The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-01-10 WSB AGENDAWATER & SEWER BOARD AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM 1. MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 8, 2011 MEETING. (ATT. 1) EXECUTIVE SESSION: 2. ***DAVID H ILL, WAT ER ATTORNEY -WATER LITIGATION ISSUES *** RESUME REGULAR WATER BOARD MEETING: 3. GUEST: CHRIS SHULTZ -CDM -UV. (ATT. 2) TOM BRENNAN -LAYTON CLOSURE. 4 . GUEST: JOHN GALLAGHER -RED OAK CONSULT ANTS -FEE ADJUSTMENT. (ATT. 3) 5. JED DIXON -4435 S. ELATI ST.-HIGH WATER BILL AT RENTAL HOUSE. (ATT. 4) 6. LICE SE AGREEMENT FOR 900 W. QUINCY. (ATT. 5) 7. ORD INANCE CHANGES FOR 12-ld-5 PERTAINING TO CHARGES FOR TURNING WATER ON AND OFF. (ATT. 6) 8. IMPACT OF DENVER EXCHANGES & STORAGE ON CHATFIELD. (ATT. 7) 9. UNSCHEDULED VISITORS . 10. OTHER. WATER & SEWER BOARD MINUTES Tuesday, November 8, 2011 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM ENGLEWOOD CITY HALL Meeting called to order at 5:05 p.m. '~ ~ Roll Call: Present: Absent: Also present: (@ Higday, Burns, Wiggins, Oakley, Waggoner, Mccaslin, Olson, Lay Woodward, Habenicht Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities Tom Brennan, Utilities Engineer John Bock, Manager of Administration Deputy City Clerk Bush Jason Clark, Water Production Supv. 1. MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 11, 2011 WATER BOARD MEETING Motion: Moved: Seconded: Vote: Recommend approval of the October 11, 2011 Water and Sewer Board minutes. Burns Olson Motion carried. (Summary: Yes -8, No -0, Absent -1) I -1 ~ 2. GUEST: VEVA DEHEZA-COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD. Veva Deheza of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, appeared to discuss Englewood 's Water Conservation Plan. Ms. Deheza distributed copies of the Colorado Water Efficiency Grant Program Annual Report . Chuck Habenicht entered at 5:37 p.m. ~ 3. JASON CLARK & TOM BRENNAN -ALLEN PLANT EFFICIENCY. Jason Clark, Allen Fil t er Plant Supervisor, appeared to discuss improved water quality due to upgrades at the Allen Filter Plant. Tom Brennan, Utilities Engineer, appeared to discuss proposed developments . ~ 4. GUEST: JOHN GALLAGHER -RED OAK CONSULTING. John Gallagher of Red Oak Consulting appeared to discuss a proposed rate study. Mr. Gallagher a lso discussed a fee adjustment. •fj 5. TELEWORKS. John Bock discussed progress being made with Teleworks. ~ 6. DECEMBER WATER BOARD MEETING. There will not be a Decembe r, 2011 Water and Sewer Board meeting . ·Q 5. UNSC HEDULED VISITORS. Mr. Ryan Laird appeared to discuss his concerns . . .. J -2 Meeting adjourned at 6:38 p.m . The next Englewood Water Board meeting will be January 10, 2011 in the Community Development Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary ' .. 3 . Water and Sewer Board UV Presentation: Chris Schultz is a project engineer with COM. COM is our consultant for the UV Project at the Allen Filter Plant. Chris's presentation will explain the regulations driving the project and the additional benefits associated with the addition of UV technology to the plant treatment process . 2. .... I • RED·.~· ,. CONSULTING Mr. Stewart H . Fonda Director of Utilities City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Engl ewood , CO 80110 Subject: a n WJ ARCADIS g roup Connection Fee Study Additional Services Dear Mr. Fonda : The City retained Red Oak Consulting to complete a water and wastewater utilities financial study . The study included the following Basic Services : (1) reviewing the water and wastewater cash flows developed by Utilities staff which were used as a basis for future rate adjustments and (2) reviewing single-use connection fees for water, sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant service areas. These Basic Services were completed for a fee of $49 ,560, in accordance with the Study Agreement. During the course of the study, the City requested Red Oak complete Additional Services that were not included in the Basic Services . The Additional Services include: • Developing mix ed-use connect ion fees for water, sewer collect ion system and w astewater treatment plant service areas . Mixed -use connection fees are appli cable to connections that serve both residential and nonresidential custom ers . These fees required a customized calculation model for the City 's specific service requ irements . • Attend i ng additional meetings with staff to discuss interim mi xed -use connection fee calculations and findings . • Determining the affect of the proposed Amendment 60 (property tax in itiati ves) on utility bills . • Developing June 2009 and May 2011 surveys of regional connection fees. • Assisting with drafting the connection fee ordinance and City Council communication . • Recalculating single-use connection fees to shift from 5/8-inch to 3/4 -inch meter si ze basis . PATHWAYS T O LASTING SOLUTIONS 3 -I ARCAD IS U.S., Inc. 100 Fi ll more Stree t Suite 200 Denver Co lorado 80206 Tel 303 316 6500 Fax 303 316 6599 www.arcadis-us.com Re d Oak Con sult ing www.redoakconsulting .com Da te: January 3, 2012 Contact: John Gallagher Phone: 303 .316 .6506 Email: John .Gallagher@arcadis- us.com Our re f: 05557005 .0000 · • · IUD : .. 1 ,CONSULTING "'' ~ARCAOIS \)fc'u~ Our total fee for the Additional Services is $47,500. We are requesting a fee of $32 ,500 to recover our costs for the Additional Services . The $15,000 fee reduction virtually eliminates our profit. We appreciate your consideration of th i s request. Please let me know if you need additional information . Sincerely, ARCADIS U.S ., Inc . Johthe~~ Associate Vice President Stewart H. Fonda January 3, 2012 Page: 212 Cathy Burrage From: Sent: To: Subject: Richard Dixon <rmdixon1@lycos .com> Thursday, January 05, 2012 9:47 AM Cathy Burrage Water bill for 4435 S. Elati St. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to the water board on behalf of the tenants at 4435 S. Elati St. I help to take care of my father-in-law's rental property. I received a very worried phone call from the renters about a very large water bill. Fearful of what damage to the property might have occurred with 80,000 gallons of loose water, I rushed over to discover where the leak was coming from. To my surprise and relief no leaks or drips were found. I then contacted the water department and they picked up the meter for testing. To my surprise and shock when the results of the testing were given to me the meter tested as working correctly. I spoke to Stu and he said the next step was to contact the board . Again, thank you for letting me speak to you to get this matter resolved . Sincerely, Jed Dixon 720-323-6076 'i.. J LICENSE -CITY DITCH CROSSING AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT, made and entered into as of this __ day of _______ , 2012, by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, a municipal corporation of the State of Colorado, herein referred to as "City", and Robert Baird, herein referred to as "Licensee". WITNESSETH: The City without any warranty of its title or interest whatsoever, hereby authorizes Licensee, its successor, assigns, to access over the City's Rights-of-Way for the City Ditch, described as a parcel of land situated in of Section 9, Township 5S Range 68W of the 6th P.M., County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado described as follows: The City Ditch Right-of-Way adjacent to 900 W. Quincy Avenue The above-described parcel is approximately 400 feet by 35 feet, more or less. See also the attached drawing described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. WHEREAS, Licensee wishes to access the rear portion of his property at 900 W. Quincy Avenue, Englewood, Colorado in order to park one boat and trailer on that portion of his property by using the City Ditch Right-of-Way for access; and WHEREAS, THE City of Englewood agrees to grant a license to allow such access under the following terms and conditions: 1. The license shall be personal to Mr. Robert Baird for so long as he shall own the property at 900 W. Quincy Avenue, Englewood, Colorado. 2. The license shall be a non-exclusive license for access which shall be revocable at will by the City at anytime. 3. The licensee shall be required to comply with all other City requirements regarding access to the Right-of-Way from Quincy at his sole expense including a curb cut if required by the Englewood Department of Public Works. 4. Licensee shall not drive or tow any vehicle on the City Ditch Right-of-Way in excess of 20,000 pounds, GVW. 5. Licensee shall not access the City Ditch Right-of-Way when conditions are wet or when the vehicles may cause damage to the surface of the Right-of-Way. 6. No construction or maintenance of any structure shall be made on the Right-of-Way. s--I 7. The Licensee shall notify the City's Director of Utilities at least three (3) days prior to the time of commencement of any clean up or repairs made to, Licensee's property which requires access across the City Ditch Right-of-Way so that the City may, in its discretion, inspect such operations . 8. The City shall hav e the right to maintain, install, repair, remove or relocate the City Ditch or any other of its facilities or installations within the City's rights-of-way, at any time and in such manner as the City deems necessary or convenient. The City reserves the exclusive right to control all easements and installations. In the event the access · should interfere with any future use of the City's rights-of-way by the City, the Licensee shall, upon request and at its sole expense, relocate, rearrange, or remove any installations so as not to interfere with any such use. 9. Any repair or replacement of any City installation made necessary, in the opinion of the City's Director o f Utilities because of the licensee's access across the City Ditch Right- of-Way shall be made at the sole expense of the Licensee. 10. Licensee shall maintain insurance naming the City as an additional insured for access over the City Ditch Right-of-Way and provide proof of coverage to the City. 11 . The rights and privileges granted in this License shall be subject to prior agreements, licenses and/or grants, recorded or unrecorded, and it shall be the Licensee's sole responsibility to determine the existence of said documents or conflicting uses or installations 12. The Licensee shall contact and fully cooperate with the City's personnel and any access shall be completed without interference with any lawful, usual or ordinary flow of water through the City Ditch. Licensee shall assume all risks incident to the possible presence of such waters , or of storm waters, or of surface waters in the City Ditch Right-of-Way. 13. All trenches or holes within the City's rights-of-way shall be backfilled and tamped to the original ground line in layers not to exceed six ( 6) inches loose measure to a compaction of ninety percent (90%) Standard Proctor Maximum Density. 14 . Licensee, by acceptance of this License, expressly assumes full and strict liability for any and all damages of every nature to person or property caused by water from the ditch leaking through the ditch banks or pipeline at the point or points where the Licensee performs any work in connection with the crossing provided by this License. The Licensee assumes all responsibility for maintenance of the installation and the surface used for such access. 15. Licensee shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers and employees, against any and all claims , damages , actions or causes of action and expenses to which it or they may be subjected by reason of said access being within and across and under the premises of the City or by reason of any work done or omission made by Licensee, his agents or employees, in connection with the construction, replacement, maintenance or repair of any installation or access. 16. It is expressly agreed that in case of Licensee's breach of any of the within promises, the City may, at its option, have specific performance thereof, or sue for damages resulting from such breach. 5 --l- 17. Upon abandonment of any right or privilege herein granted, the right of Licensee to that extent shall terminate, but its obligation to indemnify and hold hannless the City, its officers and employees, shall not terminate in any event In granting the above authorization, the City reserves the right to make full use of the property involved as may be necessary or convenient in the operation of the water works plant and system under the control of the City. lN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed as of the day and year first above written. ATTEST: City Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE ) CITY OF ENGLEWOOD Mayor LICENSEE: By: Robert Baird Title Owner Address: 900 W. Quincy Avenue, Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone: 303 925 1236 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ _ day of ____ ., 20_, by WITNESS my hand and seal. Notary Public My Commission expires: s -3 - .. ' ArapaMAP Print Win'dow· .) L' /'C'l< ill'! 43245 •Jasc1~ si . -·-·--· . ··-· .. : .. ((_1 r JV Q v(. ( 5).u ;Ju <.Jv· u .e . ( . 850\~f . Quincy Me ,, 'i ) { 011JQ11(__ Page -.... : -. -···~::·; · .. ·. .• . . ·.::·~< ~--: ·:. , ... ·· . :·::;..;,,ifO!~-.' .. 1.'.~:-... · .. '·:·::.~·:,:.):.: .. ·:.:---.. :---· -.-:-.. :.···. . . ::-! -: .. ~ ..... -~··:::: .:-· .• . 830;\~i Q'li·lnc~' Avift . -.76 ·i ijoH3 : :: . 43775 : . ·. Hui;ot.1 st .· '· ~) -1-/7 rl /( /JA.1) ·page 1 Of 3 5 -~ E x H I B I T A ' . December 13, 2011 To the City of Englewood: Englewood, CO 80110 To Whom It May Concern, Licensee is requesting access through the ditch area adjacent to our residence on the west side of the property, 900 W. Quincy Ave, to access the back southwest corner of our property to store a recreational 21' boat/trailer. We also need this access to trim, clean-up and remove all debris from the trees and shrubs along the west side of the property line. The Licensee agrees to all terms and conditions set fort h by the city. We only need access and will not be constructing any structure on the ditch area. Getting this access through the ditch area is the only way we can reach the west side of the property with a vehicle to perform the clean-up. It is our intent to improve the looks of the property and to clean up all the dead trees, shrubs and debris. Sincerely, ~'01:\ + {}~~ L Robert and DeAnna Bai rd 900 W. Quincy Ave. Englewood, CO 80110 303-925-1236 Page 2 of 3 ~ -fA (. Date March 5, 2012 INITIATED BY Utilities Department COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item Subject Ordinance Changes for 12-1 D- 5 pertaining to Charges for turning Water On and Off STAFF SOURCE Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1980 -provided a charge for services when water is turned on or off. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Water and Sewer Board, at their January 10, 2012 meeting, recommended Council approval of an Ordinance amending Title 12-1 D-5, Municipal Code 2000 pertaining to charges for turning water on and off. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The purpose of Ordinance No. 9, Series 1980 was to provide for costs when the Water Department must excavate the street to turn water off and on in the event that the Utilities Department turns water off for non-payment and it is unlawfully turned on again, or if the waterway controlling the service line is not readily accessible for turn off due to non-payment. Sometime between 1980 and 1991 the language in section 12-1 D-5 was transposed due to a typo error. The original Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1980 reads " ... costs shall also include excavation and street cut permits." It was noted that since 1991 the passage has read, " .... costs shall exclude excavation and street cut permits ." The City Clerk's office has determined that there is no record that Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1980 has been amended in any way to provide for this change. Staff and the Englewood Water and Sewer Board wish to correct this error to the Englewood Municipal Code 12-1D-5 EMC pertaining to "Charges for Turning Water On and Off," to reflect, " ... costs shall also include excavation and street cut permits." FINANCIAL IMPACT None. { ... -I .. LIST OF ATIACHMENTS Ordinance No . 9 Council Bill No . 11, Series of 1980 Ordinance to correct error Ordchgn 3-5-12 l, -2 ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 2012 ~DRAFT BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. --- INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER _____ _ A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND CLARIFYING THE LANGUAGE REGARDING TITLE 12-lD-5 OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000, PERTAINING TO CHARGES FOR TURNING WATER ON AND OFF. WHEREAS , this Section was amended by the passage of Ordinance No . 9, Series of 1980, to provide a charge for services when water is turned on or off at the request of the customer; and WHEREAS , Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1996 amended this Section of the Englewood Municipal Code relating to the actual costs charged; and WHEREAS, one word was written incorrectly but was not amended with the passage of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1996; and WHEREAS , the City wishes to clarify the actual wording and intent of the original Ordinance which includes the costs of excavation and street cut permits when the City is required to access a water main under this Section of the Englewood Municipal Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorizes amending Title 12, Chapter ID, Section 5 , of the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, to read as follows: 12-lD-5: -Charges for Turning Water On and Off. The City is authorized to charge fifteen dollars ($15.00) for services rendered when a customer service representative visits a premises to turn off the water for non-payment. The City is authorized to charge five dollars ($5.00) for services rendered when a customer service representative visits a premises to deliver a tum-off notice. If water which has been turned off at the curb box by the City is unlawfully turned on again or is caused to be turned on by the user, or if the waterway controlling the service is not readily accessible, the service may be cut off at the main by the City and, before the water shall be turned on again, the user desiring the same on said premises shall pay the cost and expense of turning said service off and on, and said cost shall ~wlude also include excavati on and street cut permits. Section 2. Safety Clauses. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Englewood, that it is (_ -3 promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of healt h and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further determines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be obtained. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance or it application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Inconsistent Ordinances. All other Ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or conflicting with this Ordinance or any portion hereof are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict. Section 5. Effect of repeal or modification. The repeal or modification of any provision of the Code of the City of Englewood by this Ordinance shall not release, extinguish, alter, modify, or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture, or liability, either civil or criminal, which shall have been incurred under such provision, and each provision shall be treated and held as still remaining in force for the purposes of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits, proceedings, and prosecutions for the enforcement of the penalty, forfeiture, or liability, as well as for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree, or order which can or may be rendered, entered, or made in such actions, suits, proceedings, or prosecutions. Section 6. Penalty. The Penalty Provision of Section 1-4-1 EMC shall apply to each and every violation of this Ordinance. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the __ day of ___ , 2012. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the ---- day of 2012. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the __ day of _____ , 2012 for thirty (30) days. RandyP . Penn, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A . Ellis, City Clerk , I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby ce1iify that the above and foregoing is a true c opy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the __ day of , 2012. Loucrishia A. Ellis MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: REGARDING: Jolm Bock, U-Manager of Administration Stu Fonda, Director of Utilities ~ ;Ju j Nancy Reid, Assistant City Attorney j ~ June 15, 2011 The interpretation of Title 12-lD-5 EMC -Pertaining to "Charges for Turning Water On and Off'. The current verbiage in 12-1 D-5 as printed in the Englewood Municipal Code makes no sense. The sentence is relating to the cut off of service for a user that does not pay his/her bill and provides that the user shall pay the costs and expenses of turning the water on and off and that " ... said costs shall exclude excavation and street cut pennits". That language is not consistent with the intent of 12-lD-5. In reviewing that, I went back to the original ordinance regarding this Section which would be Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1980. As passed that particular phrase reads " ... costs shall also include excavation and street cut permits'', this language is clearly more consistent with the intent ofthe Section. At sometime between 1980 and 1991 in the codification process the language in this particular section appeared to have undergone a typographical error which changed the word include to the word exclude. There are no ordinances which legally change the language of this particular section. The Ordinance adopting the Englewood Municipal Code 2000, see Ordinance No. 37, Series of 2000 provides in Section 3 that "nothing contained in this Ordinance shall be construed as a limitation on the power of the City Council to change obvious typographical or composition or composition errors in the Code without change of legal affect There is no record in the City that shows that th.is Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1980 has been amended in any way including the change of the word "include" to "exclude". Therefore, Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1980 contains Englewood Municipal Code 2000, Section 12-lD-5, should read " .. .include excavation and street cut permits ... " rather than" ... exclude excavation and street cut pennits ... ". Because th.is typo has been printed incorrectly in the Englewood Municipal Code codification · since approximately 1991, if not earlier. Please prepare a Council Communication for a new ordinance which specifically clarifies and affirms the proper language for 12-lD-5 EMC. A draft of such an ordinance is attached and it should go to the Englewood Water and Sewer Board first. Attachments: Ordinance No. 9, 1980 Draft 2011 Ordinance r_-S BY AUTHORITY 9 ORDINANCE NO. SERIES OF 198~0~~ COUNCIL BILL NO. 11 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL . MEMBER HIGDAY AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 22, CHAPTER 3, TITLE XV, ARTICLE II, ENTITLED "LICENSES, METERS AND CHARGES" BY IMPOSING CHARGES FOR SERVICE CALLS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO: Section 1. That Section 22, Chapter 3, Title XV, Article II, is hereby amended to read as follows: The Utilities Department is authorized to charge Five Dollars ($5.00) for services rendered when water is turned off at the request of the licensee or when a customer serviceman visits the premises to deliver the turn-off notice or to turn off the water in compliance with the provisions of Section 19 of this chapter. If water turned off at the curb box by the Water Division is unlawfully turned on again or caused to be turned on by the user, or if the waterway controlling the service is not readily accessible, the service may be cut off at the main by the Water Division and, before the ~ater shall be turned on again, the user desiring the same on said premises shall pay the cost and expense of turning said service off and on, and said cost shall also include excavation and street cut permits. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the 21st day of April, 1980. Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the 23rd day of April, 1980. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 5th day of May, 1980. Published by title as Ordinance No. 9 , Series of 1980, ---on the 7th day of May, 1980. ~.~~ /'Mayor · .. Attest: I, Gary R. Higbee, ex officio City Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Englewood, Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, accurate and complete copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No. 9 Series of 1980. (._ -1 ORDJNANCE NO. SERIES OF 2011 BY AUTHORITY COUNCJL BlLL NO. INTRODUCED BY COUNCJL MEMBER ------- ABJLLFOR AN ORDJNANCE AMENDING TITLE 12, CHAPTER l(D), 5, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000 PERTAINJNG TO CHARGES FOR TURNING WATER ON AND OFF. WHEREAS, the purpose of the amendment to this Section is to correct an advertent typographical error; and WHEREAS, the City of Englewood passed Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1980 which provided for specific charges when the City is required to tum on and tum off water because of non-payment of bills; and WHEREAS, at some point in the codification process the language of Section 12-lD-5, was changed due to a typographical error; and WHEREAS, the language of the original Ordinance required the user to pay for the cost of excavation and street cut pennits when their actions resulted in the necessity of the City making such excavation and street cuts; and WHEREAS, this amendment would clarify the original intent and correct the typographical error in this Code Section; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCJL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado hereby authorized amending Title 12, Chapter l(D), Section 5, of the Englewood Municipal Code to read as follows: 12-lD-5: -Charges for Turning Water On and Off. . The City is authorized to charge fifteen dollars ($15.00) for services rendered when a customer service representative visits a premises to tum off the water for non-payment. The City is authorized to charge five dollars ($5.00) for services rendered when a customer service representative visits a premises to deliver a tum-off notice. If water which has been turned off at the curb box by the City is unlawfully turned on again or is caused to be turned on by the user, or if the waterway controlling the service is not readily accessible, the service may be cut off at the main by the City and, before the water shall be turned on again, the user desiring the same on said pre1nises shall pay the cost and expense of turning said service off and onr and said cost shall exclude include excavation and street cut permits. Section 2. Safety Clauses. The City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this Ordinance is promulgated under the general police power of the City of Englewood, that it is promulgated for the health, safety, and welfare of the public, and that this Ordinance is necessary for the preservation of health and safety and for the protection of public convenience and welfare. The City Council further detennines that the Ordinance bears a rational relation to the proper legislative object sought to be obtained. Section 3. Severability. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this Ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder of this Ordinance or it application to other persons or circumstances. Section 4. Inconsistent Ordinances. All other Ordinances or portions thereof inconsistent or conflicting with this Ordinance or any portion hereof are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict. Section 5 .. Effect of repeal or modification. The repeal or modification of any provision of the Code of the City of Englewood by this Ordinance shall not release, extinguish, alter, modify, or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture, or liability, either civil or criminal, which shall have been incurred under such provision, and each provision shall be treated and held as still remaining in force for the purposes of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits, proceedings, and prosecutions for the enforcement of the penalty, forfeiture, or liability, as well as for the purpose of sustaining any judgment, decree, or order which can or may be rendered, entered, or made in such actions, suits, proceedings, or prosecutions. Section 6. · Penalty. The Penalty Provision of Section 1-4-1 EMC shall apply to each and every violation of this Ordinance. Introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the __ day of ____ , 2011. Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the City's official newspaper on the day of , 2011. Pub1ished as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City's official website beginning on the day of , 2011 for thirty (30) days. Jam es K. Woodward, Mayor ATTEST: Loucrishia A . Ellis , City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true copy of a Bill for an Ordinance, introduced, read in full, and passed on first reading on the __ day of , 2011. Loucrishia A. Ellis IMP ACT OF DENVER EXCHANGES AND STORAGE ON CHATFIELD OUTFLOWS MEMO FROM ENGLEWOOD TO ERJC LAUX, SCOTT FITZGERALD AND TIM CAREY OF CORPS OF ENGJNEERS (revised from presentation to Jim Martin of EPA Region 8 on September 30, 2011) Average Native Inflow to Chatfield in acre feet: Less Amount Captured by Denver 's storage decree in Chatfield: Less Presently Available Return Flows for Exchange 1 from Denver's Dillon Reservoir System and Denver's South Platte rights Less Available Return Flows for Exchange if 1940 Agreement2 Cancelled: Present Average Fraser/Williams Fork Returns: DROUGHT YEAR Return Flows from Gross expansion (Conservative) 41,318 10,785 30,122 11,454 9,000 Negative Remaining Native Inflow for Release to the River and/or Filling the Junior rights in the Expanded Chatfield storage3 after Denver completes its Gravel Pit Reservoirs and its Pumps from Chatfield to its Marston Treatment Plant; i.e., there will be no water for the expanded storage space <20,043 > Note this analysis assumes completion of Denver's gravel pit reservoirs to 32,000 acre foot capacity, as planned, and full completion of Denver's planned pumps from Chatfield to Denver's Marston treatment p l ant. Note Chatfield outflows during winter have already dropped significantly because of Denver's new Kassler pump station in the river just above Chatfield. There were inadequate or non-existent 404 permits for Denver's gravel pits and Kassler pump station. Impacts of Chatfield gate closures include greatly increased water temperatures and reduced flows, with impacts on aquatic life; increased growth of blue green algae, which is toxic to humans and other mammals when ingested and depletes oxygen available to other aquatic life; potential changes to treatment standards for Bi-City wastewater treatment plant, because of reduction of dilution flows; lack of use of kayak courses of Littleton and Englewood; extreme hardness in Englewood's water supply potentially necessitating a softening plant, at great expense, and the expense of disposing of the resulting sludge, which is radioactive because Big Dry Creek carries radionucl ides into the river just above Englewood's diversion point. Flow numbers are from Denver records except for the storage amount, which is based on Denver's storage decree, and the drought year return flows from the Gross expansion, which are 1 An exchange occurs when Denver releases reusable water as sewage effluent or from its gravel pits, to satisfy a downstream sep.ior right, enabling Denver to take an equivalent amount upstream at Chatfield Reservoir. 2 In 1940 Denver made an agreement with Consolidated Ditches not to reuse (and hence not to exchange) its return flows from its Fraser and Williams Fork systems with priority dates seriior to 1940. Denver is actively negotiating to eliminate the 1940 Agreement by negotiation or court decree. The 1940 agreement presently applies to return flows from the Gross expansion. 3 Colorado State Parks, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Central Colorado Water Conservancy Dist., City of Castle Rock, Mt. Carbon Metro Dist., Centennial Water & San. Dist. seek storage rights in the expanded Chatfield storage. Their water rights are all junior in priority to Denver's 1977 rights and will not receive any water if Denver takes all the inflow. Page 1 of2 7 -1 estimated by Martin & Wood Water Consultants. (The drought year numbers are far less than the average number.) Source materials are available upon request. Potential Mitigation of Impact of Chatfield Gate Closures: If Denver were to release ten cfs, plus or minus , from Chatfield when the gates would otherwise be closed, there would be significant mitigation of the impact of gate closures , WITHOUT LOSS OF WATER TO DENVER. If Denver releases reusable water from Chatfield, Denver can recapture it at its non- potable reuse plant or at its gravel pits. While having water "downstream" in the gravel pits is inconvenient for Denver, there would be no water loss (except evaporation during the transit). An outflow of 10 cfs , more or less, should eliminate Englewood 's hardness problem and improve flows for aquatic life. Some experimentation might be necessary to determine more precisely the amount of releases required for adequate mitigation. Page 2 of2 7 -2. Created Date/Time: 01/09/2012 09 :22:02 AM Customer Number: 00061517 Account Number: 03004044352 Service Address: 4435 S ELATI ST Mailing Address: BREIT FOWLER SHANE MARKS 4435 S ELATI ST ENGLEWOOD CO 80110-5651 Customer/ Account Transaction History Trans Date Transaction 12/1/2011 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 01/01/2012 11/22/2011 0:00 Red Tag Fee 11/21/2011 0:00 Payment 11/16/2011 0 :00 Red Tag Fee 11/9/2011 0:00 Water Balance Late Fee 10/15/2011 0:00 Water Balance Late Fee 9/1/2011 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 10/01/2011 6/28/2011 0:00 Payment 6/1/2011 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 07 /01/2011 5/21/2011 0:00 Payment-TeleWorks 5/16/2011 0:00 Red Tag Fee 4/19/2011 0:00 Stop Box Clean -out 4/13/2011 0:00 Water Balance Late Fee 3/1/2011 0:00 Payment 3/1/2011 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 04/01/2011 2/25/2011 0:00 Water Turn Off /On Fee 2/16/2011 0:00 Red Tag Fee 1/13/2011 0:00 Water Balance Late Fee 1/13/2011 0:00 Payment 12/6/2010 0:00 Payment-TeleWorks 12/1/2010 0:00 Cycle Billing Due : 01/01/2011 11/15/2010 0:00 Red Tag Fee 10/14/2010 0:00 Water Balance Late Fee 10/14/2010 0:00 Transfer to Water A/R 9/1/2010 0:00 Cycle Billing Due : 10/01/2010 Description Amount Balance Cycle Billing Due: 01/01/2012 $98.54 $243.54 Red Tag Fee ($5 .00) $145.00 Payment -Thank You ($141.07) $150.00 Red Tag Fee $5.00 $291.07 Outstanding Water Balance Late Fee ($7 .15) $286.07 Outstanding Water Balance Late Fee $7.15 $293.22 Cycle Billing Due: 10/01/2011 $286.07 $286.07 Payment -Thank You ($62 .35) $0 .00 Cycle Billing Due: 07 /01/2011 $62.35 $62.35 Payment -Thank You ($125.67) $0.00 Red Tag Fee $5.00 $125.67 Stop Box Clean-out $30.00 $120.67 Outstanding Water Balance Late Fee $2.12 $90.67 Payment -Thank You ($131.25) $88.55 Cycle Billing Due: 04/01/2011 $69.67 $219.80 Water Turn Off /On Fee $15.00 $150.13 Red Tag Fee $5.00 $135.13 Outstanding Water Balance Late Fee $2 .56 $130.13 Payment -Thank You ($90 .00) $127.57 Payment -Thank You ($5 .57) $217.57 Cycle Billing Due: 01/01/2011 $102.46 $223 .14 Red Tag Fee $5.00 $120.68 Outstanding Water Balance Late Fee $0.23 $115.68 Transferred Funds $106.29 $115.45 Cycle Billing Due: 10/01/2010 $9 .16 $9.16 Created Date/Time: 01/09/2012 09:23:53 AM Customer Number: 00061517 Account Number: 03004044352 Service Address: 4435 S ELATI ST Mailing Address: BRETT FOWLER SHANE MARKS 4435 S ELATI ST ENGLEWOOD CO 80110-5651 Service Read Date Meter# Read Type Read Status Water 8/2/2011 0:00 91034022 Water Read Verified Read Water 8/26/2010 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/25/2010 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/3/2009 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/4/2008 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/2/2007 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/3/2006 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/3/2004 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/5/2003 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/2/2002 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Previous Current Days Billed Usage 1580 1664 92 84 ........._ 1515 1515 1 0 1476 1515 113 39 1407 1423 39 16 1305 1329 91 24 1245 1261 91 16 1193 1207 92 14 1095 1115 91 20 1030 1058 95 28 853 928 92 75 Created Date/Time: 01/09/2012 09:22:56 AM Customer Number: 00061517 Account Number: 03004044352 Service Address: 4435 S ELATI ST Mailing Address: BRED FOWLER SHANE MARKS 4435 S ELATI ST ENGLEWOOD CO 80110-5651 Service Read Date Meter# Read Type Water 11/1/2011 0:00 11433209 Water Read Water 9/29/2011 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 8/2/2011 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 5/2/2011 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 2/3/2011 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 11/3/2010 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 8/26/2010 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 8/25/2010 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 5/4/2010 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 2/1/2010 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 11/4/2009 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 8/3/2009 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 6/25/2009 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 5/4/2009 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 2/3/2009 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 11/4/2008 0:00 91034022 Wa t er Read Water 8/4/2008 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 5/5/2008 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 2/5/2008 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 11/1/2007 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 8/2/2007 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Water 5/3/2007 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 2/5/2007 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 11/2/2006 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 8/3/2006 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 5/3/2006 o:oo 91034022 Wate r Read Water 2/3/2006 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 11/2/2005 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 7 /9/2005 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 5/16/2005 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 4/18/2005 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 4/7 /2005 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 3/3/2005 0:00 91034022 Water Read Read Status Actual Read Actual Read Verified Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Water 2/2/2005 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Previous Current Days Billed Usage 0 3 33 3 1664 1688 58 24 1580 1664 92 84 1564 1580 88 16 1545 1564 92 19 1515 1545 69 30 1515 1515 1 0 1476 1515 113 39 1459 1476 92 17 1448 1459 89 11 1423 1448 93 25 1407 1423 39 16 1397 1407 52 10 1383 1397 90 14 1367 1383 91 16 1329 1367 92 38 1305 1329 91 24 1291 1305 90 14 1276 1291 96 15 1261 1276 91 15 1245 1261 91 16 1232 1245 87 13 1219 1232 95 13 1207 1219 91 12 1193 1207 92 14 1177 1193 89 16 1162 1177 93 15 1149 1162 116 13 1138 1149 54 11 1137 1138 28 1 1137 1137 11 0 1136 1137 35 1 1135 1136 29 1 1123 1135 92 12 • Water 11/2/2004 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 1115 1123 91 8 Water 8/3/2004 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 1095 1115 91 20 Water 5/4/2004 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 1087 1095 91 8 Water 2/3/2004 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 1076 1087 91 11 Water 11/4/2003 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 1058 1076 91 18 Water 8/5/2003 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 1030 1058 95 28 Water 5/2/2003 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 1018 1030 85 12 Water 2/6/2003 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 947 1018 90 71 Water 11/8/2002 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 928 947 98 19 Water 8/2/2002 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 853 928 92 75 Water 5/2/2002 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 844 853 87 9 Water · 2/4/2002 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 834 844 0 10 I Created Date/Time: 01/09/2012 09:22:02 AM Customer Number: 00061517 Account Number: 03004044352 Service Address: 4435 S ELATI ST Mailing Address: BRETI FOWLER SHANE MARKS 4435 S ELATI ST ENGLEWOOD CO 80110-5651 Customer/Account Transaction History Trans Date Transaction 12/1/2011 0 :00 Cycle Bill i ng Due : 0 1/01/2012 11/22/2011 0:00 Red Tag Fee 11/21/2011 0:00 Payment 11/16/2011 0:00 Red Tag Fee 11/9/2011 0:00 Water Balance La t e Fee 10/15/2011 0:00 Water Balance Late Fee 9/1/2011 0:00 Cycle Billing Due : 10/01/2011 6/28/2011 0:00 Payment 6/1/2011 0:00 Cycle Billing Due : 07 /01/2011 5/21/2011 0:00 Payment-TeleWo r ks 5/16/2011 0:00 Red Tag Fee 4/19/2011 0 :00 Stop Box Clean-out 4/13/2011 0 :00 Water Balance La t e Fee 3/1/2011 0 :00 Payment 3/1/2011 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 04/01/2011 2/25/2011 0:00 Water Turn Off/On Fee 2/16/2011 0:00 Red Tag Fee 1/13/2011 0:00 Water Balance Late Fee 1/13/2011 0:00 Payment 12/6/2010 0:00 Payment-TeleWorks 12/1/2010 0 :00 Cycle Billing Due : 01/01/2011 11/15/2010 0:00 Red Tag Fee 10/14/2010 0:00 Water Balance Late Fee 10/14/2010 0:00 Transfer to Water A/R 9/1/2010 0:00 Cycle Billing Due : 10/01/2010 Description Amount Balance Cycle Billing Due: 01/01/2012 $98.54 $243 .54 Red Tag Fee ($5.00) $145.00 Payment -Thank You ($141.07) $150.00 Red Tag Fee $5.00 $291.07 Outstanding Water Balance Late Fee ($7 .15) $286.07 Outstanding Water Balance Late Fee $7 .15 $293.22 Cycle Billing Due : 10/01/2011 $286.07 $286 .07 Payment -Thank You ($62 .35) $0.00 Cycle Billing Due: 07/01/2011 $62 .35 $62.35 Payment -Thank You ($125 .67) $0 .00 Red Tag Fee $5.00 $125.67 Stop Box Clean -out $30.00 $120.67 Outs t anding Water Balance Late Fee $2.12 $90.67 Payment -Thank You ($131.25) $88.55 Cycle Billing Due: 04/01/2011 $69.67 $219 .80 Water Turn Off /On Fee $15 .00 $150.13 Red Tag Fee $5 .00 $135 .13 Outstanding Water Balance Late Fee $2.56 $130.13 Payment -Thank You ($90.00) $127.57 Payment -Thank You ($5 .57) $217.57 Cycle Billing Due: 01/01/2011 $102.46 $223.14 Red Tag Fee $5 .00 $120.68 Outstanding Water Balance Late Fee $0.23 $115.68 Transferred Funds $106.29 $115.45 Cycle Billing Due: 10/01/2010 $9 .16 $9.16 Created Date/Time: 01/09/2012 09:23:53 AM Customer Number: 00061517 Account Number: 03004044352 Service Address: 4435 S ELATI ST Mailing Address: BRETT FOWLER SHANE MARKS 4435 S ELA Tl ST ENGLEWOOD CO 80110-5651 Service Read Date Meter# Read Type Read Status Water 8/2/2011 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Verified Read Water 8/26/2010 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/25/2010 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/3/2009 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/4/2008 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/2/2007 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/3/2006 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/3/2004 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/5/2003 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Water 8/2/2002 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read Previous Current Days Billed Usage -1580 1664 92 84 ,_____ 1515 1515 1 0 1476 1515 113 39 1407 1423 39 16 1305 1329 91 24 1245 1261 91 16 1193 1207 92 14 1095 1115 91 20 1030 1058 95 28 853 928 92 75 Created Date/Time: 01/09/2012 09:22 :56 AM Customer Number: 00061517 Account Number: 03004044352 Service Address: 4435 S ELATI ST Mailing Address: BRETI FOWLER SHANE MARKS 4435 S ELATI ST ENGLEWOOD CO 80110-5651 Service Read Date Meter# Read Type Water 11/1/2011 0:00 11433209 W ater Read Water 9/29/2011 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 8/2/2011 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 5/2/2011 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 2/3/2011 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 11/3/2010 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 8/26/2010 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 8/25/2010 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 5/4/2010 0:00 91034022 Wa t er Read Water 2/1/2010 0:00 91034022 Wa t er Read Water 11/4/2009 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 8/3/2009 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 6/25/2009 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 5/4/2009 0:00 91034022 W ater Read Water 2/3/2009 0:00 91034022 W ater Read Water 11/4/2008 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 8/4/2008 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 5/5/2008 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Water 2/5/2008 0:00 91034022 Wate r Read Water 11/1/2007 0:00 91034022 Wate r Read Water 8/2/2007 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 5/3/2007 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 2/5/2007 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 11/2/2006 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 8/3/2006 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 5/3/2006 o:oo 91034022 Water Read Water 2/3/2006 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 11/2/2005 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 7 /9/2005 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 5/16/2005 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 4/18/2005 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 4/7 /2005 0:00 91034022 Water Read Water 3/3/2005 0:00 91034022 Water Read Read Status Actual Read Actual Read Verified Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Actual Read Water 2/2/2005 0:00 9103402 2 Wa t er Read Actual Read Previous Current Days Billed Usage 0 3 33 3 1664 1688 58 24 1580 1664 92 84 1564 1580 88 16 1545 1564 92 19 1515 1545 69 30 1515 1515 1 0 1476 1515 113 39 1459 1476 92 17 1448 1459 89 11 1423 1448 93 25 1407 1423 39 16 1397 1407 52 10 1383 1397 90 14 1367 1383 91 16 1329 1367 92 38 1305 1329 91 24 1291 1305 90 14 1276 1291 96 15 1261 1276 91 15 1245 1261 91 16 1232 1245 87 13 1219 1232 95 13 1207 1219 91 12 1193 1207 92 14 1177 1193 89 16 1162 1177 93 15 1149 1162 116 13 1138 1149 54 11 1137 1138 28 1 1137 1137 11 0 1136 1137 35 1 1135 1136 29 1 1123 1135 92 12 Water 11/2/2004 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 1115 1123 91 8 Water 8/3/2004 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 1095 1115 91 20 Water 5/4/2004 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 1087 1095 91 8 Water 2/3/2004 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 1076 1087 91 11 Water 11/4/2003 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 1058 1076 91 18 Water 8/5/2003 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 1030 1058 95 28 Water 5/2/2003 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 1018 1030 85 12 Water 2/6/2003 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 947 1018 90 71 Water 11/8/2002 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 928 947 98 19 Water 8/2/2002 0 :00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 853 928 92 75 Water 5/2/2002 0 :00 91034022 Wate r Read Actual Read 844 853 87 9 Water · 2/4/2002 0:00 91034022 Water Read Actual Read 834 844 0 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Stu Fonda -Utilities Bill McConnick V 11 {) . Nancy Reid-Assistant City Attorney /V0J--FROM: DATE: January 3, 2012 REGARDING: 900 West Quincy Ave. City Ditch Right-of-Way License Agreement. A new license agreement specifically for the party that wants to use the City Ditch Right-of-Way for access to his rear yard at 900 W. Quincy Avenue. 1) The license agreement will require that the homeowner maintain a specific insurance rider. 2) The license will limit the weight of vehicles that he uses to access the rear of his property. 3) This will be a non-exclusive access license. 4) Should the Public Works Department require a curb cut for access from the street that he is liable for the payment of any costs for the curb-cut. 5) It is recommended that you send a notice to all the adjacent property owners (including across Quincy). NNR/nf cc: Dan Brotzman MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Stu Fonda -Utilities Bill McCormick v Nancy Reid~ Assistant City Attorney /18:J- January 3 , 20 12 REGARDING: 900 West Quincy Ave. City Ditch Right-of-Way License Agreement. A new license agreement specifically for the party that wants to use the City Ditch Right-of-Way for access to his rear yard at 900 W. Quincy Avenue. I) The license agreement will require that the homeowner maintain a specific insurance rider. 2) The license will limit the weight of vehicles that he uses to access the rear of his property. 3) This will be a non-exclusive access license. 4) Should the Public Works Department require a curb cut for access from the street that he is liable for the payment of any costs for the curb-cut. 5) It is recommended that you send a notice to all the adjacent property owners (including across Quincy). NNR/nf cc: Dan Brotzman , COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date March 5, 2012 INITIATED BY Utilities Department Agenda Item Subject Teleworks STAFF SOURCE Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION NIA RECOMMENDED ACTION The Water and Sewer Board, at their January 10, 2012 meeting, recommended Council approval of the purchase of the Teleworks Statement of Work in the amount of $103 ,750 .00. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS , AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED TeleWorks is customer account viewing software that stands between the customer and the City's CIS Infinity billing system. The Utilities Department currently is using the most basic version of TeleWorks available, which provides a variety of methods by which the customer can pay their bills on-line or over the phone by using a credit card , debit card or check. Twenty percent of Englewood's customers use this method for paying. The proposed TeleWorks system upgrade would allow the customer to view their account information, for example their billing and water meter reading history. These features include: • TeleWorks Web-Portal (the customer can pay their bill on the internet or over the phone with a credit card, debit card or check.) • My Account Web Portal (the customer has the ability to see their account; transaction history, meter reading history, etc.) • Paperless Invoic ing (the City can send an electronic message to the customer that there has been account activity and the customer can get on line and look at the account. The message can be email, cell phone test message or both .) • Web-Mobile (the customer can place an application of their smart phone through which they can view and pay their bills.) • TeleWorks Alterworks Outbound Notification system (the City can telephone and text messages to the customers about their account). • The customer can also see the details of how their bills are calculated . The proposed TeleWorks package will also provide the City with the means of communicating back to the customer via e-mail, telephone messages and text messages concerning account activity notifications. The proposed contract provides for the setup, tra ining and implementation of the complete Teleworks package along with yearly maintenance. FINANCIAL IMPACT The Utilities Department compared the TeleWorks product with the CIS Infinity product. Because other departments are already using the TeleWorks system, the price was more compet itive. The Utilities and Information Tech staff assessed using the TeleWorks System on our own computers or have TeleWorks host our system on their computers. After careful evaluation it was determined that it would be more effective to have TeleWorks host our system so they would be responsible for account information security, for maintenance and upgrades of the computer hardware and software. Also, the Utilities Department would have access to the Alertworks outbound calling system to send phone messages to customers. $90,000 has been budgeted, divided between water, sewer and stormwater funds. The remainder will be funded from the department's fund balances. The agreement includes on-going yearly maintenance fees, as seen on the attached chart. The yearly mainte nance fees are for TeleWorks to host the Utilities' system on their servers and as-needed customer service support. LIST OF ATTACHMEN T S Statement of Work Chart of Projected Fee Di fference Minutes of January 10, 2012 MEMORANDUM TO: Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities FROM: John Bock, Manager of Administration DATE: January 9, 2012 RE: TeleWorks Server Housing The Utilities Department elected to use the more expensive "Hosted" option, as opposed to having this system reside on our servers , for the fo ll owing reasons: • The included cost sheet does not include the Premise based COE administrative and hardware costs while they are included in the Hosted option. • Tele Works will be responsible for account security along with the associated liability risks . • Englewood would not need to periodically upgrade the computer hardware associated with this system . That will happen at Telework's site. • TeleWorks will take care of the software upgrades at their site. • Having Teleworks host the application enables us to use the automatic customer telephone calling service. Teleworks Cost Comparisons: Premise vs Hosted Options SOW 7438a rPremise" Option) SOW 7660 ("Hosted" Option) Year I Set-Up• Training Other•• Annual Fee ! Yearly Totals Set-Up Annual Fee ! Yearly Totals 01 s 85,950.00 $3,000 .00 $9,000 .00 s 24,560 .00 s 122,510.00 s 52,750 .00 s 51,000 .00 s 103, 750.00 1 ! s 25,295 .80 s 25,295 .80 s 52,530 .00 s 52,530 .00 2! $9,000 .00 s 25,055 .70 s 35,055 .70 s 54,105.90 s 54,105 .90 3: s 26,837 .38 s 26,837 .38 s 55,729 .08 s 55,729 .08 41 $9,000.00 s 27,542 .50 s 35,54250 s 57,400 .95 s 57,400.95 5: s 98,842.50 s 28,244 .00 s 127,085.50 s 59,122.98 s 59,122 .98 6 j $9,000 .00 s 29,091.32 s 38,091.32 s 60,895 .67 s 60,895 .57 7 j s 29,954 .06 s 29,954 .06 s 52,723.57 s 52,723.57 s: $9,000.00 s 30,862 .98 s 39,862 .98 s 54,605 .27 s 54,605 .27 9 j s 31,788.87 s 31,788 .87 s 55,543.43 s 55,543 .43 10 . s 113,668 .88 $9,000 .00 s 32,480 .60 s 155,149.48 s 68,539.74 s 68,539 .74 s 668,285.58 s 705,947.58 Ma i ntenance Basis= s 122,800 .00 Annual Fee Escalation%= 3% Maintenance%= 20% Annual Fee Escalation%= 3% Projected Upgrade Increase%= 15% •Assumes an upgrade i n every 5th year at a 15% i ncrease in cost over the prior upgrade. Cost i ncrease is based on assumptions made by Englewood an d cannot, at this time, be validated by Tele-Works. Also, upgrades to premise would, presumably, include updated f eatures/functions whereas no comparable feature/function upgrades are accounted for in the option for SOW 7560 . ••Assumes the use of a package of 50,000 hosted m i nutes every other year. NOTE : Compari sons do not i nclude cost of any SMS messages billed at $.07/transaction . , PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY /CLIENT COMMUNICATION BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW 1712 Pearl Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302 Tel: 303.402 .1600 • Fax: 303.4~1 David G. Hill Partner bhgrlaw.com # 7' ~ '"'C Email, dgh@bhgrlaw.com 41 ~!-Vy V-~ . . Nove~~' ~~1 / 5 <0, '~ ... ~a t>'( 1/ .· PRIVILEGED ATTORNEYCLIE'ffr~~tVNJCATION . DO NOT DISCLo'ilc;::,q c Daniel L. Brotzman, Esq. City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110-0110 Re: October Invoice DearDan: ~));o o~~ ~ ..... Enclosed please find our invoices for professional services on water matters for October 1, 2011 , through October 31, 2011, in the amount of $25,002.84, with a total f9r the year of $518,67 6.56. The amount for this billing cycle on major cases of particular significance is listed below: Name Amount No Denver (04CW121) LIRFs $ 7,819.40 620 Denver (09CW139) Diligence at Chatfield Reservoir 9,404.94 726 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. The bill has been written down by $9,425.00 from the hourly rates for our Englewood work. That write down reflects our continued and difficult efforts to stay within budget. Staying within the budget is tough, given the ever more frequent attempts of water-short communities to grab more water , but we w atch the budget constantly. The problem is that Colorado's front range population has of course hugely increased over the last ten or twenty years, with a concomitant increase in the need for water. But Mother Nature has not seen fit to increase the Daniel L. Brotzman November 8, 2011 Page2 amount of water she provi des. Englewood is generally fo1iunate with respect to the quantity of its water supply; but there are lots of communities grabb ing for every last drop they can find, at the expense of others unless the others "watch out." The desperate folks include Denver, Aurora and the south-suburban commu nities such as Castle Rock, Castle Pines, Highlands Ranch (Centennial Water and Sanitation District), Parker, and the upper Cherry Creek basin developments. Unfortunately, Englewood exists downstream of Denver, water-wise, and Englewood is at risk from Denver's efforts to take every last drop. (Denver fears it will be unable to meet all of its water commitments by sometime between 2015 and 2020.) As I have noted before, Denver makes no bones about its intent to take every pint which flows into Chatfield, close the Chatfield outlet gates nearly all the time, and wipe out Englewood's exchange from Bear Creek to Chatfield. That exchange enables Englewood to supply Centennial as well as getting soft water. The attached chart and explanation shows just how much water Denver has available for exchanges to Chatfield which close the Chatfield outlet gates. As you can see, Denver has a great plenty with which to do that. And as we know, when the outlet gates are closed , all sorts of quality problems arise with the water which Englewood diverts from the river . Denver's exchange efforts depend, in large measure, on getting its gravel pit exchanges and its LIRF exchanges put under Denver's old decree for exchanges to Chatfield, which has a 1977 priority date. (LIRF means lawn irrigation return flow.) Englewood's position is that those exchanges have priority dates of 2000 or later. Englewood's Bear Creek exchange has a priority date of 1990. Importantly, Littleton has a 1994 fish flow decree below Chatfield which calls for a constant flow · of at least 70 cfs (or any lesser flow into Chatfield). We are attempting to get Littleton to assert its fish flow right against Denver. Littleton's lawyers are very concerned with preserving the fish flow. Littleton gets all its water from Denver, and we do not yet know what Littleton's position will be. We have a meeting scheduled with Littleton counsel for December 1. Central Colorado Water Conservancy District also is interested in participating. Their counsel has asked for the information we have developed . Our immediate Water Court eff01is are directed at Denver's efforts to exchange its lawn irrigation return flows (LIRFs) to Chatfield under a 1977 priority. That case is set for a four week trial next spring. The outcome should have a significant effect on Denver's efforts to put its gravel pit exchanges under the 1977 priority. We cannot let the LIRF case go by without challenge. Our expert rep01i is due December 1. The case will largely be determined on legal issues, not factual issues. We hope that the case will develop in such a way that we can file a dispositive motion in January, which might decide the exchange issue without a trial. We would hope for such an outcome, but Judges are reluctant to enter such rulings. In order to get its LIRF exchange under the 1977 priority, Denver must show 1) that in 1968 it gave "inquiry notice" that it would exchange LIRFs some day, and 2) that by 1968 it had taken a "first step" to put LIRFs under that exchange. Denver's burden should be difficult. The methodology for quantifying LIRFs was not developed until the 1980's, and the first Water Couii cases allowing recovery of LIRFs occurred in the 1980's. Denver's testimony in its 1968 case did not mention LIRFs. Denver's documents do not make reference to LIRFs until 1996 , according to the documents we have now reviewed (and we have reviewed all that we have). We are still asking for more Denver documents, and plan to do one deposition of Denver's representative concerning the history of Denver 's LIRF efforts . Daniel L. Brotzman November 8, 2011 Page 3 Our work has consisted of reviewing a lot of Denver documents, searching for references in same to LIRFs, requests for more Denver documents, intensive inquiry into the history of the various engineering efforts to quantify LIRFs and when they were first successful, finding the Water Court cases which first allowed recovery of LIRFs, reviewing the first Supreme Comi case allowing recovery of LIRFs, and working with Maiiin and Wood to develop the expe1i repo1i due December 1. There are some engineering issues relating to Denver's quantification of its LIRFs which Maiiin and Wood has raised, and we have worked with them on those issues. The next matter for discussion is our efforts to get the Corps of Engineers, the EPA, Littleton, Trout Unlimited and other environmental organizations and users concerned about the damage to the river below Chatfield arising from outlet gate closures which now last for some six weeks at a time, and are likely to last even longer. We have been in communication with the Denver office of the EPA (Region 8), the Denver office of the Corps of Engineers, the Omaha office of the Corps of Engineers, the Albuquerque office of the Corps of Engineers, Castle Rock, Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, Centennial Water and Sanitation District, Littleton (as noted above), the Bi-City wastewater treatment plant, Trout Unlimited and Western Resource Advocates to alert them to the problem and ask them to support releases which would relieve the quality problem. We are seeking to meet with the Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources to deal with concerns which have previously been expressed by Colorado Division of Wildlife and Colorado Division of Parks. On related issues arising from the proposed expansion of Denver's Gross R~servoir, which affects the amount Denver can exchange to Chatfield, we have been in contact with Grand County, the Colorado River District, and Consolidated Ditches (as well as the EPA and the Corps). Our effmis have included voluminous correspondence setting fo1ih the gate closure and quality problem, and the impact of Denver's 1977 exchanges (if allowed) on the expanded Chatfield storage rights and a number of in-person meetings ai1d phone conversations. We still have a number of meetings to go. The recipients of our information are usually shocked and surprised at the magnitude of the problem. For the most paii they did not even know it existed. As noted above, Littleton and Central Colorado are meeting with us or have asked for all of our information. Finally, at no chai·ge, I have been meeting with a group of water users and their attorneys and engineers, and the State Engineer and his counsel, to discuss 1) legislation which would allow a "bare" change of point of diversion of water rights if there is no expai1sion of use, and 2) legislation to prevent litigation over erroneously located points of diversion if they have been in place and operated for 19 years or more. I was chosen to draft the proposed legislation, which takes the form of two bills, and have done so and circulated the drafts. The legislation about bare changes could be quite helpful to Englewood. It would also eliminate the need for Englewood to be involved in controversial litigation over the relocation of the Bmlington head gate. John Akolt, former counsel for Burlington, got the headgate enlarged when it was moved upstream to facilitate flood control in the Globeville neighborhood. The expansion occurred and was unlawful, and Judge Klein so held in our lengthy litigation against FRICO, Burlington, United and East Cherry Creek. Now the problem is that a huge number of water users other than FRICO, Burlington, East Cherry Creek and United have decrees for diversion at the old Burlington headgate, which no longer exists. If they divert at the new headgate, they need a Daniel L. Brotzman November 8 , 2 011 Page 4 decree to do so, and it's important that their diversions not be expanded. (Mr. Akolt put them in a crack.) My draft would vastly reduce the complexity of the necessary changes of point of diversion, and reduce Englewood's efforts. If my drafts meet with approval from the initial group, and there is an effort to introduce the legislation, I may ask to have fmiher work paid for, if there would be a clear benefit to Englewood . So far my time, at the usual Englewood rates, comes to $2,300.00. The remainder of the cases is 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 paiiicular 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 vaifous 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. Town of Castle Rock (92CW144) (#296): This case involves new water rights at Denver's Strontia Springs Dam upstream from Englewood's Union Avenue Intake and extension of a decreed augmentation plan. Englewood needs to make sure the proper accounting and priority date are used in the new water rights and to monitor the augmentation plan. We reviewed correspondence enclosing engineering rep01i and proposed decree. 3. McDonald (92CW152 and 98CW347) (#297): This case involves an application for direct flow and storage rights on unnamed tributaries of Plum Creek. Englewood's interest was to monitor the case to see that administration of very junior rights is proper. We reviewed pleadings regarding setting Judicial status conference. 4. Ready Mixed Concrete Co. (90CW039) (#343): We have entered this case by motion to intervene at the request of the Referee of Water Division No. 1 because it is closely related to 90CW017 and 92CW016 (in which Englewood is already ai1 O_bjector). We prepared for and participated in a Referee status conference and reviewed notice of due date for comments, issuai1ce of revised proposed decree and notice of next Referee status conference. 5. Thornton (96CW1116) (#407): This case involves our efforts to perpetuate Thornton's decreed obligations to make its agricultural return flows above the senior District Two ditches. Those returns have historically been provided by Thornton's effluent released at Metro Sewer. Metro Sewer seeks to build a new plai1t below Brighton and treat Thornton's sewage there. Effluent released at that location would not comply with Thornton's decrees , and would not satisfy the senior ditches, which would then call out Englewood. The trial judge ruled that Metro must continue to treat the present amount of Thornton's sewage at the present Metro plant. Metro and Thornton appealed. Metro contended a city can change the locations of its return flows at will . Englewood prepared and filed a Supreme Comi brief strongly opposing that position. We obtained a satisfactory agreement from Thornton for more adequate accounting. We reviewed a notice of sub stitution by Hammond and Johnson for Parsons as counsel for Westminster. BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP --------------- ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW David G. Hill Partner 1712 Pearl Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302 Tel: 303.402.1600 • Fax: 303.402.1601 bhgrlaw.com Email. dgh@bhgrlaw.com /:;1'" December 9 , 2011 t::: c PRIVILEGED ATTORNEYCLIENT COMMUNICATION '12'1 • .f i:::'- DO NOT DISCLOSE Ore VJ.::: D Daniel L. Brotzman, Esq. City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110-0110 Re: November Invoice Dear Dan: 2 I 20 0 '// 'f:.°f:"1c12 l2tvol12: Op !'ft lo/ooo '12 Ct7}, , Co "11)-0 'lltv12y. Enclosed please find our invoices for professional services on water matters for November 1, 2011, through November 30, 2011 , in the amount of $26,846.54, with a total for the year of $555,523.10. The amount for this billing cycle on major cases of particular significance is listed below: Name Amount No Denver (04CW121) LIRFs 9,619.05 620 Denver (09CW139) Diligence at Chatfield Reservoir 4,434.50 726 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. The largest bill is for work on Denver's claimed exchange of its lawn frrigation return flows (LIRFs). A portion of the water which is appl ied to lawns in the Denver service area comes from reusable sources, primarily water from the Colorado River and some diversions from changed agricultural South Platte rights. Sometime around the year 2000, Denver began an effo1i to recapture and exchange the return flows from irrigation with that reusable water. Daniel L. Brotzman December 9, 2011 Page 2 The exchange would go primarily to Chatfield, and Denver claims that the exchange would fall under its 1977 prio rity , which of course would be senior to Englewood's 1990 exchange from Bear Creek to Chatfield. As you know, Englewood's exchange provides serious revenue from sales to Centennial, and also provides soft water to Englewood. We of course take the position that the priority date for the exchange should be 2004 , the date when Denver filed its application to exchange LIRFs. The amount of LIRFs which Denver proposes presently to exchange is not large (between 2,000 and 3,000 acre feet) but the amount will grow substantially with time. The reason for the growth is that much of the return flow seeps into rock below the surface. The particular rock allows water to move only very slowly , and so while the amount reaching the streams now is not huge, over time it will substantially increase ; (Denver only began applying reusable water in 1964, and the amounts applied have seriously increased every year; and if Denver is able to treat its pre-1940 water as reusable , the totals will take a huge jump.) Furthermore, and quite imp01iantly, the outcome of the priority date issue is likely to bear heavily on resolution of the priority date for Denver's exchanges from its new gravel pit reservoirs. As you know, Denver claims to be able to exchange huge amounts from those reservoirs, under a 1977 priority date. Again, Englewood is claiming that Denver's priority should be junior to Englewood's 1977 exchange. The LIRF case is set for a four-week trial staiiing April 30. We have some strong issues in our favor. Among them is the fact that when Denver gave notice of its exchange in 1968, no one knew how to calculate LIRFs . The necessary engineering was done much later, in a study conducted by the Wheeler engineering firm. Denver did not begin to study the recapture of its LIRFs until it was authorized in 1996. To do an exchange of LIRFs without injury, it is necessary to figure out 1) what is the total volume of LIRFs on any given day, 2) what is the volume which flows into each stream (e.g., the South Platte, Bear Creek, Cherry Creek, Big Dry Creek, on and on) 3) where do the LIRFs enter the pa1iicular streams, and 4) how long does it take the LIRFs to reach a senior calling right on a particular day. Needless to say, none of that work had been done in 1968 . In an August decision of the Colorado Supreme Court, involving an application for an exchange by Broomfield, the Court held that each separate source of substitute supply for an exchange required a separate conditional decree, and a "first step" with respect to the paiiicular source. In the Broomfield case, the sources were shares in particular ditch companies, which were held to be separate sources. If LIRFs are a "separate source," then clearly there had been no "first step" when Denver 's 1968 application was filed, or when the decree was entered in 1972. Denver contends that the "source" of the LIRFs is the same decrees which allowed exchanges of Metro effluent and Bi-City effluent under their exchange decree entered in 1972, so no separate first step was nece ssary for an exchange of LIRFs. Our contention is that the term "source" means the location where the substitute supply is put into the stream, because without that knowledge there can be no assessment of whether injury will result from the upstream diversions allowed by the exchange; and that the determination of possible injury from LIRFs is I Daniel L. Brotzman December 9, 2011 Page 3 far different from that required for effluent discharged at Metro and Bi-City. The Broomfield case required a separate injury analysis for each "source." In connection with the LIRF case, we performed the following tasks, in general. We analyzed the need for an amended statement of opposition in light of the Broomfield case, and concluded none was needed. We reviewed Denver's letters sent annually to the Bureau of Reclamation starting in the 1960's, describing Denver's efforts to reuse its western slope water (those letters are required by Denver's Blue River decree). We found no reference to LIRFs until 1993. We studied the history of the development of the engineering which determines the amount, timing and location of LIRFs, to establish that in 1968 no one knew how to quantify LIRFs, and the date when LIRFs were first quantified by Wheeler (much later). We studied Denver's actions to determine when Denver made a "first step" with respect to the use of LIRFs (probably 1996 or 2000, maybe 2004 ). We discussed the case with counsel for Central Colorado Water Conservancy District, Littleton, South Suburban, and Centennial seeking supp01t. All but Centennial promise supp01t (in addition see below re contacts with Littleton and South Suburban.) We discussed the problem of low flows with Mark Wagner, counsel for Bi-City wastewater. We reviewed all the expe1t reports submitted by Denver, and reviewed draft reports from Joe Tom Wood and Phil Martin and commented on them. We submitted interrogatories to Denver and reviewed the responses. We set up depositions of Bill Bates and Larry Dirks, two of Denver's witnesses. Finally, we reviewed and responded to a motion by Denver and Consolidated Ditches to remove the dispute over the 1940 agreement from this case. The second major bill is for the ongoing effort to obtain relief from the quality problems which arise when Denver closes the Chatfield outlet gates. The principal quality problems are hardness, blue green algae growth, and an elevated temperature level which makes trout survival essentially impossible. (The Marcy Gulch effluent enters the stream at around 88 degrees Fahrenheit.) Relief from the quality problems, if we can get it, will come not from the Colorado Water Court but from the EPA and Corps of Engineers. We are making substantial effo1ts to get a large number of entities to complain to those entities about the effect of the low flows, and to speak with personnel at the Corps about the problem. We prepared for and met with the State of Colorado Director of the Department of Natural Resources, whose nai11e is Mike King, and his two subordinates who head up water efforts for wildlife and parks. The DOW badly wants water for its fish hatchery below Chatfield, and is concerned about low flows below Chatfield. Both DOW and Parks have conditional decrees for storage in Chatfield. Mr. King was unfamiliar with the possibility that Denver might be taking vi1tually all the inflows and closing the gates. The representative of DOW was quite concerned. Action that will be taken, if any, is not known. As noted above, we prepared for and met with counsel for Littleton and South Suburban, about the impact of low flows on their fishery and boat chute decrees, which have 1994 priorities. Those counsel were very concerned, and promised to contact t11eir respective clients about participating in the LIRF case ai1d about making comments to the Corps and EPA. Da niel L. Brotzman December 9, 2011 Page 4 We prepared for and met with counsel for Castle Rock about the impact of Denver's planned diversion on Castle Rock's storage decree in the expanded storage space. Castle Rock counsel expressed serious concern and promised to contact their client. We prepared a letter with a good deal more material to the Denver office and the Omaha office of the Corps of Engineers, and requested an in person meeting with both offices. Both offices refused a meeting, on the basis that they were turning down all requests for person-to- person meetings. We are setting up a meeting with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, which is overseeing the State effort on Chatfield. Their personnel have expressed concern over diminished outflow, in phone conversations. The remainder of the cases is 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 paiiicular 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. Denver (89CW 198) (#201): This is Denver's application for an augmentation plan for Cherry Creek Pai·k using lawn irrigation return flows as an augmentation source. We are in the case because it will set the precedent for other Denver return flow cases. We reviewed notice of withdrawal by Miller ai1d entry of appeai·ance by Joseph as co-counsel for Denver Southeast Suburban. 3. McDonald (92CW152 and 98CW347) (#297): This case involves an application for direct flow and storage rights on unnamed tributaries of Plum Creek. Englewood's interest was to monitor the case to see that administration of very junior rights is proper. We reviewed notice of trial, pretrial conference and Judicial status conference and initial disclosures by Applicants. 4. Thornton (96CW1116) (#407): This case involves our efforts to perpetuate Thornton's decreed obligations to make its agricultural return flows above the senior District Two ditches. Those returns have historically been provided by Thornton's effluent released at Metro Sewer. Metro Sewer seeks to build a new plant below Brighton and treat Thornton's sewage there. Effluent released at that location would not comply with Thornton 's decrees , and would not satisfy the senior ditches, which would then call out Englewood . The trial judge ruled that Metro must continue to treat the present amount of Thornton's sewage at the present Metro plant. Metro and Thornton appealed. Metro contended a city can change the locations of its return flows at will. Englewood prepared and filed a Supreme Comi brief strongly opposing that position. We obtained a satisfactory agreement from Thornton for more adequate accounting . We reviewed notice of withdrawal by Miller as co-counsel for Coors.