The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-02-10 WSB AGENDAWATER & SEWER BOARD AGENDA TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2015 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM 1. MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 13 , 2014 MEETING. (ATT. 1) 2. ALLEN PLANT ROOF REPAIR . (ATT. 2) 3. WATER METER & ERT PURCHASE. (ATT. 3) 4. INFO. ONLY : COWEEN DICKERSON -2835 S. PENNSYLVANIA ST. - REDUCTION OF WATER/SEWER BILL. (ATT. 4) 5. OTHER. Present: Absent: Also present: WATER & SEWER BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2015 Wiggins, Penn, Lay, Gillit, Oakley, Habenicht, Waggoner, Moore Burns, Olson Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities John Bock, Manager of Administration Tom Brenn an, Utilities Engineer Jason Clark, Water Production Supt. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. ~ 1. The Board received the minutes of the October 7, 2014 Water and Sewer Board meeting and the October 9, 2014 phone vote. 2. GUEST: ERIC BENNETT-2740 S. DELA WARE ST. -TAP FEES FOR A DUPLEX. Mr. Bennett bought a property at 2740 S . Delaware St. with the intent to build a duplex to be sold separately. Mr. Bennett appeared to request a variance. If granted, he would not be required to pay additional water and sewer tap fees for a property that will be divided and sold separately. He is requesti ng Board approval for both units to have one water and sewer tap with a party wall agreement. He found out at the design review meeting that Englewood City Code requires two water and sewer taps. The Board discussed possible future owner/tenant problems with a party wall agreement for a single water & sewer line. The Board was polled and, while they were sympathetic that there was a miscommunication during his due diligence, the Board believed it would be generally more beneficial to all to have separate taps for each side. I -l Motion: Moved: Ayes: Nays: To deny Mr. Bennett 's request for a variance to allow one water and sewer tap at 2740 S. Delaware St. for two units being sold separately. Waggoner Seconded: Lay Waggoner, La y, Gillit, Habenicht, Wiggins Oakley, Moore , Penn Members absent: Burns, Olson Motion carried . . ~ 3. GAC CONTRACT. Granular activated carbon (GAC) is used to remove organic and inorganic material which can cause taste and odor problems in treated water. In the past, the GAC media has been leased, but that has been discontinued in favor of purchasing virgin carbon. Carbon requires periodic replacement whenever indicated by an iodine absorption test. Bids were received and Calgon Carbon Corporation was the lowest acceptable bidder at $276,647 .55 for 2,700 cubic feet of GAC two filters. Motion: Move: Recommend Council approval of the GAC Purchase Agreement to Calgon Carbon Corp. in the amount of $276,647.55 for two filters for thirty months. Waggoner Seconded: Habenicht Motion carried. fll 4. ARTICLES: The Board received the following Denver Post articles; "A waterline in the sand" and" A tall rethink of water." I -2 ~ 4. 3560 & 3590 S. CLARKSON ST. -SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. A Council Request was received by the Utilities Department regarding a vacant lot at 3560 and 3590 S. Clarkson St. Utilities staff noted the lot's sanitary sewer connection and elevation problems are due to the property being lower than the sewer main. The lot would require a lift station or a main extension into Hampden to resolve the sanitary sewer flow issue and would be the responsibility of the developer. ~ 6. ALLEN PLANT ROOF The Allen Plant roof bid was discussed. It will be presented next meeting for recommendation to Council. Adjourned 5:45 p.m . The meeting adjourned at The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 5:00 in the Community Development Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary J -3 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Date Agenda Item Subject March 2 , 2014 Allen Plant Roof Repair INITIATED BY Util ities Department STAFF SOURCE Tom Brennan , Eng ineer IV COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION None. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Englewood Water and Sewer Board, at their meeting on February 10 , 2015 , recommended Council approval, by motion , of the bid for the Allen Water Treatment Plant Roof ing Replacement Project to Alpine Roofing Company, Inc. in the amount of $481 ,939.00. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The main roof at the Allen Filter Plant is past the projected life expectancy and in need of replacement. The existing roof system is 35 years old. Upon inspection by Englewood 's insurance carrier, it was determined that roofs on the floc/sed , the meter shop and the dewatering building were storm damaged and need to be replaced . The project will involve removing and replacing t he roofs, along with new utility supports , on the main Allen Water Treatment Plant , the floc/sed bu ild ing , meter shop and the dewatering buildings. FINANCIAL IMPACT Requests for Bids were publ ished for the Allen Plant Roof Replacement Project. A bid opening was held on December 18 , 2014. The following responses were received: Contract West Roofing , Inc . Alpine Roofing Co., Inc. Arapahoe Roofing & Sheet Metal , Inc . Central States Roofing & Insulatin g , Inc. Colorado Moisture Control , Inc. Weathersure Systems , Inc. United Materials ACC Roofing , Inc. $458,800 .00 $481,939.00 $493 ,017.00 $495,064.00 $646,544.00 $657,042.00 $693 , 759 .00 $819,000.00 The project engineer has reviewed and deemed Alping Roofing Company, Inc. the lowest, technically acceptable bidder in the amount of $481 ,939.00. z -/ This project was budgeted for in 2014 at $800 ,000., but will be completed in 2015 . The funds are available from the fund balance carried over from 2014. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Memo from Tom Brennan , Englewood Engineer dated Dec. 30 , 2014 Memo from Michael Grod itski dated Dec. 23 , 2014 Bid Tabulat ion Sheet Al len Plant Roof .d oc 2 -2. c T y 0 F ENGLEWOOD MEMORANDUM TO: Englewood Water & Sewer Board FROM: Tom Brennan, Utilities Eng ineer DATE: December 30, 2014 RE: Allen Plant Roof Bid I recommend accepting Alpine Roofing bid in t he amount of $481,939 as the most advantageous to the best interest ofthe City. We received a total of eight bids as detailed in the attached bid tabulation sheet. Contract West Roofing was technically the lowest bidder at $458,800. Contract West's bid was rejected for the following reasons. They are an out of state company tha t must secure a local work force to perform the work. Also, their b id is over $100,000 less than the other bids for the actual roofing portion raising concerns about Contract West installing a quality roof at the listed price. See attached consulting engineer's recommendation for further explanation. Fina ll y, Contract West did one project sim ilar to ours in Colorado. In checking that project the owner stated that Contract West had a difficult time keeping a full crew of local labor resulting in a disorderly job site and project delays. There was also two insurance claims for water damage from leaks incurred during the project. This project was budgeted for in 2014 at $800,000, but will be completed in 2015. The funds are available from the fund balance carried over from 2014. z .. 3 1000 Englewood Park w ay En glewood, Colorado 80110 Phone 303 -762-2635 Tom Brennan From: Sent: To: Subject: Tom Brennan Tuesday, December 23, 2014 7:48 AM 'Grod itski, Michael' RE: Allen Plant Roof Bid Thanks M ik e! Have a great holidays. From: Grod itski, Michael [mailto:MGrod itsk i@wje .com] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 3 :15 PM To: Tom Brennan Subject: RE: Al le n Plant Roof Bi d T om, .l\1 y recommendation is to award the bid to Alpine Roofing C ompany. Here are my reasons for this recommendation. The three l ow bidders h ave a range from $459,000 to $493,000. Yet the breakout of their project costs are as follo ws: Administration Total Bid Contract West Roofing $458,800 Alpine Roofing $43,200 $48 1,939 $61,939 Arapahoe Ro ofing $81,126 $493,017 Demolition New roof installation Project $310 ,041 $105,559 $3 91,600 $28,400 $387,241 $24,650 23 % of Contract West 's bid is for administration costs. Alpine's administration cost is 5.8 % and Arapahoe's administration cost is 4.9 %. That means that of the bid price, Contract West is only using 76 % for the roof installation as compared to 94.2% for Alpine and 95.1 % for Arapahoe. This does not bode well for the owner. What this appears to be is Contract West skimming a large amount of money off of the bid total which leaves --less for a qnality roof installation In terms of dollars spent on the roofing installation, Contra~-ha&--9id-- $353,241, Alpine has bid $453 ,539 and Arapahoe h a s bid $468,367. If Contract West's bid is accepted, they 1 will be spending over $100,000 less on the actual roofing as compared to Alpine Roofing. My opinion is that · they cannot install a quality roof at the price they have listed. My understanding of Contract West Roofing is that they act as a broker on projects. They administer the project but hire a roofing subcontract to perform the work, that is why they have such high administration costs. They make their money on the brokering of the deal with the roofer, not the actual installation. I don't believe it is in the City's Best interest to have a contractor installing a new roof system where they are spending $100,000 less than the next two bidders. I hope this helps, let me know if you have any other questions. Mike Groditski, RRC , RRO Associate Principal m£Toclit sk.i@wie.com WJE \Vi ss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. Engineers I Architects I Material Scientists 3609 South Wadsworth Bouelevard, Suite 400 Lakewood, Colorado 80235 P: 303-914-4300 F: 303-914-3000 bttp://wvv·w .wje.com 20 offices nationwide * ** ** * * * *C01\1FIDENTIALITY NOTICE********* The information in this email may be confidential and/or privileged. This email is intended to be reviewed by only the individual or organization named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any printing, saving, reviewing, disseminating, or copying of this ernail and its attachments, if any, or the information contained herein is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender by return email and delete this email from your system. z -S 2 City of Englewood Bid Tabulation Sheet Bid Opening Date: December 18, 2014 2:00 P.M. MST ITEM BID: ITB-14-025 Allen Water Treatment Plant Roofing Replacement Reciept of Existing New BUR Bid Bond SQQ Addendum Roofing Roof System Vendor Y/N Y/N 1 Y/N Demolition Installation contract WestRoofing ,.1ric .. .;:.: .... ·.: · ....... \ · .. ':\:':( :':.·/:): <;;;:':\!;/;},/ :(\ ::';\~:;)::• \/:/: < '(/.): ···~\./:'./. . . : '>'·<. <:.'-·.·:.:. .·.·.·.· 69.14 S 3000 East·STE202F ·.· ;-.: /' '::\ \)':/;'·:.• ', '_:/,i·>; :::;:::: ··(t/:./ ,•_,:·:-. .-,,.:····:·: <:.i:'.'.)) ...... · ............. >.· ·.i . -.:: .• />.:: Salt Lake City, UT 8412t · · ....... · .... .;:·. .... : :/'.? /:\\ / :<•:\:::i/' / :· .. ,:'. .' ;:(;:;,' •<::-::,• >:°'L <:.::::::...·;:;'...•:>'::: '\> Deam ;Hamilton-.President ·> . .:. '•': •'<< .•.:;.::./'·>•<: ./.:'';::;::: .. • :;))'.}/':;: . .:;::; : ~:j~·/\\\' :'.' •::: ,: i\;;\: ': .. >:>)'';) a'o1~943~2421:::::-. • · · .·. o:.:.: .• .· ..... •· ·')/ :)/:. y : ):. > ::;y ,) . ;::.~~:;::;~y)~:>:t T $('.43 ;200~00 ~; :::$,;310;04;ti OO) Alpine Roofing Co., Inc. 4780 York St Denver, CO 80216 Robin Ticky -President 303-295-7769 y y y $ 61,939.00 $ 391,600.00 Colorado Moisture Control , Inc. 4950 E 56th Ave Commerce City, CO 80022 Richard Cohen, President 303 -447-9400 y y y $ 77,500.00 $ 534,044.00 Arapahoe Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. 1501 S Arthur Ave Louisville, co 80027 Bob Bellitt -President 303-466-7386 y y y $ 81,126.00 $ 387,241.00 ACC Roofing, Inc. 1713 E Lincoln Ave ttB-3 Fort Collins, CO 60524 Jonah Lovendahl -Owner 970-493-2801 y y y $ 109,730.00 $ 609,770.00 United Materials 5135 York St .' .. ,:: >: · Apparenttow'.-Bidder,:<' · · l""I Uj<:a.-L Mobilization, Adm in, Permits Total Bid Exceptions ..;:,: ·.· .· ::. ·:· .. , ......... :: . ::·.·,..·:: .... >:-···.:<.· :.:-. :·:· .· .. ·. :·· : ~-. ; .. , ·.·. ·,: :·:,·:, .. ·.: .· :-.' " ·' f\ : ·.' .· .>~ .. <: .. :_.. ... ~, , .. .i $:::1 os ;ss9;0ff: :$ 4sa ;aoo;oo' None< "'": . . .. ,.· ' .. $ 28,400.00 $ 481,939.00 None $ 35,000.00 $ 646,544.00 None $ 24,650.00 $ 493 ,017.00 None $ 99,500.00 $ 819,000.00 None " l N Denver, CO 80216 Beth Gloss -Owner 303-623-4166 y y y $ 87,300.25 $ 537,083.75 $ 69,375.00 $ 693,759.00 None Weathersure Systems, Inc. 3333 S Platte River Dr Sheridan, CO 80110 Phil Owens -President 303-917-7327 y y y $ 71,250.00 $ 498,600.00 $ 87,192.00 $ 657,042.00 None Central States Roofing & Insulating, Inc. 5925 Omaha Blvd Colorado Springs, CO 80915 William Hauschildt -Vice President 719-570-1774 y y y $ 33,541.00 $ 399,176.00 $ 62,347.00 $ 495,064.00 None {' N Date April 6 , 2015 INITIATED BY Utilities Department COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item Subject Water Meter and ERT Purchase STAFF SOURCE Stewart H . Fonda , Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Council approved the 2005 meter purchase in the amount of $76 ,785.10 at their March 21, 2005 meeting . Council approved the 2006 meter purchase in the amount of $51 ,331.40 at their May 15 , 2006 meeting. Council approved the 2009 meter purchase in the amount of $114, 140 at their February 2, 2009 meeting. Council approved the 2010 meter purchase in the amount of $46,601.10 at their March 9, 2010 meeting. Council approved the 2011 meter purchase in the amount of $69 , 145.00 at their May 2, 2011 meeting. Council approved the 2012 meter purchase in the amount of $99,563.56 at their April 16 , 2012 meeting. Council approved the 2013 meter purchase in the amount of $138,847. At their April 1, 2013 meeting. Council approved the 2014 meter purchase in the amount of $87,621.36 at their June 2 , 2014 meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Water and Sewer Board, at their February 10, 2015 meeting, recommended approval by motion , for the purchase of water meters and electronic remote transmitters (ERTs) from National Meter and Automation, Inc. in the amount of $84 ,254.36. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The Utilities Department purchases water meters needed for an entire year by requesting one large bid proposal for additional cost savings. The Utilities Department is converting the metering system to the ITRON Automatic Meter Reading System. All meters and registers purchased will be compatible with the !TRON System. A portion of these meters will be resold to Englewood customers for new installations as part of the flat-rate-to-meter conversion process. Some of the meter stock will be used to replace inactive or poorly functioning meters and to convert existing meters to the !TRON system. 3 -J A portion of the 2015 order is electronic remote transmitters (ERT's) for updating existing residential meters , enabling meter readers to obtain meter readings using radio frequencies . This improves accuracy, and at the same time , is a labor saving device. The Water Department currently has 10 ,898 accounts , 9 , 153 of which are metered. In a typical year: • About 150 are sold to water customers to convert flat rate accounts to metered when properties change owners . • Under the Water Conservation Plan with the State of Colorado, 100 meters are set aside for installation in the Test Drive a Meter Program. This program enables meters to be installed by the Utilities Department, allowing the customer to determine the savings of being on a metered-based bill. If the customer wishes to remain on a meter, the customer reimburses the City for the meter and installation. • 200 to 300 meters and their electronic registers are used to repair or replace malfunctioning meters . • New water taps account for approx imately a dozen meters. FINANCIAL IMPACT Englewood 's meter and ERT order is being placed in conjunction with Denver Water Board 's Contract with National Meter for the best quantity price. The purchase order is based on a previous bid by Denver Water. Meters and ERTs will be purchased from National Meter & Automation for the amount of $84 ,254 .36 for meters and ERTs. Of this amount , approximately $20,000 will be resold to Englewood customers for flat-rate to meter conversions . There is money budgeted for these meters in the 2015 Budget. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS February 10, 2015 Water Board Minutes Quote from National Meter and Automation, Inc. 3 -2.. CITY 0 F ENGLEWOOD MEMORA N D UM TO: John Bock, Administration Manager FROM: Randy Pierce , Utilities Sy stem Support Specialist DATE: January 21 , 2015 SUBJECT: 2015 -Request for purchase of new water meters. NOTE: The City of Englewood has converted the metering system to ITRON AMR. All registers IERT will be the ITRON AMR SYSTEM. We are able to attach to the De nver Water D epartments Bid Prices, Contract Number 12770A and 12772A, for their January 5, 2010 bid th e effective contract period February 1, 2010 throu gh June 19, 2014. Also , National Meter and Automation has sent us a formal letter stating the price will remain the same as our 2015 annual ord er also attached. 1000 Eng lewood Park w ay En glewood, Co lo rado 80 110 Ph one 3 0 3-76 2-2635 www.engl ewoodgov.o rg 3 -J <fQATl'i'NAL METER AND AUTOMATION, INC_ 7220 S Fraser St, Centennial, CO 80112 Tel: (303) 339-9100 Fax: (303) 649-1017 Mr. Randy Pierce City of Englewood Water Department Englewood, Colorado 80110 Dear Randy, January 16, 2015 As per your request National Meter & Automation, Inc. is pleased to offer an extension of all pricing for Badger Water Meters, Registers, and Itron IOOW ERT Modules . All pricing will remain the same as for calendar year 2014. This pricing will remain firm thru 12/31/2015 We look forward to working with the City of Englewood for the upcoming year for your water meter and Itron needs . Thank you, Noel Frakes President/CEO 3 -L/ w l Vi 1 2 Make Badger Meter Body Badger Meter Body , Itron Encoder Register 6 7 Itron Encoder Register Meter Request 2015 Model Size Unit Price M25 5/8" $46.35 M35 3/4" $68.19 M25 5/8" $80.00 M35 3/4" $80.00 Request Total 100 $4,635.00 224 $15,274.56 100 $8,000.00 224 $17,920.00 Bl Itron End Points I ERT r lOOW I I $111.701 . 344r ,-$38:424130] Total $84,254.36 ?age: ,~..2.___of 3 01/27/2015 PHONE "'W~037815242 11:15 AM January 26 , 2015 John Boch Englewood Public Utilities Re: 2835 S. Pennsylvania Overcharge Mr . Boch : TO:l3037836894 FROM: C. Ann Dickerson You c~lled and t'71 1d me you were adjusting my bill down to 110 .89 Yet , your website still shows I used 51 units of water and a current bill of 264.43 . By not adjusting the useage , I \\'ill end up paying excessive sewer charges based on that useage . I. I need a new bill detailing per sen1ice the current charges as adjusted . It is not acceptable or according to GAAP to show the adjustment as a payment. It leaves me vulnerable to excessive se\ver charges in the future. 2. I need to see you have adjusted the useage on the website and the current bill. 3. I want an additional S50 .00 reduc tion to adjust against water useage for years of overcharges and problems . IHA T can be entered as a payment/adjustment. To confirm the basis for the adjustment , you told me you had at least three other complaints of o\·ercharges. You also said I needed to "fix toilet leak". I informed you that the water to the toilet had been shut off for more than a year. I have a 1.5 gallon flush toilet which did not flush effectively , causing me frequent sewer clogs and expense . Because I am aggressively trying to sa\·e water, I sa\·e the water in buckets from my every two day I 0 minute sho,ver to use for toilet flushes . I have also purchased in Jan 2014 and installed a high efficiency dishwasher and since 2013, a high efficiency front loading auto sensor for needed water (max 10 gallons per load). If I double the actual useage(pre measured) the most I could use is 8 units per 90 day period. My actual useage is 50-60 gallons per day or 4-5 units per period . You noted that my bill has been the same , summer and winter $106 .35 gi\'e or take cents for a long time . It would be virtually impossible for a water leak to have used that much, unless a hose or a toilet ran for several days , in which case I \Vould have noticed if either had water to them , which neither had for over a year. In addition , I checked with my neighbors , all who have 2-4 people living in the household . One of them had a water bill of 110 .xx for the same period with not only 2 people living there and a lot of guests who spent up to a week each at the house during the billing period . I know I have been overcharged if two people with guests have a bill essentially the same as mine has been for a long time. I think somehow my meter got advanced. There have been 3 instances of Englewood personnel doing something to my meter, only two of which are acknowledged. Most concerning and perhaps revealing is that I received a letter dated 1 /13 indicating tbat I L.f -I Page; ~ 3 of 3 01/27/2015 PHONE tt3037815242 11:15 AM TO:l3037836894 FROM: C. Ann Dickerson was on the test drive meter program (installed I 010I/2014) to compare to my flat rate charge . I have ne\'er bad flat rate billing. (When I called to question the Jetter, I was told "ob, it must have been put in the wrong envelope", which is, frankly, a stupid and specious comment because I had just carefully explained that the em·elope and the Jetter \\'ere addressed to me by name, with a spreadsheet attached for a different sen•ice address altogethP-r) If you installed a test meter, in error , that may have had something to do with the problem of the o\'ercharge. Also, at leas t one of my neighbors was told that the electronic readers were being replaced because of failures. Perhaps that could account for the advancement of the meter, given the strange errors possible with electronic equipment and the handling of my meter by several people. BTW , at least one of the guys trampled my plants even though I bad a clear path to the meter. In any case , the multiplicity of e1rnrs and confosion all at once on my account is troubling and calls into quest ion the validity of any explanation or charge. I expect the 3 items requested aboYe to be accomplished without delay . Coween Dickerson 2835 S . Pennsylvania St Englewood, CO 80113 Y-2 Page: 2 of 2 01/28/2015 PHON.E~1=130_S7815242 January 27, 2015 John Boch Englewood Utilities Mr. Boch: 10:18 AM T0:13037836894 FROM: C . Ann Dickerson I got your voicem ail. My phone is acting up . I cannot hear and apparently cannot be h eard easily , and my throat is sore. In any case , I don 't think there is much to di sc uss . You sai d you would adjust the bill. I have not seen the detail of that adjustment to the water charge and the sewer charge which is dependent on the \Yater charge. A new bill is in order. It is not adequate or correct procedure to arbitrarily list the adjustment as a payment, while leaving the overcharge on the record (the website). I am entitled to a written detailed bill , but will accept an email from you detailing the reduction in the water charge and the subsequent reduction in the sev;er charge . I reque ste d an additional credit for the errors and stress this boondoogle (the excessive water useage bill , the letter re: flat rate and installation of a water m eter on 1 Oi l) has caused me . The additional credit is requested as recompense for your department's obvious errors and rationalizations . The total owed should b e reduced to at least 86.45 . The rest of my fax offered possible scenarios based on the known facts and your statements, to account for the overcharge. I will offer one further possibility: if two water sources/appliances are used simultaneously, such as a shower and washing machine , can the m eter misread the usage to more than actual? The calibration could be off In any case, your departm ent's failures and confusion are obvious and may in and of themselves account for the overcharge. Please send me at least an email detailing th e adjustment you made to the con sumption, the water charge and the sewer charge and on the \ve b site correct the consumption history, the payment history (remove the adjustment from payment) and correct the current b ill to reflect the adjustment. I expect the total owed after the adjustment and more credit to be no more than 86.45. My consumption is 50 gallons a day at most. I will accept a maximum consumption of 8 units for 105 days . Going forward , I expect a maximum u seage based on 70 gallons per day at most. I am considering installing a meter on my own to doublecheck what I know to be a faulty or inconsistent city meter. I should not have to go to this expense , when I vigorously conserve water and live alone and went to the expense of obtaining nev\', high efficiency, water conserving appliances . In closing, WHY on earth has m y bill increased over 30% since 2012? The more I save the more it costs me . Please respond in writing to cadickers@ juno.com . Coween Dickerson 4·3 1age: 1 of 2 01I2812015 10:18 AM TO:l3037836894 PHONE, 1130~7815242 To: John Boch Recipient Information Company: Englewood Utilities Fax#: 3037836894 Sender Information From: C. Ann Dickerson Email address: cadickers@juno.com (from 66.233.180.123) Phone#: 3037815242 Sent on: Wednesday, January 28 2015 at 1: 17 PM EST FROM: C. Ann Dickerson ~~ffi®.com send a f n for free Urgent-pis address attached immediately. Besides being sick and coughing , my phone is acting up . In writing is best. Re spo nd to cadickers @juno .co m please . John Bock From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Coween, Thank you for the email. John Bock Wednesday, January 28, 2015 2:08 PM 'cadickers@juno .com ' RE : adjustment 2835 S. Pennsylvan ia The current balances on your account at 2835 S Pennsylvania St are as follows : Stormwater -$4 .16 Concrete Utility -$8.15 Sewer Charge -$61.58 Water Charge -$37.00 Total Charge = $110.89 The water charge was adjusted to approximate the same usage for the same time period as last year. ® The sewer charge is at the minimum as set forth in the Municipal Code . Sewer charges in the future will not be affected by the high meter reading because the billing system is programmed to select the lowest meter reading of the winter months. The present adjustments are all that we can do. They are either minimum charges or charges based on your past history. The unexplained high water usage is not anything a faulty water meter can cause . When water meters break down, they read low, not high . We can't remove the high water meter reading from the account record because future meter readings are always based on the previous meter readings. Hence, to maintain accuracy, that reading needs to remain . The primary reason for the increase in your bills since 2012 are sewer service rate increases of 4% that took place each year in 2013, 2014 and 2015 . John Bock Utilities Manager of Administration 303-762-2643 ibock@englewoodgov.org Fax 303 -783-6894 From: cadickers@juno .com [mailto:cadickers@juno .com ] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:21 AM To: John Bock Subject: adjustment 2835 S. Pennsylvania January 27 , 2015 1 t.j -s I John Boch Englewood Utilities Mr . Boch: I got your voicemail. My phone is acting up. I cannot hear and apparently cannot be heard easily, and my throat is sore. In any case , I don 't think there is much to dis cuss. You said you would adjust the bill. I have not seen the detail of that adjustment to the water charge and the sewer charge which is dependent on the water charge. A new bill is in order. It is not adequate or correct procedure to arbitrarily list the adjustment as a paym ent , while leaving the overcharge on the record (the website). I am entitled to a written detailed bill , but will accept an email from you detailing the reduction in the water charge and the subsequent reduction in the sewer charge. I requested an additional credit for the errors and stress this boondoogle (the excessive water useage bill, the letter re: flat rate and installation of a water meter on 10/1) has caused me. The additional credit is requested as recompense for your department 's obvious errors and rationalizations. The total owed should be reduced to at least 86.45. The rest of my fax offered possible scenarios based on the known facts and your statements, to account for the overcharge . I will offer one further possibility: if two water sources/appliances are used simultaneously, such as a shower and washing machine, can the meter misread the usage to more than actual? The calibration could be off. In any case, your department 's failures and confusion are obvious and may in and of themselves account for the overcharge . Please send me at least an email detailing the adjustment you made to the consumption, the water charge and the sewer charge and on the website correct the consumption history , the payment history (remove the adjustment from payment) and correct the current bill to reflect the adjustment. I expect the total owed after the adjustment and more credit to be no more than 86.45 . My consumption is 50 gallons a day at most. I will accept a maximum consumption of 8 units for 105 days. Going forward , I expect a maximum useage based on 70 gallons per day at most. I am considering installing a meter on my own to doublecheck what I know to be a faulty or inconsistent city meter. I should not have to go to this expense , when I vigorously conserve water and live alone and went to the expense of obtaining new, high efficiency, water conserving appliances. In closing, WHY on earth has my bill increased over 30% since 2012? The more I save the more it costs me. Please respond in writing to cadickers@ juno.com . Coween Dickerson The #1 Worst Carb Ever? Click to Learn #1 Carb that Kills Your Blood Sugar (Don't Eat This!) FixYourBloodSugar.com 2 4 -(., John Bock From: cadickers@juno.com Sent: To: Wednesday, January 28 , 2015 3:45 PM John Bock Subject: RE : adjustment 2835 S. Pennsylvania 1. You can and should remo ve the adjustment from the payment part and adjust the current bill to the amount below. If you cannot put in a meter reading to reflect the ending readin g there is something very wrong with your system. If you installed a new meter, you would have to do this , so you can and should adjust the usage. 2.Re your contention that when a meter starts failing , it runs slow, that is an assumption without basis in fact. Something caused the meter to speed up or was advanced by someone. 3. You failed to address the possibility that the calibration of the meter could be altered by demand, and 4. you failed to acknowledge the gross error/incompetence of your department regarding the meter test drive program letter I got. It concerns me greatly that my account/name got mixed up in this . Why? It calls into question the ability of your department to properly administer. 5. Additionally, the leak could not be in my house which you acknowledged , and if it was in the 20 ft to my house it would not have stopped . 6. You also have not addressed why the consistently high readings at my house when residences with far more usage have the same or lower per person readings than do I. 7. I cannot tell ifthe 61.58 sewer charge is truly the minimum. What are the winter months , and why does this seem higher than it was last year? Was not the minimum usage lower last year? Did you increase it? Why? Should not seniors who clearly are trying to conserve water get some kind of break? Your explanation on the increase does not "hold water", since the concrete charge has increased , as well as the cost of water. and a 4% inc for 4 yrs each does not ac count for the 35% increase . I still need and deserve an additional credit of $25 . ----------Original Message ---------- Hello Coween, Thank you for the email. The current balances on your account at 2835 S Pennsy lvania St are as follows: Storm water -$4 .16 Concrete Utility -$8.15 Sewer Charge -$61.58 Water Charge -$37.00 Total Charge = $110.89 1 Lf-7 John Bock Fr om : cadickers@juno.com Sent: To: Wednesday, January 28 , 2015 4:03 PM John Bock Su bject: RE: adjustment 2835 S. Pennsylvania I asked for the usage that resulted in the $37 charge . What usage did you use to get to 37 ? I think you could reduce that to 27 and be more accurate . Hello Coween , Thank you for the email. The current balances on your account at 2835 S Pennsylvania St are as follows: Stormwater -$4.16 Concrete Utility -$8.15 Sewer Charge -$61.58 Water Charge -$37 .00 Total Charge = $110.89 The water charge was adjusted to approximate the same usage for the same time period as last year. The sewer charge is at the minimum as set forth in the Municipal Code. Sewer charges in the future will not be affected by the high meter reading because the billing system is programmed to select the lowest meter reading of the winter months. The present adjustments are all that we can do. They are either minimum charges or charges based on your past history. The unexplained high water usage is not anything a faulty water meter can cause. When water meters break down, they read low, not high. We can 't remove the high water meter reading from the account record because future meter readings are always based on the previous meter readings . Hence , to maintain accuracy, that reading needs to remain. The primary reason for the increase in your bills sinc e 2012 are sewer service rate increases of 4% that took place each year in 2013 , 2014 and 2015. John Bock Utilities Manager of Administration 303 -762 -2643 jbock@englewoodgov.org Fax 303-783-6894 From: cadickers@juno.com [ mailto:cadickers @juno.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 28 , 2015 11 :21 AM 1 L/ -8 John Bock From: cadickers@juno.com Sent: To: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 4:24 PM John Bock Subject: Attachments: RE : adjustment 2835 S. Pennsylvania testmeterspsht01282015_0000.jpg; testmeter01282015_0000.jpg My apologies for misspelling your name. I have attached the weird concerning letter and most of the sprdsht I received on II 16 /2015. This is the 2nd time something this stupid has been addressed to me. I cannot help but feel there is so much confusion and disarray in your dept that mistakes are the rule and your system is not designed the best. In my prior life, I was an accountant and IT specialist and designer of accounting systems. Yours is not a good design. Please tell me how it is possible for my name and address got on the test meter program file and why the Inca address is attached to it. I've already heard the irrelevant and quite ignorant "reason" that "it got in the wrong envelope". I think you can agree, whether you will admit it, that this is an egregious error and bogus reason, but I do expect and deserve an explanation and an apology for the mistake. You need to train or get new employees who have a modicum of attention to detail. I deserve some credit for the trouble and confusion this has caused me. Again, I want $25 credit on account. ----------Original Message ---------- From: John Bock <jbock@ englewoodgov.org> To: "cadickers@juno.com" <cadickers @juno.com> Date : Wed, 28 Jan 2015 14:08:14 -0700 Subject: RE: adjustment 2835 S. Pennsylvania Hello Coween, Thank you for the email. The current balances on your account at 2835 S Pennsylvania St are as follows: Stormwater -$4.16 Concrete Utility -$8.15 Sewer Charge -$61.58 Water Charge -$37.00 Total Charge = $110.89 The water charge was adjusted to approximate the same usage for the same time period as last year. 1 John Bock From: John Bock Sent: To: Wednesday, January 28 , 2015 4:33 PM 'cad ickers@juno .com ' Subject: RE : adjustment 2835 S. Pennsylvania Hello Coween , I agree, the fact that you got the letter was a mistake and I apologize. The person who normally handles this project has been in Idaho since the end of December, taking care of her mother who had open heart surgery and she won't be back until the middle of February . At that time I plan on having her sort out what happened . We will get back to you tomorrow about the requests in your two preceding emails. John Bock Utilities Manager of Administration 303-762-2643 jbock@englewoodgov.org Fax 303-783-6894 From: cadickers@juno.com [mailto:cadickers@juno .com ] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 4 :24 PM To: John Bock Subject: RE: adjustment 2835 S. Pennsylvania My apologies for misspelling your name. I have attached the weird concerning letter and most of the sprdsht I received on 1/16 /2015. This is the 2nd time something this stupid has been addressed to me . I cannot help but feel there is so much confusion and disarray in your dept that mistakes are the rule and your sy stem is not designed the best. In my prior life , I was an accountant and IT specialist and designer of accounting systems . Yours is not a good design. Please tell me how it is possible for my name and address got on the test meter program file and why the Inca address is attached to it. I've already heard the irre le vant and quite ignorant "reason" that "it got in the wrong envelope". I think you can agree , whether you will ad m it it , that this is an egregious error and bogus reason, but I do expect and deserve an explanation and an apology for the mistake. You need to train or get new employees who have a modicum of attention to detail. I deserve some credit for the trouble and confusion this has caused me . Again, I want $25 credit on account. ----------Original Message ---------- From: John Bock <jbock@ englewoodgo v .org> To: "cadickers @ juno.com " <cadickers @ juno.com> Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2015 14:08:14 -0700 Subject: RE: adjustment 2835 S. Pennsylvania Hello Coween, Thank you for the email. 1 '-I -JO John Bock From: John Bock Sent: To: Thursday, January 29 , 2015 10:50 AM 'cadickers@juno .com ' Subject: Attachments: RE : adjustment 2835 S. Pennsylvania 2835 S Pennsylvan ia St Dickerson .pdf Hello Coween , Your situation was discussed w ith the department director, and it was determined that we have given you all that we consider reasonable as far as credits and considerations . If you wish to pursue this any further, you will need to appear before the Water and Sewer Board. Please call Cathy Burrage, the recording secretary for the Board, to be placed on the agenda at 303 -762-2636 . Also, I have attached a copy of your actual account as it appears in the billing system . John Bock Utilities Manager of Administration 303-762-2643 jbock@englewoodgov.org Fax 303-783-6894 From: cadickers@juno.com [mailto:cadickers@juno .com ] Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 4:24 PM To: John Bock Subject: RE: adjustment 2835 S. Pennsylvania My apologies for misspelling your name. I have attached the weird concerning letter and most of the sprdsht I received on 1/16/2015. This is the 2nd time something this stupid has been addressed to me. I cannot help but feel there is so much confusion and disarray in your dept that mistakes are the rule and your system is not designed the best. In my prior life , I was an accountant and IT specialist and designer of accountin g systems. Yours is not a good design . Please tell me how it is possible for m y name and ad d ress got on the test meter program file and why the Inca address is attached to it. I've already heard the irrelevant and quite ignorant "reason" that "it got in the wrong envelope". I think you can agree, whether you will admit it , that this is an egregious error and bogus reason, but I do expect and deserve an explanation and an apology for the mistake . You need to train or get new employees who have a modicum of attention to detail. I deserve some credit for the trouble and confusion this has caused me. Again, I want $25 credit on account. ----------Original Message ---------- From: John Bock <jbock @ englewoodgov.org> To : "cadickers @ juno.com" <cadickers @ juno .com> Date: Wed , 28 Jan 2015 14:08 :14 -0700 Subject: RE : adjustment 2835 S. Pennsylvania Hello Coween, 1 '1 -JI John Bock To: Subject: Hello Coween , cadicke rs@juno.com 2835 S Pennsylva ni a St. Here are the answers to your questions : You have failed to answer my questions regarding the act ual usage the bill was adjusted to be. The water charge of $37.00 presently on your account is based on your water usage for the same time last year, which is 8,000 gallons. 8 x $3.29 = $26.32. Add the administrative charge of $9.71 equals $36.03. Because the actual amount of water that went through the water mete r was quite large, the charge was increased to $37.00. You have failed to answer my questions regarding the "winter months " and the poss i bility of being overcharged on the sewer charge. The amount of the sewer charge is the minimum. In this case the winter water usage is low enough that it doesn't affect the charge. The sewer charge is listed as being billed in advance. Upon what basis have you determined that I should be charged over $61 when others with more usage have lower sewer charge bills . The sewer charge on this account is the minimum for everyone living inside the City of Englewood and not living in a sanitation district. The charge covers both wastewater treatment and maintenance of the sewer pipes that form the collection system. If a residence pays a lower minimum, it might be because they live in the sanitation district in the South Englewood Sanitation District where they pay for treatment but not for maintenance of the sewer pipes. Residents in this area pay the sanitation district for maintenance of the sewer pipes and not Englewood. You have failed to produce any facts to justify your positio n on water meter errors . The City of Englewood has owned and maintained many thousands of meter for many years. We communicate with other water providers who operate metered systems larger than ours, and work with meter suppliers in the industry. It is a well-established fact that as meters age and malfunction they fail to measure all that water that goes through them. You have failed to address why larger residences and larger families do not have proportionately larger bills and useage, and in some cases have the same usage as I. Most of Englewood's water and sewer accounts are metered, and these bills are based on actual consumption. There are still some flat rate accounts that possibly could have a lower overall bill on a meter. One of the meter readers said early in January that the me t er read 3000 gallons used in a week, which was "back to normal". That is hardly normal since that is more than I us e in a month, so the meter is still reading far too high. I want, no demand, someone come and with me , read the meter. There are days when I use less than a gallon of water and I want to make sure that the meter is not running when the re is no water use and how much it is reading when there is . A Field Service Technician did come to your home a service the water meter. The findings were discuss the situation with you. The Technician changed out the meter and verified that, at that time, there are no leaks at your home. The request that the consumption history be changed to reflect the adjusted consumption billed as $37.00 and that I be notified as to what that unit amount is. Because the meter register has been replaced, the meter reading on your account will be reset to 0. '-t -J2. The request that the current water bill be adjusted and not put in as a payment . The terminology seen on the City's payment web page is not the same as that in the secured, live billing system. At this time, the payment web page software lists any action to an account that reduces the balance as a payment. We have been asking the software vendor if we can change the word "Payment" to "Other." How the sewer charge on the December bill was calcula t ed. Was it based on the 51,000 gallons? The sewer charge on this account is the minimum. Minimum charges are applied when the meter reading falls below a certain threshold. Request to further reduce "units" by 2,000 gallons . Any further reductions in the water charges will be considered at the next normal meter reading cycle. If there is a significant departure from the historic usage and a leak can be located and repairs documented with receipts, another reduction will be considered (Englewood Municipal Code 12-10-3). Further variations from this process must be considered by the Water and Sewer Board. John Bock Utilities Manager of Administration 303-762-2643 jbock@englewoodgov.org Fax 303-783-6894 2 '-1-1.J Cathy Burrage From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Coween, John Bock Wednesday, February 04, 2015 4:23 PM cadickers@juno .com 2835 S Pennsylvania St. Here are the answers to your questions: You have failed to answer my questions regarding the actual usage the bill was adjusted to be. The water charge of $37.00 presently on your account is based on your water usage for the same time last year, which is 8,000 gallons. 8 x $3.29 = $26.32. Add the administrative charge of $9.71 equals $36.03. Because the actual amount of water that went through the water meter was quite large, the charge was increased to $37 .00. You have failed to answer my questions regarding the "w i nter months" and the possibility of being overcharged on the sewer charge . The amount of the sewer charge is the min i mum. In this case the winter water usage is low enough that it doesn't affect the charge. The sewer charge is listed as being billed in advance. Upon what basis have you determined that I should be charged over $61 when others with more usage have lower sewer charge bills . The sewer charge on this account is the minimum for everyone living inside the City of Englewood and not living in a sanitation district. The charge covers both wastewater treatment and maintenance of the sewer pipes that form the collection system. If a residence pays a lower minimum, it might be because they live in the sanitation district in the South Englewood Sanitation District where they pay for treatment but not for maintenance of the sewer pipes. Residents in this area pay the sanitation district for maintenance of the sewer pipes and not Englewood. You have failed to produce any facts to justify your position on water meter errors . The City of Englewood has owned and mainta i ned many thousands of meter for many years. We communicate with other water providers who operate metered systems larger than ours, and work with meter suppliers in the industry. It is a well-established fact that as meters age and malfunction they fail to measure all that water the goes through them. You have failed to address why larger residences and larger families do not have proportionately larger bills and useage, and in some cases have the same usage as I. Most of Englewood's water and sewer accounts are metered, and these bills are based on actual consumption. There are still some flat rate accounts that possibly could have a lower overall bill on a meter. One of the meter readers said early in January that the meter read 3000 gallons used in a week, which was "back to normal". That is hardly normal since that is more than I use in a month, so the meter is still reading far too high . I want, no demand, someone come and with me, read the meter. There are days when I use less than a gallon of water and I want to make sure that the meter is not running when there is no water use and how much it is reading when there is . A Field Service Technician did come to your home to service the water meter. The findings were discussed with you. The Technician changed out the meter and verified that, at that time, there are no leaks at your home. The request that the consumption history be changed to reflect the adjusted consumption b ille d as $37 .00 and that I be notified as to what that unit amount is. Because the meter register has been replaced, the meter reading on your account will be reset to 0. 1 '-1-l'i The request that the current water bill be adjusted and not put in as a payment . The terminology seen on the City's payment web page is not the same as that in the secured, live billing system. At this time, the payment web page software lists any action to an account that reduces the balance as a payment. We have been asking the software vendor if we can change the word "Payment" to "Other." How the sewer charge on the December b ill was calculated. Was it based on the 51,000 gallons? The sewer charge on this account is the minimum. Minimum charges are applied when the meter reading falls below a certain threshold. Request to further reduc e "un its" by 2,000 gallons . Any further reductions in the water charges will be considered at the next normal meter reading cycle. If there is a significant departure from the historic usage and a leak can be located and repairs documented with receipts, another reduction will be considered (Englewood Municipal Code 12-10-3}. Further variations from this process must be considered by the Water and Sewer Board. John Bock Util itie s Manager of Adm inistrati on 303 -762-2643 jbock@englewoodgov.org Fax 303-783-6894 2 4 -JS Cathy Burrage Fro m: John Bock Sen t: T o: Thursday, February OS, 2015 7:49 AM Cathy Burrage Subject: FW : 2835 S Pennsylvania St. John Bock Utilities Manager of Administration 303-762-2643 ibock@englewoodgov.org Fax 303-783-6894 From: cadickers@juno.com [mailto:cadickers@juno.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 6:30 PM To : John Bo ck Subject : Re : 2835 S Pennsylvania St . Thank you for replying. I still have questions and need to clarify or question some of your answers. I. I have seen actual water cycle billings (not flat rate) for this same time period that were lower than $61.xx. Where do I find in the code and/or on the bill the minimum charge that I was charged? 2.I have seen actual water cycle billings (not flat rate) for 2 person hsehold with 2 toilets that are less than .8 units and they make no effort to conserve, as do I. 3. I asked for the usage history shown on the websi te for the period ending 12/16 to be changed from 51 to 8 as calculated. When will that be done? 4. I was unaware of a 9. 71 charge added to the water bill. a. Where is that indicated on bill or in the code? I cannot find it on the back. b. Does that also mean that if I used NO water in a cycle that I would still be charged $9. 71? S. I have designed software in the past. I am aware that there are good, standard, existing software programs available that are more informative and better than I can see extant in what you have, which fails to account for a lot of the detail on your bill and/or what you state as the code governing the billing process. You need far more than just an "other" if you want proper accounting or at least a mirror of the bill. 6. I notified you that Randy Sims came out and verified that there were no leaks, even though the existing reader was defective and indicating leaks and had registered since the 362 reading of 12116 that 4 units had been used which was quite excessive for my actual usage. The problem apparently was the defective electronic reader, which was replaced 43 days after the last reading. Therefore, the meter was reading high still because of the defective electronics for over 43 days into the new billing. I will need an adjustment of 2 units on that defective excessive amount, based on my usage since the replacement (noted below). Leaks do not app l y in this case as the problem apparently was for the erroneous 51 units and the subsequent 4 units the defective electronic reader. 1 Lj -/~ I have been reading the meter after each major use (load of l a undry, showe r, dishwasher) and the readings, while only moving in 10 gallon amounts because the ending number is always 0, seems to be recording accurately. My washer uses a max of 10.5 gal per wash, depending on lo ad size. The dishwasher uses a max of 10 gallons. I time my sh owers which I do n ot take dai l y, at most every other day and I save the water in buckets to use for the toilet, because the 1.5 gal flush does not flush, so the water has been turned off for a year, so n o leaks and no more expensive sewer clog removals. When I read the meter between each load, shower, dw, the amounts metered were approximately what the consumption was supposed to be, within a gal or two as far as I could determine. Since the change out and verification by Randi of no leaks, I have done 4 l oads of laundry, 1 dw load, two s h owers, and less than 2 gal per day incidental u se, which I saved in buckets. The meter as of thi s morning read 220 gallons. That is the usage for 6 days including la udry which will not need to be done again for at least 2 weeks . The u sage for 6 days (220 gallons) is act ually high, because of th e extra l a undry, but is indicative of my usage since 12/16. The 4 units recorded by th e defective e lectronics (the needle jumped and indicated leaks before the changeout and now does not) is excessive. 6.Rounding up, my usage averaged 37 gl per day. Assuming the same u sage for the 43 days under the defective electronics, 37X 43 days = 1591 less than 2 units actually used. 4 units were metered, presumably erroneously given the facts of how the defective electronics behaved. That means a further adj u stment of 2 units in the n ext billing cycle is warranted. Please reply as soon as possible. I will keep documen ted my use and the corresponding meter reading. ----------Original Message ---------- From: John Bock <jbock @en2le \\'Ood2ov.onr> To: "cadickers@juno.com" <cadickers@juno.com> D ate: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:23:03 -0700 Subject: 2835 S Pennsylvania St. Hello Coween, Here are the a n swers to your questions: You have fai led to answer my questions regarding the actual usage the bill was adjusted to be. The water charge of $37.00 presently on your account is based on your water usage for the same time last year, which is 8,000 gallons. 8 x $3.29 = $26.32. Add the administrative charge of $9.71 equals $36.03. Because the actual amount of water that went through the water meter was quite large, the charge was increased to $37.00. 2 4 -17 You h ave fa il ed t o a nswer m y q ues ti ons regardin g th e "w in te r m onth s" and the possi bility of b ein g ov e rc h arge d on th e sewer ch arge. The amount of the sewer charge is the minimum. In this case the winter water usage is low enough that it doesn't affect the charge. T he sewer cha r ge is li ste d as be ing billed i n ad va nce . U p on wh at b as i s h ave yo u determi ned th at I should b e ch arge d ove r $6 1 whe n ot hers w ith m ore u sage h ave lower sewer ch arge b ill s . The sewer charge on this account is the minimum for everyone living inside the City of Englewood and not living in a sanitation district. The charge covers both wastewater treatment and maintenance of the sewer pipes that form the collection system. If a residence pays a lower minimum, it might be because they live in the sanitation district in the South Englewood Sanitation District where they pay for treatment but not for maintenance of the sewer pipes. Residents in this area pay the sanitation district for maintenance of the sewer pipes and not Englewood. Y ou h ave fa il ed t o pro du ce any facts to j us tify yo ur posi tio n on w at er m eter error s . The City of Englewood has owned and maintained many thousands of meter for many years. We communicate with other water providers \vho operate metered systems larger than ours, and work with meter suppliers in the industry. It is a well-established fact that as meters age and malfunction they fail to measure all that water the goes through them. Y ou h av e fa il ed to add ress wh y larger resi de nces and large r fa mili es d o not h ave pro porti onatel y l arge r bill s a nd useage , and i n so me c ases h ave th e sam e u sage as I. Most of Englewood's water and sewer a ccounts are metered, and these bills are based on actual consumption. There are still some flat rate accounts that possibly could have a lower overall bill on a meter. One of th e meter reade r s sai d earl y i n Janu ary that th e m e te r read 3000 gall on s u sed in a we ek , which w as "b ack t o norm al ". Th at i s h ardl y normal since th at is mo re th an I u se in a m onth , so th e m eter i s still rea din g far to o high . I want , no demand , someo ne c ome a nd with m e, read th e m eter. Th ere are days wh en I u se le ss than a g all on of wa te r and I want to m ake sure th at the meter is n ot runnin g w h e n th ere i s no water use and how mu ch it is readin g w he n there is. A Field Service Technician did come to your home to service the water meter. The findings were discussed with you. The Technician changed out the meter and verified that, at that time, there are no leaks at your home. 3 4 -18 The request that the consumption history be changed to reflect the adjusted consumption billed as $3 7 .00 and that I be notified as to what that un it amount is. Because the meter register has been replaced, the meter reading on your account will be reset to 0. The request that the current water bill be adjusted and not put in as a payment. The terminology seen on the City's payment web page is not the same as that in the secured, live billing system. At thi s time, the pay ment web page so ftware lists any action to an account that reduces the balance as a payment. We have been asking the software vendor if we can change the word "Payment" to "Other." How the sewer charge on the December bill was calcu lated. Was it based on the 51,000 gallons? The sewer charge on this account is the minimum. Minimum charges are applied when the meter reading falls below a certain threshold. R eq uest to further reduce "units" by 2,000 gallons. Any further reductions in the water charges will be considered at the next normal meter reading cycle. If there is a significant departure from the historic usage and a leak can be located and repairs documented with receipts, another reduction will be considered (Englewood Municipal Code 12-lD- 3 ). Further variations from this process must be considered by the Water and Sewer Board. John Bock Utilities Manager of Administration 303-762-2643 jbock@englewoodgov.org Fax 303 -783-6894 How Old Men Tighten Skin 63 Year Old Man Shares DIY Skin Tightening Method Yo u Can Do From Home healthyliv ingl ifegu ide.com 4 Created Date/Time: 01/29/2015 09:30 :53 AM Customer Number: 00002295 Account Number: 01005028355 Service Address: 2835 S PENNSYLVANIA ST Mailing Address: COWEEN DICKERSON 2835 S PENNSYLVANIA ST ENGLEWOOD CO 80113-1645 Customer/ Account Transaction History Trans Date Transaction 1/15/2015 0:00 Adjustment -Water Billing 1/1/2015 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 02/01/2015 11/13/2014 0:00 Water Balance Late Fee 10/28/2014 0:00 Payment -Tele Works 10/1/2014 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 11/01/2014 8/13/2014 0:00 Water Balance Late Fee 7 /31/2014 0 :00 Payment -TeleWorks 7 /1/2014 0:00 Cycle Billing Due : 08/01/2014 5/14/2014 0:00 Water Balance Late Fee 4/28/2014 0:00 Payment -Tele Works 4/1/2014 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 05/01/2014 2/13/2014 0:00 Water Balance Late Fee 2/5/2014 0:00 Payment -Tele Works 1/31/2014 0:00 Payment -Tele Works 1/1/2014 0 :00 Cycle Billing Due: 02/01/2014 De scription Water Billing Adjustment Cycle Billing Due: 02/01/2015 Out standing Water Balance Late Fee Payment-ThankYou Cycle Billing Due: 11/01/2014 Outstanding Water Balance Late Fee Payment -Thank You Cyc le Billing Due: 08/01/2014 Outstanding Water Balance Late Fee Payment -Thank You Cyc le Billing Due : 05/01/2014 Outstanding Water Balance Late Fee Pay m ent -Thank You Pay m ent -Thank You Cycle Billing Due: 02/01/2014 '-/-ZO Amount Balance ($153 .54) $110.89 $250.19 $264.43 $0 .35 $14.24 ($106.35) $13 .89 $106.35 $120.24 $0.34 $13.89 ($106.35) $13 .55 $106.35 $119.90 $0 .33 $13 .55 ($106.35) $13.22 $106.35 $119 .57 $0.32 $13.22 ($10.00) $12.90 ($106.35) $22 .90 $106.35 $129.25