Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-07-09 WSB AGENDAWATER& SEWER BOARD AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 9, 2013 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM 1. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 11 , 2013 WATER BOARD MEETING . (ATT. 1) 2. GUEST: DA VE HENDERSON , PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. -BIG DRY CREEK DRAINAGEWA Y STUDY. (ATT. 2) 3. COMMENTS OF THE 2013 ENGLEWOOD WATER CONSERVATION PLAN. (ATT. 3) 4 . COLUMBINE WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT CONNECTOR'S AGREEMENT. (A TT. 4) 5. VALLEY SUPPLEMENT #22 FROM MTATL FAMILY LLLP. (ATT. 5) 6. LINDSAY MARSH -4344 S. WASHINGTON ST. -REPEATED ILLEGAL WATER TURN-ONS. (ATT. 6) 7. REQUEST TO VACATE EASEMENT AT 5001 S. BROADWAY. (A TT. 7) 8. INFO . ITEM-MS4 STORMWATERPERMIT. (ATT. 8) 9. OTHER. Present: Absent: WATER & SEWER BOARD MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 11, 2013 5:00 P.M. Oakley, Wiggins , Habenicht, Waggoner, Moore, Woodward, Bums, Olson, Lay, Penn None Also present: Stu Fonda -Director of Utilities, Tom Brennan -Utilities Engineer The meeting was called to order at 5:02. lfll 1. MINUTES OF THE MAY 14, 2013 WATER BOARD MEETING. The Board approved the Water and Sewer Board Minutes of the May 14 , 2013 meeting. A correction in the May 14, 2013 Minutes was noted. Mr. Oakley was absent for this meeting. Motion: To approve the May 14, 2013 Water and Sewer B oard Minutes as amended. Moved: Woodward Seconded: Habenicht Motion approved unanimously. r?li 2. GUEST: JOE TOM WOOD -MARTIN & WOOD. MEADOW CREEK RESERVOIR HISTORY. Joe Tom Wood, Water Engineer of Martin &Wood, and associ ate Craig Lis appeared to discuss the Meadow Creek Reservoir history and its' importance to the City of Englewood's water supply system . Also discussed was the contractual relationship to Denver Water and projects at Meadow Creek. The Board received a copy of, "A History of the Development of Englewood's Cabin-Meadow Creek Sy stem by Joe Tom Wood ." rill 3. BOW MAR SANITATION DISTRICT CONNECTOR 'S AGREEMENT. Bow Mar Sanitation District submitted a standard connector 's agreement for receiving and treating sewage transmitted by the Bow Mar District. There are approximately 93 taps and the district will continue to own and maintain the sewer mains. The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved the standard Connector's Agreement. Motion: Moved: Recommend Council approval of the Bow Mar Sanitation District Wastewater Connector's Agreement. Waggoner Seconded : Penn Motion passed unanimously. t?lJ 4. E NGLEWOOD WATER CONSERVATION PLAN 30 DAY UPDATE & BUDGET. Tom Brennan , Utilities Engineer, updated the Board on the Water Conservation Plan, comments received and budget. lt] 5. UPDATE ON AMENDMENT #5 FOR UV PROJECT. Tom Brennan, Utilities Engineer, updated the Board on the UV Project progress, an upcoming credit for Addendum #5 and the budget. A credit will be forthcoming on Addendum #5 because a tracer study was found to be not necessary. The project is 70 % constructed with a target completion date of October, 2013 . I?] 6. MS4 STORMW ATER PERMIT -ENGLEWOOD PUBLIC SCHOOLS. The Board discussed having the Englewood Public Schools obtain a separate MS4 Stonnwater Permit. With a permit separation, any stormwater violation from an illicit discharge by either party will not be reflected on the other entity. The Director of Utilities and the City Manager will discuss obtaining a MS4 Permit with the Superintendent of Englewood Public Schools. Motion: To notify Englewood Public Schools to apply for a separate MS4 Storrnwater Penn it. Moved : Kells Seconded : Bums Motion approved unanimously. It] 7. BOARD APPRECIATION NIGHT MONDAY, JUNE 24, 2013 . There will be an Englewood Board and Committee appreciation night on Monday, June 24 , 2013 beginning at 6:00 in the City Hall Community Room. The meeting adjourned at 6:10 p .m. The next Englewood Water Board meeting will be Tuesday, July 9, 2013 at 5:00 p .m. in the Community Development Conference Room . Respectfully submitted , Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM TO: Stu Fonda, Utilities Director THROUGH: Rick Kahm, Director of Public Works FROM: Dave Henderson, Engineering/Capital Projects Administrator V DATE: June26,2013 SUBJECT: BIG DRY CREEK DRAINAGEWA Y STUDY The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) programmed a new study of the Big Dry Creek Drainageway from County Line Road to the South P latte River (see attached Exhibit). The project request was initiated by the Southeast Metro Stormwater Authority (SEMSW A), with the cities of Greenwood Village and Englewood listed as "co-sponsors ". The total estimated cost of the "Master Plan Study" and "Flood Hazard Area Delineation" is $250,000. The UDFCD proposed funding is detailed below: UDFCD SEMSWA Greenwood Village Englewood Total $150,000 71,000 17,000 12,000 $250,000 Staff finds the cost sharing proposal favorable to the City of Englewood. Benefits to our citizens include: • Identifying design storm flows for future improvements (i.e. crossing structures) • Identifying areas needing stabilization • Identifying regional water quality opportunities • Floodplain management for future development • Hydrologic information and locations, alignments, and s izing of storm sewers, channels, and detention/retention basins • New mapping of flood hazard areas and limits • Cost estimates for budgeting purposes Staff is requesting an appropriation of $12,000 from the Stormwater Utility Fund. I will attend the July 9th Water and Sewer Board meeting to present this unbudgeted request. Attach: Exhibit A Letter from U DFCD c: Cathy Burrage AGREEMENT REGARDING FUNDING OF MAJOR DRAINAGEW AY PLANNING AND FLOOD HAZARD AREA DELINEATION FOR BIG DRY CREEK (DOWNSTREAM OF COUNTY LINE) Agreement No . 13-06.02 EXHIBIT A Big Dry Creek MOP & FHAD Approximate Watershed Limits April 2013 URBAN DRA I NAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT August 27, 2012 David Henderso n C ity of Englewood Paul A. Hindman, Executive Director 2480 W. 26th Avenue, Su ite 1568 Denver, CO 80211-5304 I 000 Englewood Parkway Englew ood, CO 80 I I 0 Subject: 20 13 throu gh 2016 Major Drainage Systems Master Planning Needs Dear Mr. Hender so n: Teleph one 303-455-6277 Fax 303-455-7880 www.udfcd.org In response to my July 27 , 2012 letter, l received several comme nts from commu n iti es supporting th e draft major drain age syste ms master planning needs list and a few request s for minor changes to th e list. As a re s ult , the draft yo u received in July has been fina lized and a copy of the final list is enclosed for your re co rds. l appreciate your input in preparing th is maste r planning ne ed s projection for the nex t fo ur years. A budget request for 2013 will be made in the amo un ts show n o n the accompanying list and I am hopeful that the UDFC D Board of Direct ors will adopt it. I will be contacting each community listed as a co-sponsor for projects in 2013 after th e Board ha s taken final action o n o ur budget. Should the Board approve a lesser budget amount for 2013 than the amount listed in thi s tabl e. I will attempt to sort out the project pri o ri t ies at that time. Th e following is a list of the s tudie s in which the City of Eng lewood wi ll be in vo lved along with my es timate at thi s tim e of your s har e of the loca l cost. Please keep in mind these are pre li minary estimates for budgeting purposes; we can negot iate the fi na l amo unts when t he study is about to begin . Studv Na me Big Dry Creek & Tribs MOP & FHAD H arva rd Gulch MDP & FI-IAD Loca l Cost $100 ,000 $100 ,000 Englewood Share $12 ,000 $9,0 00 Aga in , thank yo u for be in g part of this survey. Sho ul d you have any additional comments about th e accompanying li st, please feel free to emai l me at sthomas @ udfcd.org . Se ni o r Project Engi neer Ma ste r Planning Program SBT /g h Encl os ure s \p Ian \111pnc.:ds -li11 al UDFCD Estimated Master Planning Needs: Years 2013 through 2016 August 23, 2012 (No te: District's budget has not been approved by the Board. Fin al projects and costs sh own ma y chang e.) Master Planning Project Sponsors/Possible Co-sponsors Local Cost UDFCD To Prorate Cost Calendar Year 2013: Big Dry Creek & Tri bs (DIS of County Line) MDP & FHAD SEMSWA, Englewood, Greenwood Village $ 100 ,000 $ 100,000 Kalcevik Gulch/D F A 430 1 MDP Adams Co., Westminster $ 80,000 $ 80,000 Senac Creek/ Aurora Reservoir MDP & FHAD Aurora, SEMSWA $ 90,000 $ 90,000 Weir Gulch & 1st Ave Tri butary MDP & FHAD Denver $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Westerly Creek (UIS of Dam) MD P & FHAD Aurora, Denver $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Goose Creek/TwoMile Alternatives Analysis Boulder $ 75,000 $ 75,000 TOTAL s 545,000 $ 545,000 Calendar Year 2014: Airport Creek (US36 thru BNSF) Alternatives Broomfield s 30 ,000 $ 30,000 Little Dry Creek (Ad Co) MDP Westminster, Arvada, Adams Co., Jefferson Co. $ 125,000 $ 125,000 Lone Tree, Windmill & Dove Creek OSP SEMSW A, Douglas Co. $ 70,000 $ 70,000 Niver Creek MDP & FHAD Thornton, Federal Heights, Adams Co. $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Sloans Lake MDP & FHAD Denver, Lakewood, Edgewater, Jefferson Co. $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Western Hills Area OSP Adams Co. $ 100,000 $ 100 ,000 Contingencies $ 20,000 $ 20,000 TOTAL s 545,000 $ 54 5,000 Calendar Year 2015: Boulder Creek Mitigation Study Boulder $ 75,000 $ 75,000 Dutch Creek@ Platte Canyon Alternatives SEMSWA $ 30,000 $ 30,000 First Creek OSP (U IS of 1-70) SEMSWA, Aurora $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Harvar d Gulch MD P & FHAD Denver, Cherry Hills Village, Englewood, SEMSWA $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Lee Gulch UI S En d Alternatives SEMSWA $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Third Creek MD P & FHAD Aurora, Adams Co., DIA $ 75,00 0 $ 75,000 Sand Creek Righ t Bank Trib s OSP (1-225 to Aurora Limits) Aurora $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Contingencies $ 35,000 $ 35,000 TO TAL $ 545,000 $ 545,000 Calendar Year 2016: 54th & Pecos OSP Update Adams Co. $ 75,000 $ 75 ,000 Bear Creek UIS of Sheridan Alternatives Denver $ 30 ,000 $ 30 ,000 Cherry Creek (Reservoir to Scott Rd) MDP Update SEMSWA $ 50,000 $ 50 ,000 Flood Mitigation Prioritization Study Boulder $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Goldsmith Gulch MDP & FHAD Denver $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Grange Hall Creek & Tribs MD P & FHAD Northglenn, Thornton, Adams Co. $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Quincy Drainage Shop Creek OSP Update Aurora $ 75,000 $ 75,000 Contingencies $ 15,000 $ 15,000 TOTAL $ 545 ,000 $ 545,00 0 TO: FROM: DATE: RE : CI T Y 0 F ENGLEWOOD MEMORANDUM Englewood Water and Sewer Board ,Xf'?/?__. Yasser Abouaish , Utilities Engineer ~ June 28 , 2013 Englewood Water Conservation Plan Attached are the comments received by the July 1, 20-13 dead line for public input on the 2013 Englewood Water Conservation Plan. Recommendations received include xeriscaping and maintaining an urban forest , encouraging appropriate and efficient use of water resources, using increased rates for heavier users, using ra i n barrels and graywater, water efficient toilets in city buildings and implementi ng a strong incentive program for flat rate accounts to convert to meter. The above recommendations do not change the basic drafted water conservat ion plan , but will be included in the plan 's appendix and considered for implementation over the next five years. Once approved by the Wa ter Board , the plan will go to City Council in August , 2013 and then certified by the Colorado Water Conservation Board within 60 days . 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone 303-762-2635 www.englewoodgov.org CITY OF ENGLEWOOD WATER CONSERVATION PLAN COMME NTS RECEIVED BY JULY 1, 2013 "I strongly recommend that everyone involved with the water conservation plan be required to read "Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Beyond Vol. 1-3" by Brad Landcaster. I would also like to see th e city use more xeriscaping around city facilities. It's baffling why you have lawn around plac es like the WTP , city maintenance facility , Police station , etc. The only person who ever se ts foot on tho se expanses of grass are the people who mow them, truly a waste of water and maintenance . Allow and implement the use of greywater. Give incentives for xeriscaping. Limit the amount of grass for new homes and businesses and require the use of low water usage grasses . Go to a mandatory 3 da y a week watering schedule all of the time." "Water is the staff oflife ..... we all know that. We cannot do without it and our quality oflife, particularly here in the dry Western Desert, depends upon the availability of good, clean water. I am sure that is why our civic leaders in Englewood worked so hard to obtain water rights for Englewood-to insure that our quality of life would remain high because we had enough water. In the 1970's, Englewood had a "flat rate" water billing system. We paid in advance, and the city had a stable, absolutely predictable fund to pay the cost of providing water. Our lawns and neighborhoods were green and inviting. The name "Englewood" seemed to describe our green urban forest. Now we have water meters and we sell our "excess" water to more affluent neighborhoods. The rationale for this was that by selling our excess water, Englewood would have plenty and our rates would stay lower than surrounding cities. Unfortunately, this hasn't worked out. Denver rates right now are $2.59/1000 gallons plus $6 .33 admin fee ; Englewood's rate is $3.29/1000 gallons plus a $9.71 admin fee. If you use 10,000 ga ll ons in a billing period you pay $4 .26/1000 gallons in Englewood, vs $3 .2211000 gallons in Denver. As just a side note, if you are one of Englewood's "out of city" metered customers, you only pay an admin fee of $9.22. So much for the theory of "sell off our water and pay less for the water we use ." Over the past several decades , as Englewood's water policy has moved from a flat rate, predictable cost to a metered cost, Englewood 's neighborhoods have consistently declined in appearance. Certainly a big part of that has been the fact that bluegrass lawns are water guzzlers and have become very expensive to maintain under the current water pricing system , and as you drive through the city you can see numerous homes with dead or abandoned lawns , but also fewer gardens and more neglected trees . No rational person is going to suggest that we encourage bluegrass lawns , or running water in the gutter. But our policies are not encouraging APPROPRIATE WATER USE to Keep Englewood Beautiful. As the appearance of our neighborhoods continues its decline, so does the desire to live here, raise a family , participate in civic affairs , and so forth. Our water policies have contributed to this decline even though we seem to have enough water to take a more enlightened approach , saving water appropriately, but encouraging water use that keeps Englewood an attractive, livable city. It is vexing to me that Englewood's neighborhoods can 't afford the water that we are selling to other, more affluent metro neighborhood s to waste on THEIR lawns and green space, which they seem to do with reckless abandon , even to the point , in Highlands Ranch, of penalizing homeowners who do not u se enough water on their lawns. Obviously, they have recognized that people want to live and do bu siness in a city which has visually appealing trees, landscaping, and so forth. We apparently haven't figured that out, even though we already have the water re sources. Obviously, the cost of water is a much small part of a family's budget in a more affluent community than it is in less affluent Englewood . So I see nothing in the proposed Water Conservation Plan to encourage the APPROPRIATE USE of the water Englewood owns to improve the quality of the appearance and livability of the City of Englewood , taking into account that our city is not a s affluent as some of our Southern neighbors. For instance, Englewood 's development guidelines require trees, and our Concrete Replacement plan requires replacement trees when a tree is removed next to a sidewalk. But our water conservation plan gives no thought to the cost or effort involved in owning a tree, or the water required. Trees are an expensive addition to a homeowner's landscape. They require watering, maintenance, insurance, trimming, and probably eventual expensive removal. I guess a "conservation minded" citi z en should simply do without trees. But can you imagine Englewood without trees ? Certainly the "wood" part refers to our attractive urban forest. I imagine the growing number of apartment dwellers in Englewood feel that their water rate should be lower, after all they don 't have trees , or grass or gardens, or flowers to tend , water and maintain. So it seems to me that Englewood homeowners should not be disadvantaged when compared to apartment dwellers, or to homeowners in more affluent areas to whom Englewood sells water. While a homeowner will probably use more water, much of that will to enhance the urban landscape, providing trees and landscaping which enhances all of our quality of life. There is clearly a benefit to the community provided by homeowners who invest in trees and appropriate landscaping, and a water conservation program should recognize this benefit and e ncourage tree s through water pricing. Tree ownership should not be mandated by the City, and then immediately penalized by Englewood's water pricing policy. Similarly, some thought should be given to the social and community benefit provided by a homeowner who has a flower or vegetable garden, enhancing the beauty of the neighborhood and the livability of the urban landscape. These gardens should be encouraged , not penalized by water pricing when compared to the person who only plants a water guzzling bluegrass lawn. Again , isn 't it curious that the City of Englewood is now subsidizing a community garden for people (apartment dwellers) who cannot have their own garden , but gives no break to the homeowner who owns , pays taxes on , and provides his own garden area. Additionally, it is curious that this "Conservation Plan" doesn't seem to encourage, or even to allow some innovati v e conservation techniques, such as grey water system s, rain barrels , low flow toilets , and so forth. Grey water systems should be encouraged when appropriately designed and installed. There is no good reason why bathing or hand washing water cannot be used again for toilet flushing before it passes back into the sanitary sewer system. This does not affect the amount of water available for re-introduction back into the river as treated effluent, but will reduce the amount needed to operate a household. Similarly, cisterns designed to catch and use rainwater for garden or lawn, or household use should be encouraged and allowed. It is curious that Englewood "claims" that nmoff rain water creates a storm drainage burden that must be remediated through a tax , but will not allow a homeowner to catch and use that rainwater, thereby eliminating this storm drainage burden. Homeowners should be encouraged to use low flow toilets, low flow showerheads, drip irrigation for flowerbeds and gardens; if not through a rebate program then at least through an education program, classes, product recommendations, and so forth. Some considerable thought should be given to the problems faced by a family trying to plan a family budget and the effects of a constantly changing water bill which seems to be out of their control. A family should be able to predict its water bill with some certainty, even through periods of drought. I suggest that the city should use a base rate which completely accounts for the cost of the system operations, plus a reasonable amount of water for household use and landscaping ; (with an allowance for trees and gardens, as mentioned earlier) and then have a surcharge for excessive use, and an even higher rate for usage that is clearly wasteful or abusive. Under this scenario, a family could reasonably plan and know its costs, and would be encouraged to not abuse or waste this water resource , but would be encouraged to have trees, a garden, flowers and so forth. The rate paid by apartment dwellers should take into account that someone else, i.e. homeowners and the City through its parks , is paying the cost of the landscaping amenities, trees, lawns, and so forth which we all enjoy in this SUBURBAN environment In Summary, we all know that waste is bad. Now we need to recogn ize that the quality of life in Engl wood, in the future, will be determined by how we allow and encourage appropriate use of the water resources we own, and which we are constantly reminded that are more than adequate. Our Conservation Plan should plan for not just water conservation, but should embrace innovative water saving technologies to "stretch" the water we can use, and should ENCOURAGE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF WATER, using our pricing mechanism to insure that we have the kind of landscaping, trees, gardens, flowers and water efficient landscaping that will "Keep Englewood Beautiful" and provide a high quality oflife for our residents and businesses." "Page ES -1 . Paragraph 3; table ES 1 would seem to indicate that water used sho uld be 70,677 AF (or are you referring to a savings?). Page 12, reference to fig 2.4; do we really charge less for more consumption? $2.04 for heavier users vs. $3.29 for li ghter users .... That would seem to discourage conservation. Page 15, reference to fig 2.5 should be 2.6 (or vice versa)." "Table 2 .2. Where are the Rainfall numbers from? Englewood, Watershed from where we get our water, snowpack, does it exclude our snowfall, etc.? .... I'd like to see a reference . Figure 2 .5. on the Y axis it is really easy to (mentally) put a comma where there is a period in the Y values; I would recommend using the number without decimals (e .g .1000) or with only one decimal (e.g . 1000 .0) ..... or just use billion gallons with one decimal. Pretty amazing how water use has gone down (3 billion to 2 billion) .... Something was really done right to get this to happen!" "Figures 2.1 and 2.2 need to be readable (higher resolution?). Figure 2.2. Englewood Water (Mains/Lines?) over 8 inches in Diameter. I know what you mean but citizens might not." "I've attached a brochure from the City of Calgary, Alberta, that encourages residents to collect rainwater for their landscape watering. I suggest that Englewood consider this practice. Ottawa, Ontario , Convention Centre collects rainwater for toilet and urinal flushing saving 359,000 gallons per year--another practical conservation approach." "I appreciate that this is a Water Conservation Plan but I think it concentrates too much on reducing water use including punitive measures , and not enough on efficient use of the resource . I believe the plan should discu ss collaboration with other City departments to achieve some of the goals. For instance working with Parks and Re creation for educational seminars and even gardens and alternative grasses for lawns, or Community Development to achieve a balance between landscaping requirements and water us e. "Englewood participates in th e Arbor Day Foundatio ns Tree City program promoting a healthy urban forest. Water plays an essential part in maintaining that urban forest. The only mention of trees in the en tire plan is on page 25 where it talks about removing native tree species as a way of conserving water! EMC 16-6-7 details requ ired land sca ping standards for new development and again this plan doesn 't really address the water use issues prese nted by these City requirements. Public education is an essential element if this plan is to succeed, but aside from the Pipeline publication, while widely distributed I suspect isn't widely read , there seems to be little else. In fact, according to Page 27 Xeriscape education is left to Denver Water. While the Water Day for school chi ldren is a laudable program, it is the parents who make most of the water use decisions . I would hate to see Englewood buried in mountains of crushed rock simply because it requires less water." "Every toilet that is in an Englewood controlled building should be modified or replaced with low usage ones,,, fire stations, police buildings, court houses ,,,,Englewood. Public buildings,etc ,,all!" "Water Conservation Plan" Will we keep the code below? It does not require all flat rate customers to be updated. Is that correct? The Englewood Municipal Code includes a requirement for all flat-rate customers to install approved water meters when they sell or transfer thei r property. The Code states: "All owners of property having unmetered water service shall be required to install approved water meter within ninety (90) days after the sale or transfer of the property or change in property use from residential to commercial or industrial. Whenever a meter is to be installed, it shall be supplied by the Englewood Utilities Department at the owners cost." "After reading Mr. Woullard's article in the Hub regarding water conservation , it really peaked my interest as I am one of the 10,00 plus homes on a water meter. I understand there are 2,074 single family dwellings under the flat rate system, and I am sure several of these homeowners are trying to conserve water. However, there are a percentage of these homes that are taking advantage of this system. I have a neighbor that will use one of the fountain type sprinklers . They will set it in one spot in the morning and it will still be in the same spot in the afternoon. When confronted as to why they would do such a thing there comment is "we don't care we don't pay for water." In addition I drive S. Logan to Belleview to and from work every week. There area a few houses where the water is on in the afternoons prior to 6:00 pm. I do not know whether these homes are metered or on the flat rate system , either way they should not be watering during the heat of the day. My opinion is that all single family dwellings should have a meter installed sooner than later." Date August 19, 2013 INITIATED BY Utilities Department COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item Subject Columbine Water and Sanitation District Connector's Agreement STAFF SOURCE Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION City Council approved a standard Sanitary Sewer Connector's Agreement in January, 1988. RECOMMENDED ACTION At their July 9, 2013 meeting the Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommended Council approval of the Columbine Water and Sanitation District Wastewater Connector's Agreement. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED Sanitary sewer service is provided to districts outside of the Englewood corporate boundaries through the standard connector's agreement. The Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant is able to receive and treat sewage transmitted by various districts. The attached agreement addresses this service with the district that owns and maintains the sewer mains. In the Columbine Water and Sanitation District there are 336 taps. The Columbine Water and Sanitation District will continue to own the lines and will be responsible for capital improvements in its system. The attached map shows the Columbine Water and Sanitation District boundaries. The City Attorney's office has reviewed and approved the standard Connector's Agreement. FINANCIAL IMPACT None. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Resolution Columbine Sanitation District Wastewater Connector's Agreement Map Connectors Agr -Columbine Water & San . Dist.doc • WASTEWATER CONNECTOR'S AGREEMENT For Districts Sewer Contract No. THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 4/19/2012 Revision ---- ________ , 20 __ to be effective as of 20_; by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City," acting by and through its duly elected, qualified and authorized Mayor and City Clerk, and the COLUMBINE VALLEY WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT, a quasi- municipal corporation and subdivision of the State of Colorado, hereinafter called "District," acting by and through its authorized Representative. WITNESS ETH WHEREAS, the City owns and operates a sewage system, including a sewage treatment plant which is jointly owned and operated with the City of Littleton, so situated physically as to be able to receive and treat the sewage from a designated area served by the District and gathered by the District's sanitary-sewage system; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the District to utilize the facilities owned by the City for the treatment of sewage and the City is willing to serve the District for treatment of sewage under certain conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the promises and for other good and valuable consideration hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed by the parties as follows: 1. The City hereby agrees under the conditions hereinafter set forth, to treat the sewage originating from the District's sanitary sewer system within the area served by the District as approved by the City and as indicated in the description attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked as "Exhibit A." The District specifically agrees to prevent sewage from any area other than that described herein, from being discharged into the District's sanitary sewage system connected to the City's trunk line and to prevent connections to the system from or in any area other than those described herein. 2. In the operation of the District's sanitary sewer system, the District agrees that all applicable Code provisions and rules and regulations of the City, including amendments thereto during the term of the contract, shall be the minimum standards for the District's system. The District further agrees to abide by all applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations, or permits, including those of the Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) as they become effective or implemented or upon notice from the City. The District shall inform all users, contractors and subcontractors of such standards, rules and regulations upon inquiry from such persons, and shall not furnish any information inconsistent therewith. In this regard, it shall be the responsibility of the District to obtain the applicable requirements from the appropriate governing body. The City shall 1 attempt to maintain and provide information on all requirements to the District; however, the City does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of government regulations other than the City's own regulations . 3. Regarding the provision of sewer service, the City's permitting requirements shall be followed by the District and its users. All sewer plans, specifications and methods of work within the District shall be submitted to the City in writing and approved by the City prior to any construction or tap in the District 's designated area. No permit shall be final and no service shall be provided to property until construction is approved, in writing by the City. 4. The District shall be responsible for the proper maintenance of its sewer system and shall rectify any problems or conditions which have been determined by the District or the City to be detrimental to the City 's treatment process or system. Should the City determine that any discharge enters the sewer system contrary to applicable laws, ordinances, statutes, rules, regulations or permits , the District agrees to proceed at once to take whatever lawful means may be necessary to rectify any such problem or condition. 5 . The City shall have the right to allocate service under this Contract, and the City may deny additional service for any utility-related reason, but in no event will the City terminate or refuse any service without cause . The City shall have the right to disconnect service to any area annexed to the District when such annexation takes place without prior written City approval. Within one year of this agreement, the District shall provide the City with an estimate of the number of equivalent service taps needed for the next five (5) years under current zoning and planned build out in the District's area as shown on Exhibit A. The District shall continue to monitor zoning changes within its area to estimate its tap requirements and provide the City with notice of tap requirement for the next five ( 5) year period which time shall be given to the City on each anniversary date of this Agreement in a form satisfactory to the City. 6 . The City may impose and collect reasonable fees, tolls and charges, which shall be uniform as to all outside-City users for the services provided by the City under this Connector 's Agreement. The City shall bill the District users directly for all applicable City charges for services rendered under this Agreement. Should any user not pay the City, the City shall bill the District and the District shall pay the amount due to City within forty-five (45) days of such billing. These charges are subject to adjustment by the City from time to time . When such adjustment to these charges are made, the City shall give the District forty- five ( 45) days advance written notice . The City may bill and collect "District Charges" imposed by the Districts as an additional item to be billed and collected by the City along with the City 's Treatment charge and other fees . The "District Charges" received by the City shall be remitted by the City to the District annually; less an amount equal to the City and D~strict charges which remain delinquent. The District shall notify the City of any changes in the District charges to be imposed and the remittance schedule before May 1 st of each year. 2 7. Subject to the terms of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), the term of this Agreement is for a period of three (3) years from the date of execution and automatically renewed for six (6) subsequent three (3) year periods unless either party gives a minimum of six ( 6) months written notice, during which time the District agrees that all effluent produced from taps within the District shall not be in violation of any federal, state or City laws, rules or regulations, or any other applicable governmental regulations or the permits under which the City operates its sewage treatment system. The City agrees, during the term hereof, to treat said effluent and to maintain adequate facilities for treating the same . 8. The District agrees that it will maintain, at its own expense, all lines now owned and operated by the District, it being specifically agreed that the City assumes no responsibility should any of the District's lines become clogged, damaged, or require maintenance. The District shall, .if it deems necessary, notify its users of the District's procedure to remedy service disruption. 9. The City is providing only sewage treatment service and, pursuant thereto; any permits incidental to the use of the City's sewage lines shall be governed only by this individual Contract with the District and the City does not, by this Contract, off er treatment service except in strict accordance with the terms hereof. This Contract does not offer, and shall not be construed as offering, sewage treatment service to the public generally or to any area outside the limits of the District's service area described in Exhibit A. 10. This Contract may not be assigned, sold or transferred by the District without the City's written consent. 11. Should any federal law, rule, permit or regulation or should a decree or order of a court render void or unenforceable any provision of this Contract, in whole or in part, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect. 12. The District shall enforce this Agreement and each of its terms and conditions within the area described in "Exhibit A." The District shall refuse to serve a user or potential user; disconnect the service of any user pursuant to appropriate law; or take other appropriate action in the event of: a. Nonpayment of such user of any charge made by the City for services; b. Any violation or noncompliance by such user with the terms ofthis Agreement; c. Any violation or noncompliance by such user with the applicable laws, rules, permits or regulations of the City, the United States government, including the EPA, the State of Colorado, the Department of Health, or other law, rule, permit or applicable regulation. 13. Continued breach of this Agreement by the District and/or its users shall be considered cause for the City to terminate this Agreement. Should the District fail to promptly rectify a breach of any provisions identified herein, after notice thereof, the City may take such steps and do such work as it deems necessary to enforce this Agreement, including litigation and specifically a right to injunction or specific performance against the District or any of its users as is necessary to protect the City's system and operations. 3 The prevailing party shall be entitled to expenses and costs of suit, including attorney fees. 14. Should more than one district be connected to a sewer line, all districts on the sewer line who are in breach of this Agreement shall be jointly and severally liable for any such breach of this Agreement and each such district shall immediately, after notice, rectify any problem or condition detrimental to the treatment process arising within its legal boundaries. When more than one district is connected to a sewer line, and the City discovers any violation of the terms of this connector's agreement; the City shall not be required to prove which district is at fault but shall make available to all such affected districts all information developed or accumulated by the City pertaining to such breach. Nothing contained herein shall preclude a claim for indemnity or contribution by any District against another District connected to a common sewer line. CRS-13-21-111.5, as amended shall govern the percentage of liability of any district on a common sewer line in the event the City seeks to impose liability based upon negligence or fault. 15. This Contract shall not be used as a legal defense or prohibition to the mandatory consolidation of facilities by either party as may be required by the laws of the State of Colorado of all existing sewer collection systems and facilities to a governmental entity created to assume responsibility for sewer service in the area in which both the City and State are a part under statutory or constitutional authority. CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO , Mayor ATTEST: , City Clerk 4 COLUMBINE VALLEY WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT LEE~ STATE OF COLORADO ) ' L11 ) SS. COUNTY OFr;,,.~ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -1'!±_ day of j · · · -· , 20[3_,by . . ~ Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission expires: Yd /.in;~-- / 5 EXHIBIT A -c EXHIBIT A · COLUMBINE WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT BOUNDARY MAP -,..-- G=c' ' \ \ \ ___ 1 --······-I I I ·----/-/ .--.-\I / , I I I ----\ COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date Agenda Item Subject September 3 , 2013 Valley Supplement #22 INITIATED BY Utilities Department STAFF SOURCE Stewart H. Fonda , Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION None. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Water and Sewer Board , at their July 9 , 2013 meeting , recommended Council approval of " a Bill for an Ordinance approving Valley Supplement #22 . BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS , AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The City of Englewood provides sewage treatment to a population of about 70,000 people outside the City through contracts with numerous connector districts. The area is defined by the natural drainage and extends south and east from Broadway to the Valley Highway and from Hampden to Lincoln Ave . excluding Highlands Ranch. By contract the City of Englewood must approve any additions of land to be served by the districts. These are usually in-fill situations that are within what the City considers to be the area it has committed to serve. Adequate capacity has been provided in the treatment plant to accommodate all such future inclusions. A request was made by the Valley Sanitation District representing the owner/developer, MLATL Family LLLP for inclusion into the Valley San itation District. Supplement #22 is for an area approximately 3.53 acres . The zoning per Arapahoe County is 1-2, General Commercial/Industrial. The proposed use of the property is for an office/warehouse with vehicle storage . MLATL is conntectd to Ralph Schamp Automotive. The legal is attached as Exhibit A. The property is located near W. Princeton Pl. and S. Federal Blvd ., with a proposed address of 4300 S. Federal Blvd. FINANCIAL IMPACT None . LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Bill for Ordinance Valley Sanitation District Supplement #22. SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 2 TO CONNECTOR'S AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, acting by an through its duly authorized Mayor and City Clerk, hereinafter called the "City," and VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT, Arapahoe and Douglas Counties, Colorado, hereinafter called the "District," WITNESS ETH : WHEREAS, on the 18th day of April , ~ 1955 the City and the District entered into an Agreement in which the city agreed to treat sewage originating from the District's sanitary sewer system within the area served by the District, which Agreement was renewed by Connector's Agreement dated January 12 , ~ 1989 WHEREAS , said Connector's Agreement provides that the district may not enlarge its service area without the written consent of the City; NOW , THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and undertakings herein set forth , the parties agree as follows: 1. The City hereby consents to the inclusion of certain additional area located in Arapahoe County, Colorado , owned by * see below and more fully described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, into Valley Sanitation District. The City agrees that said additional area may be served with the sewer facilities of the district, and that the City will treat the sewage discharged into the City's trunk line from said additional area, all in accordance with the Connector's Agreement dated April 18 ,xid 1955 and Amended January 12 , 1$()c 1989 . Accordingly, Exhibit A referred to in Paragraph 1 of the Connector's Agreement dated April 18, 1955 l{k and Amended January 12. 1989 , is hereby amended to include such additional area. 2. Each and every other provision of the said Connector's Agreement dated April 15, 1955 and Amended January 12, 1989 , shall remain unchanged. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands and seals this day of , 20 ~~~~~ ~~- * MLA TL Family Limited Liability Limited Partnership ATTEST: CITY CLERK (SEAL) ATTEST: CITY OF ENGLEWOOD BY ------------ MAYOR VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT, ARAPAHOECOUNTY, COLORADO ,'7) I r~ // . /-;_ , J By: /c/J4 ;t44 ,AY-#th!4 ~j@,,W4za:o ' SECRE ~RY (SEAL) Supplement for Connector.; Agr.doc GRANTED/ APPROVED ne movl•& p•rty la ltereby ORDERED ~- to provide a copy oftlail Order to aay pro . · se parda wlao bave atered aa appeara•ce in tlia action within 10 days l'rom tlc date of tbil order.. John L wtieeler '-------'-------'----------.....-i District Court Judge DISTRICT COURT, ARAPAHOE COUN'IY, STATE OF COLORADO Court Address: Arapahoe County. Justice Center 7325 South Potomac Street Centennial, CO 80112 · Phone Number: 303-649-6355 IN RE THE MATTER OF THE VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT, ARAPAHOE, COLORADO Timothy J. Flynn, Esq. Collins Cockrel & Cole 390 Union Blvd., Suite 400 · Denver, Colorado 80228-1556 _Telephone: (303) 986-1551 facsimile: (303) 986-1755 E-Mail: tflynn@cccfinn.com Att . Re #: 10484 DATE OF ORDER ON A TIACHMENT Case No.: 55CV11425 Div.: Ctrm.: ORDER OF INCLUSION OF REAL PROPERTY "MLATL Pro e " . THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE COURT upon the Motion for Inclusion of Real Property filed by the Valley Sanitation District. Having considered the Motion and attachments filed therewith, the Court finds good cause for granting said Motion; IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND DECREED: That pursuant to§ 32-1-40l(l)(c)(I), C.R.S., as amended, the real property legally described below, together with all improvements thereon ("Property") is hereby included into the botmdaries of the Valley Sanitation District, Arapahoe County, Colorado, to wit: (00289642.DOCX /} . LEGAL DESCRIPTION A TRACT OF LAND BEING TIIAT PART OF THE NORIBWEST Y. OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSIDP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6TH P.M., DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: B~GINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST~ OF THE NORTHEAST Y. OF SECTION 8; TIIBNCE S 88'50" EA DISTANCE OF 625.80 FEET TO A POINT ON IBE After recording please return to : Timothy J. Flynn Collins, Cockrel & Cole, PC 390 Un.ion Boulevard, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80228-1556 WESTERLY LINE OF A TRACT DESCRIBED IN BOOK 1126 AT PAGE 249; THENCE S 43 DEGREES 08'15" W ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED IN BOOK 1126 AT PAGE 249 A DISTANCE OF 71.78 FEET; THENCE S 18 DEGREES 16'30" W ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT DESCRIBED IN BOOK 1126 AT PAGE 249 A DISTANCE OF 258.02 FEET; THENCE N 88 DEGREES SO' WA DISTANCE OF 497.57 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTii-SOUTH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE NORTIIBRL Y ALONG SAID NORTH-SOlITH CENTERLINE OF SAID SECTION 8 A DISTANCE. OF 300 FEET TO THE POINf OF BEGINNING: EXCEPT THE WEST 50 FEET THEREOF, AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 1007 AT PAGE 316, COUNfY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO. Also known by street and number as 4300 S. Federal Boulevard, Sheridan, Colorado 80110. DONE this_ day of 2012. BY THE COURT: District Court Judge (00289642.00CX /} 2 ~ ~ ... ~I ~! ~~ ;!;" ~ ' ~ ~ i MLATL SUBDIVISION FILING NO. 1 FINAL PLAT """'--·---·""""'------CM.U:GJ"~---- LOCATED IN THE NORTI-IEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 8 , TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF TI-IE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN CITY OF SHERIDAN, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE STATE OF COLORADO SHEET2.0F2. llC:SU!DttfSION OF Pl.OT 'D" ANO LDT / ~~~INtx,,Fl!f;::,,~·11~ 1fOS£ ~ ~ AMENOE1J -~~~!!_~~rl_ ___ --~~u~~~~~ __ ----_ --__ -----_ ~~~r~~~ ______ _ r""MC"s~ \1 Mlr.Jr'4..JT ain.•fStt.UNtJ r~vJ,:J8M,...,. ·, ......... _..... / ll'/ Cd "' , 45,,,, ['W:.tft' or ECMNC} / ,~ -------!--------t~~:r ~B._P?'_ ----~ -------------------;/ . 'if>'"' Y ,,,._,_ .. ....,c., 1 / I,'! tnO WJWlfCWS-4 / QI 1t11 r Ala~ '1t~ ~ r S1[D. fT»<J """.c. "'a:wc "'>" / tr.'l- / l'OfiT •/ K.u -__ L::.~~~~-----------...../ CJ ~---------------------! ' L ............... ,..,,.,,..,,, I '-I "°°"' ll~S l'.MZ Sl.J -............,OMO p ....... I I I 10· Olllt OTUTY """""' "h.I gl .,1 l<'I R1 ~I ~I Lor 1 l~iHI> s.r. (.LUJ .-() ~ ltl(ltfllf~ST/ --· 10tMJ.r•.us. C#IU,I&* ..l.Elill'1lL PllQIO(Jl'TYL .. ! -----ltlan-OJ-•AY -----[,,\SE\tDlt e RT 14 JlQIJlt •/ <»PU,._ :---""·kci...----t ' I I I I~ r-..... C£Nic11 ow.ta ~S!CrlC'I• ~z".cJ..t.11( CAI' FtS I ff7.J r~- ·.IUW· """"- ! ~~~ I L _________ J ___________________________ t ""'° ,,...,..... """ I N89'06'0S">Y 447.GS ' UNPU.TTUJ «C<C'-'Mn ~A~ A lfCCE?MI, llOOllOV (>(Or,,..tRft:#"n.,t~) \, nttl't AM 1«> n.OCIO"ldf rovro"° N.-r msr l.fUi\C:S:"'1' io TM! !"'1Kjl!li'T'r. 2.. SU80l\llSIOol KU MO 00WM i.ef"..AH, tSnlt. ~ .XI 11 0 10 SCIWL: ·• .. 30· U.~MlU.A.-...r't'l'U""' "l'V • .,~l.JOt I --=·= 7' -. -- 4300 ~ f'CDDW..-Ml.All. ~~gtt4 AJNC frfO. 1 PC Z.Clr" Z.. .. -o-............... .t38J ~59 http://gis.co .arapahoe.co. us /arcgisoutput/ _ ags _3da0f3 96-d52e-4ddc-9eea-893f2cl8bad61.png 412012012 C IT Y 0 F ENGLEWOOD MEMORANDUM TO: Stu Fonda, Director of Utilities FROM: John Bock , Utilities Manager of Admin. DATE: July 2 , 2013 RE: 4344 S. Washington St. On May 23 , 2013 the water was turned off at 4344 S. Washington St. for non-payment, on May 29 the water was found back on by the meter tech. The water was turned back off and a slug was put in the curbstop to prevent tum on again . On June 4 the water was found back on and again turned back off. A letter was sent on June 4 that the account must be paid of there will be a termination of water service. On June 12 the account was not paid but the water was found back on agam. Considering the repeated attempts to keep the water service off pending payment, it is recommended that the water line be excavated and disconnected . Even though this would be at considerable expense to the owner, Ms. Lindsay Marsh, she apparently has access to a person knowledgeable about turning water services back on, and this would be a continuous cycle unless more severe measures are taken. She will be notified before the excavation occurs. 1000 Eng lewood Parkway Eng lewood, Co lo rado 80110 Phone 303-762-2635 www.englewoodgov.o rg June 04, 2013 LINDSAY MARSH 4344 S WASHING TON ST ENGLEWOOD CO 80113-5848 RE: Termination of Water Service Dear LINDSAY MARSH: As of this date the water and sewer charges for 4344 S WASHINGTON ST. remain unpaid and delinquent. The Englewood Water Department has repeatedly and lawfully turned off the water for non- payment only to have the water turned back on which is a violation of Englewood Municipal Code 12- 1 D-5 . I B2-1D-5: -Charges for Turning Water On and OttJ \T he 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-pa w ent. The City is authorized to charge fivel dollars ($5 .00) for services rendered when a customer service representative visits a 1xemises to deliver a turn-I 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 use rl desiring the same on said premises shall pa~ the cost and expense of turning said service off and on ,! and said cost shall include excavation and street cut permits.] Please be advised that if all past due charges are not paid in full by June 11, 2013 , the water service to 4344 S WASHINGTON ST will be cut off at the water main in the street. The property owner will be liable for all expenses incurred by the City 's water crew and, once the service pipe has been disconnected, the City will not reconnect it. The homeowner will have to retain the services of a private plumbing company to perform the reconnection. We strongly encourage a quick response to avoid the expense and inconv enience of a water disconnect. Sincerely John Bock Utilities Manager of Administration 303-762-2643 Fax 303-783-6894 jbock@englewoodgov.org BROADBELL LLC c/o Cadence Capital Investments LLC 8480 E. Orchard Road, Suite 4350 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 June 28, 2013 City of Englewood Water and Sewer Board 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110 Re: Easement Vacation for Property located at 5001 S. Broadway, Englewood, co Dear Board Members: Broadbell LLC (as assignee of the purchase rights from Cadence Development LLC) ("Buyer") is expected to acquire the Property located at 5001 S. Broadway, Englewood, Colorado ("Property") on or about July 2, 2013 from Miller Family Real Estate, L.L.C., a Utah limited liability company. The Property is encumbered by the following easements ("Easements"): • An easement for sewer, gas, water and similar pipelines, appurtenances and utilities and for electric, telephone and similar lines, appurtenances and utilities reserved to the City of Englewood under document recorded at Book 1826, Page 276 • An easement for telephone and power lines, installations and facilities reserved to The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company and Public Service Company of Colorado under document recorded at Book 1507, Page 150. • An easement for sewer, gas, water and similar pipelines, appurtenances and utilities, and for electric, telephone and similar lines, appurtenances and utilities reserved to the City of Englewood under document recorded at Book 1771, Page 259. Buyer desires to have these Easements vacated and hereby requests the City of Englewood, including the City of Englewood Water and Sewer Board, to vacate and terminate these Easements, as these Easements are not necessary to service the existing improvements on the Property or any other property and vacating and terminating these Easements will facilitate Buyer's proposed development of the Property. City of Englewood Water and Sewer Board June 28, 2013 Page2 Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, BROADBELL LLC ~~ Travis A. Willock General Counsel CITY 0 F ENGL E WOOD MEMORANDUM TO: Gary Sears, City Manager FROM: Stu Fo~tilities DATE: June 19, 2013 SUBJECT: MS4 Permit IGA with Arapahoe School District 1 (Englewood Schools) Due to expected stricter requirements for the next 5-year MS4 Pe r mit cycle , the Water and Sewer Board (WSB) determined at its June meeting that the City should no longer carry the Schools. The current MS4 Permit expires in the fall of 2013, and will most likely be extended by the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division (Division) until the new 5-year permit is issued in the spring or summer of 2014. The WSB didn 't want the City to be in violation of its permit if the school district is in violation and recommended removing the Englewood School District from the City's MS4 Permit coverage. The IGA states that, "if the Division initiates an enforcement action against the City for a violation of the City's MS4 permit and the discharges originate from a property or properties owned by the District, the District shall be solely responsible for addressing any resulting enforcement measures directed at the City by the Division." This statement would not alleviate the City from responsibility for compliance or enforcement from the Division in the case of a discharge or finding of noncompliance . Per the IGA conditions, the City will give the District one year notice so it can prepare and apply for its own permit. The City of Englewood w ill share with the District all its information on applying for an MS4 Permit from the State. Cherry Creek School District has its own permit. I would recommend a meeting with the school district to discuss this issue. 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Co lorado 80110 Phone 303-762-2635 www.englewoodgov.org Mr. Stuart Fonda Utilities Director City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood , CO 80110 Dear Mr. Fonda: Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. 538 Commons Drive, Golden, CO 80401 Phone : (303 ) 526-2600 . Fax : (303) 526-2624 www.martinandwood .com June 16 , 2014 Re: Englewood Golf Course And Park Wells Evaluation Report Project No . 159 .13 This letter report summarizes our opinions and recommendations for the Englewood Golf Course and Park wells. Our opinions and recommendations were developed based on our observations and correspondence with golf course and parks personnel during a site visit to the Englewood Golf Course and Parks, subsequent communications with Englewood personnel , a review of documents provided by Englewood , phone calls to contractors for cost estimates , and in-house communications. A site visit to the Englewood Golf Course and Parks was conducted on May 8, 2014 . The six golf course well locations were observed, as were the single well at each of the four city parks that were visited. The golf course and park locations are presented in Figure 1. GOLF COURSE WELLS There are six permitted golf course wells, which are currently referred to as Wells GC-1 through GC-6. We will continue to refer to the wells in this manner, even though other documents may use other identifiers , such as Well No. 1. It is our understanding that the six wells were originally permitted and constructed in the period between March 1955 and April 1957 under permit numbers 20122-1to20122-5 (Wells GC-1 through GC-5), and 8294 (Well GC-6). The wells appear to have originally been applied for under the name of Colorado Central Power Company, but the permits indicate that Public Service Company was the ultimate permit recipient. Mr. Stuart Fonda June 16 , 2014 Pa ge 2of19 The wells reportedly produced from 275 gallons per minute (gpm) to 390 gpm , although these figures are questionable being based on very short-term tests of only one to three hours. The wells were all drilled to depths of 35 to 45 feet and produce from the South Platte River alluvial aquifer. The first decree governing these wells was in Civil Action No. 3635 (CA3635), entered in 1972. As with the original well permi ts , the well locations in CA3635 are specified only by Y4 Y4 section. No distances from section lines are given . Well GC-1 is located in the SE Y4 of the NE Y4 of Section 5, T5S, R68 W , while the remaining five wells are located by the decree and the permits as being in the NE Y4 of the NE Y4 of the same Section 5. The owner of the wells at the time of CA3635 was Public Service Company of Colorado. In November of 1980 , the decree in Case No. W-8271-76 was entered , granting the City of Englewood an augmentation plan allowing the use of the wells as alternate points of diversion for the Olsen and Bell Ditch 1862 priority on Bear Creek. In W-8271-76 the well locations are once again listed only as Y4 Y4 section locations, and are the same as those on the permits and in CA3635. We collected GPS locations for all the well sites on the golf course. Their locations are presented in Figure 2. It is reported that none of the wells have ever been cleaned or had any maintenance performed on them other than replacing pumps and motors. Current Well Status Our understanding of the current status of the six wells , as described by Mr. Wayne Niles (Englewood Golf Course Superintendent) on May 8, 2014 , is presented next. There appears to be some confusion over the identification of Well GC-4 and Well GC-5. Wayne communicated to me recently that David Lee (former Golf Course Superintendent) distinctly remembers the pump and wellhead under the high-tension wires as being Well GC-5. However, all the documentation that we have reviewed that was authored by Martin and Wood Water Consultants (Martin & Wood), including documentation addressed to David Lee , identify the well under the high tension wires as Well GC-4. We have not located any documentation from David Lee stating otherwise . Regardless , other than for permit identification purposes , the original identification of the well under the high-tension wires is essentially a non-issue. This is because , as described above, both Well GC-4 and Well GC-5 are originally permitted in the same Y4 Y4 with no distance from section lines , meaning those wells could originally have been permitted anywhere within that Y4 Y4 section. We are recommending identification of the well that was drilled in 1996 and is currently operating under the high-tension wires as Well GC-5. This well replaced the well that was located near the 181h tee and was abandoned , which we will identify as t he original Well GC-5. Additionally, this allows more flexibility in where we could locate a replacement well for Well GC-4; we could move the replacement Well GC-4 further away (to the north and east) from the other existing wells. Therefore , I will be identifying the abandoned well as the original Well GC-5, the operational replacement well under the high-tension wires as the replacement Well GC-5 , and the existing original well that is not operating and has a turbine pump in it and is also under the high-tension wires, as Well GC-4 . Marti n and Wood Water Co ns ultants, Inc . Mr. Stuart Fonda June 16 , 2014 Page 3of19 Wayne stated that there are garden hose connections on all three currently operating golf course wells (GC-3 , GC-5 , and GC-6) that would allow for water sampling at the wellhead. Well GC-1 is located to the south of the 1 ih fairway , about half way between the tee box and green (Figure 2). It is reported that Well GC-1 is the original well that was constructed in 1955. Well GC-1 has a pump in it but is not operational. Wayne believes the pump that is currently in the well is likely the original pump. The last time the well was operated was in 2011. In 2011 , Well GC-1 pumped at less than 100 gallons per minutes (gpm). Wayne indicated that Well GC-1 had not been maintained since the year 2010. Wayne believes that Well GC-1 is controlled by a switch where the well is either on or off; there is no variable speed drive and no cyclic pumping schedule for the well. Well GC-2 was historically located next to the pond where the control panel for Well GC-3 and Well GC-6 currently resides (Figure 2). At the time of our site visit , the well had a steel plate over it and an open-ended pipe leading underground next to the concrete well pad. Wayne indicated that there is no pump in the well and the well has not been operated since at least 1990. Correspondence from Martin & Wood to Mr. David Hill in 1996 indicates that the casing in Well GC-2 had collapsed and that the well is totally unusable . Well GC-3 is located near the 15th fairway, towards the tee box (Figure 2). Well GC- 3 is a replacement well that was constructed in 1995. We are not aware of the location of the original well. Well GC-3 is operational and reportedly pumps at a rate of about 240 gpm . The current pump was installed in 2012. Well GC-4 is located under the high-tension wires in close proximity to replacement Well GC-5 (Figure 2). It is reported that Well GC-4 is the original well that was constructed in 1955. Well GC-4 has a turbine pump in it (all other wells are equipped with submersible pumps) but the pump has reportedly not been operated since around 1990. GC-5 (Replacement Well) Well GC-5 , which replaced the original Well GC-5 (which was located near the 181h hole tee boxes), is located under the high-tension wires in close proximity to Well GC-4 (Figure 2). Well GC-5 was constructed in 1996 and had a new pump installed in 2011 . It is reported that that when Well GC-5 is the only well pumping, that it produces at a rate of approximately 250 gpm. When other pumps are operating, the Well GC-5 pumping rate Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Stuart Fonda June 16 , 2014 Page 4 of 19 reportedly drops to around 170 gpm. Wayne reported that Well GC-5 is the only golf course well that delivers water across the South Platte River to irrigate the front nine holes. Well GC-6 is located near the 13th fairway, towards the tee box (Figure 2). It is reported that Well GC-6 is the original well that was constructed in 1955. Wayne thought that the pump and motor were replaced in 2013. Well GC-3 is operational, is the only pump that operates year-round , and reportedly pumps at a rate of about 390 gpm for about 24 hours. Wayne indicated that the well pumped dry at the beginning of May this year. Well Recommendations and Estimated Costs In this section we will provide general descriptions and cost estimates for (a) a stand- alone well video survey, well cleaning, well testing, (b) well replacement and abandonment activities , and(c) a well monitoring program. It should be noted that these cost estimates are very preliminary; we will not know for sure what well maintenance, cleaning , or replacement activities may be necessary until we conduct downhole video surveys of each well. In order to conduct a well video, the pump must be pulled, if present. The estimated cost for the following well cleaning program and replacement well construction and pumping equipment installation, which includes installation of a pitless adaptor, was provided by a reputable well drilling, pump installation and maintenance, and well cleaning contractor. The estimated cost for the well monitoring program includes sampling the well, analyzing the water chemistry, entering the water chemistry data into a database, and monitoring the data over time. Finally, we then provide an assessment of each well and what services may be necessary for each well. (a) Stand-alone Well Video Survey, Well Cleaning, and Well Testing As none of the wells reportedly have ever been cleaned , a well video survey is necessary for each well. As stated above, if a well currently is equipped with a pump , the pump will have to be pulled to take a well video. The estimated cost of a stand-alone well video is approximately $850 . If a pump is in the well , the cost of pulling each pump (this includes removing the pump, flushing the well with fresh water to improve water clarity, setting the pump back in the well and hooking up to power) is approximately $3 , l 00, for a total pump removal and video cost of approximately $4,000. We estimate that the cost for Martin & Wood to be present to direct the well video survey is approximately $500 to $700 . For the budgetary estimate purposes , we have assumed that a well cleaning program will include the following: • Mobilize equipment to the site , • Pull pump if present, • Initial well video to assess condition of well, Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Stuart Fonda June 16 ,2014 Page 5 ofl9 • Brush and bail the well to remove surficial deposits , slimes, etc. This will enable more effective cleaning during additional cleaning activities , • Add chemicals and perform a sonar jet cleaning program, • Neutralize active chemistry, • Pump neutralized chemistry to waste (One container of neutralized chemistry will be containerized and hauled off site for disposal. After the 1 st load is hauled off, the water should be clear with a pH of 5 to 7 and a little turbidity. At this point the well water should be safe for vegetation and can be pumped to the ground or to one of the ponds .), and • Perform a second video to evaluate effectiveness of cleaning program and to obtain a video record of the condition of the well structure. Note that additional brushing and bailing may be recommended , depending on the condition of the well. The estimated contractor cost for this well cleaning program is approximately $15 ,000 to $16 ,000 per well. Martin & Wood typically performs the following hydrogeologic and engineering services associated with well cleaning and replacement well construction , testing , and installation: • Estimated cost to draft , submit, and evaluate technical spec ifications , • Assist in contractor bidding activities , • Perform well cleaning, well construction, well development, and well testing observation services, • Design well pumping tests , • Provide a summary report for each well, and • Provide contractor coordination and communication services. The level of services provided varies on a job-to-job and client-to-client basis. One client may want more construction observation services in order to provide a greater level of comfort that the project is constructed as designed and billed appropriately for the work performed by the contractor. As such , our services typically vary from 10 to 20 percent of the contractor cost for well cleaning and well construction services. Therefore , our services for well cleaning are estimated at $1 ,500 to $3 ,000 per well. After a well is cleaned , we strongly recommend performing a well pumping test to establish the optimum well pumping rate and to develop a well pumping schedule which provides for optimum long-term well yields. Well pumping test costs can vary depending on the time it takes to develop the well after cleaning, whether a full 8-hour step test is performed , the duration of the constant rate test, whether the contractor is supplying a test pump, or whether a permanent pump is available for testing and which will remain in the well at the completion of pump testing. For budgeting purposes we are assuming that the well will be developed for 8 hours , an 8-hour step test will be performed , and either a 24 or 48-hour constant rate pumping test will be performed. We are recommending a 48-hour pumping test for locations where wells have shown signs of not being able to sustain their respective initial pumping rates at start-up. We are also providing cost estimates for if the contractor provides Martin and Wood Water Consultants, In c. Mr. Stuart Fonda Jun e 16 , 2014 Page 6of19 a test pump and for if a permanent pump is available for testing. These estimates may be modified on a well-to-well basis depending on the specific condition of each well and historical performance of each well. The estimated contractor cost for a pump test, on a per well basis, when the contractor supplies a test pump is approximately $16 ,600 for a 24-hour constant rate test to $20 ,600 for a 48-hour constant rate test. The estimated contractor cost for a pump test, on a per well basis , when a permanent pump is available for pump testing is approximately $7 ,800 for a 24-hour constant rate test to $8 ,400 for a 48-hour constant rate test. Martin & Wood typically is present on-site for well development, step testing, and the start of the constant rate test (to make sure the test starts and performs as expected). Additionally, we will process and analyze the test data and produce a summary report detailing the pump testing activities, well performance, and suggested pumping schedule, if necessary. The estimated cost for the above described Martin & Wood pump testing activities , on a per well basis , is approximately $5,000 to $6 ,000 . (b) Well Replacement and Abandonment The contractor cost estimate to mobilize equipment to the site , drill and construct a new well, develop and pump test the new well , equip the new well with a new pump and motor, and install a pitless adaptor, is approximately $60,000. Our services for well construction activities are estimated at $6 ,000 to $I 2,000 per well. Note that these cost estimates , both those for the contractor and Martin & Wood , are specific to the golf course wells . Other wells in differing location s may have different sizes , depths , production rates , etc., which will result in different costs. If a well is replaced , the old well will need to be abandoned. Contractor cost to abandon a well is approximately $2 ,600 . At this time we do not believe Martin & Wood personnel need to be present for observation of well abandonments . ( c) Well Monitoring After a well has been cleaned or re-drilled , we recommend that a well monitoring program be established. A well monitoring program consists of collecting a water sample from each well, submitting it to an analytical laboratory for analysis , entering the analytical results into a database , and monitoring the well data for changes over time. At least initially, we envision collecting an analytical suite once a year. The analytical suite for a well monitoring program may vary from location to location , as the natural water chemistry varies from location to location. For example, some waters have highe r concentrations of slime producing bacteria, for which an analytical suite would be designed to focus on. As such , we are proposing conservative costs for budgeting purposes. Actual costs will be developed once the well locations are investigated in greater detail for a well monitoring program. The well monitoring analytical suite will be designed to provide enough information to indicate when changes in the well chemistry are occurring . The rate of chemistry change can help to predict when well maintenance may be necessary. An early indication of degrading water chemistry Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Stuart Fonda June 16 , 2014 Page 7of19 allows for Englewood to budget for well maintenance up to a few years in advance . We are assuming for budgeting purposes that Martin & Wood will collect the water sample , submit it to the laboratory for analysis , enter the data into the database , and interpret/monitor the results. We estimate the cost for the first year of well monitoring to be approximately $600 per well for laboratory analytical fees and approximately $2 ,300 for all of the wells (including the Park Wells) for Martin & Wood 's services. After the initia l year the laboratory analytical suite will have been determined , the database will have been developed , and the analysis process will have been developed. The resulting estimated cost for laboratory analytical fees to be approximately $600 per year and the estimated cost for Martin & Wood 's services to be approximately $1 , 700 per year for all the wells , including the Park Wells. For budgeting purposes , we are assuming that the water demand results in the desire to have all six golf course wells operational. A description of our assessment of the condition , and potential actions that could be implemented for each Golf Course Well , along with associated cost estimates are presented next. A summary table presenting what we believe is the most likely course of action with associated costs for each Golf Course Well , and also including the Park Wells , is presented in Table 1. The course of action and associated costs are based on observations of the surface completions, along with the age of each well and pump as described by Wayne (for the Golf Course Wells) and by Park Personnel (for the Park Wells) and from well construction reports obtained from the State of Colorado Division of Water Resources on-line database . However, a video well survey is necessary for each well to observe the conditions inside of each well. This initial well video survey may result in conditions that differ from what we believe is most likely, which could result in increased costs in some cases , notabl y Wells GC-3 , GC-5 , and the Jason Park Well. It is also possible that the initial video surve y may result in recognition that an old well is actually in good condition and may only need to be cleaned , rather than replaced. I. GC-1 The pump in Well GC-1 is currently not operational. As such, the pump will need to be pulled to assess its condition and to perform maintenance on it , if warranted . As Well GC- 1 is an original well and has reportedly never been cleaned or had any maintenance performed on it , we highly recommend conducting a well video survey to assess the condition of the well. Due to its age and reported low estimated pumping rate, it is expected that Well GC-1 will likely need to be cleaned at a minimum or, if the well condition is considered too poor to allow for cost-effective rehabilitation , the well may need to be replaced. If any cleaning or well replacement act ivi ties take place, a pumping test is recommended at the end of the well assessment activities to establish the optimum well pumping rate and long-term pumping schedule for the well. If Well GC-1 needs only to be cleaned and not replaced, the estimated cost to clean the well , including costs for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is approximately $16 ,500 to $19 ,000. The additional estimated cost of a well pumping test following well cleaning, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is approximately $22 ,000 to $27 ,000. Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Stuart Fonda June 16 ,2014 Pag e 8of19 If Well GC-1 needs to be replaced , the estimated cost, including well abandonment, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is from $68,600 to $74 ,600. A well monitoring program , which includes all the Golf Course and Park Wells , conducted by Martin & Wood , including laboratory analytical costs , is estimated at approximately $2 ,900 for the first year and $2 ,300 for the following years. 2. GC-2 Well GC-2 is reported to have a collapsed casing and thus is considered unusable. Therefore, the well will need to be replaced. The estimated cost to replace Well GC-2 , including well abandonment, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is from $68 ,600 to $74 ,600 . A well monitoring program , which includes all the Golf Course and Park Wells, conducted by Martin & Wood, including laboratory analytical costs , is estimated at approximately $2 ,900 for the first year and $2 ,300 for the following years . 3. GC-3 Well GC-3 was replaced in 1995 . As such, the pump should be pulled to perform a well video to assess the condition of the well. There is a good chance the well structure is in good condition , as it was constructed with stainless steel well screen. However, there is a good probability that some well cleaning will need to be performed to optimize the well production . When the pump is pulled for the well video survey, the contractor should assess its condition and perform maintenance on it , if warranted. That being said , it is unlikely anything will need to be done to the pump and motor, as they were both recently replaced. If any cleaning or well replacement activities take place , a pumping test should be performed at the end of the well assessment activities to establish the optimum pumping rate and pumping schedule for the well. If Well GC-3 needs only to be cleaned and not replaced , the estimated cost to clean the well, including costs for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is approximately $16,500 to $19 ,000. The additional estimated cost of a well pumping test following well cleaning, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is approximately $12 ,800 to 14 ,400. In the unlikely event Well GC-3 needs to be replaced , the estimated cost, including well abandonment, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood, is approximately $68,600 to $74 ,600. A well monitoring program , which includes all the Golf Course and Park Wells , conducted by Martin & Wood , including laboratory analytical costs , is estimated at approximately $2 ,900 for the first year and $2 ,300 for the follow ing years. Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Stuart Fond a June 16 ,2014 Pa ge 9of1 9 4 . GC-4 The pump in Well GC-4 reportedly has not been operated since 1990 . As such , the pump will need to be pulled to assess its condition and to perform maintenance on it , if warranted. As Well GC-4 is an original well and has reportedly never been cleaned or had any maintenance performed on it , we highly recommend conducting a well video survey to assess the condition of the well. Due to its age , Well GC-4 will likely need to be cleaned or the well may need to be replaced. If any cleaning or well replacement activities take place, a pump ing test should be performed at the end of the well assessment activities to establish the opt imum pumping rate and pumping schedule for the well. If Well GC-4 needs to be cleaned and not replaced , the estimated cost to clean the well , including costs for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is approximately $16 ,500 to $19 ,000. The additional estimated cost of a well pumping test following well cleaning, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is approximately $22 ,000 to 27 ,000. If Well GC-4 needs to be replaced , the estimated cost, including well abandonment, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is from $68 ,600 to $74,600 . A well monitoring program , which includes all the Golf Course and Park Wells , conducted by Martin & Wood , including laboratory analytical costs, is estimated at approximately $2 ,900 for the first year and $2 ,300 for the following years. 5. GC-5 Well GC-5 was replaced in 1996. As such, the pump should be pulled to perform a well video survey to assess the condition of the well. There is a good chance the well structure is in good condition , as it was constructed with stainless steel well screen, similar to Well GC-3. However, there is a good probability that some well cleaning will need to be performed to optimize the well production . When the pump is pulled for the well video survey, the contractor should assess its condition and perform maintenance on it , if warranted. That being said , it is unlikely anything will need to be done to the pump and motor, as they were both recently replaced. If any cleaning or well replacement activities take place , a pumping test should be performed at the end of the well assessment activities to establish the optimum pumping rate and pumping schedule for the well. If Well GC-5 needs to be cleaned and not replaced, the estimated cost to clean the well , including costs for both the contractor and Martin & Wood, is approximately $16,500 to $19 ,000 . The additional estimated cost of a well pumping test following well cleaning, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is approximately $12 ,800 to $14,400. Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Stuart Fonda June 16 , 2014 Page 10of19 In the unlikely event Well GC-5 needs to be replaced, the estimated cost for both the contractor and Martin & Wood is approximately $68,600 to $74,600. This cost would decrease by a few thousand dollars if the recently replaced pumping equipment can be re- used, which we think is likely. A well monitoring program, which includes all the Golf Course and Park Wells, conducted by Martin & Wood, including laboratory analytical costs, is estimated at approximately $2,900 for the first year and $2,300 for the following years. 6. GC-6 The pump in Well GC-6 was recently replaced. As such, the pump is likely in good condition. However, as Well GC-6 is reportedly an original well and reportedly has never been cleaned or had any maintenance performed on it, we highly recommend running a well video survey to assess the condition of the well. Due to its age and lack of any prior cleaning or maintenance, Well GC-6 will likely need to be cleaned or the well may need to be replaced. If any cleaning or well replacement activities take place, a pumping test should be performed at the end of the well assessment activities to establish the optimum pumping rate and pumping schedule for the well. If Well GC-6 needs to be cleaned and not replaced, the estimated cost to clean the well, including costs for both the contractor and Martin & Wood, is approximately $16,500 to $19,000. The additional estimated cost of a well pumping test following well cleaning, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood, is approximately $12,800 to $14,400. If Well GC-6 needs to be replaced, the estimated cost for both contractor and Martin & Wood, is approximately $68,600 to $74,600. This cost would decrease by a few thousand dollars if the recently replaced pumping equipment can be re-used, which we think is likely. A well monitoring program, which includes all the Golf Course and Park Wells, conducted by Martin & Wood, including laboratory analytical costs, is estimated at approximately $2,900 for the first year and $2,300 for the following years. Priority of Golf Course Well Assessments We understand the goal of this assessment is to get the Golf Course Wells operational in order to fully utilize the unique value inherent in the Golf Course Wells being decreed as alternate points of diversion for the Olsen and Bell Ditch 1862 priority on Bear Creek. We also understand that due to budgetary and operational constraints, work on the wells will have to be spaced out over a number of years. Therefore, we are including this section to summarize our thoughts on the order in which the wells should be evaluated and the basis for our suggestions. Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Stuart Fonda Jun e 16 , 2014 Page 11 of 19 We will start out by saying that we think that the three operating wells should be evaluated last , as they can keep irrigating the golf course while other wells are being cleaned or replaced. We think that Well GC-5 should be evaluated last. This is due to Well GC-5 being the most recently replaced well and the only golf course well that delivers water across the river to irrigate the front nine holes. We think that Well GC-3 should be the second to last well to be evaluated. This is due to Well GC-3 being the other recently replaced well, and thus, likely to be in better condition than the remaining wells, which to our understanding are original 1950s wells. The third from last well to be evaluated should be Well GC-6 . This is due to it being the last actively pumping well and the best producer, at that. We think the first well to be evaluated should be Well GC-4. Well GC-4 has not been operated in many years and is expected to be in poor condition. Additionally, it is very close to Well GC-5. Well GC-4 , in our opinion should be replaced and relocated . It is very close to Well GC-5 , so it would almost assuredly cause interference with Well GC-5 , especially with Well GC-5 's noted decrease in production when other wells are pumping. Moving Well GC- 4 to an area away from the other wells could result in production with the least amount of impact to the other pumping wells. This matter will have to be addressed in the future with the State Engineers Office (SEO), as even though Well GC-4 could be located anywhere in the 114 114 section by decree , the SEO may say that regardless of the ambiguity in the decree location , the well could still not be located more than 200 feet from where it was originally constructed. The other reason to replace Well GC-4 first is that as it is close to Well GC-5 , it is a good candidate to be an alternative water supply source for the front nine holes if Well GC-5 breaks down or need to be taken off line for maintenance and/or cleaning issues . A new location for Well GC-4 will be evaluated once a decision is made to replace the well. We think the second well to be evaluated should be Well No. I. This is due primarily to its location being decreed in a 1/4 1/4 section that differs from the other five wells. This allows much greater flexibility in moving it to a location further away from the other wells even if it is only 200 feet from the originally constructed location . This would help to minimize the potential for well-to-well interference. As Well GC-1 is an original well and it has experienced very low production when it was most recently operated , it is a prime candidate for replacement. This leaves Well GC-2 as the third well to be replaced. We believe that in addition to the reasons for ordering the other wells as we have, the original Well GC-2 location is relatively central in relation to the other wells. As such, it may cause the greatest well-to-well interference . We will attempt to minimize potential well-to-well interference by carefully assessing a new location for the well once it is decided to replace it. Well GC-2 's central location also means that there are other wells that are close to the ponds that are used to provide the irrigation water for the irrigation system. Also note that a carefully designed well pumping optimization program could allow for determination of the most efficient means of achieving the maximum possible individual and combined well pumping rates . Martin and Wood Water Consultants , Inc. Mr. Stuart Fonda June 16 , 2014 Page 12of19 One final note on the Golf Course Wells is that we would recommend getting the three wells that are not operating replaced , if needed, and online in an expedient manner in order to re-establish pumping use records. Well Production in Relation to Decrees. We understand that one of the reasons that Englewood is pursuing the Golf Course Well evaluation is to attempt to fully utilize the wells with respect to the Case Nos. W-8271- 76 and 88CW203 decrees. As described previously, the Case No. W-8271-76 decree describes the Golf Course Wells as alternate points of diversion to the Olsen and Bell Ditch 1862 priority on Bear Creek. Ideally, the Golf Course Wells should divert Englewood's full 1.575 cfs decreed interest in the Olsen and Bell Ditch. This 1.575 cfs diversion rate is approximately 707 gpm. The three currently operating Golf Course Wells , GC-3, GC-5 , and GC-6, reportedly pump at 240 , 170 , and 390 gpm , respectively. These pumping rates total 800 gpm , which would satisfy the 707 gpm decreed diversion limitation . However, Wayne has stated that these three wells cannot sustain these pumping rates continually. Our recommendations for these wells include evaluations and activities to develop an understanding of the sustained well yield that could be expected. That being said , the three additional wells that are not currently operating, GC-1, GC-2 , and GC-4 , if brought into production, should be more than capable of satisfying the decreed 707 gpm diversion rate . The senior McBroom Ditch water can be used to irrigate the golf course, as described in Case No. 88CW203 . However, the decree states that the senior McBroom Ditch water, if diverted for irrigation of the golf course, would be fully consumptive water, which can be considered consumptive use (CU) water, rather than single-use water. The 88CW203 senior McBroom Ditch water is leased to Centennial Water and Sanitation District (CWSD) at a current price of approximately $550 per acre-foot, which includes a 33 percent premium for CU water. We feel there are better options for which to supplement the golf course wells , if needed . The first is to utilize Englewood's 14.682 cfs of senior (priority dates of 1861, 1863 , and 1865), decreed for all municipal uses , that the City diverts from Union Avenue up to the Allen Filter Plant. A recent evaluation that we performed resulted in the determination that there are surpluses from these water rights , which are available for use on the golf course. We recently obtained administrative approval from Colin Watson of the Division Engineer's office to let a sufficient amount of these surpluses to pass down the river from Union Avenue to its confluence with Bear Creek. Then , by a process called exchange , the City has Division Engineer approval to divert the same amount of the needed surplus at the McBroom Ditch and use same to irrigate the golf course . It should be noted that the Division Engineer could revoke this approval at any time. In the event that the Division Engineer does at some time revoke the approval described above, an alternative option is available . We also recently obtained administrative approval from the Division Engineer to release water from McLellan Reservoir, let it travel down the river to its confluence with Bear Creek, and then divert the same amount (less a relatively small transit loss for its travel down the river) at the McBroom Ditch for delivery to the golf course. If this alternative were to be chosen , it would be better to make releases from McLellan Reservoir of single-use water, such as the 1948 McLellan Reservoir storage rights. Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Stuart Fonda June 16, 2014 Page 13of 19 The McClellan single-use water is currently sold to CWSD at a price of approximately $425 per acre-foot. PARK WELLS It is our understanding that Englewood's goal with the Park Wells is get a program established that will re s ult in the wells running as efficiently as pos s ible , for as long as possible , until they ultimately will need to be replaced . In order to do this , the wells should be clean and operating on a pumping schedule, should the well pumping be limited by the aquifer characteristics. This section will start by summarizing the condition of the Park Wells , as explained to us by Park personnel. The well summary will be followed by recommendations and estimated cost for each well. Finally, well assessment priorities will be summarized. Well Summary On May 8, 2014, we visited Miller Park, Cushing Park, Centennial Park, and Jason Park to view the irri gation well for each park and ask park personnel que stions about each well. The following is a summary of our observations and information obtained from Park personnel. 1. Miller Park The age of the Miller Park Well was not known by Park personnel. However, Well Permit No. 13324-R-R indicates that the well was constructed in 1966 to a depth of 55 feet. Park personnel believed the pump to be at lea st 15 years old, which may mean it is the original pump . The pumping rate of the Miller Park Well is belie ve d to be approximately 120 gpm. Park perso nnel indicated that the pumping rate of 120 gpm holds steady during irrigation and has been that way for a number of years. A spigot is present that would allow water sampling from the well. 2. Cushing Park The age of the Cushing Park Well was not known by Park personnel. However, Well Permit No. R 19745-RF indicates the well was constructed in 1982 to a depth of 43 feet. Park personnel believed the pump to be at least 20 years old, w hich may mean it is the original pump. The Cushing Park Well pumps to a pond , from which the irrigation system pumps from to irrigate the park. Since irrigation occurs by pumping water from the pond via a different pump , park personnel did not know the pumping rate of the Cushing Park Well. A spigot is prese nt that would allow water sampling from the well. 3. Centennial Park The age of the Centennial Park well was not known by Park personnel. However, Well Permit No. 013981-F indicates that the well was constructed in 1956 to a depth of 42 feet. Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Stuart Fonda June 16 ,2014 Page 14ofl9 Park personnel believe the well has not been cleaned in the last 20 years. The pump was last replaced approximately five to seven years ago . The pumping rate of the Centennial Park Well was stated to be approximately 150 gpm. Park personnel indicated that the pumping rate of 150 gpm holds steady during irrigation and has been that way for a number of years. A spigot is not present, meaning water cannot be directly sampled from the well. Park personnel believe the well meter needs to be calibrated . 4. Jason Park The age of the Jason Park Well was not known by Park personnel. However, Well Permit No. 13127-F indicates that the well was constructed in 1968 to a depth of 42 .5 feet. Park personnel indicated that the pump was replaced in the fall of 2013 . The replacement pump was larger and has a new controller. Park personnel indicated that the well was cleaned and a well video was performed at the time of the pump replacement. The static water level is reported to be about 30 feet below ground surface and the total depth of the well is reported as 42 feet below ground surface. The pumping rate of the Jason Park Well is approximately 200 gpm. Park personnel indicated that the pumping rate of 200 gpm holds for a period of four to five hours. A spigot is present that would allow water sampling from the well. Well Recommendations and Estimated Costs General descriptions and cost estimates for a stand-alone well video , well cleaning, well testing, well replacement and abandonment activities , and a well monitoring program were provided in the Golf Course Wells section of this report. As stated before , it should be noted that these cost estimates are very preliminary; we will not know for sure what well maintenance, cleaning, or replacement activities may be necessary until video surveys are conducted on each well. The costs presented below are the same as for the Golf Course Wells, as the Park Wells are also alluvial wells completed to sim ilar depths . As in the Golf Course Wells section of this report, a description of our assessment of the condition, and potential actions that could be implemented for each Park Well , along with associated cost estimates are presented next. A summary table presenting what we believe is the most likely course of action with associated costs for each Park Well , and also including the Golf Course Wells , is presented in Table 1. Only the Jason Park well has been cleaned. It is our understanding that the other three park wells have never been cleaned . As such , a well video survey is necessary for each well. We would like to review the well video for the Jason Park well to make an initial well assessment. The estimated cost of each stand-alone well video survey is approximately $850 . The cost of pulling each pump (includes removing the pump, flushing the well with fresh water for clarity, setting pump back in the well and hooking up to power) is approximately $3 ,100, for a total pump removal and video survey cost of approximately $4,000. As described previously, the estimated contractor cost for this well cleaning program Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc . Mr. Stuart Fonda June 16 , 2014 Pa ge 15of19 is approximately $15,000 to $16,000 per well. Martin & Wood 's services for well cleaning are estimated at approximately $1,500 to $3,000 per well. The estimated contractor cost for a pump test , on a per well basis , when the contractor supplies a test pump is approximately $16 ,600 for a 24-hour constant rate test to $20,600 for a 48-hour constant rate test. The estimated contractor cost for a pump test, on a per well basis, when a permanent pump is available for pump testing is approximately $7 ,800 for a 24-hour constant rate test to $8,400 for a 48-hour constant rate test. Pump testing activities performed by Martin & Wood are estimated to be approximately $5,000 to $6 ,000 The contractor cost estimate to drill and construct a new well , develop and pump test the new well, equip the new well with a new pump and motor, and install a pitless adaptor, is approximately $60 ,000. If a well is replaced, the old well will need to be abandoned. Contractor cost to abandon a well is approximately $2,600. At this time I do not believe Martin & Wood personnel need to be present for observation of well abandonments. As described in detail above, Martin & Wood 's services for well construction activities are estimated at $6 ,000 to $12 ,000 per well. Note that these cost estimates , both the contractor and Martin & Wood, are specific to the Park Wells. As discussed previously, we estimate the cost for the first year of well monitoring , for all wells including the Golf Course Wells , to be approximately $600 per well for laboratory analytical fees and approximately $2 ,300 for all of the wells for Martin & Wood 's services. After the initial year the laboratory analytical suite will have been determined, the database will have been developed , and the analysis process will have been developed. The resulting estimated cost, for all wells including the Golf Course Wells, for laboratory analytical fees to be approximately $600 per year and the estimated cost for Martin & Wood 's services to be approximately $1 , 700 per year. 1. Miller Park The pump in the Miller Park Well is reported to be at least 15 years old. Well permit No. 13324-R indicates that the well was constructed in 1966. As such, the pump should be pulled to assess its condition and to perform maintenance on it , if warranted. As the Miller Park Well is appears to be an original well and reportedly has never been cleaned or had any maintenance performed on it , a well video survey to assess the condition of the well should be considered. Due to its age and decrease in pumping rate when constructed , from 150 gpm down to 120 gpm , it is expected that the Miller Park Well will likely need to be cleaned at a minimum or, if the condition is considered too poor to allow for cost- effective rehabilitation, the well may need to be replaced. If any cleaning or well Martin and Wood Water Consultants , Inc. Mr. Stuart Fonda June 16 ,2014 Page 16of19 replacement activities take place , a pumping test should be performed at the end of the well assessment activities to establish the optimum pumping rate and pumping schedule for the well. If the Miller Park Well needs to be cleaned and not replaced , the estimated cost to clean the well , including costs for both the contractor and Martin & Wood, is approximately $16,500 to $19,000. The estimated cost of a well pumping test following well cleaning, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is approximately $22 ,000 to 27 ,000. If the Miller Park Well needs to be replaced, the estimated cost, including well abandonment, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood, is from $68 ,600 to $74 ,600 . A well monitoring program conducted by Martin & Wood, including laboratory analytical costs, is estimated at approximately $2 ,900 for the first year and $2,300 for the following years. 2. Cushing Park The well in Cushing Park appears to be over 30 years old , as indicated by Well permit No. Rl 9745-RF. The pump in the Cushing Park Well is reported to be at least 20 years old , likely meaning it is the original pump. As such, the pump should be pulled to assess its condition and to perform maintenance on it , if warranted. As the Cushing Park Well appears to be an original well and reportedly has never been cleaned or had any maintenance performed on it , a well video survey to assess the condition of the well should be considered. Due to its age, it is expected that the Cushing Park Well will likely need to be cleaned at a minimum or, if the condition is considered too poor to allow for cost-effective rehabilitation, the well may need to be replaced. If any cleaning or well replacement activities take place, a pumping test should be performed at the end of the well assessment activities to establish the optimum pumping rate and pumping schedule for the well. If the Cushing Park Well needs to be cleaned and not replaced, the estimated cost to clean the well , including costs for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is approximately $16 ,500 to $19,000 . The estimated cost of a well pumping test following well cleaning, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood, is approximately $22,000 to 27,000 . If the Cushing Park Well needs to be replaced, the estimated cost, including well abandonment, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood, is from $68 ,600 to $74 ,600. This cost would decrease by a few thousand dollars if the recently replaced pumping equipment can be re-used , which we think is likely. Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. S tu art Fond a June 16 , 2014 Page 17of 19 A well monitoring program conducted by Martin & Wood , including laboratory analytical costs , is estimated at approximately $2 ,900 for the first year and $2 ,300 for the following years. 3. Centennial Park The pump in the Centennial Park Well is reportedly five to seven years old. Well permit No. 013981-F indicate s that the well was constructed in 1956. As Park personnel have no knowledge of the pump ever being serviced , and the well is apparently 58 years old , pulling the pump and asse ssing its condition should be considered , along with running a well video survey to assess the condition of the well. Due to the relatively reliable and consistent well production , the Centennial Park Well may or may not need cleaning. However, due to it s age , if the well does need to be cleaned , the well screen may be in poor enough condition that the well may need to be replaced . The well video survey will give a better indication of what direction to take. If any cleaning or well replacement activities take place , a pumping test should be performed at the end of the well assessment activities to establish the optimum pumping rate and pumping schedule for the well. If the Centennial Park Well needs to be cleaned and not replaced , the estimated cost to clean the well , including costs for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is approximately $16 ,500 to $19 ,000. The estimated cost of a well pumping test following well cleaning, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is approximately $12 ,800 to 14 ,400. If the Centennial Park Well needs to be replaced , the estimated cost , including well abandonment , for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is from $68 ,600 to $74 ,600. A well monitoring pro gram conducted by Martin & Wood , including laboratory analytical costs, is estimated at approximately $2 ,900 for the first year and $2,300 for the following years. 4. Jason Park Well permit No. 13127-F indicates that the Jason Park Well was constructed in 1968. However, the pump in the Jason Park Well was replaced , the well was cleaned , and a video was performed in 2013 . As such , we assume the well and pump are in good condition. Since the pump appears to be able to pump at a rate of 200 gpm for only four to five hours , a pumping tes t should be performed to establish the optimum longer term pumping rate and to develop a pumping schedule for the well. If pumping the well for four to five hours is sufficient to irrigate the park , a pumping test may not be necessary. We would like to review the well video to assess the condition of the well screen. As such , we have included in Table 1 some time for Martin & Wood to review the well video . The estimated cost of a well pumping test following well cleaning (if needed), for both the Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc . Mr. Stuart Fond a June 16 , 2014 Page 18of19 contractor and Martin & Wood , is approximately $12 ,800 to $14 ,400 . A well monitoring program conducted by Martin & Wood, including laboratory analytical costs , is estimated at approximately $2,900 for the first year and $2 ,300 for the following years. Priority of Park Well A ssessments We understand the goal of this assessment is to get the Park Wells to run as efficiently as possible, to plan maintenance in order to maximize their yields, and to develop a monitoring program to plan for maintenance activities and maximize the respective well and pump life. We also understand that due to budgetary and operational constraints, work on the wells will have to be spaced out over a number of years. Therefore, we are including this section to summarize our thoughts on the order that wells should be evaluated in , and the basis for our suggestions . Although the Jason Park Well is an old park well, it has recently been cleaned, had a video survey conducted , and had the pump replaced . Therefore, we assume that the well is in good condition and will not need maintenance for a number of years. However, the other three park wells appear to be pumping reliably, so performing a pumping test on the Jason Park Well is a relatively low cost preventive maintenance activity that could increase the efficiency and reduce the effects of pumping extremes on the well , which ultimately should increase the life of both the well and pump. The Cushing Park Well appears to be over 30 years old with the original pump and has reportedly never had any cleaning or maintenance performed on it. Therefore , it is a prime candidate for at least well cleaning and pump maintenance , and possibly well and pump replacement. The end of its useful life is likely approaching . The Centennial Well appears to be a reliable producer and the pump was replaced fairly recently (five to seven year ago). Although the well has reportedly not been cleaned in at least 20 years , it appears to have consistent production . Regardless , the well should be evaluated in order to potentially extend the life of both the well and the pump. We would place the Centennial Well second in priority, behind the Cushing Park Well. It should be noted that Park personnel stated that the well meter needs to be calibrated. The Miller Park Well pump is apparently at least 15 years old and Park personnel are not aware of any maintenance performed on the well or pump. However, the pumping rate is reported to be consistent historically. Although the age of the well and pump indicate the well should have a video survey conducted , the sustained production indicates this course of action could wait. We would place the Miller Park Well at equal priority with the Centennial well , if not slightly behind. We appreciate the opportunity to provide Englewood with this Golf Course Well and Park Well assessment. We hope this report will be helpful in budgeting for well maintenance and replacement costs and in extending the life of the wells and associated pumping Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. Mr. Stuart Fonda June 16 ,2014 Page 19of19 equipment. Sincerely , MARTIN AND WOOD WATER CONSULTANTS , INC. Senior Project Hydrogeologist Martin and Wood Water Consultants , Inc. 0 1,000 2 ,000 4 ,000 Feet Job No.: 159.13 City of Englewood Date: 6/5/14 Drawn : EP Golf Course and Park Checked : WB Well Analysis S \159 -City of Englewood\159.13 -Golf Course Wells\GIS\Englewood_Gotf_Course_template mxd R68W Area Map Figure 1 MART IN AND WOOD WATER CONSULTANTS, INC. 538 Commons Drive Golden , CO 80401 (303) 526-2600 www.martinandwood .com Copyright 2013 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. All Rights Reserved Legend e Broken Tee Golf Course Wells Job No .: 159 .13 City of Englewood Date: 6/5/14 Drawn: EP Golf Course and Park Checked: WB Well Analysis R68W 0 200 400 800 ~~~--~~~~~~Feet Golf Course Well Location Map Figure 2 MARTIN ANO WOOD WATER CONSULTANTS, INC. 538 Commons Drive Golden , CO 80401 (303) 526-2600 www.martinandwood .com S'\159 -City of Englewood\159 13 -Golf Course Wells\GIS\Englewood_Golf_Course_template.mxd Copyright 2014 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. All Rights Reserved . Table 1 Conservative Budgetary Cost Estimate Task I $/Well Miller Field Cushing Centennial GC-1 GC-2 GC -3 GC-4 GC-5 GC-6 Park Well Cleaning/Rehabilitation Martin & Wood Costs : Well Video $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 Well Cleaning $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Pump Test ing $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Contractor Costs : Well Video (includes pump removal) $ 3,950 $ 3,950 $ 3,950 $ 3,950 $ 3,950 $ 3,950 $ 3,950 $ 3,950 Well Cleaning $ 16,000 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 1Pump Testing (24-hour constant rate test) Pump Provided by Contractor $ 16,600 Re -use Existing Pump $ 7,800 1Pump Testing (48 -hour constant rate test) Pump Provided by Contractor $ 20,600 Re-use Existing Pump $ 8,400 $ 8,400 $ 8,400 Replacement Well Drilling Martin & Wood Costs : Well Drilling, Construction, Development, and Te sting $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 12 ,000 $ 12 ,000 $ 12 ,000 $ 12 ,000 $ 12,000 Contractor Costs Well Drilling, Construction, Development, and Testing $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60 ,000 $ 60 ,000 Well Abandonment $ 2,600 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 $ 2,600 Toto/($) 79,250 74,600 38,050 79,250 38,050 79,250 79,250 79,250 Notes : The costs in this ta bl e represent co nservative estimates of what we believe is the most likely course of action. The initial we ll video survey may result in conditions that differ from what we believe is most likely, which cou ld result in the well having to be rep laced, notably wells GC -3, GC -5, and the Jason Park Well, which wou ld increase their respective cost estimates . Well GC-2 does not conta in Well Cleaning/Re habilita tion costs, as the well ha s collapsed and is not usable . Wells GC -3, GC -5, and the Jason Park Well do not contain Replacement Well Drilling costs , as we expect the initial video survey to show that the wells only need to be cleaned . $ $ $ $ $ 1 Either a 24-or 48-hour pumping test is recommended . A 48 -hour pumping test is recomme nd ed for locations where wells have shown signs of not being able to sustai n their respective initial pumping rates at start-up . Park 700 3,950 12,000 60,000 2,600 79,250 Jason Park $ 700 $ 3,950 $ 8,400 13,050