Daniel L. Brotzman February 7, 2011 Page 3 senior to Englewood 's 1948 McLellan storage right, and increased calls on the river from Milton, or increased calls from others engendered by expanded Milton diversions, would injure that right. The McLellan right is crucial to solution fo Englewood's hardness problem. Applicants' rebuttal reports acknowledge an obligation to protect the historic flows into Milton from the Beebe Canal, so that Milton draws from the river are not increased. That is a huge step forward , and will make resolution of the case much easier. But problems remain. The remaining most severe problem is that Applicants do not adequately protect the historic flows from Beebe Canal into Milton, nor are they willing to accept the simple solution of limiting Milton diversions from the river to their historic level. Applicants propose to protect the historic flows from Beebe Canal into M i lton by a computer model which will supposedly show any impact of well pumping on the Beebe Canal flows , which will then be replaced. But the computer model is deeply flawed. For example, as noted in last month's letter, the computer model shows that water introduced into recharge ponds will later re-emerge at an elevation which is eight feet above ground level. We will continue to struggle with this, but apparently we are making progress. The other most noteworthy remaining problem is the action of the Division Engineer (the "water cop") with respect to inflows into Milton from the Beebe Canal. Historically, the inflows have stayed in Milton until released for crop irrigation, and there is no natural flow-way from Milton to the river. (Before the settlers, there was no sort of stream or stream bed from the location of Milton to the river.) Any route to the river requires the use of the private facilities of the Lower Latham Ditch Company, which is unwilling to allow its facilities to be used to carry Beebe Canal flows to the river absent their consent (and I think their position is legally strong). They vociferously refuse consent. Yet the former Division Engineer, Jim Hall, took the position in a letter of April 20 I 0 that Milton had to bypass Beebe Canal flows to the river when Milton was called out by senior downstream rights, or was already filled to its decreed amount. The result is that apparently the bypassed flows would be dumped into a dry pasture below Milton, where they would sink into the ground or be consumed by cattails and other new-grown swamp vegetation. (Again, there is no route from the pasture to the river; there are berms and other man-made obstacles to any flow.) We are attempting, through counsel for the new Division Engineer, to get him to back off this position. We have received some verbal expressions of sympathy, but as yet no concrete position. To the extent that the Beebe flows stay in Milton, they reduce diversions from the river, which helps Englewood. If the flows are dumped into a pasture, they are wasted. The State Engineer is supposed to prohibit waste. Furthermore, of course the flows dumped into the pasture do not provide water to any senior calling right on the river, and they should be kept in Milton under the "futile call " doctrine. That doctrine says the Division Engineer may not impose a call on Milton unless it would bring water in the river to the calling right. Our efforts in January, along with those of other objectors, were directed very strongly at the absurdities of the Applicants' positions. They included discovery efforts, review of engineering '-1 -3 Daniel L. Brotzman February 7, 2011 Page 4 reports , negotiations , legal research, preparation of a trial brief, and a number of other tasks. They have apparently born fruit. The next major bill is the combined bills for Denver 's gravel pit storage and exchange applications , and Denver 's failure to obtain 404 permits for the structures which enable it to capture much more of the flows into Chatfield Reservoir and keep the gates closed by pumping out the water. The gate closures of course cause Englewood major water quality problems. The two matters (the gravel pit exchanges and the missing 404 permits) are quite inter- related , particularly insofar as the gravel pit storage and exchanges are concerned. Denver's planned gravel pit reservoirs depend upon a di version structure in the river for which no 404 permit was obtained. And Denver proposes to release water from the gravel pits to satisfy downstream calls , and take the released amounts at Chatfield by claiming the occurring native inflow into Chatfield and pumping it out, thus closing the gates. That process is called an exchange, and Englewood is challenging the priority date of the exchange (see below). In addition, without a 404 permit, Denver has constructed a diversion dam on the river above Chatfield, at its old Kassler flume , and installed pumps at that location which reduce the flow into Chatfield, further allowin g gate closures (since the reservoir does not get full). Denver claims a 1977 priority date for its exchanges from the gravel pits to Chatfield. That date is senior to the exchange by which Englewood takes its McBroom headgate water at Chatfield, and if allowed would greatly reduce Englewood's exchange (which has a 1990 priority date). Englewood's exchange has two functions . First, it enables Englewood to take clean water from Chatfield down City Ditch, to dilute the water taken from the river at Union A venue. Second, it provides water to sell to Centennial Water and Sanitation District. Englewood asserts that Denver has a priority date for the exchange which is junior to 1990 , i.e., later than 1990. Denver seeks a 1977 date , pursuant to its exchange decree in CA 3635. Denver applied for that exchange in 1968 (under the CA3635 decree the exchange gets the same date as Denver's storage priority for Chatfield, which is 1977). The resolution of the priority question depends upon whether, in 1968, Denver gave "inquiry notice" in its exchange application that there would be gravel pits which would supply water for the exchange. The term "inquiry notice " is obscure in meaning, but in simplest terms , it means "if Englewood had called up and asked in 1968 , would Denver have told about its gravel pit claims?" Denver has no written record of any interest in gravel pits until 1996 , well after its Two Forks application was denied during the late 1980's. Denver's documents used in the 1968 application show a map of Denver's facilities, which does not show gravel pit reservoirs . So , in Water Court, we can make a strong case that the Denver exchange does not have a priority date senior to 1996. Our case is not perfect, however, because the Supreme Court previously ruled that Denver could exchange Colorado river water from Metro Sewer to Chatfield, and the gravel pits would capture Colorado river water from Metro Sewer for exchange upstream. The question becomes whether the greatly expanded amount of exchange provided by the '-/ -4 Daniel L. Brotzman February 7, 20i'l Page 5 gravel pits (some 30,000a/f) was contemplated by the earlier Supreme Court ruling allowing an exchange of Colorado River water directly from the outflows of Metro Sewer. Denver has been promising for years to offer a settlement which would solve the quality problems, but nothing has been forthcoming. It has been repeatedly promised. In the absence of some sort of settlement, we will be proceeding as follows. The Water Court case on the exchange of the water stored under the gravel pit priorities is set for trial in August. It will largely be a "legal issues" case. In that case, Denver is claiming it has received all necessary 404 permits (which we can refute). With respect to the 404 permits, we expect 1) to write another firm letter to Denver demanding a response; 2) if no response is forthcoming, complain in writing to the Corps of Engineers and the EPA about the failure to obtain 404 permits, and ask that a permitting process be instituted, including mitigation of Englewood's quality problems; 3) if all else fails, decide (with a presentation to Water and Sewer Board and Counsel) whether to bring suit to enforce the 404 permit requirement and attendant mitigation of quality problems. Needless to say, no legal action will be taken without prior Englewood approval. Our hand is being forced because in the Water Court case Denver is claiming it has indeed obtained the 404 permits. We probably cannot challenge that in Water Court unless we have started the process for litigating the 404 issue in Federal District Court. So we cannot let the matter lie dormant any longer. The final large matter is the efforts with respect to the Supreme Court arguments. in the appeals of the Water Court decision in the earlier FRICO/Burlington/East Cherry Creek case. We participated at length in helping to prepare Steve Sims, Aurora's counsel, for his oral argument, providing outlines and participating in extensive rehearsals and critiques. A number of our suggestions turned out to be very helpful with respect to questions asked of him by the Justices. We also tried to help Bill Hillhouse, Thornton counsel, in preparing his arguments concerning the Metro Pumps issue (we could not have arg1:1ed that issue ourselves). Unfortunately, Mr. Hillhouse did not follow our suggestions, although John Akolt attempted to make the most of them in his rebuttal response. This should be the last bill of consequence on this matter, unless petitions for rehearing are filed. 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 , Englewood Water & Utilities Board March 8, 2011 Eng ievvood Schools Decline in State Revenue 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Actual Actual Estimated Proposed ' .. b ;., ·t.';, +;;,,:!:' >(I'otal General $28,824,858 $28,216,569 $25 ,894,726 $20,486,145 ·Fund Revenue 0 ',.,,_, State Portion Expected ($13,470,478) ($13,616 ,634) ($12,835,155) ($12,197 ,!35) State Portion Received $13,3 37,087 $13,072,728 $10,486,297 $9,115 ,9 58 • . y ' ·"--': ./ . ~' " Percent ofState 46% A6% .· 40% 39% Revenue to Total Reduction in Sta te $133,391 $543,906 $2,348,858 $3,081,177 Funding -~-Jt;? "'"""'" Percent Reduction 1%' 4% 18% ... 25% in §~11te ,;Fupqing 0 ,. •f ' Total Decline in State Revenues over 4 $6,107,332 Years 3/8/11 .. 1 Decline in Pupil Count 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Actual Actual Actual Proposed Funded Pupil 3,054.5 2,885.0 2,733.0 2,613.0 Count (FPC) Change in Funded Pupil 160 .0 169.5 152.0 120 .0 Count Per Pupil 6,982.36 7,187.38 6,941.79 6,498.62 Funding Loss in Funding due $1,117,178 $1,218,261 $1,055,152 $779,834 to Decline in Pupil Count Total Year to Year loss -in F und ing over the Last 4 $4,170,427 :,Ye<1rs Cumulative Effect of Decrease in Pupil Count $10, 736,811 from 3,214.5 FPC in 2007-2008 2011-12 Budget Dilemma 1999 Technology Bond: 3% TABOR Reserve: 12% Board Reserve: Unrestricted Reserve: PROJECTED 11 /12 Revenue: 11 I I2 Rescission: 11112 Available : 11112 Expenses: 11 /12 Funding Gap : $4,000,000 $792,446 $2,755,171 $6,034,298 $26,040,934 ($3,081, 177) $22,959,757 $26,414,886 ($3 ,4 55, 129) 3/8/11 2 , Significant Changes • Curriculum • Instruction • Interventions • Re-engagement • Assessment/Student Data • Fidelity • District Systems • Alignment • Acco u ntability • Communication • Transparency • Policies/Procedures Direction from the Board of Education • $1.25 Million of $4 Million Technology Bond (1999) • Network U pgrades • Se rver Upgrades • W iFi Upgrades • Data Backup s So lution • Staff Refre sh • 1:1 Netbook Pilot • Result: Increased and improved student access to technology to realize achievement gains 3/8/11 3 Long Range Plan Simply put ... Englewood students, teachers and the community deserve 21 st century opportunities and tools equal to other school districts ! Comparative Age of Facilities District Average Age of Facilities (Years) ..... \ + ~. = 60 ~2 5" t;'>< Englewood tl! ti!' w@ .. , "'-~~ . .. .. She r idan 58.20 Denver 54 .00 Littleton 45.88 Jefferson County 36.53 Che r ry Creek 26 .98 Adams 12 26.50 Douglas County 21.77 3/8/11 4 Facilities to Support Learning • Technology and collaborative learning areas • Safe facilities • Adequate parking and safe bus zones • ADA and code compliance • Reduce maintenance/utility costs • "Right-size" schools • Air, light, acoustic quality Neenan: Process • Evaluation and assessment of all facilities and properties, including previous audits • Evaluat ion of school size, property size, & enrollment • Understanding of the vision for the future (21'1 curriculmn, instruction, assessment, facilities, etc.) • Evaluation of educational suitability • Collaborative design process • Options to BoE 3/8/11 5 Options for Board Review • Renovate and maintain all facilities • Renovate and maintain some facilities • "Right size" by closing schools • Create PreK-8 Schools • Create PreK-2 and 3-6 Schools • Move CF AHS to a better location • Parent Choice Board Approved 5-10 Year Plan + New 7-12 Facilities on current EHS campus • Two schools with some common/ shared spaces • Possibility of shared staff and programs • Community spaces • Raze Lowell • Save field house, pool, and auditorium • Continue themes/ choices from elementary schools • 1000 students + Move CF AHS to a renovated EMS Campus • Close and/ or sell the current CF AHS Campus 3/8/11 6 Board Approved 5-10 Year Plan + Three PreK or K-6 Schools (theme/ choice) • Renovated Maddox Property (540 students) • Renovated Hay Property (540 students ) • Renovated Clayton Property (540 students) • Based on Enrollment, Demand, & Budget: Close or convert Bishop and Cherrelyn to unique, small, schools-of-choice CDE BEST GRANT -Last chance for state grant monies? -Lowest possible cost • BEST: Building Excellent Schools Today (Due March 4, 2011) • State Rental Income, Royaltie s from State School Lands, State Lottery, Interest Earnings • Dollar for Dollar Match ($7-8 Million for EMS Renovation) • BEST Priorities • Health Concerns • Security Concerns • Overcrowding • Inadequate Educational Facilities 3/8/11 7 AntAOOf 7-12 Campus at EHS CFAHS Move to EMS !iQ!(W l!fIMP9!lPl!)YU!O'TI tN/<C~al--. ... --lf't. ~-~"'9a6os .. __ r~~~ GP!l:!W. PJWO!WIUQPT1 .,._..._....,......_ ___ ......, ~fiollllf'OCllkll ,,_.,..,_,,,.n -----......_.~ .... __ .......... _..,. BUILDING RENOVATION PLAN ···-··-·--·------------- ·. 3/8/11 8 C FAHS Move to EMS ffi RmFloor Potential I mpact of a Bond/Mill Levy to Local Taxpayer Residential Property 35¢ -50¢ Per Day $10.50 -$15.00 Per Month Commercial Property $1.25 -$1.85 Per Day $37.50 -$55.50 Per Month 3/8/11 9 3/8/11 Questions and Comments 10 • Englewood Water & Utilities Board March 8, 2011 Englewood Schools Decline in State Revenue 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Actual Actual Estimated Proposed Total General $28 ,824,858 $28,216,569 $25,894,726 $23,486,145 Fund Revenue State Portion Expected ($13 ,470,478) ($13 ,6 16,634) ($12,835, 155) ($1 2, 197, 135) Stat e Portion Received $13,337,087 $13 ,072,728 $10,486,297 $9,1 15,958 Percent of State 46% 46% 40% 39% Revenue to Total Reducti on in Sta te $133,391 $543,906 $2,348,858 $3,081,177 Funding Percent Reduction 1% 4% 18% 25% in State Funding Total Declin e in State Revenues over 4 $6,107,332 Years 3/8/11 1 Decline in Pupil Count 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011 -2012 Actual Actual Actual Proposed Funded Pupil 3,054.5 2,885 .0 2,733 .0 2,613.0 Count(FPC) Change in Funded Pupil 160.0 169.5 152 .0 120 .0 Count Per Pupil 6,982.36 7,187.38 6,941.79 6,498.62 Funding Loss in Funding due $1,117,178 $1,218,261 $1,055,152 $779,834 to Decline in Pupil C ount To tal Year to Year loss in Funding over the La st 4 $4,170,427 Years Cumulative E ffect of Decrease in Pupil Count $10, 736,811 from 3,214.5 FPC in 2007-2008 2011-12 Budget Dilemma 1999 Technology Bond: 3% TABOR Reserve: 12% Board Reserve: Unrestricted Reserve: PROJECTED 111 12 Revenue: 11 I 12 Rescission: 11112 Available: 11 /12 Expenses: 11112 Funding G ap: $4,000,000 $792,446 $2,755,171 $6,034,298 $26,040 ,934 ($3,081, 177) $22,959, 757 $26,414,886 ($3 ,455 , 129) 3/8/11 2 • Significant Changes • Curriculum • Instruction • Interventions • Re-engagement • Assessment/Student D ata • Fidelity • D istri ct Systems •Alignment • Acco u ntability • Communication • Transparency • Policies/P r oce dures Direction from the Board of Education • $1.25 Million of $4 Million Technology Bond (1999) • Network Upg ra des • Server Upgrades • WiFi Upgrades • Data Backups Solution • Staff Refresh • 1:1 Netbook Pilot • Result: Increased and improved student access to technology to realize achievement gains 3/8/11 3 Long Range Plan Simply put ... Englewood students, teachers and the community deserve 21st century opportunities and tools equal to other school districts! Comparative Age of Facilities District Average Age of Facilities (Years) Sheridan 58 .20 Denver 54.00 Littleton 45.88 Jefferson County 36.53 Cherry Creek 26 .98 Adams 12 26 .50 Douglas County 21.77 • 3/8/11 4 f Facilities to Support Learning • Technology and collaborative learning areas • Safe facilities • Adequate parking and safe bus zones • ADA and code compliance • Reduce maintenance/utility costs • "Right-size" schools • Air, light, acoustic quality Neenan: Process • Evaluation and assessment of all facilities and properties, including previous audits • Evaluation of school size, property size, & enrollment • Understanding of the vision for the future (21'1 curriculum, instruction, assessment, facilities, etc.) • Evaluation of educational suitability • Collaborative design process • Options to BoE 3/8/11 5 Options for Board Review • Renovate and maintain all facilities • Renovate and maintain some facilities • "Right size" by closing schools • Create PreK-8 Schools • Create PreK-2 and 3-6 Schools • Move CF AHS to a better location • Parent Choice Board Approved 5-10 Year Plan + New 7-12 Facilities on current EHS campus • Two schools with some common/shared spaces • Possibility of shared staff and programs • Community spaces • Raze Lowell • Save field house, pool, and auditorium • Continue themes / choices from elementary schools • 1000 students + Move CF AHS to a renovated EMS Campus • Close and/ or sell the current CF AHS Campus 3/8/11 6 Board Approved 5-10 Year Plan + Three PreK or K-6 Schools (theme/ choice) • Renovated Maddox Property (540 students) • Renovated Hay Property (540 students ) • Renovated Clayton Property (540 students) • Based on Enrollment, Demand, & Budget: Close or convert Bishop and Cherrelyn to unique, small, schools-of-choice CDE BEST GRANT -Last chance for state grant monies? -Lowest possible cost • BEST: Building Excellent Schools Today (Due March 4, 2011) • State Rental Income, Royalties from State School Lands, State Lottery, Interest Earnings • Dollar for Dollar Match ($7-8 Million for EMS Renovation) • BEST Priorities • Health Concerns • Security Concerns • Overcrowding • Inadequate Educational Facilities 3/8/11 7 7-1 2 Campus at EHS CFAHS Move to EMS AntAoor GQ!Wl, l!fTll!!O!!!l!!'l!OYPIEffTS >NK.11P91*'"-l-•'NI ~•·• o .......... ~""9fadn .. ......,. ........ loetw>ologyrlr"""'°""' ......... CiOIW!, !XJWO!WIOVlMU!TS -""'"'= ........... ~ .. .,.........,..... ~·""""Qda ,...., __ .JOlll -·----MQM!lyllgN!rf ... __ .~.........,. -NewCo<ulnldlo!I "' ~"-'-tt»n !"'~-.......... _... ........................ EqllifltMntMld~N:.Rcfll~1 BUILDING RENOVATION PLAN 3/8/11 8 CFAHS Move to EMS ~· . CL'TYJ. ~(ofldflnor PROPOSED ED UC ATI ON AL PROGRAM Potential Impact of a Bond/Mill Levy to Local Taxpayer Residential Property 35¢ -50¢ Per Day $10.50 -$15.00 Per Month Commercial Property $1.25 -$1.85 Per Day $37.50 -$55.50 Per Month f I !~ ~ -I ~ .~ 3/8/11 9 3/8/11 Questions and Comments 10