HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-07-08 WSB AGENDAWATER & SEWER BOARD
AGENDA
TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2014
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM
1. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 10, 2014 MEETING. (ATT. 1)
2. MS4 CP COMPLIANCE CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR
STORMWATER. (ATT. 2)
3. VALLEY SUPPLEMENT #23 -5495 CARIBOU RD., LITTLETON, CO
(ATT . 3)
4. ALLEN WATER PLANT ROOF REPLACEMENTS. (ATT. 4)
5 . GOLF COURSE WELLS. (ATT. 5)
6. WATER & SEWER TAP CREDITS ON VACANT BUILDINGS AND
PARCEL S. (ATT. 6)
7. OTHER.
Present:
Absent:
WATER & SEWER BOARD
MINUTES
JUNE 10, 2014
Wiggins , Habenicht, \Vaggoner, Penn , Olson, Lay, Gillet, Moore
Oakley
Also present: Stev .. 'art Fonda, Director of Utilities
John Bock, Manager of Administration
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.rn .
~
l. Ml!"\1"UTES OF THE APRIL 8 , 2014 'vVATER BOARD MEETING AND MAY 13, 2014
PHON"E VOTE.
The Board recei\·ed the minutes of the April 8, 2014 Water Board meeting and the resulting
phone rnte on May 13 , 2014.
2. GUEST: RANDY MORNING, SUPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS FOR THE CITY OF
SHERIDAN. RE: 4343 S. SANTA FE DR., 1920 W. QUINCY AND 2000 W.
QUil\CY A VE.
Randy Morning, from the City of Sheridan , appeared to discuss the aboYe properties that haYe
illegally tapped onto the Englewood and Sheridan sewer systems. The Board received copies of
the letters to the property owners demanding tap fees and past due treatment charges going back
to 2005. Mr. Morning noted that the owners are 30 days into their 60 day notice. If not resolved
felony charges are possible . Mr. Morning believes the connections were made around 1992,
with 2000 W. Quincy being the first to make a tap.
1 -1
3. WATER CONSERVATION PLA 1
•
The Board received copies of the following documents for informational purposes:
Letter from Rebecca Mitchell dated May 7, 2014 appro\·ing Englewood· s Water Conservation
Plan.
Memo to Stu Fonda from Yasser Abouaish dated May 15, 2014 regarding grants a\·ailable for
water conservation implementation projects.
A page from the Spring 2014 The Pipeline informing Englev.:ood citizens about the Test Drive a
Meter Program, and the attached agreement. Due to installation expenses, residences requiring
meter pits may ha\'e to wait until the crew can install the meter pit.
A notice from the Dem·er Urban Renewal Authority regarding a revolving loan program for
impro\'ing water quality in the South Platte Watershed.
I@
4 . BOARD AND COMM[SS[O;\' APPRECIATION NIGHT.
The Board received an im·itation to the annual Board and Commission Appreciation Night. It
\\·ill be held Monday, June 30, 2014 at 6:00 at the Englewood Rec. Center.
5. DENVER WATER BOARD PAYMENT
Stu Fonda noted that the Denver Water Board paid the S600,000 required to settle recent
litigation .
6. TAPPING Rv·s INTO PRIVATE SEWER LINES.
Mr. Gillet inquired about the policy of RV's tapping into a private sewer service line. Stu noted
that staff will im·estigate .
The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
1-2
The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be Tuesday , July 8, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. in the
community Development Conference Room.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathy Burrage
Recording Secretary
1 -3
c T y 0 F ENGLEWOOD
MEMO
TO: Englewood Water and Sevver Board
FROM: Yasser Abouaish, Utilities Engineer
DATE: April 30, 2014
RE: MS4 Permit -CP Compliance Contract Extension
The City of Englewood contracted with CP Compliance LLC in January 2013 to perform
an MS4 stormwater audit and compliance assistance duties. The prolonged MS4 Permit
renewal process, and more stringent requirements, has made necessary to request
additional assistance from CP Compliance. This would efficiently provide assistance
necessary to complete the permit in accordance with the established MS4 Stormwater
programs and ensure that appropriate documentation is pro\·idcd.
Additional tasks to be completed include:
• Permit negotiation and permit renewal comments -10 hours .
• Training and onsite assistance -20 hours
• Illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) 10 hours
• Construction site stormwater runoff control 10 hours
• Post construction stormwater management in new development
and redevelopment in-house
• Pollution prevention/good houskeeping for municipal operations in-house
• Public involvement and community outreach (In partnership
with SPLASH (Stormwater Permittees for Local
Awareness of Stream Health) in-house
• Modifications to the existing City of Englewood Storm Drainage
Criteria Manual to better align with the MS4 minimum permit
requirements . 1 S hours
• Creation of an additional document to address situations
outside of the manual. 10 hours
• Supplement Public Works staff in the review and inspection of
1000 Englewo od Park w ay Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone 3 0 3-762-2635
www.englevvoodgov .org 2 -I
constmction site Storm \Vater Management Plans (SWMP) on
an as needed basis
• Assist PW staff in development of best management practice
(R\1P) for the Sen'ice Center Facilities
JO hours
20 hours
The proposed additional funding \\·ill pro\·ide the City with supp o r1 and guidance in
meeting the goals for complying with the MS4 Stormwater Permit requirements.
These services \\·ill be conducted on a '·time and materials"' basis. The standard hourly
billing rates will be 585.00 per hour for a Stormwater Specialist. The CP Compliance
contract extension is not to exceed $10,000. With the '"Not To Exceed"' limit, no
additional charges can be incurred \\·ithout prior approval from the City.
2 -2
November 8, 2012
Vasser Abouaish, PE
Utility Engineer
City of Englewood
yabouaish@englewoodgov .org
RE: MS4 Compliance Assistance Proposal to the City of Englewood
Dear Mr. Abouaish;
CP Compliance UC would like to thank you for this opportunity and your time in reviewing this MS4
Compliance Assistance Proposal for the City of Englewood . Thank you for contacting me. As requested,
am submitting this cost proposal for your review. I am excited about this potential opportunity to help
the City of Englewood comply with their MS4 Stormwater Program requirements .
I established CP Compliance LLC with the goal of providing high quality technical expertise to local
governmental agencies on regulatory development, permitting compliance and enforcement support
related to stormwater. I believe in providing quality services on time and on budget. I have worked
directly for local governmental agencies developing and implementing MS4 storm water programs in
addition to consulting for non-standard MS4s in the transportation industry. As an active member of the
Colorado Stormwater Council Permit Compliance Committee, I help develop program audit guidance,
serve as conduit for communication with CDPHE on defining and determining compliance, and
determine the impact of other regulatory activities such as Minimum Industrial Discharge (MINDI), and
other discharge permits on MS4 program compliance. I also serve on the Board of Directors of the
Mountain States Chapter of the International Erosion Control Association (IECA).
Background
The City of Englewood officials have already identified the need and are committed to protecting the
environment and the quality of water within its boundaries . The City continues to work towards this
goal by implementing environmentally sound planning and development practices, regulations and
ordinances .
Contracting MS4 compliance assistance duties with CP Compliance LLC will continue to help the City of
Englewood cost effectively ensure that work is completed in accordance with the_ established MS4
stormwater programs and is documented appropriately.
Scope of Services
This project will be completed within the two tasks described below. Each task reflects CP Compliance
LLC's understanding and approach to ensure that the desired product is delivered throughout the
project .
ll Page
2 -3
Task 1: Program Documentation
Minimum Control Measure (MCM) 1: Public Education and Outreach
cpowers@cp-co
-1+-'_ --Phone:
• Provide, prepare, or update public education and outreach brochures, outreach materials, and
other relevant MS4 stormwater materials for compliance with the City's Stormwater Program
for MCM 1 as defined in their Program Description Document submitted to Colorado
Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) Stormwater Division .
• Provide information for the City's stormwater web page.
• Assist staff to develop storm water pollution prevention signage at City park/recreational
facilities
MCM 2. Public Involvement/Participation
• Review Programs (such as the Storm Stenciling Program), documentation of events, and other
relevant materials to determine if the City is in compliance with their existing program elements
defined in their Program Description Document submitted to CDPHE, and to determine if the
existing Program Elements meet the minimum requirements outlined in the MS4 Permit and any
published guidance issued by CDPHE.
• Provide suggestions on potential exist i ng stormwater groups to partner with for public
participation activities.
MCM 3, Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE)
• Develop a plan to detect and address non -stormwater discharges, including illegal dumping.
• Provide review and comments on existing and/or updated illicit discharge/connection
investigation and abatement process .
• Provide template standard procedures for the above -related compliance, enforcement, and
tracking .
• Provide a review of the City's updated procedures to ensure they meet the minimum
requirements outlined in the MS4 Permit and any published guidance issued by CDPHE.
MCM 4, Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control
• Provide template standard procedures for:
o Process of site plan reviews to account for proper management of storm water runoff,
o Procedures for site plan review which incorporate considerations for water quality
impacts, and
o SOPs for site inspections, tracking and compliance enforcement of control measures.
• Provide a review of the City's updated procedures to ensure they meet the minimum
requirements outlined in the MS4 Permit and any published guidance issued by CDPHE.
MCM 5, Post Construction Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment
• Review existing regulatory mechanism and provide comments and suggestions to ensure it
meets the minimum requirements outlined in the MS4 Permit.
21 Page
2 -L/
cpowers@cp-co
~· -· Phone:
• Provide template standard procedures for mechan i sms to ensure adequate long-term operation
and maintenance of BMPs.
• Provide a review of the City's updated procedures to ensure they meet the minimum
requirements outlined in the M54 Perm it and any published guidance issued by CDPHE .
MCM 6, Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations
• Review current Stormwater Program and associated documents to become familiar with the
City's Stormwater Program for MCM 6, to determine if the City is in compliance with their
existing program elements defined in their Program Description Document submitted to CDPHE,
and to determine if the existing Program Elements meet the m i nimum requirements outlined in
the M54 Permit and any published guidance issued by CDPHE.
Task 2: Additional Support
Permit Negotiation and Permit Renewal Comments
The Division is currently scheduled to start the permit renewal process in January 2013 with an expected
M54 Permit finalized and issued in February 2014 . As part of the permit renewal process, the Division
will have stakeholder meetings to discuss new permit elements. This is an opportunity for the City to
negotiate new permit terms and discuss projected changes . The Division will then send the M54 Perm it
out for public comment. At that time, the City will have the opportunity to provide official comments on
the perm it . It is anticipated that the Division will include many new changes to the permit. Under this
task, CP Compl iance would meet with City staff to discuss potential new permit requirements . CP
Compliance would also assist the City by coordinating comments and discussing appropriate responses
to new permit requirements . 20 hours has been budgeted for this task.
Tra i ning and Additional Onsite Assistance : Occasionally, compliance concerns arise and additional
tra ining or attention is needed for a particular program area . Under this task, those areas will be
addressed, includ i ng ongoing training for construction inspectors and city staff relating to stormwater
compliance. Hours may be used for spot check audits for compliance with stormwater standard
operation procedures and construction site erosion control plans, or other needs as they arise such as
representing the City at Colorado Stormwater Council Meetings and other relevant storm water
meetings the City feels appropriate . 60 hours has been budgeted for this task.
Work Hours and Fee Estimate
I propose to conduct these services on a "time and materials" basis . Under such an agreement, I am
compensated on an hourly basis for all labor and other direct costs are reimbursed at a rate of 1.1 times
actual cost. The following is our standard hourly billing rates for the personnel expected to be involved
i n th is project:
Stormwater Specialist $80.00
At these standard hourly rates, CP Compliance LLC has estimated that the City of Englewood 's MS4
Compliance Audit Project could be completed for a not to exceed budget of $9,500 . The attached Work
Hour and Fee Estimate explain the breakdown of hours and costs anticipated for each task . This
3IP age
z-s
cpowers@cp-co ·
' Phone:
budgeted amount would be established as a "not to exceed " limit beyond which no charges could be
made without approval from the City. Additional services requested beyond the scope of this proposal
would be at your direction and billed at the above rate.
This project will provide you with support and guidance in meeting your goals for complying with the
MS4 Stormwater Permit requirements. Please call me at 303-596-9287 or email at cpowers@cp-
compliance with any questions regarding this project. If this proposal meets with your approval, please
send a contract and notice to proceed at your convenience .
Sincerely,
' __.--::.;a.t.s: . ...--·---c--t --=-----<f---\~ ~---'----.
Carrie Powers
Stormwater Specialist, Owner
CP Compliance LLC
~~------
4jP age
2 -~
Work Hour and Fee Estimate
[ Task 1: Program D~cumentation [ i ~t~i i.a~~~T ·. _ :_ -_ ~ -_ . ·_-
' ; -. ,. -
j Task _£~_9_dJt!_o_ry.a!_~pp~!f:
I Total Task 2 i --. ---~---c
t -•• -
I T~t~I: Tasks 1 -~nd 2* r --. . . ----. ~ .
r . .
I
f . ·-·· . . -
I ~!!ntin_~!!12 P~Jtag~-
1 Mileage 500@ $0.51 I f>T(~-~-~~P~~;~ f-r<!~~~~i~g (lO~)
: Tot~I E~pens~ C~sts
i Total Project Cost
I ·-· ~---... --------·-·-· --
cpowers@cp-co ,,.
--Phone:
Hours Rate= $80.00 ..... -----=-.. -.~ . .-,,.':/I:
-$80.00 ~ -
70 . __ j_?,6,9_9 _ J
45 ----
~-~~~ -I
$80.00 __ . _ I
$3,_~l>l>, -. l
~_Q .00 _
~55~---.
.$2?_·-~9 .
$29_!·~
*Project Fee based on assumptions listed in the proposal/scope of work . Add itiona l support requested
will be provided at the same rate as above .
SI P age
2-7
Date
September 9 , 2014
INITIATED BY
Utilities Department
COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
Agenda Item Subject
Valley Supplement #23
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 10 , 2014 meeting , recommended Council approval
of a Bill for an Ordinance approving Valley Supplement #23.
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 w ith numerous connector d istricts. 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 William and Rosalie Miller Trust representing the owner/developer,
for inclusion into the Valley Sanitation District . Supplement #23 is for an area approximately
1/2 acre . The zoning per Arapahoe County is R-1 , Residential. The proposed use of the
property is to remain residential .
The legal is attached as Exhibit A. The property is located near Bow Mar Drive and W . Berry
Ave ., with an ex isting address of 5495 Caribou Road , Littleton , CO 80123.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Bill for Ordinance
Valley Sanitation District Supplement #23 .
3 -I
SUPPLE\IENT 1'10. __ 2_3 ___ TO CO:\~'ECTOR'S AGREEl\IEKT
THIS AGREE~1ENT, made and entered into by and bet\\·een the CITY OF
El\'GLE\YOOD , acting by an through its duly authorized Mayor and City Clerk,
hereinaftercaJ!ed th e '·C ity,"' and Valley Sanitation District , Arapahoe
and Douglas Counties, Colorado , hereinafter called the '·District,"
WITI\ESSETH :
WHEREAS , on the day of . 20 the City and the Di strict
entered int o an Agreement in \\·bicb the City agreed to treat se\Yage originating from the
District's anitary se\\·er system \\·ithin the area sen·ed by the District. \\·hich Agreement
\\'as rene\\·ed by Connector's Agreement dated January 12 . .l{X)----12.§_9
WHEREAS, said Connector's Agreement proYides that the di strict may not enbrge its
sen·ice area \\·itbout the \\Titten consent of the City;
NOW, THEREFORE. in consideration of the mutml CO \en ants and unde11akings herein
set forth . the parties agree as fo ll O\\·s:
l. The City hereby consents to the in c lu sio n of cenain additional area located in
Arapahoe County, Colorado. O\rned by and more
fully described on Exhibit A attached heret o and incorp orate d herein by reference. int o
Va 11 ey Sanitation District. The City agrees th at said
addit ion al area may be sen·ed \\·ith the se\Yer facilities of the district, and that the City
\\·ill treat the sewage discharged int o th e City's trunk lin e from said additional area . all in
accordance \\·ith th e Connector"s Agreement dated April 18 , 1955
ill __ and Amended January 12, 1989 . MX~--
Accordingly, Exhibit A referred to in Paragrap h 1 of the Connector·s Agreement dated
April 18, 1955 . 2{}< and Amended January 12, 1989 . rs
hereby ame nded to include such additional area.
1. Each and eYery other pro\·ision of th e said Connector·s Agreement dated
April 15, 1955 and Amended Jan. 12, 1989 . shall remain un changed.
I\" \YIT\ESS WHEREOF. the parties ha\·e set th eir hands and seals thi s
______ day of . 20 __ _
3-Z
A TTEST:
CITY CLERK
(SEA L )
AT T EST :
SECRETARY
(SEAL )
Supplemcn1 fo r Conn.:cwr; ..\g r.doc
CITY OF El\GLE\YOOD
l\1AYOR
VA LLEY SAl\ITA TIO\" DISTRI CT
ARAPAHOE CO U\"TY, COLOR~DO
By: ___________ _
3-3
5400 s
Bow
Mar
5500 s
5000 s
1·-..
~
8
"-....
., ........... ·~ l ..c;_ __ __,
~ c
:::. ·--"' ...
-tss,
t-
"" r. ...
I .
I
I
I
l
Arapahoe County's
Ara pa MAP
_ill __ _
.... .,.,
~ ~
..., . l.O
Map Generated On-611912014
(.fl
U'I
U>
U'I
N
§
w@E
s
.. 111:::=:.. .. c::::=:. ............ c:::::=::=::=::=::=:::::i ............. m1
0 150 300 600 900 1,200
1 inch = 317 feet
~,.-""""''
87'." ;,: :"'I 5337 -·:,
5347
l~Gi Ill U'I 1~ t;
·~ ~I CD
l·1 ~;1 ~i
5407 i t: Cl.:
"' -:e 'i·ta
u .~· 5417 II II 5420
54
....
~
l.O
\1 ..-
~
..-
:i g I ~ 11~1 :5 U°) t.n ~ l.(')
l.O l.O ~ l.O
~ I :; f~l 1i
..,.. l.O I c: "' Lt) ..: o;
-·--1-cn:n ~.ar.19 .0 . -~
~ I ~ I ~ 1~1----1
4015
"
.,
... ~ .. •· • ) : ~· \ :·~ ·1 : ... i . ~
;,· ' '· ' • ' -i.~ ~ :E· 1 U'I ~ I ~ It I ~
lI) g I [' · '.G~ddard Mfddle
; . ," Sc/1001 Park lI)
-£ I £ I $ IF;1-~ ~
~-: • ' 4. '••.\•'_j
0 ....
lI)
I./)
.Jo,'.
: i?c:?
"
ARAPAHO( CO\INT"Y MAKC\ NO RLPRl t.(NlAHON
OR WARRANTY A'; TO lHC A((IJM.A(V or l HI\ MAP
OR Tl~[ OArA lHAT IT Ol';PLAY'>
ARAPAHO( COON TY A\!.lJMC\ NO R[\JION\UUlll V
OR UABIUlY 10 ANY ll\lH
lHI<; MAP I\ NOi A LCGAL OOCUMCNI
IT I\ INT[NUCO TO !olHVC A\ AN AIU IN
(,M li,PHIC RCPM[\lNTAJJON ONLY
d -1
Map Location
:r-
~
Arapa ho e Co u nty's
Ara pa MAP
N W@E
s
Map Gererated On 6/1912014
.. 1111===:.. .. c:::. ............ c:::==========:::::i ............. mi
0 37 .5 75 150 225 300
1 inch = 79 tee\
MAPAHOE L0tlNT'1' Ml'l.11.lS NO Rtl'KHlNIAllON
()fl WAIOV\NTY /\5 TU lHt. ACCUlll\(Y or lHIS MAJ'
OK l HE Oii.TA lH/\I ITOISl'lMS
AAA l'AHO( COU N lY A~SUMES NO Kl\l'ON!MlltlllY
UK lll\lllUIY TO ANY USI K
TIU~ MAP IS NOT A llGALOOCUMFNl
HI\ INHNutO 10 SrHVl MAN 1\10 IN
(,tH\l'HIC AfrFl[,ENll\HON ONIY
r± -I
Map Locat ion
lr)
l
\')
c T y 0 F ENGLEWOOD
TO: Englewood Water & Sewer Board
FROM: Tom Brennan, Utilities Enginee~
DATE : June 30, 2014
RE : Allen Filter Plant Roofs
The 2014 capital projects included replacing th e main roof of the Allen Water Treatment. The existing
roof consists of tar and gravel and is 40 plus years old . This roof has past its service life. In addition, the
Jun e 141
h hail storm damaged th e remaining n ewe r roofs from the 1997 construction . The costs of this
damage will be cov ered by insurance and these repairs will be added to th e project.
The Utilities Staff contacted WJE for a proposal for engineering services to design the replace roof,
prepare bidding documents and to perform project management services. WJE is currently completing
the th i rd phase of the Clarkson Storage Facility Rehabilitation Project . They have completed all past
projects on time and under budget. We recommend retaining WJE for the Plant Roof Project.
1000 Englewood Parkwa y Englewood, Colo rado 80110 Phone 303-762-2635
www.eng le woodgov.o rg 4-/
WJE
June 29. 2014
ENG IN EERS
ARCHITECTS
MATERIALS SCIEl'\!Tl>TS
Mr. Thoma s Brennan. P.E.
City of Engl e\\ ood
I 000 Engle\\OOd Parbrny
Engle\\OOd. Colorado 80110
Re: 'e\\· Ro ofing System
Allen Wate r Treatment Pl a nt
15 00 \\'.Layton Avenue
Engle\\ ood . Colorado
\\'JE No. 2014 .3343
Dear Mr. Brenn an:
Wiss , Janney , Elstner Assoc iates, Inc .
36 09 Sou th Wadsworth Bou levard , Suite 400
Lakewo od , Co lo rad o 80235
303.91 4.43 00 te l j 303.914 .300 0 fax
www .wje .com
Based on our meeting. di sc uss ion s a nd your Reque st for Proposal da te d May 23. 2014 \\e are pre senting
our propo sa l for roof con sultin g se rvic es to replac e the e.\isting roofing on 4 building s at the Water
Tre at ment pl ant. The se building s include th e main building. appro.\imately 19.000 sq. ft. of roof
(inc lud es both the filter building an d pretreatment building) and !\\O sma ll er adjacent buildings \\ith
si ngle-ply roofing sys tem s that \\ere damaged by ha il. approx im ate ly 12 .400 sq. ft . of roofing
Scope of Services
The City·s RFP spec ifi cally outlines the fo!IO\\ing t asks:
• Ta s k I -De s ign of the roof retrofit s
• Task 2 -Bid package pr epara ti on
• Task 3 -Project Management
A det ai led de sc ripti on of the services W JE propo ses for each task is prO\ ided belO\\.
Task I -R oofing R ep la cement Design ([fl(/ Pr oductio n of Co11structio11 Do cu 111 e11ts
Based on your request and 'v\'J E "s experience on many similar ~®effit'!!tierl tmd roofing
project s. \\e propo se the fol lO\\in g se rvices for Task I.
• Conduct a sit e inve st igation to determine the components of the e.\isting roofing syste ms and
substrate and to de sign and detail the ne\\ roof system.
• Based on the in formation gathered during the site investigation. WJE v.ill complete the de s ign
\\Ork and prepare Construction Documents including all applicable City Forms and schedules .
specificat ions . dra\\·ings. details and in fonnation required to create a complete bid package for the
Headquarters & Laboratories -Northbrook, Illinois
AUanta I Austin I Boston I Chic ag o I Clevelan d I Da llas I Denver I Det roit I Honolu lu I Houston
Los Angele s I Minneapolis I New Haven I New York I Princeton I San Francisco I Seatt le I Wa shington , DC
L/ -2
WJE ENGl~EER5
ARCHfHCTS
MATERIALS SCIENTISTS
:\Ir. Thomas Brennan
City of Engle110od
June 29. 2014
Page 2
project. Accompanying this submittal. W JE 1Yill pro\ ide a detailed cost estimate of expected
construction costs for the project. \VIE 1\·il I respond to re\·ie1\· comments and \Yi! I incorporate
appropriate changes into the construction documents .
Task 1 -Bid Package Preparation
• Conduct a mand ato ry prebid meeting .
• WJE 1\ill provide technical services during the bid process and \iii! pro\ide support of the
construction document s \1 ·ith any clarifications that are needed . If neces sary . 1\·e \\ill is sue
addenda to the bidding documents during the bidding proce ss.
• Assist you in revie\\·ing the bids and contractor qualifications. Based on our e\·a!uation of these
t\\O component s. pro\ ide recommend at ion s for a\rnrd of the contract.
Task 3 -Co11structio11 Sen'ices
As part of Task 3. \\e \\Ould proYide construction administration serv ices and technical O\"ersight of the
repairs. Specifically. \\e propo se the fo!lo\\ing services:
• As s ist the City in de\·e!oping a final project budget and schedule.
• ProYide periodic observations of the \\Ork and is sue con st ruction obsenation report s (CORs). \\'e
anticipate t\\O to three site \isits per \\eek for the duration of the con st ruction project.
• Identify and help re so lve aspects of the \\ ork that may not comply \\ ith the plan s and
specifications.
• Respond to Requests for [nfonnation (RF!s) from the contractor.
• Resolve technical questions that arise as the 11 ·ork proceeds and unforeseen condition s are
unco1 ·e red.
• ReYiew change orders and pay requests.
• Provide a letter of general comp! iance at the end of the project.
Budgets and Schedule
Tasks l and 2 are \\ell-defined at thi s point in time. We propo se to perfonn tho se engineering senices
for the follo\\ing lump sum fees:
• Task 1 -Roof Design and Production of Construction Documents $20 .000
• Task 2 -Bid Package Preparation s 2.000
L.l -3
WJE ENG l '.\IEERS
ARCHfTECTS
MATF.Rl.\!.S SC IENTISTS
• Ta sk 3 -Construction SerYices
Total:
'.\Ir. Thom as Brennan
Cit) of Engl e11ood
Jun e 29. 20 14
Page 3
$18 .000
$40 .000
l t is our under standing that all sen ices proYided by \\' JE \\ i II be gO\'erned by The Ciry of Engl mood · s
Profe ss ional Services Contract.
\\'JE \\e lcomes the opportunity to continue \\Orking \\ith the Ciry of Engfe\\Ood. We are available to
di sc us s this proposal \\·irh you in more detail. should you ha\'e any qu es tion s.
Sincerely.
WISS, J ANNE Y , EL S T NE R ASS O C IA T ES , I:'i C .
i'vlike Groditski RRC. RRO
Associate Principal
Mr. Stua11 Fonda
Utilities Director
City of Englewood
1000 Englewood Parkway
Englewood, CO 80110
Dear Mr. Fonda :
Mart in and Wood Wate r Consultants , Inc.
538 Commo ns Drive, Go lde n, CO 80401
Phon e : (303) 526-2600 . Fax: (303) 526-2624
1wN1.martin a n d woo d .com
June 6 , 2014
Re: Englewood Golf Course
And Park Wells E\·aluation Report
ProjectNo .159.13
This letter report summarizes our opinions and recommendations for the Englewood
Golf Course and Park \\'ells. Our opinions and recommendations were deYeloped 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 proYided by Eng lewood, 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 vi sited. The golf course and park locations are presented in Figure 1.
GO LF CO URSE \VE LLS
There are six permitted golf course wells, which are cmTently referred to as Wells
GC-1 through GC-6. We will continue to refer to the wells in this manner, even tho ugh 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 Apri l
1957 under pe1Tnit numbers 20122-1 to 20122-5 (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 pe1Tnits indicate that Public Service Company was the
ultimate permit rec ipient.
s-1
i\1r. Stuart Fo nda
Jun e 6 . 2014
Page 2 of 19
The wells reportedly produced from 275 gallons per minute (gpm) to 390 gpm,
although these figures are questionable being based on very sho11-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 \;\:ells was in Civil Action No.
3635 (CA3635 ), entered in 1972. As v\·ith the 01iginal well permits, the well locations in
CA3635 are specified only by 14 'h section. No distances from section lines are given. Well
GC-1 is located in the SE 1,4 of the JE 1,4 of Section 5, T5S, R68 W, while the remaining five
wells are located by the decree and the permits as being in the NE 'Ii of the T\c 1-4 of the same
Section 5. The O\rner of the wells at the time of CA3635 was PubEc 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
di,·ersion for the Olsen and Bell Ditch 1862 priority on Bear Creek. In W-8271-76 the well
locations are once again 1 isted on1 y as 1,4 14 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 perfo rmed on them other than replacing pumps and motors .
Current Well Stmus
Our understanding of the current status of the six wells, as described by Mr. Wayn e
Nile s (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 \Veil 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 revie\\·ed that was authored by Martin and
Wood \Vater Consultants (Ma11in & Wood), including documentation addressed to David
Lee, identify the well under the high tension wires as Well GC-4. \Ve have not located any
documentation from David Lee stating othenvise. 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 14 14 with no distance from section lines, meaning those
wells could originally have been permitted anyv .. ·here within that 14 'h section. We are
recommendin£ identification of the well near the 18 th tee that was abandoned as the ori£inal
~ ~
Well GC-5, as the well that is currently located under the high-tension wires which replaced
the abandoned well near the 18th tee is identified as the Well GC-5 replacement well.
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 .
Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc.
S-2
i\lr. Stuart Fond a
Jun e 6. 2014
Pa ge 3 of 19
Wayne stated that there are garden hose connections on all thJee cLmently operating
golf course wells (GC-3, GC-5, and GC-6) that would allow for water sampling at the
wellhead.
GC-1
Well GC-1 is located to the south of the 12 th fairway, about half way betv:een the tee
box and green (Figure 2). It is reported that Well GC-1 is the original well that was
constmcted in 1955. \Vell GC-1 has a pump in it but is not operational. Wayne believes the
pump that is CLmently in the well is likely the original pump. The last time the well \Vas
operated was in 2011. In 2011, Well GC-1 pumped at less than 100 gallons per minutes
(gpm). Wayne indicated that \Veil 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 rnriable speed dri,·e and no cyclic pumping schedule for the well.
GC-2
Well GC-2 was historically located next to the pond where the control panel for Well
GC-3 and Well GC-6 cLmently resides (Figure 2). At the time of our site ,-isit, 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. CoITespondence from Martin & Wood to .lvfJ. David Hill in 1996 indicates that
the casing in Well GC-2 had collapsed and that the well is totally unusable .
GC-3
Well GC-3 is located near the 15 th fairway, tO\rnrds the tee box (Figure 2). Well GC-
3 is a replacement well that was constructed in 1995. We are not av;are 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 constrncted
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 18 th
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 Co nsulta nts, Inc.
S -3
Mr. Stuarr Fonda
June 6. 2014
P age 4 of 19
reportedly drops to around 170 gpm. \Vayne reported that Well GC-5 is the only golf course
well that deli\·ers v\'ater across the South Platte River to irrigate the front nine holes.
GC-6
Well GC-6 is located near the 13th fairway, towards the tee box (Figure 2). It is
repo11ed that Well GC-6 is the original well that was constmcted 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 Recomlllendations and Estimated Costs
In this section v;e will pro\·ide general descriptions and cost estimates for (a) a stand-
alone well \·ideo survey, well cleaning, well testing, (b) well repl ace ment and abandonment
activities, and(c) a well monitoring program. It should be noted that these cost estimates are
very preliminary; \\·e will not know for sure \\'hat well maintenance, cleaning, or replacement
acti\'ities may be neces sa ry until we conduct downhole \·ideo surYeys of each well. In order
to conduct a well \'ideo, 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 in sta llati on and maintenance, and well cleaning contractor. The estimated cost
for the well monitoring program includes sampling the well , analyzing the water chemi stry,
entering the water chemistry data into a database , and monitoring the data o\·er time. Finally.
we then provide an as essment of each well and what serYices may be necessary for each
well.
(a) Stand-alone Well Video Survey, Well Cleaning, and \Veil Testing
As none of the wells repor1edly have ever been cleaned , a well video survey is
necessary for each well. As stated above, if a well CLmently is equipped with a pump, the
pump will have to be pulled to take a \Veil video. The estimated cost of a stand-alone well
\'ideo is approximately $850. If a pump is in the well , the cost of pulling each pump (this
includes removing the pump, flushing the \\·ell with fresh water to improve water clarity,
setting the pump back in the well and hooking up to power) is approximately 53,100, for a
total pump removal and \'ideo cost of approximate ly 54,000. We estimate that the cost for
Martin & Wood to be present to direct the well \·ideo survey is approximately 5500 to 5700.
For the budgetary estimate purpo ses, 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.
5 -'-/
.\1r. Stu art Fonda
June 6. 201-+
Page 5 of 19
• Brush and bail the well to remove surficial deposits , slimes, etc. This \\'ill enable
more effective cleaning dur ing additional cleaning activities,
• Add chemicals and perform a sonar jet cleaning program,
• Neutralize acti\·e chemistry,
• Pump neutralized chemistry to was te (One container of neutralized chemistry will be
containerized and hauled off site for disp osal. After the l st load is hauled off, th e
water should be cle ar with a pH of 5 to 7 and a little turbidity. At thi s point the well
water should be safe for vegetation and can be pumped to the ground or to one of the
po nd s.), and
• Perfonn a second video to evaluate effectiveness of cleaning program and to obtain a
vid eo record of the condition of the well structure.
Note that additional bru shing and bailing may be recommended , depending on the condition
of the well. The e timated contractor cost for this \vell cleaning program is approximately
S 15,000 to S 16,000 per \vell.
Martin & Wo od typically petforms the follO\ving hydrogeol ogic and engineering sef\'ices
assoc iated with \\"ell cleaning and replacement well construction, testing, and installation:
• Estimated cost to draft , submit, and evaluate technica l specification s,
• Assist in contractor bidding activities,
• Perform \\·ell cleaning , \\·ell construction, well de\·elopment , and well testing
observation services,
• Design well pumping tests ,
• Pro\·ide a summat)' report for each \veil, and
• Provide contract or coordination and communication sen·ice s.
The le\·el of sen-ices 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 desig ned and bi ll ed appropriate ly for the \\·o rk
petformed by the contractor. As such, our sen·ices typically rnry from 10 to 20 percent of the
contractor cost for \\·ell cleaning and \\·e ll construction sef\'ices. Therefore , our sen·ices for
\\'ell cleaning ai·e estimated at $1,500 to S3,000 per well.
After a v;ell is cleaned. \\·e strongly recommend performing a well pumping test to
establish the optimum weLI pumping rate and to develop a well pumping schedule which
provides for optimum long-term well yields. Well pumping test costs can rnry depending on
the time it take s 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 testi ng and v.-'hich 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 locatio ns where wells have shown signs of not being ab le to sustain their respective initial
pumping rates at start-up . We are also providing cost estimates for if the contractor provides
5-5
Martin and Wood Water Consult ants , Inc.
i\1r. Stuan Fond a
Jun e 6. 2014
P age 6 of I 9
a test pump and for if a permanent pump is avai lable for testing. These estimates may be
modified on a well-to-well basis depending on the specific condition of each well and
histo1ical 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 S 16 ,6 00 for a 24-hour
constant rate test to £20,600 for a 48-hour constant rate test. The estimated contractor cost for
a pump tes t, on a per well basis , \\:hen a pennanent pump is available for pump testing is
approxim ate ly S7 ,800 for a 24-hour con stant rate test to 58,400 for a 48-hour constant rate
te st.
Maitin & Wood typically is pre se nt on-site for well development, step testing, and the
stait of the constant rate te st (to make sure the test starts and pe1forms as expected).
Additionally, \Ve will process and analyze the test data and produce a sumrnai·y repo11
detailing the pump te st ing activities , well pe1formance, and suggested pumping schedule, if
necessary. The estimated cost for the above described Maitin & Wood pump testing
acti\·itie s, o n a per \\'ell basi s, is approximately 55,000 to 56,000 .
(b) Well Replacement and Ab and onment
Th e contractor cost estimate to mobili ze equipment to the site, drill and construct a
new well, de\·elop and pump test the new well, equip the new well \\·ith a new pump and
motor , and install a pitle ss ada ptor , is approximately 560 ,000.
Our services for well con struction acti\·ities ai·e estimated at 56,000 to 512,000 per
\\"ell. Note that these cost estimate s, bo th those for th e contract or and Maitin & Wo od, are
specific to the golf course wells. Other wells in differing location s may ha\·e different sizes.
depth s. production rates, etc .. which will re sult in different co sts.
If a well is replaced, the old well will need to be abandoned . Contractor cost to
aba nd on a well is approxim ately $2,600. At this time we do not belieYe 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 anal)tical
results int o a database, and monitoring the well data for changes over time. At least initially.
we envision collecting an anal)tical suit e once a year. The analytical suite for a we!J
monitoring program may vary from locati on to loca tion , as the natural water chemistry varies
from location to location. For example , some waters have higher concentrations of slime
producing bacteria, for which an anal)tical suite would be designed to focus on. As such, we
ai·e propo sing conservative costs for budgeting purposes. Actual costs will be developed once
the well loca tion s 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 occun-ing . The rate of chemistry change can help to predict
when well maintenance may be necessai-y. An early indication of degrading water chemistry
Martin and Wood Water Consultants , Inc.
:">I r. St u art Fonda
June 6. 20 14
Page 7 o f 19
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 interpreUmonitor the
results. We estimate the cost for the first year of \vell monitoring to be approximately 5600
per well for laboratory anal) ti cal fees and approximately 52,300 for all of the wells (including
the Park \Vells) for Mai1in & Wood"s services. After the initial year the laboratory analytical
suite will have been determined, the database \\:ill have been developed, and the analysis
process will have been de\·eloped. The resulting estimated cost for laboratory anal)tical fees
to be approximately 5600 per year and the estimated cost for Mai1in & Wood's services to be
approximately 51,700 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 \\·ith
associated cost estimates are presented next. A sununary table presenting what v.:e belie\·e is
the most likelv course of action with associated costs for each Golf Course \Yell , and also
including the Park Wells, is presented in Table I. 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 \\'ell construction reports obtained from th e State of Colorado Division of
\V ater Resources on-line database . Howe\·er, 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 \vhat we bclie\·e is most likely, which could result in increased
costs in some cases, notably Wells GC-3, GC-5, and the Jason Park Well. It is also possible
that the initial video survey 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 cuITently not operational. As s uch , 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 repo11edly never been cleaned or had any maintenance
perfom1ed 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 \Ve]! may
need to be replaced. If any cleaning or well replacement activities take place, a pumping
test is recommended at the end of the \\·ell assessment activities to establish the optimum
well pumping rate and long-term pumping schedu le for the \vell.
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
516,500 to 519,000.
The additional estimated cost of a well pumping test following well cleaning, for both the
contractor and Martin & Wood, is approximately $22,000 to S27,000.
5-7 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc.
Mr. Stu art Fonda
J une 6. 2014
Page 8 of 19
If Well GC-1 needs to be replaced, the estimated cost, including well abandonment, for
both th e contractor and Ma11in & Wood, is from S68,600 to S74 ,600 .
A well monitoring program , \\'hich includes all the Golf Course and Park Wells,
conducted by Mai1in & Wood, including laboratory analytical costs, is estimated at
approximately 52,900 for the first year and 52 ,300 for th e following yeai·s.
2 . GC-2
Well GC-2 is repo11ed to have a collapsed casing and thus is considered unu sab le.
Therefore, the well will need to be replaced. The estimated cost to rep lace Well GC-2,
including well abandonment, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood, is from S68,600
to 574,600.
A well monitoring program, which includes al l the G o lf Course and Park Well s,
conducted by Mai1in & Wood, including laboratory anal)1ical costs, is estimated at
approximate ly 52,900 for the first yeai· and S2,300 for th e following yeai ·s.
3. GC-3
Well GC-3 was replaced in 1995. As such, the pump should be pulled to perform a well
\·ideo to assess th e condition of the \\·ell. There is a good chance the well structure is in
good condition, as it wa s constru c ted with stain le ss steel well screen. Howe\·e r, there is a
good probability th at some well cleaning will need to be perfom1ed to optimize the well
production. When the pump i s pulled for the well video sur\'ey, the contractor shou ld
assess its condition and perform maintenance on it , if waiTanted . That being said, it is
unlikel y anything will need to be done to the pump and motor, as they were both recently
repl aced. If any cleaning or well repl acemen t acti\·iti es 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
v.:ell , including costs for both the contractor and Mai1in & Wood, is approximate ly
516,500 to 519,000.
The additional estimated cost of a well pumping test following well cleaning, for both the
contractor and Maitin & Wood, is ap p rox im ate ly 512,800 to 14,400.
In the unlikel y event Well GC-3 needs to be repl aced, the estimated cost, including well
abandonment, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood, is approximate ly 568,600 to
574,600 .
A well monitoring program, which inc lu des all the Golf Course and Park Wells,
co nducted by Martin & Wood, including laboratory a nalytical costs, is estimated at
approximate ly $2,900 for the first year and S2 ,300 for the following years.
s-e Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc.
/\Ir. Stuart Fond a
June 6. 2014
Pag e 9 of 19
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
waITanted. As Well GC-4 is an original v:;ell and has reportedly never been cleaned or had
any maintenance performed on it, we highly recommend conducting a \\·ell video survey
to assess the condition of the well. Due to its age, \Vell GC-4 will likely need to be
cleaned or th e well may need to be replaced . If any cleaning or well replacement
activities take place , a pumping te st should be performed at the end of the well assessment
acti \·ities to establish the optimum pumping rate and pumping schedule for th e vvell .
If Well GC-4 need s to be cl eaned and not replaced , the e stimated cost to clean the well ,
including co sts for bot h th e contractor and Martin & Wood, is approximately $16,500 to
519,000.
The additional estimated cost of a well pumping te st following well cleaning, for b oth th e
contractor and M anin & Wood, i s approximately $22,000 to 27,000.
If Well GC-4 needs to be repl ace d, the estimated cost, including well aba nd on me nt, for
both the contractor and Mar1in & Wood , is from $68 ,600 to S74 ,6 00 .
A well monitoring program , which includes all the Golf Course and P a rk \\'ell s,
conducted by Maitin & Wood, including lab orato ry anal)tical costs, is estimated at
approximately 52,900 for the first ye ar and $2 ,3 00 for the follO\\·ing years .
5. GC-5
\Veil GC-5 was replaced in 1996. As such, the pump should be pulled to perform a \\·el]
Yideo survey to assess the condition of the well. There is a good chance the well structure
is in good condition, as it \Va s constmcted with stainless steel well screen. similar to Well
GC-3. Howe\'er, there is a good probability that some well cleaning will need to be
performed to optimize the well production. \\'hen the pump is pulled for the well video
survey, the contractor should assess its condition and perform maintenance on it , if
wan·anted. That being said, it is unlikely anything will need to be d o ne to the pump and
motor, as they were both recently replaced . If any cleaning or well replacement acti\·ities
take place , a pumping test should be performed at the end of the well assessment activities
to establi sh 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 \vell,
including costs for both the contractor and Mmin & Wood, is approximately S 16 ,500 to
Sl 9,000.
The additional estimated cost of a well pumping test following well cleaning, for both the
contractor and Mmin & Wood, is approximately $12,800 to 514,400.
5-~
Martin and Wood Water Consultants , Inc.
:Vlr. S tuart Fo nd a
Ju ne 6. 20 I-+
Page I 0 of 19
In the unlikely event Well GC-5 needs to be replaced, the estimated cost for both the
contractor and Ma11in & Wood is approximately S68,600 to S74,600. This cost would
decrease by a fevv thousand dollars if the recently replaced pumping equipment can be re-
used, v\'hich we think is likely.
A \\'ell monitoring program, vvhich includes all the Golf Course and Park Wells,
conducted by Mai1in & Wood, including laboratory analytical costs, is estimated at
approximately S'.2 ,900 for the first year and S'.2,300 for the follo\\'ing years.
6. GC-6
The pump in Well GC-6 \\:as recently replaced. As such , the pump is likely in good
condition . HoweYer, as \Vell GC-6 is repo11edly an original well and repo11edly has never
been cleaned or had any mainten ance petformed on it, \\·e highly recommend running a
\\'ell video survey to a s se ss the condition of the well. Due to its age and lack of any prior
cleaning or maintenance , Well GC-6 \vill 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 al the end of the well assessment actiYities to establish the optimum
pumping rate and pumping schedule for the \\·eJJ.
If Well GC-6 needs to be cleaned and not replaced. the estimated co st to clean the well,
including costs for both the contractor and Martin & Wood , is approximately S 16 ,500 to
s 19,000.
The additional e stimated co s t of a well pumping te s t following \\·ell cleaning, for both the
contractor and Maitin & Wood, is approximately S 12 ,800toS14,400.
If Well GC-6 needs to be replaced, the estimated co s t for both contractor and Mai1in &
\Vood, is approximately S68 ,600 to S74,600. This cost would decreas e by a few thousand
dollars if the recently replaced pumping equipment can be re-used , \\'hich we think is
likely.
A well monitoring program, \1,.foch includes all the Golf Course and Pai·k Wells ,
conducted by Martin & \Vood, including laboratory anal)tical costs, is estimated at
approximately S'.2 ,900 for the first year and $2,300 for the following years.
Pri o rity of Golf Cours e 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 diYersion for the Olsen and Bell Ditch 1862 priority on Bear Creek. We
also unders tand that due to budgetary and operational constraints , work on the wells will haYe
to be spaced out over a number of years . Therefore , we are including thi s section to
summarize our thoughts on the order in which the wells should be evaluated and the basis for
our suggestions .
s --/0
Martin and Wood Water Consultants , Inc.
~1r . S tuart Fonda
Jun e 6. 20 14
Page 11 of 19
We \\:ill start out by saying that we think that the three operating wells should be
evaluated last, as they can keep in-igating the golf course while other wells ar·e being cleaned
or replaced. We think that \Vell 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 acro s s
the river to in-igate the front nine holes .
We think th at Well GC-3 should be the second to last well to be e\·aluated. This is
due to Well GC-3 being the other recently replaced well, and thu s , 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 las t acti,·ely pumping well and the best producer, at that.
We think the fir st 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 \\'Ould almost assuredly cause interference with Well GC-5, especially with
Well GC-5 's noted decrease in production when other wells ar·e pumping. Moving Well GC-
4 to a n area mrny from the other wells could re s ult in production with the least amount of
impact to th e other pumping \:veils . Tills matter will have to be addressed in the future \\·ith
the State Engineers Office (SEO ), as even though Well GC-4 could be located anywhere in
the 1/.; Yi 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 dO\\·n or need to be taken off line for maintenance and/or cleaning issues . A
new location for Well GC-4 \vill be ernluated once a decision is made to repface the \\·ell.
We think the second well to be evaluated should be Well No. 1. This is due primarily
to its location being decreed in a 114 114 section that differs from the other five wells. This
allows much greater flexibility in moving it to a location fu11her 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 inte1ference. As Well GC-1 is an original well and it
has experienced very low production when it was most recently operated, it is a p1ime
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 \\·ells 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 v;ell 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 inigation 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.
5 -/(
Mr. Sruart Fonda
Jun e 6 . 2014
Page 12 of 19
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 marmer in
orde r to re-establish pumping use records.
Well Produ ction in Relation to Decrees.
\V e 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 pre\'iously, the Case No. W-8271-76 decree
describes the Golf Course \Vells as alternate points of diversion to the Olsen and Bell Ditch
1862 prio1ity on Bear Creek. Ideally, the Golf Course Wells should di\'ert Englev,'ood·s full
1.575 cfs decreed interest in the Olsen and Bell Ditch. This 1.575 cfs di\'ersion 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, respecti\·ely. These pumping rates total
800 gpm , \\'hich would satisfy the 707 gpm decreed diversion limit ation. Howe \'er, Wayne
has stated that these three wells cannot sustain these pumping rates continually. Our
recommendations for these wells include eval uations and acti\·ities to deYelop an
understanding of the sustained \\'ell yield that cou ld be expected. That being said, the three
additional \\'ells that are not cmTently operating, GC-1, GC-2, and GC-4, if brought into
production, should be more than capable of satisfying the decreed 707 gpm diYersion rate.
The senior 1cBroom Ditch water can be used to itTigate the golf course , as described
in Case No. 88CW203. However, the decree states that the senior McBroom Ditch water , if
di\·e11ed for irrigation of the golf course, would be fully consumpti\'e water, vvfoch 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
cuJTent ptice 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, 18 63,
and 1865), decreed for all municipal uses, that the City diYerts from Union A\'enue up to the
Allen Filter Plant. A recent eYaluation that we perfom1ed resulted in the determination that
there are surpluses from these water rights, which are avai lab le for use on the golf course. We
recently obtained administrative appro\'al from Colin Watson of the Division Engineer's
office to let a sufficient amount of these surpluses to pass down the ri\'er from Union A\·enue
to it s confluence with Bear Creek. Then, by a process called exchange, the City has Division
Engineer appro\'al to divert the same amount of the needed surplus at the McBroom Ditch
and use same to inigate the golf course. It should be noted that the Di \'ision 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 McLeUan 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 Re servoir of single-u se water, such as the 1948 Mclellan Re servoir storage rights.
Martin and Wood Water Consultants , Inc. s-)2
:\Ir. Stu art Fonda
June 6. 20 14
Page 13 of 19
The McClellan single-use water is cuITently sold to CWSD at a price of approximately 5425
per acre-foot.
PARK \YELLS
It is our understanding that Englev;ood' s goal with the Park Wells is get a program
established that will result in the wells running as efficiently as possible, 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 stai1 by summarizing the condition of the Park
Wells , as explained to us by Park personnel. The well summary v.:ill be followed by
recommendations and estimated cost for each well. Finally, well assessment priorities will be
summarized.
Well Summary
On May 8, 2014, we \·is ited Miller Park, Cushing Park, Centennial Park, and Jas on
Park to Yiew the i1Tigation well for each park and ask park personnel questions about each
well. The follO\\·ing is a summary of our obserYations and information obtained from Park
personn el.
I . Miller Park
The age of the Miller Park Well was not known by Park perso nnel. Howe\·er, Well
Permjt No. I 3324-R-R indicates that the well was constructed in 1966 to a depth of 55
feet. Park personnel believed the pump to be at least 15 years old , which may mean it is
the original pump. The pumping rate of the Miller Park Well is believed to be
approximately 120 gpm. Park personnel indicated that the pumping rate of 120 gpm
holds steady during irrigation and has been that way for a number of yea.rs. A spigot is
present that would allow water sampling from the well.
2. CushinQ: Park
The age of the Cushing Park \Veil was not known by Park personnel. HmveYer, Well
Permit No. R 19745-RF indicates the well was constructed in 1982 to a depth of 43 feet.
Park personnel belie\·ed the pump to be at least 20 years old, which 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 iITigation 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 present 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 constrncted in 1956 to a depth of 42 feet.
Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc.
s-13
~Ir . Stu art Fonda
June 6. 2014
Page 14 of I 9
Park personnel believe the well has not been cleaned in the last 20 years. The pump was
last replaced approximately fo·e 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 hold steady during itTigation and has been that way for a
number of years. A spigot is not present, meaning water cannot be directly sampled from
the \veil. Park personnel belie\·e the vve!J 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 in dicated 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 \\·as 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 s urface. The pumping rate of the Jason Park
\\'ell is approximately 200 gprn. Park personnel indicated that the pumping rate of 200
gpm hold s for a peri od of four to fi\'e hours. A spigot is present that \\'Ould allov.: water
samp ling from the well.
H'el/ Recol//111 e11da tions and Estilllated Costs
G e neral descriptions and cost estimates for a stand-alone \vell \·ide a, well cleaning, \\·ell
te s ting , well replacement and abandonment activities, and a well monitoring program were
proYided in the Golf Course Wells section of this report . As stated before, it should be n oted
that these cost estin1ates are very preliminary; \\'e will not know for sure \\·hat well
maintenance, cleaning, or replacement activities may be necessary until Yideo surveys are
cond ucted on each v.·ell. The costs presented below are the same as for the Golf Course
Wells , as the Park Wells are also alluvial wells completed to similar depths.
As in the Golf Course Wells section of this report, a desctiption of our assessment of
the condition, and potential actions that could be implemented for each Park Well, along \\'ith
associated cost estimates are presented next. A summary table presenting what \Ve belie\'e 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 bas been cleaned. It is our understanding that the other three
park wells have never been cleaned. As such, a v.:el1 \·ideo survey is necessary for each well.
We would like to reviev; the well \'ideo for the Jason Park well to make an initial well
assessment. The estinlated cost of each stand-alone well video survey is approximately S850 .
The cost of pulling each pump (includes removing the pump , flushing the well vvitb fresh
water for clarity, setting pump back in the we!J and hooking up to power) is approximately
S3, 100, for a total pump removal and video survey cost of approximately S4,000.
As described previously, the estimated contractor cost for this well cleaning program
Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc .
5-J'-/
Mr. Sru art F o nd:i
June 6. 2014
Pag e 15 o f 19
is approximately 515,000 to Sl6,000 per well.
Martin & Wood's services for well cleaning are estimated at approximately Sl,500 to
53,000 per well.
The estimated contractor cost for a pump test, on a per well basis, \\:hen the contractor
supplies a test pump is approximately 516,600 for a 24-hour constant rate test to 520,600 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 57,800 for a 24-hour
constant rate test to 58,400 for a 48-hour constant rate test.
Pump testing act i\-iti es pe1formed by !vl a1tin & \Vood are estimated to be
approximately 55,000 to 56,000
The contractor cost estimate to drill and constrnct a new well, develop and pump test
the new v;ell, equip the new well with a new pump and motor, and install a pitless adaptor, is
approximately 560,000.
If a well is replaced, the old well will need to be abandoned. Contractor cost to
abandon a \Yell is approximately 52,600. At this time I do not belieYe Maitin & Wood
personnel need to be present for observation of well abandonments.
As described in detail abO\·e, Martin & \Vood's sen-ices for \Yell construction
acti\·ities are estimated at 56,000 to 512,000 per well. Note that these cost estimates, both the
contractor and Martin & Wood, are specific to the Park Wells.
As discussed pre,·iously, \\'e estimate the cost for the first year of \Yell monitoring, for
all wells including the Golf Course Wells, to be approximately 5600 per well for laboratory
analytical fees and approximately $2,300 for all of the \veils for Maitin & Wood's sen·ices.
After the initial yeai· the laboratory analytical suite will have been determined, the database
will ha\·e been developed, and the analysis process will have been dewloped. 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 sen-ices to be
approximately 51,700 per year.
1. Miller Park
The pump in the !\.'filler 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 pe1form maintenance on it, if waITanted. As the Miller
Park Well is appeai·s to be an original well and reportedly has neYer been cleaned or had
any maintenance performed on it, a well video sun·ey to assess the condition of the well
should be considered. Due to its age and decrease in pumping rate when constrncted,
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 condi ti on 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.
5-)5
Mr. Stuart Fo nd a
Jun e 6 . 2014
Page 16 of I 9
replacement activities take place, a pumping test shou ld be petiormed at the end of the
well assessment activities to establish the optimum pumping rate and pumping schedule
for th e 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 approximate ly
516 ,500 to 5 19,000.
The estimated cost of a well pumping test following well cleaning , for both the contractor
and Martin & Wood , is approx im ate ly 522 ,000 to 27,000.
If the Miller Park Well needs to be replaced, the es tim ated cost, including \Ne ll
aba nd onment, for both the contractor and Martin & Wood, is from 568,600 to $74,600 .
A we ll monitoring program conducted by Manin & Wood , including laboratory analytical
cos ts, is estimated at approximate ly 52,900 for the first year and 52,300 for the following
year s.
2. Cushin£ 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 th e Cu shing Park Well is repo 11 ed to be at lea st 20 years o ld ,
likely meaning i t is the original pump. As such , the pump sh ould be pulled to assess its
conditio n and to perform maintenance o n it , if wan·anted. As the Cushing Park Well
a ppears to be an original well and reportedly has ne\·er been cle aned or had any
maintenance performed on it, a \\·ell video survey to assess the condit ion of the \\·ell
shou ld be considered. Du e to its age , it is expected that the Cushing Park Well \\·ill likely
need to be cleaned at a minimum or, if the condition is considered too poor to allow for
cost-effecti \·e rehabilitation , the well may need to be replaced . If any cleaning or well
replacement act iviti es take place, a pumping test should be petformed at the end of the
we ll assessment activities to establish the optimum pumping rate and pumping schedu le
for the well.
If the Cu shing P ark Well needs to be cleaned and not replaced , the estimated co st to
clean th e well, including costs for both the contractor and Ma11in & Wood, is
approximately S 16,500 to 5 19 ,000.
The estimated cost of a well pumping test following well cleaning, for both the contractor
and Manin & Wood , is approximately S22,000 to 27,000 .
If the Cushing Park Well needs to be replaced, the estimated cost , including well
aband onment , 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 likel y.
Martin and Wood Water Consultants , Inc .
5 -/l.
:-.Ir. Stuart F ond :i
June 6 . 2014
Pa ge 17 of I 9
A well monitoring program conducted by Martin & \Vood, including laboratory anal)tical
costs, is estimated at approximately 52,900 for the first year and S2,300 for the following
years.
3. Centennial Park
The pump in the Centennial Park Well is repo1tedly fi\'e to se\'en years old . Well permit
No. 013981-F indicates that the well was constmcted in 1956. As Park personnel ha\'e
no knowledge of the pump ever being ser\'iced, and the well is apparently 58 years old,
pulling the pump and assessing its condition should be considered, along \Vith running a
well video surwy to assess the condition of the \Vell. Due to the relatively reliable and
consistent 'Xell production, the Centennial Park Well may or may not need cleaning.
However, due to its 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 \\·eU video survey wi!J
giYe a better indication of \\hat direction to take. If any cleaning or well replacement
acti \·ities take place , a pumping test should be pe1formed at the end of the v;ell assessment
activities to establish the optimum pumping rate and pumping schedule forthe 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 Mai1in & Wood, is
approximately 516,500 to 519,000.
The estimated cost of a \\·ell pumping test following well cleaning. for both the contractor
and l\1aitin & 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 Ma1tin & Wood, is from 568,600 to $74,600.
A well monitoring program conducted by Mai1in & Wood, including laboratory analytical
costs, is estimated at approximately $2,900 for the first year and S2,300 for the following
years.
4. Jason Park
Well permit No. 13127-F indicates that the Jason Park 'Nell was constructed in 1968 .
However, the pump in the Jason Pai·k Well was replaced, the well was cleaned, and a
Yideo was pc1formed 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 fi Ye hours , a pumping test 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
Marti n and W ood Wate r Consulta nts, In c. s-17
i\lr. Stuan Fonda
J une 6. 2014
Page 18 of 19
contractor and Martin & Wood, is approximately 512,800 to Sl4,400.
A well monitoring program conducted by Martin & Wood, including laboratory analytical
costs, is estimated at approximately 52,900 for the first year and 52 ,3 00 for the following
years.
Priority of Park Well Assessments
We understand the goal of this assessment is to get the Par·k 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 respecti\'e well and
pump life. \Ve also understand that due to budgetary and operational constraints, work on the
wells \:i.;ill have to be spaced out o\·er a number of years . Therefore , we are including this
section to summar·ize our thoughts on the order th at \Nells 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. Ho\vever , the other
three park \\'ells appear to be pumping reliably, so pe1forming a pumping te st on the Ja so n
Park \Vell is a relatively lov.· cost preventive maintenance activity th at could increase the
efficiency and reduce the effects of pumping extremes on the \\·ell, \\·hich ultimately should
increase the life of both the well and pump .
The Cushing Park Well appears to be over 30 years old with th e original pump and
ha s reportedly ne\·er had any cleaning or maintenance perfonned on it. Therefore, it is a
prime candidate for at least well cleaning and pump mainten ance, and possibly well and
pump replacement. The end of its use ful life is likely approaching.
The Centennial Well appears to be a reliable producer and the pump wa s replaced
fairly recently (fi \·e to seven year· ago). Although the well ha s rep ortedly not been cleaned in
at least 20 years , it appears to ha\'e 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 \Vell second in priority , behind the Cushing Par-k Well. It should be
noted that Park perso nnel stated that the well meter needs to be calibrated.
The Miller Par-k Well pump is apparently at lea st 15 year-s old and Par-k personnel are
not aware of any maintenance perfonned on the well or pump. However. the pumping rate is
rep01ted 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 slightl y behind .
We appreciate the opportunity to provide Englewood with this Golf Course Well and
Par-k 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 pumpmg
s-18 Martin and Wood Water Consultants , Inc.
M r. Stuart F onda
Ju ne 6. 2014
Page 19 of 19
equipment.
5-19
Sincerely,
MARTIN AND WOOD
WATER CONSULTANTS , INC.
W illiam Berg, P .G .
Se ni o r Project Hydroge ologi st
M arti n a nd Wood Water Consultants , Inc.
0)
N
\)
Tabl e 1
Conserv ative [J u dgeta ry Cos t Est imate
I $/We ll Miller Field
Cushing Cen t ennia l
Task GC-1 GC-2 GC -3 GC -4 GC -5 GC-6
Park
Well Cl eaning/Rehab ilitat ion
M a rt in & W ood Costs:
Well V ideo $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700
Well Cleaning $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000
Pump Testing $ 6,000 $ G,000 $ 6,000
Contractor Costs:
Well Video (includ es 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
'P ump Testing (24 -hou r constant rate test)
Purnp Provided by Con tractor $ lG,GDO
He -use Existing Pump $ 7,800
1Purnp Testing (48-hour cons t an t rate te st)
Purnp Provided by Con t rac t or $ 20,GOO
Re -use Exis t ing Pump $ 8,400 $ 8,400 $ 8,400
Replacem e nt W ell Dr ill in g
Ma rtin & Wood Cos t s:
Well Drilling, Cons truction, Develo1>rnent, and Testing $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 17,000 $ 12,000 $ 12,000 s 12,000 $ 12,000
Contractor Cos t s
We ll Drilling, Construction, Development, and Testinc $ GD,000 s 60,000 $ G0,000 $ G0,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000
Well Abandonment $ 2,600 $ 2,600 $ 7,600 $ 2,600 s 2,GOO $ 7,600 $ 2,GOO
Tot al ($) 79,250 74,600 38,050 79,250 38,050 79,250 79,250 79,250
Notes: The cos t s in this table repres ent conserva t ive estimat es of what we believe is t he most likel~ course ot action. ·1 he initial well vid eo survey rnay res u lt in condi t ions t ha t differ from what we
be lieve is mos t likely, which co uld res ult i n t he well having to be replaced, notably wells GC-3, GC -5, and tlw Ja son Park Well, which would increase t heir respec t ive cost estimotes.
Wel l GC -2 does not con t ain Well Cleaning/Rehabilitation costs, as th e well has collapsed and is not usoble.
Wells GC-3, GC-5, and t he Jason Pork Well do not contain Replacement Well Drilling costs, as we expect the initial video su rvey t o show th<ll the wells only need to be cle;ined.
$
$
$
$
$
1 Ei t her a 24-or 48-hour pumping t est is recommended . A 48-hour pumping test is recommended for locations wlwre wells hove shown signs of not being able to sustain their respective initial pumping
rates al start-up.
Par k
700
3,950
12,000
G0,000
2,600
79,250
Jaso n Park
$ 700
$ 3,950
s 8,400
13,050
Legend
0 Bro ken Tee Golf Course Wells
Job No .: 159 .1 3 City of Englewood
Date : 6/5/14
Drawn : EP Golf Course and Park
Checked : WB Well Analysis
R68W
0 800
~~~--~~~~~~Feet
200 400
Golf Course
Well Location Map
Figure 2 MARTIN AND WOOD
W.A.TE~ :::01'.S :..1..T"'-'-TS NC
538 Commons Drive
Golden , CO 80401
(303) 526-2600
www.martinandwood .com
5·'159 -C 11y of Eng lewood\159 13 -Go~ Co urs e Well s\G !S\Erglewood_Go lf_Course_!emplate mxd Copyrignl 20 1.C: Mart11" and Wood Water Cons ult ants , lnc:. Al! Rr91"IS Reser1ed
5 -2/
MEMORANDUM
To: Englewood Water and Sewer Board ~
From: John Bock, Utilities Manager of Administration~ 'f:"p~ ~~ u V Cf2o~Gl~
Date: June 26, 2014 1'1yl2 C0 oo
'IJ-r-, co
Subject: Water and Se\ver Tap Credits -'17)--0b
'"'l\112,...
The question has come up about the City 's practices and policies regarding the
disposition of water and sewer connection licenses at vacant buildings and parcels where
the buildings have been demolished and the parcels are vacant or have been converted to
uses that don 't require \Vater and/or sevver connections . Should these water and sewer
connections , at some point, be declared abandoned? Should new connection fees required
should someone want to reconnect to \Vater and sewer?
The existing Englewood Utilities Department policy regarding water and se\ver
connections is that once purchased for a particular parcel, the connection "credit'" for the
original water tap size remains with that parcel in perpetuity. This has applied to both
commercial and residential properties .
Significant examples of sites receiving water and sewer connection credits are:
Cinderella City Shopping Center -86.34 SFE 's
Kent Place Retail and Residential Development -34.33 SFE's
Alta Cherry Hills (Flood Middle School) -21 .33 SFE's
Sprouts Development on South Broadway -14.99 SFE 's
The old General Iron site at 60 I W Bates Ave has t\vo 6"' meters and a 1.5,. meter which
\Vorks out to 69.99 single family equivalents SFE 's. The site stopped paying water
charges in 2002 and has been vacant for many years.
The most frequent type of water and sewer connection credit granted is for single family
residential properties . The existing house is scraped and replaced with another single
family home , or a duplex or triplex .
Examples of some properties around to\\n currently sitting vacant or with vacant
buildings that hold connection credits:
The old Balley Fitness Center at 707 E Jefferson Ave . (2-1 s· taps)
3580 and 3590 S Clarkson St. (3 -5/8"' taps)
The 3400 block of South Acoma St on the east side . ( 4 -%'"taps)
The southwest comer of S. Broadway and Englewood Pkwy (3 /4"' tap)
Former Miniature Go! f Course 2201 W Oxford Ave . ( r ·· tap)
~ -/
Included with this discussion are examples of water and sewer tap credit policies from
five other cities:
Denver Water Department
City of Aurora
City of Thornton
City of Westminster
City of Arvada.
l, -2
12-1A-1: User License Required .. ..:t
The right to take and use water from any source supplied by the City shall be only by license . The use of water by license shall
not constitute or be deemed to be a relinquishment of any water or water right by the City, and the City reserves the full right to determine
a!I matters in connection with the control and use of water. None of the privileges or rights granted to any licensee shall be assigned or
sublet in any manner whatsoever.
_)
12-1 A-2 : Issuance of User License , Term.:-.;.:_
Licenses shall be issued under measured meter service for periods of three (3 ) months , beginning as nearly as may be on the
first day and end ing on the last day of each calendar month . or for a period between meter readings .
12-1A-3: Rights Under License .. X.
Neither the granting of such license nor any act, circumstance or condition shall operate to create any vested or proprietary right
whatsoever in the licensee, but shall give the licensee the right to use water for the purposes specified in the license, subject to termination
Ql§_uch license as herein provided. Every license to use water shall be subject to revocation and shut-off by the City and shall be subject to
the charge of reasonable expenses after written notice for items required by this Title perta ining to use of water when the property owner
refuses to comply with the Englewood Municipal Code , without obligation up on the City to refund or repay any consideration which may
have been given for the gran!ing of such license , and without any obligation upon the City whatsoever, for any one or more of the following
reasons .
A.
Failure to pay proper charges when due
B.
Failure to comply with this Chapter and applicable rules and regulations of the City
C .
Use of water for a purpose not authorized by license .
D.
Waste of water.
~-3