BOARD MEETING AGENDAS
PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
JOINT MEETING OF THE PLATTE CANYON AND SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS
SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT SUBDISTRICT NO. 1
PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT SUBDISTRICT NO. 2
Regular Meetings of May 26, 2017 - 8:30 a.m. Platte Canyon/Southwest Metropolitan District Office 8739 W. Coal Mine Avenue Littleton, Colorado 80123
PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
Action Items
PCA.1 Approval of Agenda PCA.2 Approval/Ratification of Accounts Payable (tab 1) PCA.3 Ratification of Investment/Deposit Transactions (tab 2) PCA.4 Approval of a Professional Engineering Services Agreement with Dewberry Engineering, Inc. for Replacement/Rehabilitation of a 16-inch Steel Water Main in S. Sheridan Blvd. (tab 3) PCA.5 Approval of Resolution 2017-5-1 Authorizing the Condemnation of a .25 acre Parcel of Land Adjacent to the Scott J. Morse Pump Station (tab 4)
Information - Discussion Items
New Business
Adjournment
Page 1 JOINT MEETING – PLATTE CANYON/SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN
Action Items
JA.1 Approval of Agenda JA.2 Approval of Minutes for the April 21, 2017 Joint Special Meeting (tab 5)
Information - Discussion Items
JI.1 Platte Canyon Financial Statements (tab 6) JI.2 Southwest Metropolitan Financial Statements (tab 7) JI.3 Platte Canyon Investment/Deposit Report (tab 8) JI.4 Southwest Metropolitan Investment/Deposit Report (tab 9) JI.5 Manager’s Report (tab 10) JI.6 Operations Report (tab 11) JI.7 Construction Project Report (tab 12)
New Business
Meeting Schedule
The next meeting is scheduled for June 23, 2017.
SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
Action Items
SWMA.1 Approval of Agenda SWMA.2 Approval/Ratification of Accounts Payable (tab 13) SWMA.3 Ratification of Investment/Deposit Transactions (tab14)
Information - Discussion Items
New Business
Page 2 PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT SUBDISTRICT NO. 1
Action Items
PCSD1.A.1 Approval of Agenda PCSD1.A.2 Approval of Minutes for the November 18, 2016 Meeting (tab 15)
Information - Discussion Items
New Business
Meeting Schedule
The next meeting is scheduled for November 17, 2017.
PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT SUBDISTRICT NO. 2
Action Items
PCSD2.A.1 Approval of Agenda PCSD2.A.2 Approval of Minutes for the November 18, 2016 Meeting (tab 16)
Information - Discussion Items
New Business
Meeting Schedule
The next meeting is scheduled for November 17, 2017.
Page 3 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Checklist for the Month of May 2017
Ck. No. Payee Description Amount Net Amount
ACH Patrick Fitzgerald Payroll 5/5/17 $4,611.19 ACH Scott Hand Payroll 5/5/17 $2,360.09 ACH Bruce Yarish Payroll 5/5/17 $1,595.92 ACH Armando Quintana Payroll 5/5/17 $2,334.75 ACH John Mathias Payroll 5/5/17 $1,945.24 ACH Justin Roquemore Payroll 5/5/17 $1,601.83 ACH Cory Taylor Payroll 5/5/17 $1,366.41 ACH Michael Chavez Payroll 5/5/17 $1,414.07 ACH Alyssa Quinn Payroll 5/5/17 $1,835.14 ACH Barrie Brinkley Payroll 5/5/17 $1,219.61 ACH Vanessa Shipley Payroll 5/5/17 $1,891.70 ACH Tony Cocozzella Payroll 5/5/17 $2,430.98 ACH Cynthia Lane Payroll 5/5/17 $3,095.01 ACH Adam Morse Payroll 5/5/17 $1,122.75 ACH CCOERA 401/457 contributions & loan payments $8,409.16 EFTPS Electronic Federal Tax Payment FICA & Fwt $12,947.43 EFTPS Electronic State Tax Payment State Withholding $3,080.00
031141 Professional Answering Service Answering service $64.50 031142 First Choice Coffee Service Office supplies $65.95 031143 All Copy Products Office supplies $250.00 031144 Alphagraphics, Inc. Office supplies $162.94 031145 American Public Works Assn. Dues and subscriptions $320.00 031146 American Water Works Assn. Dues and subscriptions $196.00 031147 Bruce Yarish Professional development $192.00 031148 CenturyLink $664.53 Pump station telemetry 60.41 Backcharge SWM 543.71 Backcharge COL 60.41 031149 Cues Equipment maintenance $792.00 031150 Dewberry Engineers Inc. SJM Pump station maintenance $2,296.00 031151 Denver Water Maintenance supplies - sewer $1,186.16 031152 G&S Auto Parts, Inc. Vehicle maintenance $45.98 031153 W.W. Grainger, Inc. Maintenance supplies $414.72 031154 Scott Hand Medical deductible reimbursement $1,328.39 031155 High Country News Books and magazines $47.00 031156 Hydro Products Vehicle maintenance $650.00 031157 Integra Chemical Maintenance supplies $2,316.29 031158 EC Power Systems Equipment maintenance $109.89 031159 Jefferson County Risk Management Water contract - remedial $1,478.25 031160 Dana Kepner Co. Water maintenance and operation $1,116.27 031161 Lewan & Associates, Inc. Equipment maintenance $90.00 031162 City of Littleton Pump station utilities $127.80 031163 NASSCO, Inc. Dues and subscriptions $295.00 031164 North Star, Inc. Software management $468.00 031165 Sam's Club Office supplies $595.37 031166 Special District Association Professional development $30.00 031167 SOS Technologies Equipment maintenance $354.00 031168 Southwest Metro W&S District Building lease $600.00 031169 Utility Notification Center Utility notification $471.25 031170 Veribanc, Inc Books and magazines $432.00 031171 Vision Service Plan Vision insurance $348.43 W00374 Wells Fargo Remittance Center $1,441.34 Equipment maintenance 46.00 Maintenance supplies 768.00 Books and magazines 283.75 Dues and subscriptions 250.00 Office supplies 87.71 Backcharge SWM 5.88
TOTAL CHECKS/ACH PAID AS OF MAY 18, 2017 $72,211.34 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Supplemental Checklist for the Month of May 2017
Ck. No. Payee Description Amount Net Amount
ACH Patrick Fitzgerald Payroll 5/19/17 $4,584.11 ACH Scott Hand Payroll 5/19/17 $2,687.04 ACH Bruce Yarish Payroll 5/19/17 $1,602.95 ACH Armando Quintana Payroll 5/19/17 $2,504.34 ACH John Mathias Payroll 5/19/17 $2,470.69 ACH Justin Roquemore Payroll 5/19/17 $1,439.23 ACH Cory Taylor Payroll 5/19/17 $1,780.01 ACH Michael Chavez Payroll 5/19/17 $1,507.29 ACH Alyssa Quinn Payroll 5/19/17 $2,011.46 ACH Barrie Brinkley Payroll 5/19/17 $1,336.54 ACH Vanessa Shipley Payroll 5/19/17 $1,891.70 ACH Tony Cocozzella Payroll 5/19/17 $2,430.98 ACH Cynthia Lane Payroll 5/19/17 $3,095.01 ACH Adam Morse Payroll 5/19/17 $1,227.62 ACH CCOERA 401/457 contributions & loan payments $8,734.50 EFTPS Electronic Federal Tax Payment FICA & Fwt $13,923.16
031172 Anthony Dursey Director fee $92.35 031173 William Buckner Director fee $92.35 031174 Richard Rock Director fee $92.35 031175 Louis Fohn Director fee $92.35 031176 George E. Hamblin, Jr. Director fee $92.35
031177 American Furniture Warehouse Office Furniture $30,476.00 031178 All Copy Products Equipment maintenance $279.98 031179 Alyssa Quinn Professional development $79.06 031180 SPOK, Inc. Answering service $86.35 031181 CenturyLink Pump station telemetry $269.00 031182 Colorado Society of CPA's Dues and subscriptions $340.00 031183 Collins Cockrel & Cole Legal fees $7,402.50 031184 Englewood Lock & Safe Maintenance supplies $235.44 031185 Richard H. Cassens S. Morning Glory Ln. Replacement $4,660.00 031186 Scott Hand Vehicle maintenance - reimbursement $12.91 031187 Home Depot $3,172.62 Maintenance supplies 542.66 Office furniture 2,629.96 031188 EC Power Systems Equipment maintenance $95.45 031189 Cynthia Lane Dues and subscriptions - reimbursement $175.00 031190 Logic Integration, Inc. Office Furniture $927.27 031191 Merrick & Company, Inc. Engineering - GIS $5,005.50 031192 Operator Certification Program Professional development $85.00 031193 Operator Certification Program Professional development $85.00 031194 Staples Advantage Office supplies $767.76 031195 Pinnacol Assurance Workers comp $2,375.00 031196 U.S. Postal Service Postage $543.00 031197 BCS/Prosoft, Inc. Software management $43.75 031198 Cintas First Aid & Safety Office supplies $159.39 031199 Sprint Mobile phones $1,761.58 031200 Vision Service Plan Vision insurance $696.86 031201 William's Equipment Sewer maintenance and operation $7,500.00 031202 Xcel Energy Pump station utilities $614.33 W00375 AFLAC Employee accidental insurance $832.48 W00376 Delta Dental Plan of Colorado Dental insurance $1,570.96 W00377 United HealthCare of Colo. Medical insurance $17,389.46 W00378 UNUM Life Insurance Life and disability $1,559.83 W00379 WEX Bank Fuel expense $1,733.03
Total Supplemental Checks/ACH as of May 25, 2017 $144,622.89
TOTAL CHECKS/ACH PAID FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2017 $216,834.23 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Investment Principal Activity Month of: APRIL, 2017
Date Date of Number Face/ Face Purchase Purchased Purchased Redemption Purchased Maturity of Days Principal Rate Price Interest Yield Yield Totals (Wt. Avg.) (Wt. Avg.) (Wt. Avg.) (Wt. Avg.) (Wt. Avg.)
NEW PURCHASES
0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 -
Average days/Weighted average rate 0 0.0000% 0.0000 0.00 0.00 0.0000% Total new purchases $0.00 $0.00
REDEMPTIONS
0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Average days/Weighted average rate 0 0.0000% 0.0000 0.00 0.0000% Total redemptions $0.00 $0.00
RENEWALS
Fowler State Bank 04/03/17 04/03/18 365 100,000.00 1.0500% Solera National Bank 04/19/17 04/19/18 365 249,000.00 1.2500% 0 0
Total renewals $349,000.00
$0.00
NOTE: All redemptions are wired to checking account at Wells Fargo Bank West of Littleton or to the UMB Trust account. Canyon
TO: Board of Directors Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District
FROM: Tony Cocozzella
THROUGH: Pat Fitzgerald
DATE: May 19, 2017
SUBJECT: Replacement/rehabilitation of 800' of 16" Steel pipe in Sheridan Blvd. from W. Christensen Ln. to 800' south and 850' of 18" Steel pipe in S. Sheridan Blvd. from W. Coal Mine Ave. south to W. Ontario Ave. (CIP 18-IW and CIP 18-2W)
Requested Action: Approve and authorize execution of a professional engineering services agreement with Dewberry Engineers for the preparation of construction plans, specifications, contract documents and bid services for the replacement/rehabilitation of 800' of 16" Steel pipe in Sheridan Blvd. from W. Christensen Ln. to 800' south and 850' of 18" Steel pipe in S. Sheridan Blvd. from W. Coal Mine Ave. south to W. Ontario Ave.
Platte Canyons 2018 Capital Master Plan calls for replacement/rehabilitation of 800' of 16" Steel pipe in Sheridan Blvd. from W. Christensen Ln. to 800' south and 850' of 18" Steel pipe in S. Sheridan Blvd. from W. Coal Mine Ave. south to W. Ontario Ave.
Although this project is budgeted for 2018 some preliminary work is needed to ensure the contractor has access to the site. The proximity of the project is not in the traveled roadway but runs through back yards and on private property within an easement of varying widths. Temporary construction easements and advanced communication with customers will need to be established in advance of the design thus the preemptive request. A proposal has been received from Dewberry Engineers Inc. to conduct the design engineering and bidding services in the amount not to exceed $69,405.00. The District's 2017 budget allocates $58,239.99 for the requested main replacement/rehabilitation. An agreement for said services is attached hereto for Board of Director approval.
l~90W.3 eoa1 Mine Ave .• Littleton, Colorado 80123 • (303) 979-2333 • Fax (303) 933-1769 www.plattecanyon.org Agreement for Professional Services Projects CIP 18-lW and CIP 18-2W
Replace/rehabilitate 16-inch Steel pipe in S. Sheridan Blvd. from W. Christensen Ln. to 800-feet south and 18" Steel pipe in S. Sheridan Blvd. from W. Coal Mine Ave. south to W. Ontario Ave.
This agreement ("Agreement") is entered into this day of , 2017 by and between PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT, a quasi municipal corporation of the State of Colorado (hereinafter referred to as "District") and DEWBERRY ENGINEERS INC., a New York corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Consultant").
WITNESS ETH:
WHEREAS, the District desires professional engineering services for: (i) the preparation of construction plans, specifications and contract documents, and (ii) limited construction observation services for the replacement/rehabilitation of 800' of 16" Steel pipe in S. Sheridan Blvd. from W. Christensen Ln. to 800' south and 850' of 18" Steel pipe in S. Sheridan Blvd. from W. Coal Mine Ave. south to W. Ontario Ave.; and
WHEREAS, Consultant represents that it has the personnel and expertise to perform said professional enginee1ing services for the Distiict, and that is has performed similar services for the District and other public and private entities; and
WHEREAS, the District has determined to retain Consultant to perform the required services upon the terms and conditions specified hereinafter.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and promises hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed as follows:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant shall perform the services in the manner and locations as specified in the Project Approach which includes a Scope of Services; as attached hereto as Exhibit A (consisting of 6 pages) and made a part of this Agreement ("Services"). In the event of a conflict between Exhibit A and the text of this Agreement, the text of this Agreement shall control.
2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY DISTRICT
During this Project, the District will provide:
• Full access to all available as-constrncted engineering drawings
• Project Coordinator to coordinate District support for all engineering activities. 1oc{'©~~od>dJQJ.OOCX I 2} 1 • A representative to assist Consultant during field investigation activities.
Review comments from District staff and review agencies on construction drawings and specifications.
Attend joint meetings with regulatory agencies, municipalities, impacted property owners and other affected parties.
• Prepare any required temporary access, staging and storage easements.
During the construction phase of the Project the District will provide:
• Attendance at the preconstruction meeting.
• Assist with coordination with regulatory agencies and property owners.
• Approve or reject Consultant's recommendations for resolution of claims, disputes, and/or deviation from construction documents.
Attend construction progress meetings.
3. NOTICE TO PROCEED AND DATE OF COMPLETION OF SERVICES
The District will issue a Notice to Proceed with the Services upon execution of this Agreement and after the District has received Certificates of Insurance naming the District as an additional insured as required by paragraph 14 (Insurance) of this Agreement. All work required hereunder shall be completed in accordance with the Project Schedule; as attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part of this Agreement. Time is of the essence and Consultant's failure to meet any deadline set forth in this Agreement, including the Project Schedule, shall be cause for termination of this Agreement by District. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Agreement to the contrary, Consultant shall not be liable for delays caused by circumstances beyond its reasonable control.
4. CONSULTANT RESPONSIBILITY
The District shall not oversee the work of Consultant and approved subconsultants or instruct the Consultant and approved subconsultants on how to perform the Services. Consultant shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, timely completion and coordination of all plans, specifications, contract documents, and other services rendered.
Consultant is responsible for providing its own training and tools for performance of the Services. Without additional compensation, and without limiting the District's remedies, Consultant shall promptly remedy and correct any errors, omissions or other deficiencies in the Services. Consultant warrants that all Services performed under this Agreement shall be performed with the usual thoroughness and competence and in accordance with the standards of
2 care of Consultant's profession prevailing in Colorado.
If Consultant is called upon to observe the work of the District's Construction Contractor(s) for the detection of defects or deficiencies in such work, Consultant will not bear any responsibility or liability for such defects or deficiencies, unless Consultant fails to exercise reasonable care in the performance of such Services. Consultant agrees that the person or persons assigned to perform such work shall possess such degree of skill and experience as is acceptable to the District in its sole and absolute discretion.
The Consultant shall not have control over or charge of and shall not be responsible for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, or for safety precautions and programs in coordination with the work of each of the Contractors, since these are solely the Contractor(s) responsibility under the contract for construction between the District and Contractor. Consultant does not assume any responsibility or liability for the safety of persons or property as may be affected by construction work, or for compliance with federal, state or local statutes, rules, regulations and codes applicable to the conduct of the constmction work. The Contractor(s) shall remain solely responsible for constmction safety.
5. OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT
All printed material and electronic documents produced as a result of work performed under this Agreement shall be the sole property of the District and may not be used, sold, or disposed of in any manner without prior written approval of the District'srepresentative. All such work products shall be turned over to the District upon completion of the Project. Consultant may retain copies of all documents prepared under this Agreement.
6. COMPENSATION Consultant will be compensated on an hourly and material basis in accordance with Consultant's standard hourly rates as set forth in Exhibit C, as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Without the District's prior express written consent, total compensation to be paid to Consultant for Services rendered hereunder shall not exceed allocated as follows:
Task 1 -Preliminary Design $12,860.00
Task2-Fina1Design $49,735.00
Task 3 -Permitting Services $2,990.00
Task4-ServicesDuringBidding $3,820.00
Total $69,405.00
3 The fees include all costs associated with reproduction of reports and drawings. Payments shall be based on Consultant's verified progress in completing the Services. If District desires that Consultant perform additional design services, or if the District approves a change in the Services to be performed by Consultant, the terms under which said Services shall be provided and the compensation therefore shall be determined by way of supplemental Agreement.
Consultant will provide progress billings to be received by the District by the 10th day of each month for work accomplished through the last day of the preceding month. Documentation supporting charges for Services rendered, including an itemized list of personnel by name or position, hours, hourly rate, and daily amount charged, shall be submitted with each invoice. Costs billed for Services performed hereunder shall be in accordance with Consultant's hourly billing rate schedule attached hereto as Exhibit C. Each invoice will be paid within 30 days of verification.
Compensation for Consultant provided by this Agreement is entire and complete and Consultant has not received and will not receive any other compensation, fee, commission, or discount in connection with or relating to this Agreement. Consultant warrants that it has not paid or promised to pay any compensation, fee or commission to anyone (except District approved subconsultants, and Consultant officers and employees) in order to obtain this Agreement or to perform the work. It is understood and agreed that Consultant will contract with and pay directly all approved subcontractors or approved subconsultants retained by Consultant for any services, or portion thereof, to be performed under this Agreement.
7. INDEPENDENT ST ATVS
In providing Services, Consultant shall be for all purposes an independent contractor and not an employee or agent of the District. Consultant and its employees, and approved subcontractors and/or subconsultants, if any, shall in no way represent themselves to third parties as agents or employees of District.
8. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
8.1 Illegal Aliens. In performing this Agreement, Consultant and all subcontractors and subconsultants shall comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, including but not limited to all federal, state and local laws. By way of explanation and not limitation, Consultant certifies that Consultant shall comply with the provisions of § 8-17.5- 101, et seq., C.R.S. Consultant shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform Services under this Agreement, or enter into a contract with a subconsultant or subcontractor that knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien. Consultant represents, warrants and agrees that: (i) it has confirmed the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment to perform Services under this Agreement through participation in either the E-Verify Program or the Department Program described in§ 8-17.5- 101, C.R.S. Consultant shall not use either the E-Verify Program or the Department Program procedures to undertake pre-employment screening ofjob applicants while this Agreement is being performed. If the Consultant obtains actual know ledge that a subconsultant performing
4 Services under this Agreement knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, the Consultant shall: (i) notify the subconsultant and District within three (3) days that Consultant has actual knowledge that the subconsultant is employing or contracting with an illegal alien; (ii) terminate the subcontract with the subconsultant if within three (3) days ofreceiving such notice, the subconsultant does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien, unless the subconsultant provides information to establish that the subconsultant has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. Consultant shall comply with all reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If Consultant fails to comply with any requirement of§ 8-17.5-102(2), C.R.S., the District may terminate this Agreement for breach, and Consultant shall be liable for actual damages to District. If the Consultant participates in the Department Program, Consultant shall provide the affirmation required under§ 8-17.5-102(5) (c) (II), C.R.S. to the District.
9. COMMUNICATIONS
It is understood by District and Consultant that successful progress under this Agreement requires frequent, concise and documented communication between the Parties' representatives. District hereby designates Patrick Fitzgerald and Tony Cocozzella as the representatives who, acting either individually or collectively, shall give information to and receive information from Consultant. District may change its designated representatives or name additional representatives from time to time.
Consultant hereby designates Chad Weaver or any other employee of Consultant who performs Services under this Agreement, as its representative(s) who will give information to and receive information from District. Each designated representative shall have full authority to not only accept and receive information but also to accept notices, give approvals and to fully represent its respective Party for all purposes under this Agreement.
10. NO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OR WORI(ER'S COMPENSATION BENEFITS
Consultant is not entitled to unemployment insurance or workers' compensation benefits as a result of performance of the Services for the District. Consultant is required to provide workers' compensation and unemployment insurance benefits for its employees and/or subcontractors.
11. PAYMENT OF TAXES
Consultant is solely liable for any federal and state income and withholding taxes, unemployment taxes, FICA taxes, and workers' compensation payments and premiums applicable to this agreement or any Services provided. Consultant shall indemnify the District for any liability resulting from nonpayment of such taxes and sums.
12. ASSIGNMENT
Consultant may not assign this Agreement or any right or liability hereunder or enter into any subcontract hereunder or amendment thereto without prior written consent or approval of the District's representative.
5 13. INDEMNIFICATION
To the extent authorized by law, Consultant hereby expressly agrees to indemnify, save, and hold harmless the District, its directors, officers, agents, employees and insurers against any and all liability, loss, damage, demand, action, cause of action or expense of whatsoever kind or nature, including but not limited to damage for personal injury, property damage or financial loss of any kind (including court costs and attorney's fees) which may arise out of or that are in any way connected with Consultant's breach of this Agreement or any wrongful or negligent act, error, or omission of Consultant, its employees, agents, subconsultants, contractors, or assignees. This paragraph 13 shall survive termination of this Agreement.
Excluding its liability to third parties for bodily injury and property damage, and only if not covered by Consultant's insurance, the total aggregate liability of Consultant arising out of the performance or breach of this Agreement shall not exceed 1. 5 times the total compensation paid to Consultant under this Agreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Consultant and District shall have no liability to each other for contingent, consequential or indirect damages, including without limitation, damages for loss of use, revenue or profit, operating costs and facility down time, or other similar business interruption losses, however the same may be caused. The limitations and exclusion of liability set fOlih in this section shall apply regardless of the fault, breach of contract, tort (including negligence), strict liability or otherwise of Consultant or District or their respective subcontractors.
14. INSURANCE
Neither the Consultant nor any subconsultant, agent or employee shall commence any work under this Agreement until the following minimum insurance coverages are in full force and effect:
a. Workers Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance: Consultant and each subconsultant shall carry worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance to cover liability under the laws of the State of Colorado in connection with the work performed pursuant to this Agreement. A separate policy shall be carried by the Consultant and each subconsultant.
b. Commercial General Liability Insurance: Consultant and each subconsultant shall carry commercial general liability insure which shall include blanket contractual liability. Such insurance shall be in the minimum amount of $350,000 per person, $990,000 per occurrence, or a combined single limit of not less than $990,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.
c. Automobile Insurance: Consultant and each subconsultant shall carry automobile bodily injury and property damage liability insurance to include owned, non-owned, and hired vehicles, which are utilized in the performance of this agreement. Such insurance shall be in the minimum amount of $350,000 per person, 6 $990,000 per occurrence, or a combined single limit of not less than $990,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.
d . Professional Liability Insurance, Including Errors and Omissions Insurance: Consultant and each subconsultant shall carry professional liability insurance, including errors and omissions insurance. Such insurance shall be in the minimum amount of $1 ,000,000.
The required commercial general liability and automobile policies shall: ( 1) name the District as an additional insured for coverages only, with no premium payment obligation; (2) provide a cross liability/severability of interest clause; and (3) provide that coverage for the District will not be impaired by Consultant's failure to comply with any of the terms or condition of a policy.
The Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance (and renewals thereof), in a form acceptable to the District, identifying this Agreement and demonstrating that required coverages have been obtained. Consultant shall not allow any subconsultant, agent or employee to commence work until the appropriate certificates of insurance have been obtained and approved by the District. The coverages specified in the certificates of insurance shall not be terminated, or reduced, without providing at least thirty (30) days prior written notice to the District.
15. ACCEPTANCE NOT WAIVER
District's approval of studies, drawings, designs, plans, specifications , reports, computer programs and other work or materials shall not in any way relieve Consultant of responsibility for the technical accuracy of the Services prescribed herein. District's approval or acceptance of, or payment for, any Services shall not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising out of the performance of this Agreement.
16. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION
Distlict reserves the exclusive right to terminate or suspend all or any portion of the Services described herein by giving fourteen ( 14) days written notice to the Consultant. lfany portion of the Project shall be terminated or suspended, the District shall pay Consultant equitably for all Services properly performed pursuant to this Agreement. If the Project is suspended and Consultant is not given an order to resume work within sixty (60) days from the effective date of the suspension, this Agreement will be consider terminated. Upon termination, Consultant shall immediately deliver to the District any documents then in existence that have been prepared by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement. Unless sooner terminated in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph 16, this Agreement shall remain in effect until the Services are fully performed , at which time the Agreement shall terminate and be of no further force and effect, except as to those provisions which expressly survive termination including but not limited to paragraphs 5 and 13 .
17. COLORADO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT
7 The parties hereto understand and agree that the District is relying upon, and has not waived, the monetary limitations of $350,000 per person, $990,000 per occurrence and all other rights, immunities and protection provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. 24-10-101, et.seq.
18. NOTICE
All notices required or given under this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be deemed effective: (a) when delivered personally to the other party; or (b) seven days after posting in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, properly addressed as follows; or ( c) when sent by facsimile transmission and receipt is confirmed by return facsimile transmission.
If to the Consultant: Chad Weaver Project Manager Dewberry Engineers Inc. 990 South Broadway, Suite 400 Denver, Colorado 80209
If to the District: Patrick Fitzgerald District Manager Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District 8739 W. Coal Mine Ave. Littleton, CO 80123
19. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
This Agreement is intended to benefit only the parties and neither subcontractors nor suppliers of Consultant nor any other person or entity is intended by the parties to be third party beneficiary of this Agreement.
20. DEFAULT
Every term and condition of this Agreement shall be deemed to be a material element of this Agreement. In the event either party shall fail or refuse to perform according to the material terms of this Agreement, such party may be declared in default by the other party by a written notice.
21. GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of Colorado.
22. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the District and Consultant and replaces all p for written or oral agreements and understandings. It may be altered, amended, or
8 repealed only by a duly executed written instrument.
23. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Agreement shall be effective in accordance with its terms as of the date it is signed by appropriate representatives of the parties hereto.
24. INTERPRETATION If there is any uncertainty in the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement, all of the provisions of this Agreement shall be construed on the basis that all parties hereto assisted in the drafting and finalization hereof
25. SEVERABILITY
The terms of this Agreement are severable. If any term of this Agreement is found to be unlawful, the remaining terms shall remain in full force and effect, and the parties agree to negotiate a substitute teml of equivalent value or effect.
26. SPECIAL DISTRICT ACT
This Agreement is made under and is conformable to all the requirements imposed by law upon a special district operating in the State of Colorado, including but not limited to the Colorado Special District Act, Section 32-1-101, C.R.S., et seq. Insofar as applicable, the Special District Act and any other provision of law pursuant to which the District operates shall supersede any apparently conflicting provisions otherwise contained in this Agreement.
[REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK]
{oos~004.B6dx1'2DOCX I 2} 9 THEREFORE, the parties have executed this Agreement. This Agreement must have the signature of an authorized person from Consultant on both original copies.
PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT
By: Richard Rock, President
Attest:
William Buckner, Secretary
DEWBERRY ENGINEERS INC., a New York Corporation
Attest:
Name: t21..J l..Jec;.. ue r Title: Asr~,.,,.-e.
{[email protected];.E>JOCX I 2} 10 EXHIBIT A
Dewbe·ry E'lg.'lee'.s lr.c. 303.925.1802 I Dewberry· 990 SoJ'. r Broadway, SL·i:e 400 303.925.2322 fax Derver, CO 90209 www.dewbe~·y.cori
April 26, 2017
Mr. Tony Cocozzella Project Coordinator Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District 8739 W. Coal Mine Ave. Littleton, CO 80123
RE: 2018 Capital Improvement Projects CIP 18-1W and 18-2W Engineering Design Proposal
Dear Mr. Cocozzella:
The Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District (District) has requested Dewberry Engineers Inc. (Dewberry) provide this proposal for professional engineering services for the District's 2018 Capital ImprO\·ements Projects CIP 18-1W and 18-2W. The project consists of rehabilitating or replacing the following existing water mains.
• Segment 1: 800 feet of 16-inch diameter steel pipe extending from the intersection of S. Sheridan Blvd and W. Christensen Lane to 800 feet south. This water main resides in a 20-foot wide permanent easement and traverses a single property owner. • Segment 2: 850 feet of 18-inch diameter steel pipe from the intersection of S. Sheridan Blvd and W. Coal Main Ave south to W. Ontario Ave. This water main resides in a 50-foot wide permanent easement.
The scope of work consists of design, permitting, bidding, and easement acquisition support.
Design and easement acquisitions are to be completed in 2017. Construction is scheduled to commence in early 2018.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The District has prepared a preliminary project work plan that describes the project background, preliminary activities performed, and objectives.
The existing water mains are located in unpaved areas that are partially surrounded by homes. Maintenance access is highly constrained. The District's concern is that failure of these water mains could potentially damage homes in close vicinity to the utilities.
The District performed preliminary evaluation of rehabilitation or replacement options and provided the following information.
• Open-cut is considered the least desirable method and may be difficult to achieve • Pipe bursting was considered, however, there is concern that the upsize may risk disturbing the ground surface and impacting landscaping and fencing • Slip lining using CIPP is not a Denver Water approved method of potable water mains. Other slip lining technologies may be considered pending Denver Water approval, the existing pipe geometry, fittings, and appurtenances, access considerations, and other parameters.
The District reported that Denver Water has recently completed hydraulic modeling of this area and has determined that downsizing the water mains to 12-inch diameter would be acceptable to maintain service, system pressures, and meet demands.
Page 1of6 Mr. Tony Cocozzella 2018 Capital Improvement Projects CIP 18-1W and 18-2W Engineering Design Proposal April 26, 2017
The work will require reconnecting to the existing water mains and re-establishing tum-outs. There is an existing 8-inch diameter connection at S. Yates Court sening the Estates at Fox Haven Subdivision. Construction access to the sites are constrained. Temporary customer outages are anticipated.
The existing water mains are located in existing easements. Additional temporary construction easements or access agreements may be necessary to facilitate the improvements.
Design will require Denver Water plan submittal review and approval. The design review documents are to include a cover sheet, general notes (Denver Water and the District), water only sheet, overall utility sheet, and detail sheet. Drav.ings are to conform to Denver Water Capital Project Submittal requirements for a streamlined plan review (minimum AutoCAD requirements, no fees for review or inspection). Denver Water requiresAutoCAD compliant as-builts and GPS data with appropriate attribute data.
The water mains are located just within the jurisdictional boundary of Jefferson County and adjacent to, but outside of, Arapahoe County. Dewberry's proposal assumes that the work will be limited to within Jefferson County and will require Jefferson County approval for grading, erosion, and sediment control permitting.
SCOPE OF WORK
Dewberry proposes the following scope of work.
TASK 1.0 - PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Task 1.1 - Kickoff Meeting. Hold project kickoff meeting at the District's office with core team members and stakeholders. Establish team communications and common understanding of the project objectives. Review project scope and confirm if there are any changes. Discuss approach, key issues, risks, assumptions, and schedule. Discuss and acquire available records and data. Address questions to begin moving forward with project execution. Prepare and distribute agenda and meeting minutes.
Task 1.2 -Field Reconnaissance. Conduct field reconnaissance at the kickoff meeting and periodically during the course of the work as necessary. Contact and coordinate with property owners for access to District easements. Examine the corridor and field conditions, identify site constraints, above grade utility markings, and smface features, correlate field information against record drawings, and identify key issues to support and advance design activities and in achie\ing project objectives.
Task 1.3 -Alternative Analysis. Develop and perform an alternative analysis of rehabilitation and replacement options. Research and evaluate water main rehabilitation technologies. Prepare preliminary alignment for alternative replacements. Prepare a technical memorandum documenting the following topics. • Existing conditions • Establish design criteria • Identify connection locations, sizes, and materials • Evaluate new pipe materials • Evaluate rehabilitation alternatives • Evaluate replacement alternatives • Establish a comparative assessment and review matrix • Prepare AACE Class 4 construction cost estimate of two options • Identify and evaluate easement requirements • Identify construction permit requirements • Provide recommendation and construction schedule
I Dewberry· Page 2 of 6 Mr. Tony Cocozzella 2018 Capital Improvement Projects CIP 18·1W and 18-2W Engineering Design Proposal April 26, 2017
Dewberry will submit the draft technical memorandum to the District for review. We will then hold a follow-up workshop with the District to discuss findings and recommendations. Dewberry will document the meeting minutes and finalize the technical memorandum before proceeding with final design.
TASK 2.0 - FINAL DESIGN
Task 2.1 - Survey. Contingent upon the selected alternatives, Dewberry will perform a design survey of the project corridor to the limits described as follows.
• Segment 1: 800 feet of 16-inch diameter steel pipe in S. Sheridan Blvd; Survey so-foot width centered along the existing water main. Survey into rights-of-ways to pick up connection points. • Segment 2: 850 feet of 18-inch diameter steel pipe in S. Sheridan Blvd; Survey so-foot width centered along the existing water main. Survey into rights-of-ways to pick up connection points.
Contact and obtain permission from all impacted property owners to perform the field survey work. Reconnaissance of pertinent property corners, land section comers, and NGS control monumentation and establish horizontal and vertical control based on District datum. Set a minimum of two permanent control points. Establish property boundaries and right-of-way lines from public records including assessor's records, deeds, subdivision plats, land survey plats, section monument records, and road right of-way/county commissioner road petitions. Survey existing above-ground features such as roadways, sidewalks, curbs, building structures, utility structures, parking lots, driveways, utility boxes, utility poles, trees, and bushes. Determine property ownership information from public records. Perform office calculations and boundary line analysis and determine platted right-of-way, property lines, existing easements, and placement of control points. Prepare 1-foot contours topographic map and identify all existing features in relation to land section lines, right-of-way, property lines, and easement lines.
Call-in a utility locate ticket(s) from the Utility Notification Center of Colorado (UNCC) to determine Tier One and Tier Two utility providers in the area. UNCC does not provide utility locating sen.ices for engineering projects. We assume that District staff will locate and mark waterlines within the project area. Review of District GIS mapping indicates there is no existing sanitary sewer crossing or within either project area. We will survey storm sewer invert and rim elevations and identify pipe materials and sizes .. Our surveying scope of work includes a professional third-party private utility locator to locate other underground utilities including electric, gas, and communications. We will acquire utility owner mapping and locate, field mark, and survey above and underground utilities. The locating and surveying of water, sewer, and gas service lines is not included.
Surve)ing pothole locations to improve accuracy in design.
Develop the survey base map in AutoCAD format.
Task 2.2 - Subsurface Utility Investigations. Perform up to ten (10) potholes. We haYe assumed five Cs) potholes performed in asphalt and five (S) potholes performed in dirt. We have included allowances for permitting, traffic control, and surface restoration fees from Jefferson County and Arapahoe County. Dewberry will prepare a pothole plan map to manage this task, meet with the potholer in the field to coordinate and physically mark pothole locations, and will survey the final pothole marks.
Task 2.3 - Final Design Drawings. Develop construction drawings at the 60-percent, 90-percent, and 100-percent completion levels. Dewberry anticipates preparing the following twenty-one (21) drawings assuming rehabilitation is the selected alternative. Open-cut replacement may increase the necessary level of effort and number and type of drawings.
• Two (2) general sheets
I Dewberry· Page 3 of 6 Mr. Tony Cocozzella 2018 Capital Improvement Projects CIP 18-1W and 18-2W Engineering Design Proposal April 26, 2017
• One (1) civil / site plan • Two (2) civil / plan and profile sheets • Two (2) civil / connection detail sheets • Four (4) civil detail sheets • Six (6) erosion control sheets (cover, site plans, and details)
Task 2.4 - Final Design Specifications. Develop and submit construction specifications at the 60- percent, 90-percent, and 100-percent completion levels. Prepare bid form and measurement and payment specification and submit with the 90-percent and 100-percent completion levels. Incorporate the District's standard front-end procurement and contracting requirement specification sections (referred to as Division oo) into the 90-percent and 100-percent completion levels.
Task 2.5 - Construction Cost Estimates. Prepare engineer's opinion of probable construction cost estimates at the 90-percent and 100-percent design completion levels.
Task 2.6 - Design Review Meetings. Hold design rffiiew meetings at the 60-percent and 90-percent design completion levels at the District's office. Discuss and coordinate on design issues and costs, discuss alternatives, address questions, and receive direction. Prepare and distribute meeting agenda and minutes.
Task 2.7 - Easement Acquisition Support. Derive and delineate proposed new easement boundaries, if necessary, to facilitate the work of the selected alternative. Prepare up to four (4) legal descriptions for acquisition of temporary construction or permanent easements. Prepare up to four (4) letter agreements for use between the District and property owner for temporary access across private property.
Dewberl)·'s proposal does not include real estate or legal services with respect to the easement deed language, easement valuations/appraisals, and property owner coordination and negotiations. Dewberry can subcontract to an outside consultant for these services as an additional task.
TASK 3.0 - PERMITl1NG SERVICES
Task 3.1 - Denver Water Plan Review. Prepare and submit construction documents to Denver Water for plan review and approval. Drawings to conform to Denver Water Capital Project Submittal requirements for a streamlined plan review.
Task 3.2 - Jefferson County Review. Prepare and submit Notice of Intent and supporting documents to Jefferson County for review and approval assuming disturbances of the selected improvements in Jefferson County fall between 5,000 square feet and 1 acre.
TASK 4.0 - SERVICES DURING BIDDING
Task 4.1 - Bidding Support. Perform the following services during bidding.
• Support advertising the project in media for potential bidders and suppliers. • Assist with electronic distribution of construction documents. No hard copies will be furnished to potential bidders. • Assist in responding to bidder questions and in interpreting the construction drawings and specifications. • Hold a pre-bid meeting. • Prepare and distribute pre-bid meeting agenda and minutes. Prepare and issue bid addenda as required. This proposal assumes up to two bid addenda will be issued. • Attend the bid opening.
I Dewberry· Page 4 of 6 Mr. Tony Cocozzella 2018 Capital Improvement Projects GIP 18-1W and 18-2W Engineering Design Proposal April 26, 2017
• Evaluate bids and provide recommendation of award to the District
DELIVERABLES
Deliverables will consist of three hard copies (11x17 half-size for drawings) and Adobe@ pdf format files at each milestone. Dewberry will sign and seal the final documents for bidding once accepted by the District.
Dewberry will deliver the following documents:
• Alternative analysis and technical memorandum • 60-percent completed drawings and technical specifications and cost estimate • go-percent completed drawings and specifications and cost estimate • 100-percent completed drawings and specifications and cost estimate • Denver Water plan review application and supporting documents • Jefferson County GESC Notice of Intent application and supporting documents • Bid-ready construction documents • Bid addenda • Bid Evaluation and Recommendation of Award
DISTRICT REsPONSIBILITIES
Dewberry's proposal is based on the following District responsibilities:
• Furnishing available record drawings of existing utilities • Location of District owned water lines • Furnishing Division oo, procurement and contracting requirement specifications • Obtaining permissions or rights-of-entries for project team to access District easements that traverse private properties • Payment of permit fees • Payment of media fees to advertise bidding of the project
SERVICES NOT INCLUDED
The following services are not included in this scope of work.
• Existing pipeline condition assessment • Locating and surveying water, sewer, and gas line services • Title researches • Geotechnical consulting services • Environmental consulting services • Arapahoe County and SEMSWA permitting • Engineering services during construction • Real estate and legal services with respect to the easement deed, easement valuations, and property owner coordination and negotiations
I Dewberry- Page 5 of6 EXHIBI B
Mr. Tony Cocozzella 2018 Capital Improvement Projects GIP 18-1W and 18-2W Engineering Design Proposal April 26, 2017
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Dewberry proposes the project schedule in Table 1 based on a Notice to Proceed date of May 15, 2017.
Table l P ro1ect. Sche d ue l Milestone Completion Date
Notice to Proceed Mav l!'i. 201? Alternative Analysis and TM - Draft Julv 13, 2017 60% Design Sentember 14, 2017 90% Design October 26 2017 100% Desiim November 2'.l, 2017 Permit Aoolications November 10 2017 Bidding December 18, 2017 through Februaiv 9. 2018
COMPENSATION
Dewbeny's total Not-to-Exceed cost for this scope of work is $69,405.00. Table 2 is a breakdown of our engineering fees. Terms and conditions are in accordance with the District and Dewberry On-Call Agreement. Additional services will not be performed without prior authorization from the District.
Dewberry sincerely appreciates the opportunity to offer and provide our services to the District on this very important project. Please do not hesitate to contact Chad Weaver at [email protected] or at 303-951-0643 should you have any questions.
Sincerely, Dewberry Engineers Inc. ~~ Chad Weaver, PE Associate
Attachments Table 1 Dewberry Fee Breakdown
~ Dewberry · Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT C
Table I Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District Capi1al lmprovcmenrs Projecl (CJP) 18-1\V and 18-2W Dcwbeny Fee Breakdown
Subconsutl•nt5
Colorado ENG . . Precision ENG '; I E NGlfl C· D l ech L Adm II Ulilil/ Tuk Task Oesi;ription Tote1Coa1 Sur.e y Oi1ect C'lat& lat ·>r Cod Tctal Hours F'lnCus El llllng Rale fl 'houri Sur'.'flylni Poth..1ling 160 s ,.. • 100 I 120 $ so Task 1.0 Prallmln11ry O.s~n 1.1 Kickoff f lHting t,060 1,01 0 1.2 F~ld Re tonna i~ "'8Rce 2,600 ·~ ' 2,600 20 1.3 ;. Jtemati· e Analysis 9,200 100 9 ,100 ,. 16 12 32 12 Bublot.I 12,110 ' 150 12,710 102 22 22 .. 12 THk;!.O Final Oetign 2 1 Sur e ying end U1dit)' l .-:.atmg 7,185 fi ,61>5 400 2.2 Polho!ing (10 pothl;lf") ',620 s 1,250 6.200 1.170 10 4 2.3 FiNI Oe:..ign Ot.a•·ings Ul,H!O 500 18,660 150 2• 40 so' 2.4 Fintl Oe•lgn Spi. ;ifiution• 7,100 200 6 ,YM .. 10 40 25 Conatruciion Cost E1tim1lH 1,010 1,010 2 2.6 Oe1~n Re "'" · l.1ee1ine• (2 meetings) 2,1-'0 100 2,020 16 2.7 Ea!U!:m.tnl Ar·.;ui"iil • n SUJ,..11Jr1 { ~ klgaJ•) A,.U:O 1,520 2 ,940 2• 12 12 Subtctal 40,735 0,485 6,200 800 $ 33,170 280 18 12 110
T.. k 3.0 Permllting ServlcH 3.1 Den -tr \ ~ler 1,«140 100 1,S40 14 3.2 J•ffern n Cou~J 1,"'-50 100 1,250 l2 Subta t111.I 2,HD s 200 2,700 ,. ..
Tu k 4.0 ServlcH Ourln9 Bidding 4.1 Bidding Suppon 3,i;i;,u 3.?20 32 12 ,. Subtctal 3,8'0 ' 3,120 32 12 .. Olli 69,405 • . PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT ARAPAHOE AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DETERMINING THE NECESSITY OF THE ACQUISITION OF A PARCEL OF LAND AND RELATED ACCESS EASEMENT BY NEGOTIATION OR THROUGH THE DISTRICT’S POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPANDING THE DISTRICT’S EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL STORAGE CAPACITY AT THE SCOTT J. MORSE WATER PUMP STATION WHEREAS, the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District (“District”) is a quasi- municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado operating pursuant to the provisions of Section 32-1-101, et. seq., C.R.S., the Special District Act; and WHEREAS, the District provides potable water and sanitary sewer service to persons and property located within its territorial boundaries; and WHEREAS, the District has recently completed the renovation of the Scott J. Morse Water Pump Station (“Pump Station”) and, in connection therewith, requires an additional equipment and material storage area (“Storage Area”) for the Pump Station and for the District’s water and sanitary sewer service operations, generally; and WHEREAS, the District has identified a parcel of land (“Property”) and related access easement (“Easement”) required for the Storage Area. The Property and the Easement, respectively, are more particularly described and depicted on Exhibit A (consisting of two pages) and Exhibit B (consisting of two pages), both of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 32-1-1006 (1)(f), C.R.S., the District is authorized to exercise the power of eminent domain and dominant eminent domain to take property necessary to the exercise of its powers in accordance with the provisions of Section 38-1-101, et seq., C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the District hereby finds and determines that it is necessary to acquire the Property and the Easement by negotiation or, if necessary, through the District’s exercise of its power of eminent domain; and WHEREAS, the Board intends to comply with the applicable provisions of Section 38-1- 101, et seq., C.R.S. including, but not limited to, the notice and good faith negotiation requirements thereof. {00566094.DOC / } NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District in the Counties of Arapahoe and Jefferson, State of Colorado, that: Section 1. Notice of Intent. Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 38-1-121(1), C.R.S., that the District intends to acquire the Property and the Easement, which are more particularly described and depicted on Exhibits A and B, by negotiation or, if necessary, by eminent domain. Section 2. Determination of Necessity. The Board hereby finds and determines that the acquisition of the Property and the Easement, including immediate possession thereof, is necessary for the purpose of conducting the District’s water and sanitary sewer service operations and is necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the District. Section 3. Authorization of Condemnation. In the event that the District is unable to acquire the Property and the Easement through good faith negotiations, the District’s attorney, or an attorney designated by the District’s Board, is hereby authorized and directed to acquire the Property and the Easement by the exercise of the District’s power of eminent domain and to obtain Court orders for immediate possession of the Property and the Easement, if necessary. Section 4. Severability. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution is, for any reason, held to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective and enforced immediately upon its approval by the Board. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this _____ day of May, 2017. PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT By: Richard Rock, President Attest: Louis J. Fohn, Secretary {00566094.DOC / } 2 EXHIBIT A 1 of 2 1/2017 EXHIBIT A 2 of 2 BNDR PROPERTY TO BE LEGEND Y EXISTINGDW ACQUIRED PROP EXHIBIT B 1 of 2 EXHIBIT B 1/2017 LEGEND EASEMENT TO BE ACQUIRED BNDRY EXISTING DW PROP 2 of 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF JOINT SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT AND PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT1 Friday April 21, 2017 Jefferson County, Colorado A special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District (“Southwest”) and the Board of Directors of the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District (“Platte Canyon”) convened on Friday, April 21, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. in the Districts’ office located at 8739 West Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123. The meeting was convened in lieu of the Boards’ April 28, 2017 joint regular meeting which was canceled. Although jointly conducted, a portion of the meeting pertained solely to one District or the other and, accordingly, at times only the vote of one Board or the other was required. The following Southwest Directors were in attendance, to-wit: Anthony M. Dursey Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. George E. Hamblin, Jr. Chuck Hause Bernard J. Sebastian, Jr. The following Platte Canyon Directors were in attendance, to wit: William Buckner Anthony M. Dursey Louis J. Fohn George E. Hamblin, Jr. Richard Rock 1 and each District’s Water and Sanitary Sewer Activity Enterprise. {00562465.DOCX / } RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The following Platte Canyon staff members were in attendance: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, manager; Vanessa Shipley, financial administrator; Scott Hand, operations supervisor; Tony Cocozzella, construction, plan review and special projects coordinator; and Alyssa Quinn, administrative assistant.2 Also in attendance were: Richard H. Cassens, from ENS Consulting, LLC, Platte Canyon’s consulting engineer; and Timothy J. Flynn, from Collins Cockrel & Cole, P.C., legal counsel for both Districts. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Director Anthony M. Dursey, who presided as Chair. SOUTHWEST ACTION ITEMS 1. Approval of Southwest Agenda. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Southwest Director Sebastian and seconded by Southwest Director Hause to approve the Southwest agenda, as presented. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board, and the vote was as follows: Anthony M. Dursey Aye Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian, Jr. Aye 2. Southwest Accounts Payable. The Boards reviewed a list and supplemental list of Southwest vouchers paid (checks under $2,500) and payable for the month of April 2017, in the aggregate amount of $145,047.41, represented by Southwest check numbers 18683 through 18712, inclusive, including two electronic fund transfers in payment of Xcel Energy bills. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Southwest Director Sebastian and seconded by Southwest Director Hause to ratify, approve, and confirm the vouchers paid and payable, as presented, and to authorize Southwest Directors to execute checks in 2 Southwest has no employees. The above-named personnel are Platte Canyon employees who, pursuant to contract with Platte Canyon, provide management, operation and maintenance services for Southwest. {00562465.DOCX / } 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS payment of the payables. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board, and the vote was as follows: Anthony M. Dursey Aye Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian, Jr. Aye 3. Southwest Investment/Deposit Transaction Report. The Boards reviewed the Schedule of Investment Principal Activity for Southwest for the month of March 2017, which reflects the following transactions: (a) New Purchases. No treasury notes or agency securities were purchased by Southwest during the month; (b) Redemptions. No investment securities matured, or were redeemed, or sold by Southwest during the month; (c) Renewals. No Certificates of Deposit were renewed or rolled over during the month. At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion was made by Southwest Director Sebastian and seconded by Southwest Director Hause to accept the Southwest Investment Principal Activity Report for the month of March 2017. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board, and the vote was as follows: Anthony M. Dursey Aye Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian Aye 4. Adoption of Resolution Ratifying, Approving and Amending the Rates, Fees and Charges of Southwest. The manager explained that Denver Water is now requiring that water tap permits for fire lines serving commercial properties and multi- family residential buildings be accompanied with engineering plans showing the size, tap location and configuration of the fire line between the tap and the building. In addition, Southwest requires that a no-fee tap fire permit be issued before plans are submitted to Denver Water. {00562465.DOCX / } 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS In order to process these water tap permits for fire lines, Southwest incurs a number of costs for which the District staff is proposing a uniform Fire Line Tap Processing and Inspection Fee of $500. That fee is incorporated into Resolution 2017-4- 1, which was reviewed by the manager. At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion to adopt Resolution 2017-4-1 as presented was made by Southwest Director Hause and seconded by Southwest Director Sebastian. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board, and the vote was as follows: Anthony M. Dursey Aye Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian Aye 5. Approval of On-Call Engineering Services Agreement with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. To obtain additional expertise for the purpose of enhancing the Southwest’s water and sanitary sewer systems, Southwest requested a General Professional Engineering Services Agreement from Dewberry Engineers, Inc. Under the Agreement, Dewberry Engineers will basically be on-call to conduct general engineering services from time to time, based on a specific scope of work and a written direction to proceed. The proposed Agreement authorizes an expenditure with Dewberry Engineers during calendar year 2017 for engineering services in an amount not to exceed $30,000. This new proposed Agreement will increase the flexibility and capability of Southwest to request engineering services from Dewberry Engineers, Inc. on an as and when needed basis. Following a general discussion, a motion to approve the proposed Agreement with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. and to authorize its execution by appropriate officers of Southwest was made by Southwest Director Hause and seconded by Southwest Director Sebastian. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board, and the vote was as follows: Anthony M. Dursey Aye Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian Aye {00562465.DOCX / } 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The manager noted that in order to initiate work under the Agreement, the District plans to issue various work orders to Dewberry Engineers as and when needed. 6. Approval of Water Connection Agreement with Columbine Water and Sanitation District. At last month’s meeting, Southwest adopted a Resolution to Include the 100-acre farm property known as the Wild Plum Farm contingent upon certain conditions precedent being satisfied, one of which was entering into a water connection agreement with the Columbine Water and Sanitation District. The manager reviewed a proposed form of agreement which authorizes Southwest to make a connection to Columbine’s water distribution system in Fairway Lane at a point to be mutually agreed upon by Columbine and Southwest. Southwest will own and be responsible for the maintenance of the connection and both parties will have the right to operate a valve that connects the two systems. The interconnection of the two systems will benefit both Districts and, in particular, the Wild Plum Farm Subdivision. Based upon the manager’s recommendation and at the conclusion of the discussion, a motion was made by Southwest Director Hause and seconded by Southwest Director Hamblin to approve the Water Connection Agreement and to authorize its execution by appropriate officers of Southwest. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board, and the vote was as follows: Anthony M. Dursey Aye Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian Aye 7. Approval of Engineering Services Agreement with ENS Consulting, LLC. The manager reviewed a proposed form of engineering services agreement with ENS Consulting, LLC for engineering design and bid services for the West Peakview Avenue and South Wadsworth Boulevard 10” asbestos cement water main abandonment and intersection pipe reconfiguration project in the Woodmar Corners Subdivision. The proposed contract price shall not exceed $8,000 without Southwest’s prior written approval. At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion was made by Southwest Director Hause and seconded by Southwest Director Sebastian to approve the engineering services agreement with ENS Consulting, LLC, and authorize appropriate officers of Southwest to {00562465.DOCX / } 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS execute the same. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board, and the vote was as follows: Anthony M. Dursey Aye Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian Aye 8. Approval of Agreement with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. for Engineering Design and Bid Services for Replacement of Three Variable Frequency Drives at the Hogback Water Pump Station. Scott Hand discussed the need, due to technology changes and the complicated nature of the equipment involved, for consulting engineering services to assist Southwest in replacing the three variable frequency drives at the Hogback Water Pump Station, which drives regulate the pumps so that adequate and consistent water pressure is maintained throughout that segment of Southwest’s water distribution system. He and the manager then reviewed engineering services agreement with Dewberry Engineers pursuant to which Dewberry will provide design and bid services for the Project. The proposed agreement with Dewberry Engineers is for an amount not to exceed $11,780. At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion was made by Southwest Director Hause and seconded by Southwest Director Sebastian to approve the Agreement and authorize its execution by appropriate officers of Southwest. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board, and the vote was as follows: Anthony M. Dursey Aye Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian Aye SOUTHWEST INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS There were no information or discussion items to come before the Southwest Board. SOUTHWEST NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Southwest Board. {00562465.DOCX / } 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS JOINT PARTICIPATION PORTION OF THE MEETING Southwest Director Anthony M. Dursey continued to act as Chair for the joint participation portion of the meeting. JOINT MEETING ACTION ITEMS 1. Approval of Joint Meeting Agenda. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Southwest Director Hamblin and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Buckner to approve, as presented, the agenda for the joint participation portion of the meeting. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board and the vote was as follows: Anthony M. Dursey Aye Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian Aye The Chair then called for a vote of the Platte Canyon Board, and the vote was as follows: William Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Boards’ March 24, 2017 Joint Regular Meeting. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Platte Canyon Director Rock and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Buckner to approve, as written, the minutes of the Boards’ March 24, 2017, joint regular meeting. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board, and the vote was as follows: Anthony M. Dursey Aye Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian Aye {00562465.DOCX / } 7 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The Chair then called for a vote of the Platte Canyon Board, and the vote was as follows: William Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye The approved minutes of the Boards’ March 24, 2017 joint regular meeting were then presented to the members of each Board for signature as further evidence of ratification, confirmation, and approval. JOINT MEETING INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Financial Matters. (a) Platte Canyon Financial Statements. The following unaudited Platte Canyon financial statements, prepared by Vanessa Shipley for the three-month period ending March 31, 2017, were presented to the Boards: (i) Statement of Net Assets, dated March 31, 2017, showing Platte Canyon’s Assets, Liabilities, and Net Assets; (ii) Statement of Revenue, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets for the three-month period ending March 31, 2017; (iii) Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures – Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to Annual Budget for the three-month period ending March 31, 2017; and (iv) Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures – Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to CM/YTD Budget for the three-month period ending March 31, 2017. As part of her review, Vanessa Shipley highlighted those financial statement line items that varied from the adopted budget or that were higher or lower than originally anticipated for this time of the year. At the conclusion of her review, a motion was made by Platte Canyon Director Buckner and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Rock to accept the Platte Canyon Financial Statements as presented. The Chair called for a vote of the Platte Canyon Board, and the vote was as follows: {00562465.DOCX / } 8 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS William Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye (b) Southwest Financial Statements. The following unaudited Southwest financial statements prepared by Vanessa Shipley for the three-month period ending March 31, 2017 were presented to the Boards: (i) Statement of Net Assets, dated March 31, 2017, showing Southwest’s Assets, Liabilities, and Net Assets; (ii) Statement of Revenue, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets for the three-year month period ending March 31, 2017; (iii) Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures – Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to Annual Budget for the three-month period ending March 31, 2017; and (iv) Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures – Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to CM/YTD Budget for the three-month period ending March 31, 2017. Following Vanessa Shipley’s review during which she again noted the various line items that varied from Southwest’s adopted Budget, a motion was made by Southwest Director Sebastian and seconded by Southwest Director Hamblin to accept the Southwest Financial Statements, as presented. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board, and the vote was as follows: Anthony M. Dursey Aye Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian Aye (c) Platte Canyon Investment/Deposit Report. The Boards reviewed a list of Platte Canyon’s investments in U.S. Government treasury notes, agency securities, certificates of deposit, and money market funds, together with a report showing the funds Platte Canyon has in approved state depositories and authorized {00562465.DOCX / } 9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS investment pools. As of March 31, 2017, Platte Canyon’s investments and deposits totaled $10,586,807.81, itemized as follows: Description Amount Percentage Checking $113,775.06 1.07% Certificates of Deposit $994,000.00 9.39% ColoTrust-Prime $0.00 0.00% ColoTrust-Plus $3,027,573.20 28.60% ColoTrust-Trust Account $464,161.38 4.38% Treasury Bills $0.00 0.00% Treasury Notes $999,697.85 9.44% U.S. Government Agencies and $4,987,600.32 47.11% Instrumentalities TOTAL $10,586,807.81 100.00% The average yield on Platte Canyon’s investments for the month of March 2017, as calculated by staff, was 1.2202% per annum. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Platte Canyon Director Rock and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Fohn to accept the Platte Canyon Schedule of Deposits and Investments, as presented. The Chair called for a vote of the Platte Canyon Board, and the vote was as follows: William Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye (d) Southwest Investment/Deposit Report. The Boards reviewed a list of Southwest’s investments in U.S. Government treasury notes, agency securities, certificates of deposit, and money market funds, together with a report showing the funds Southwest has in approved state depositories and authorized investment pools. As of March 31, 2017, Southwest’s investments and deposits totaled $24,714,481.89, itemized as follows: {00562465.DOCX / } 10 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Description Amount Percentage Checking $1,960.49 0.01% Certificates of Deposit $2,341,537.80 9.47% ColoTrust-Prime $0.00 0.00% ColoTrust-Plus $2,530,617.11 10.24% ColoTrust-Trust Account $3,775,298.27 15.28% Treasury Bills $0.00 0.00% Treasury Notes $6,024,604.68 24.38% U.S. Government Agencies and $10,040,463.54 40.63% Instrumentalities TOTAL $24,714,481.89 100.00% The average yield on Southwest’s investments for the month of March 2017, as calculated by staff, was 1.7941% per annum. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Southwest Director Sebastian and seconded by Southwest Director Hause to accept the Southwest Schedule of Deposits and Investments, as presented. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board, and the vote was as follows: Anthony M. Dursey Aye Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian Aye 2. Manager’s Information Report. The manager reviewed the Manager’s Information Report, dated April 2017, a copy of which was previously provided to both Boards. As part of his report, the manager highlighted the following matters: (a) Personnel Matters. The new Platte Canyon assistant manager, Cynthia Lane, has been working for approximately two weeks and everything appears to be going very well. The assistant manager could not be in attendance at today’s joint Board meeting because of a prior commitment. She will be in attendance at the Boards’ May 26, 2017 meeting. (b) Acquisition of Additional Property Adjacent to Scott J. Morse Water Pump Station. Platte Canyon remains interested in acquiring additional property currently owned by Denver Water and located adjacent to the Scott J. Morse Water Pump {00562465.DOCX / } 11 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Station in order to store materials and supplies. Denver Water will not declare this property surplus until after Platte Canyon has filed a Condemnation Petition. The manager noted that legal counsel is working with attorneys at Denver Water to initiate a condemnation action as a way of complying with Jefferson County’s Subdivision Regulations. The resolution to authorize condemnation will be presented to the Platte Canyon Board at its May meeting. (c) Southwest/Platte Canyon Office Remodel Project. Alyssa Quinn reviewed the office remodel project which is complete, with the exception of the installation of the bathroom partitions and some minor punchlist items. A recently completed walk-through identified certain punchlist items that are in the process, or which have been, completed. Southwest will complete the installation of the bathroom partitions and will deduct the cost of that work from Genterro’s retainage under Genterro’s contract. Overall, Alyssa Quinn felt the Project went well and Southwest is satisfied with the end result, although it took longer than anticipated to complete the Project. (d) Valley Sanitation District Sanitary Sewer Outfall Line. The third and final information meeting on the Valley Sanitation District Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Line was conducted by Platte Canyon staff and Valley Sanitation District representatives on April 12, 2017. The manager reported that the information meetings went well, and that approximately 100 people from the Valley Sanitation District have attended the presentations put on by Platte Canyon to support the relocation of the sanitary sewer line and, in particular, the financing that will be needed for the Project. Platte Canyon’s assistant manager is in charge of obtaining a low interest rate loan for the Project from the Colorado Water Resource and Power Development Authority. The pre- application process for the loan was initiated this week. It is anticipated that a TABOR election will be held in November 2017 for the purpose of authorizing voter authorization to borrow the funds necessary to complete the Project. 3. Operations and Maintenance Summary Report. Scott Hand reviewed the Operations and Maintenance Summary Report for March 2017. For the March reporting period, neither Platte Canyon nor Southwest had any sanitary sewer service interruptions. Platte Canyon experienced one water service interruption at 8936 West Bowles Avenue on March 30, 2017. This was a break caused by electrolysis on a 4” fire tapping valve. It was ultimately determined that in addition to a leak at the valve, there is a leak on the fire line. The owner has been notified that it is his responsibility to fix the line, but to date, the owner, who is located out of state, has been slow to respond. {00562465.DOCX / } 12 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS During the month, C&L Water Solutions completed four Platte Canyon valve repairs and three in Southwest. These remedial repairs are conducted on a routine basis and scheduled as needed, based on budgeted funds. During the month, various training sessions were conducted. In addition, Tony Cocozzella and Scott Hand attended a stakeholder meeting at Denver Water’s Water Quality Laboratory on March 9, 2017. Denver Water continues its efforts to involve Distributors in its operations and relationships and Mr. Hand is very pleased with Denver Water’s efforts. Further, all Platte Canyon Operations staff attended a Pressure Reducing Valve Workshop held at the Platte Canyon/Southwest office building on March 1, 2017. This was a very informative workshop that was beneficial to all of those who attended. 4. Construction Project Report. Tony Cocozzella reviewed with both Boards the Capital Projects Information and Construction Status Report for both Platte Canyon and Southwest. The Report updated the Boards as to the status of all on-going Platte Canyon and Southwest projects, including developer and District-specific projects. The Report also addressed those projects that are in design-phase at the present time. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the joint participation portion of the meeting. The next joint regular meeting of the Boards is scheduled for Friday, May 26, 2017 in the Districts’ offices located at 8739 West Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123. PLATTE CANYON ACTION ITEMS CALL TO ORDER The Platte Canyon Action Items portion of the joint special meeting was called to order by Platte Canyon Director Richard Rock, who presided as Chair. 1. Approval of Platte Canyon Agenda. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Platte Canyon Director Buckner and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Fohn to approve, as presented, the Platte Canyon agenda. The Chair called for a vote of the Platte Canyon Board, and the vote was as follows: William Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye {00562465.DOCX / } 13 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Richard Rock Aye 2. Platte Canyon Accounts Payable. The Boards reviewed a list and supplemental list of Platte Canyon vouchers paid and payable for the month of April 2017, in the aggregate amount of $209,146.09, represented by Platte Canyon check nos. 31085 through 31140, inclusive, together with various electronic payments for employee salaries, utility payments, and other authorized electronic fund payment vendors approved for electronic ACH payments. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Platte Canyon Director Dursey and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Hamblin to: (a) ratify, approve, and confirm all checks written and all electronic fund transfers occurring since the Platte Canyon March 24, 2017 joint regular meeting, including all checks written by the manager for less than $2,500.00; and (b) approve for payment the payables presented to the Platte Canyon Board at this meeting, which motion included authority for Platte Canyon Directors to execute checks in payment thereof. The Chair called for a vote of the Platte Canyon Board, and the vote was as follows: William Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye 3. Platte Canyon Investment/Deposit Transaction Report. The Boards reviewed the schedule of investment principal activity for Platte Canyon for the month of March 2017, which reflects the following transactions: (a) New Purchases. No treasury notes or agency securities were purchased by Platte Canyon during the month; (b) Redemptions. No investment securities were redeemed or sold by Platte Canyon during the month; and (c) Renewals. No certificates of deposit were renewed or rolled over during the month. At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion was made by Platte Canyon Director Fohn and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Buckner to accept the Platte Canyon Investment Principal Activity Report for the month of March 2017. The Chair called for a vote of the Platte Canyon Board, and the vote was as follows: {00562465.DOCX / } 14 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS William Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye 4. Adoption of Resolution Ratifying, Approving and Amending the Rates, Fees and Charges of Platte Canyon for 2017. The manager, as he had done earlier, explained that Denver Water is now requiring that water tap permits for fire lines serving commercial properties and multi-family residential buildings be accompanied with engineering plans showing the size, tap and configuration of the fire line. In addition, Platte Canyon requires that a no tap fee fire permit be issued before plans are submitted to Denver Water. In order to process these tap permits for fire lines, Platte Canyon incurs a number of costs for which staff is proposing a Fire Line Tap Processing and Inspection Fee in the amount of $500. The fee is incorporated into Resolution 2017-4-1, which was reviewed by the manager. At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion to adopt Resolution 2017- 4-1 as presented was made by Platte Canyon Director Fohn and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Buckner. The Chair called for a vote of the Platte Canyon Board, and the vote was as follows: William Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye 5. Approval of On-Call Engineering Services Agreement with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. For the same reasons as discussed earlier in the case of Southwest, a proposed form of general professional engineering services agreement with Dewberry Engineers, Inc. was presented to the Platte Canyon Board. Under the proposed Agreement, Dewberry Engineers will be on call to perform general engineering services from time to time as requested by Platte Canyon based on a specific scope of work and direction to proceed. The proposed Agreement authorizes an expenditure for the balance of calendar year 2017 for engineering services from Dewberry Engineers, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $30,000. The Agreement will increase the flexibility and capability of Platte Canyon to request engineering services from Dewberry Engineers as and when needed. {00562465.DOCX / } 15 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion to approve the Agreement and authorize its execution by appropriate officers of Platte Canyon was made by Platte Canyon Director Dursey and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Fohn. The Chair called for a vote of the Platte Canyon Board, and the vote was as follows: William Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye 6. Approval of Award of Construction Contract for Normandy Estates Sewer Main Rehabilitation Project. Rich Cassens reviewed with the Platte Canyon Board the bids that were received for the cured-in-place lining of approximately 7,339 linear feet of 8” concrete pipe, 1,431 linear feet of 10” pipe, 145 service connections and 39 manholes in the Normandy Estates Subdivision. The low bidder was Insituform Technologies, LLC in the amount of $296,910. Following a general discussion and based upon the engineer’s recommendation, a motion was made by Platte Canyon Director Dursey and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Buckner to award a construction contract to Insituform Technologies for an amount not to exceed $296,910. The Chair called for a vote of the Platte Canyon Board, and the vote was as follows: William Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye The motion included authorization for an appropriate officer of Platte Canyon to issue a Notice of Award and to execute the contract documents. 7. Consent to Transfer of Platte Canyon’s Interest in a Sanitary Sewer Pipe, Ownership of Which is Shared with the Roxborough Water and Sanitation District. The manager explained that Platte Canyon had previously executed a consent to transfer of its interest in a sanitary sewer pipe line owned by Platte Canyon and Roxborough Water and Sanitation District to the City of Littleton, however, Littleton ultimately refused to accept ownership of that portion of the pipe located within certain Army Corps of Engineers property that contained an unacceptable provision to Littleton. {00562465.DOCX / } 16 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Roxborough has since agreed to retain sole ownership of the proportion of the pipe that is within the Army Corps of Engineers property. A new form of consent is now being requested by Roxborough to transfer the portions of the pipe located outside of CORP property to the City of Littleton. At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion to approve the consent to transfer of shared pipe and to authorize its execution by appropriate officers of Platte Canyon was made by Platte Canyon Director Dursey and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Buckner. The Chair called for a vote of the Platte Canyon Board, and the vote was as follows: William Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye PLATTE CANYON INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS There were no Platte Canyon information or discussion items to come before the Platte Canyon Board. PLATTE CANYON NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Platte Canyon Board. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this joint regular meeting of the Southwest and Platte Canyon Boards, a motion to adjourn was made by Platte Canyon Director Fohn and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Buckner. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board, and the vote was as follows: Anthony M. Dursey Aye Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian Aye The Chair then called for a vote of the Platte Canyon Board, and the vote was as follows: William Buckner Aye {00562465.DOCX / } 17 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye Whereupon, this joint special meeting of the Southwest and Platte Canyon Boards of Directors adjourned at approximately 9:50 a.m. The next joint regular meeting of the Boards will be held on Friday, May 26, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. in the Districts’ office, located at 8739 West Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123. Respectfully submitted, Timothy J. Flynn, Recording Secretary {00562465.DOCX / } 18 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS THE MINUTES OF THIS JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT ARE HEREBY RATIFIED, CONFIRMED AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUALS WHO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SAID DISTRICTS, WAIVE ANY AND ALL NOTICE THAT MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE STATUTES OF THE STATE OF COLORADO PERTAINING TO THE CONVENING AND THE CONDUCTING OF THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE DISTRICT’S BOARD OF DIRECTORS; AND THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CONSENT TO THE SAID MEETING BEING HELD ON THE DATE, AT THE TIME AND AT THE PLACE AS HEREINABOVE SET FORTH. SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN PLATTE CANYON WATER AND WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT SANITATION DISTRICT Anthony M. Dursey William D. Buckner Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Anthony M. Dursey George E. Hamblin, Jr. Louis J. Fohn Chuck Hause George E. Hamblin, Jr. Bernard J. Sebastian, Jr. Richard Rock {00562465.DOCX / } 19 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Statement of Net Assets April 30, 2017 ASSETS CURRENT ASSETS Cash - Checking $253,728.25 Petty Cash 150.00 Certificates of Deposit 994,000.00 Investments 6,000,000.00 Fair Market Value Adjustment (67,991.33) ColoTrust Plus Account 2,880,025.49 ColoTrust - Trust Account 463,994.13 Cash County Treasury 265,554.96 Accounts Receivable 50,525.73 Prepaid Insurance 51,178.93 Accrued Interest Receivable 23,749.29 Deferred Interest (12,164.55) Total current assets 10,902,750.90 OTHER ASSETS Prepaid Lease (Office/Maint. Building) 360,474.34 Total other assets 360,474.34 CAPITAL ASSETS Land 5,000.00 Mains, Plant Equip. Sewer 9,339,930.27 Mains, Plant Equip. Water 12,183,094.09 Maintenance Equipment 1,447,427.94 District Office Equipment 250,574.55 Software 122,137.79 Pump Station 274,240.16 Construction in Process 1,225,419.90 24,847,824.70 Accumulated Depreciation (14,848,187.25) Total capital assets $9,999,637.45 TOTAL ASSETS $21,262,862.69 UNAUDITED 1 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Statement of Net Assets April 30, 2017 LIABILITIES & NET ASSETS CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $31,093.68 Salaries Payable 46,249.32 Vacation & Sick Leave Payable 83,981.81 Merit Payable 217,226.50 Colorado Withholding Payable (14,799.10) CCOERA Contributions Payable 16,270.10 Payroll deductions (75.79) Total current liabilities 379,946.52 NET ASSETS Net Assets - Beginning of Year Invested in capital assets 9,835,551.32 Restricted 89,500.00 Unrestricted 10,473,753.79 Change in net assets - current year 446,872.21 TOTAL NET ASSETS $20,845,677.32 2 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Statement of Revenue, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets For the Four Months Ending April 30, 2017 OPERATING REVENUE Sewer Transmission Revenue $1,290.00 Contract Maintenance 351,760.39 Total operating revenue $353,050.39 OPERATING EXPENSES Wages $347,844.95 Payroll Taxes 24,121.27 CCOERA Retirement 21,507.97 Personnel Insurance 88,878.61 Communications 5,047.51 Equipment & Vehicles 33,241.13 Insurance 14,246.40 Maintenance Supplies 10,288.71 Depreciation 197,230.68 Office Expenses 41,800.31 Public Relations 3,057.25 Audits 7,000.00 Consulting 11,016.00 Engineering Fees - GIS 10,719.63 Legal Fees 8,953.50 Software Management 11,406.56 Miscellaneous 1,949.84 Sewer Maintenance & Operation 340.93 Utility Notification - sewer 627.84 Water Maintenance & Operation 2,883.85 Pump Station Maintenance & Operation 3,331.19 Water Contract Emergencies 11,389.40 Water Contract Remedial 19,109.68 Utility Notification - water 627.86 Repair and maint - Office/Maint Bldg 6,526.27 Office/Maint Building lease amortization 5,153.48 Direct billed expenses 5.88 Total operating expenses 888,306.70 (LOSS) FROM OPERATIONS (535,256.31) NONOPERATING REVENUE Tax Revenue 949,154.09 Net Investment Income 41,930.91 Miscellaneous Income 1,644.90 Total nonoperating revenue 992,729.90 NONOPERATING EXPENSES Treasurer's Fees 13,601.38 Total nonoperating expenses 13,601.38 INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CONTRIBUTIONS 443,872.21 CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS Tap fees 3,000.00 Total capital contributions 3,000.00 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS 446,872.21 NET ASSETS - BEGINNING OF YEAR 20,398,805.11 NET ASSETS - ENDING $20,845,677.32 3 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures - Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to Annual Budget For the Four Months Ending April 30, 2017 CURRENT YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL VARIANCE MONTH ACTUAL BUDGET Favorable (Unfavorable) REVENUE Taxes $269,437.32 $949,154.09 $1,383,122.00 ($433,967.91) Contract Maintenance 109,883.91 351,760.39 1,230,472.00 (878,711.61) Sewer Transmission Fees 1,290.00 2,580.00 (1,290.00) Tap Fees - Sewer 1,000.00 3,000.00 19,000.00 (16,000.00) Miscellaneous 300.00 1,644.90 1,500.00 144.90 Net Investment Income 10,727.02 41,930.91 105,260.00 (63,329.09) TOTAL REVENUE $391,348.25 $1,348,780.29 $2,741,934.00 ($1,393,153.71) OPERATING EXPENDITURES PERSONNEL Wages $89,739.91 $347,844.95 $1,146,450.00 $798,605.05 Payroll Taxes 6,925.12 24,121.27 91,145.00 67,023.73 CCOERA Retirement 6,387.31 21,507.97 89,135.00 67,627.03 Personnel Insurance 22,837.64 88,878.61 306,150.00 217,271.39 COMMUNICATIONS Communications 1,660.00 5,047.51 20,300.00 15,252.49 VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT Vehicles & Equipment 5,520.38 33,241.13 88,500.00 55,258.87 INSURANCE Insurance 3,563.81 14,246.40 48,550.00 34,303.60 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 6,165.86 10,288.71 25,500.00 15,211.29 OFFICE EXPENSES Office Expenses 15,576.98 41,800.31 92,360.00 50,559.69 PUBLIC RELATIONS 3,057.25 15,400.00 12,342.75 PROFESSIONAL & CONSULTING Audit Fees 7,000.00 7,000.00 Consulting 7,500.00 10,000.00 2,500.00 Consulting - TAC 3,516.00 7,500.00 3,984.00 Engineering Fees 1,000.00 1,000.00 Engineering Fees - GIS 7,959.50 10,719.63 30,000.00 19,280.37 Legal Fees 4,852.00 8,953.50 35,000.00 26,046.50 Software Management 3,220.31 11,406.56 50,000.00 38,593.44 TREASURERS FEES 3,898.15 13,601.38 22,303.00 8,701.62 DIRECTORS FEES 500.00 1,900.00 6,000.00 4,100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 49.84 49.84 250.00 200.16 SEWER OPERATIONS Sewer Mntc. & Operation 340.93 18,000.00 17,659.07 Sewer Contract Emergencies 15,000.00 15,000.00 Sewer Contract Remedial 25,000.00 25,000.00 Utility Notification - sewer 235.62 627.84 3,000.00 2,372.16 WATER OPERATIONS Water Mntc. & Operation 1,371.74 2,883.85 13,000.00 10,116.15 Pump Station Mntc & Oper. 703.09 3,331.19 21,000.00 17,668.81 Water Contract Emergencies 11,389.40 55,000.00 43,610.60 Water Contract Remedial 17,170.94 19,109.68 62,000.00 42,890.32 Utility Notification - water 235.63 627.86 3,000.00 2,372.14 REPAIR & MAINT - OFFICE/MAINT BLDG. 4,535.52 6,526.27 20,100.00 13,573.73 DIRECT BILLED EXPENSES (124.01) 5.88 (5.88) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $202,985.34 $699,523.92 $2,327,643.00 $1,628,119.08 4 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures - Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to Annual Budget For the Four Months Ending April 30, 2017 CURRENT YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL VARIANCE MONTH ACTUAL BUDGET Favorable (Unfavorable) CAPITAL OUTLAY MAINS, PLANT EQUIP SEWER Sewer Rehabilitation $25,000.00 $25,000.00 S. Depew St. Rehabilitation 1,666.67 6,943.34 140,042.00 133,098.66 W. Plymouth Dr. Rehabilitation 1,666.67 4,248.33 109,285.00 105,036.67 S. Gray Ct. Rehabilitation 1,666.66 4,248.33 120,510.00 116,261.67 MAINS, PLANT EQUIP WATER W. Canyon Dr. Replacement 2,250.00 4,745.00 171,465.00 166,720.00 S. Morning Glory Ln. Replacement 8,360.00 235,685.00 227,325.00 W. Frost Dr. Replacement 12,000.00 12,000.00 MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT Maintenance Computer Equipment 6,000.00 6,000.00 Pickup 3/4 ton 4WD Other Equipment 15,873.10 14,300.00 (1,573.10) DISTRICT OFFICE EQUIPMENT Office Computer Equipment 1,559.99 6,000.00 4,440.01 Copier Other Equipment/Office Furniture 5,000.00 5,000.00 SOFTWARE GIS Software Office Software Maintenance Software PUMP STATION Col. West Pump Station Improvements 2,296.00 315,338.72 679,013.00 363,674.28 CONTINGENCY/EMERGENCY RESERVE 327,434.00 327,434.00 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $9,546.00 $361,316.81 $1,851,734.00 $1,490,417.19 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $212,531.34 $1,060,840.73 $4,179,377.00 $3,118,536.27 REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $178,816.91 $287,939.56 ($1,437,443.00) $1,725,382.56 BEGINNING FUNDS AVAILABLE $10,197,625.97 $10,197,625.97 ENDING FUNDS AVAILABLE $10,485,565.53 $8,760,182.97 5 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to CM/YTD Budget For the Four Months Ending April 30, 2017 ------CURRENT MONTH------YEAR TO DATE------ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE Favor(Unfavor) REVENUE Taxes $269,437.32 $191,353.33 $78,083.99 $949,154.09 $687,413.32 $261,740.77 Contract Maintenance 109,883.91 102,539.34 7,344.57 351,760.39 326,377.19 25,383.20 Sewer Transmission Fees 1,290.00 1,290.00 Tap Fees - Sewer 1,000.00 1,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 Miscellaneous 300.00 125.00 175.00 1,644.90 500.00 1,144.90 Net Investment Income 10,727.02 8,771.67 1,955.35 41,930.91 35,086.68 6,844.23 TOTAL REVENUE $391,348.25 $302,789.34 $88,558.91 $1,348,780.29 $1,050,667.19 $298,113.10 OPERATING EXPENDITURES PERSONNEL Wages $89,739.91 $95,537.50 $5,797.59 $347,844.95 $382,150.00 $34,305.05 Payroll Taxes 6,925.12 7,308.75 383.63 24,121.27 30,095.00 5,973.73 CCOERA Retirement 6,387.31 7,427.92 1,040.61 21,507.97 29,711.68 8,203.71 Personnel Insurance 22,837.64 25,512.50 2,674.86 88,878.61 102,050.00 13,171.39 COMMUNICATIONS Communications 1,660.00 1,691.67 31.67 5,047.51 6,766.68 1,719.17 VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT Vehicles & Equipment 5,520.38 7,375.00 1,854.62 33,241.13 29,500.00 (3,741.13) INSURANCE Insurance 3,563.81 4,045.83 482.02 14,246.40 16,183.32 1,936.92 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 6,165.86 2,125.00 (4,040.86) 10,288.71 8,500.00 (1,788.71) OFFICE EXPENSES Office Expenses 15,576.98 7,696.67 (7,880.31) 41,800.31 30,786.68 (11,013.63) PUBLIC RELATIONS 208.33 208.33 3,057.25 6,033.32 2,976.07 PROFESSIONAL & CONSULTING Audit Fees 7,000.00 7,000.00 Consulting 7,500.00 7,833.33 333.33 Consulting - TAC 3,516.00 7,500.00 3,984.00 Engineering Fees 83.33 83.33 333.32 333.32 Engineering Fees - GIS 7,959.50 2,500.00 (5,459.50) 10,719.63 10,000.00 (719.63) Legal Fees 4,852.00 2,916.67 (1,935.33) 8,953.50 11,666.68 2,713.18 Software Management 3,220.31 3,750.00 529.69 11,406.56 15,000.00 3,593.44 TREASURERS FEES 3,898.15 2,647.75 (1,250.40) 13,601.38 15,033.27 1,431.89 DIRECTORS FEES 500.00 500.00 1,900.00 2,000.00 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 49.84 50.00 0.16 49.84 100.00 50.16 SEWER OPERATIONS Sewer Mntc. & Operation 1,500.00 1,500.00 340.93 6,000.00 5,659.07 Sewer Contract Emergencies 1,250.00 1,250.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 Sewer Contract Remedial 2,083.33 2,083.33 8,333.32 8,333.32 Utility Notification - sewer 235.62 250.00 14.38 627.84 1,000.00 372.16 WATER OPERATIONS Water Mntc. & Operation 1,371.74 1,083.33 (288.41) 2,883.85 4,333.32 1,449.47 Pump Station Mntc & Oper. 703.09 1,750.00 1,046.91 3,331.19 7,000.00 3,668.81 Water Contract Emergencies 4,583.33 4,583.33 11,389.40 18,333.32 6,943.92 Water Contract Remedial 17,170.94 5,166.67 (12,004.27) 19,109.68 20,666.68 1,557.00 Utility Notification - water 235.63 250.00 14.37 627.86 1,000.00 372.14 REPAIR & MAINT - OFFICE/MAINT BLDG 4,535.52 1,675.00 (2,860.52) 6,526.27 6,700.00 173.73 DIRECT BILLED EXPENSES (124.01) 124.01 5.88 (5.88) TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $202,985.34 $190,968.58 ($12,016.76) $699,523.92 $796,609.92 $97,086.00 6 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to CM/YTD Budget For the Four Months Ending April 30, 2017 ------CURRENT MONTH------YEAR TO DATE------ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE Favor(Unfavor) CAPITAL OUTLAY MAINS, PLANT EQUIP SEWER Sewer Rehabilitation S. Depew St. Rehabilitation 1,666.67 (1,666.67) 6,943.34 10,000.00 3,056.66 W. Plymouth Dr. Rehabilitation 1,666.67 (1,666.67) 4,248.33 5,000.00 751.67 S. Gray Ct. Rehabilitation 1,666.66 (1,666.66) 4,248.33 5,000.00 751.67 MAINS, PLANT EQUIP WATER W. Canyon Dr. Replacement 2,250.00 (2,250.00) 4,745.00 5,000.00 255.00 S. Morning Glory Ln. Replacement 8,360.00 10,000.00 1,640.00 W. Frost Dr. Replacement MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT Maintenance Computer Equipment Pickup 3/4 ton 4WD Other Equipment 15,873.10 14,300.00 (1,573.10) DISTRICT OFFICE EQUIPMENT Office Computer Equipment 1,559.99 1,500.00 (59.99) Copier Other Equipment/Office Furniture SOFTWARE GIS Software Office Software Maintenance Software PUMP STATION Col. West Pump Station Improvements 2,296.00 (2,296.00) 315,338.72 679,013.00 363,674.28 EMERGENCIES 27,286.17 27,286.17 109,144.68 109,144.68 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $9,546.00 $27,286.17 $17,740.17 $361,316.81 $838,957.68 $477,640.87 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $212,531.34 $218,254.75 $5,723.41 $1,060,840.73 $1,635,567.60 $574,726.87 REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $178,816.91 $84,534.59 $94,282.32 $287,939.56 ($584,900.41) $872,839.97 BEGINNING FUNDS AVAILABLE $10,197,625.97 $10,197,625.97 ENDING FUNDS AVAILABLE $10,485,565.53 $9,612,725.56 7 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Cumulative Monthly Revenues 2017 Compared to 2016 3500 3000 2016 2500 2015 2000 Dollars Thousands 1500 1000 500 0.020 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Cumulative Monthly Expenses (Inclusive of capital outlay) 2017 Compared to 2016 3500 2016 3000 2015 2500 2000 Dollars Thousands 1500 1000 500 0 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Cumulative Revenues and Operating Expenditures Compared to Budget and YTD Capital Outlay January 2017 to December 2017 3500 Actual Revenue 3000 Budget Revenue 2500 Actual Expense 2000 Budget Expense Dollars Capital Thousands 1500 Outlay 1000 500 0 Jan Mar May July Sep Nov Feb Apr June Aug Oct Dec Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Statement of Net Assets April 30, 2017 CURRENT ASSETS Cash - Checking $4,679.85 Cash - ColoTrust PLUS 2,662,720.31 Cash - Trust Account 3,803,849.24 CD's Non Restricted 2,346,034.28 U.S. Treasuries 16,000,000.00 Fair Market Value Adjustment 126,742.59 Deferred Interest 63,626.82 Accrued Interest Receivable 78,825.70 Accounts Receivable 126,562.57 Prepaid Expenses 10,110.70 Total current assets 25,223,152.06 CAPITAL ASSETS Land and easements 64,818.77 Water System 30,829,140.22 Line Capacity - DWB Contract 4,724,318.24 Sewer System 33,206,341.03 Const. in Process (S) System 944,775.04 Equipment & Tools 34,346.96 Office/Maint Building 2,521,280.91 Office Equipment & Furniture 33,699.29 72,358,720.46 Accumulated Depreciation (32,463,894.44) Total capital assets 39,894,826.02 TOTAL ASSETS $65,117,978.08 UNAUDITED 1 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Statement of Net Assets April 30, 2017 CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $51,426.00 Hydrant Deposits 3,550.00 Unearned Backcharges 3,513.12 Warranty Escrow 45,517.25 Total current liabilities 104,006.37 NET ASSETS Net Assets - Beginning of year Invested in capital assets 40,367,960.80 Restricted 34,800.00 Unrestricted 24,858,056.64 Change in net assets - current year (270,235.39) TOTAL NET ASSETS $64,990,582.05 2 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Statement of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets For the Four Months Ending April 30, 2017 OPERATING REVENUE Service fee $129,975.82 Total operating revenue $129,975.82 OPERATING EXPENSES Office Administration $120,980.59 Social Security 137.70 Dues & Seminars 1,237.50 Office Supplies 1,041.45 Public Relations 8,119.91 Legal Notices - Ads 62.48 Bank Charges 480.49 Audit 5,400.00 Legal Services 13,129.44 Legal Fees - Backcharges 8,995.00 Consulting 7,500.00 Engineering Water 234.84 Engineering Sewer 78.28 Engineering - GIS 10,206.04 DWD collection fees 3,413.25 Insurance & Bonds 4,797.86 Directors Fees 1,800.00 Repairs & Maint - Office/Maint Bldg. 12,086.53 Utilities & Telephone 13,663.40 Amortization - W&S Systems 97,586.64 Depreciation 520,201.40 Repairs & Maintenance - Water 66,592.68 R&M (W) - Hogback Pump Station 2,125.55 Utilities - Hogback Pump Station 10,165.15 Telemetry - Hogback Pump Station 655.99 R&M (W) Contract - Emergencies 21,348.42 R&M (W) Contract - Remedial 27,394.38 Repairs & Maintenance - Sewer 75,743.61 Utilities - Flow Meters 531.46 Telemetry - Flow Meters 1,447.27 R&M (S) Contract - Remedial 2,123.25 Utility Notification 2,206.90 Total operating expenses 1,041,487.46 (LOSS) FROM OPERATIONS (911,511.64) NONOPERATING REVENUE Net Investment Income 144,842.66 Sewer Lease/City of Littleton 7,500.00 Office Rent Income 6,314.88 Plan review and inspections 25,234.92 W&S Tap Administration Fees 25.00 Other Income 7,454.79 Total nonoperating revenue 191,372.25 INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CONTRIBUTIONS (720,139.39) CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS Tap Fees 292,404.00 Annexation Fees 157,500.00 Total capital contributions 449,904.00 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS (270,235.39) NET ASSETS - BEGINNING 66,933,321.60 NET ASSETS - ENDING 66,663,086.21 3 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures - Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actual Compared to Annual Budget For the Four Months Ending April 30, 2017 CURRENT YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL VARIANCE MONTH ACTUAL BUDGET Favorable (Unfavorable) REVENUE Investment Income $35,637.32 $144,842.66 $335,744.00 ($190,901.34) Service fee $129,975.82 $129,975.82 $536,220.00 ($406,244.18) Sewer Lease/City of Littleton 7,500.00 15,000.00 (7,500.00) Office Rent Income 4,514.88 6,314.88 18,600.00 (12,285.12) Plan Review and Inspections 8,465.42 25,234.92 40,000.00 (14,765.08) W&S Tap Administration Fees 25.00 25.00 Tap Fees - Water 77,000.00 223,500.00 245,000.00 (21,500.00) Tap Fees - Sewer 12,100.00 68,904.00 38,500.00 30,404.00 Annexation Fees 157,500.00 157,500.00 Other Income 750.00 7,454.79 4,500.00 2,954.79 TOTAL REVENUE $268,443.44 $771,252.07 $1,233,564.00 ($462,311.93) OPERATING EXPENDITURES GENERAL OFFICE Office Administration $41,024.25 $120,980.59 $470,000.00 $349,019.41 Dues & Seminars 1,237.50 2,000.00 762.50 Office Supplies 1,041.45 1,500.00 458.55 Public Relations 8,119.91 37,500.00 29,380.09 Legal Notices - Ads 62.48 62.48 200.00 137.52 Bank Charges 106.41 480.49 (480.49) Miscellaneous 1,550.00 1,550.00 PROFESSIONAL & CONSULTING Audit 5,400.00 6,000.00 600.00 Legal Services 6,001.98 13,129.44 35,000.00 21,870.56 Legal fees - Backcharges 1,824.00 8,995.00 5,000.00 (3,995.00) Other Consulting 1,000.00 1,000.00 Technical Advisory Committee 7,500.00 15,000.00 7,500.00 Engineering - Backcharges 6,000.00 6,000.00 Engineering Water 234.84 5,000.00 4,765.16 Engineering Sewer 78.28 5,000.00 4,921.72 Engineering - GIS 3,693.60 10,206.04 30,000.00 19,793.96 DWD COLLECTION FEE 3,413.25 3,413.25 13,653.00 10,239.75 INSURANCE 1,138.87 4,797.86 14,250.00 9,452.14 DIRECTORS FEES 500.00 1,800.00 6,000.00 4,200.00 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE 38.25 137.70 480.00 342.30 REPAIR & MAINT - OFFICE/MAINT BLDG. 4,419.69 12,086.53 30,000.00 17,913.47 UTILITIES & TELEPHONE 4,445.63 13,663.40 32,000.00 18,336.60 WATER OPERATING EXPENDITURES Repairs & Maintenance 30,733.00 66,592.68 320,000.00 253,407.32 R&M - Hogback Pump Station 440.00 2,125.55 12,000.00 9,874.45 Utilities - Hogback Pump Station 2,116.87 10,165.15 27,500.00 17,334.85 Telemetry - Hogback Pump Station 155.24 655.99 1,850.00 1,194.01 R&M Contract - Emergencies 9,210.79 21,348.42 100,000.00 78,651.58 R&M Contract - Remedial 9,171.05 27,394.38 81,000.00 53,605.62 SEWER OPERATING EXPENDITURES Repairs & Maintenance 16,772.00 75,743.61 273,000.00 197,256.39 R&M Flow Meters 5,000.00 5,000.00 Utilities - Flow Meters 119.19 531.46 1,750.00 1,218.54 Telemetry - Flow Meters 480.60 1,447.27 6,000.00 4,552.73 R&M Contract - Emergencies 20,000.00 20,000.00 R&M Contract - Remedial 2,123.25 2,123.25 50,000.00 47,876.75 UTILITY NOTIFICATION 664.10 2,206.90 9,300.00 7,093.10 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $138,654.50 $423,699.42 $1,624,533.00 $1,200,833.58 4 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures - Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actual Compared to Annual Budget For the Four Months Ending April 30, 2017 CURRENT YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL VARIANCE MONTH ACTUAL BUDGET Favorable (Unfavorable) CAPITAL OUTLAY WATER PROJECTS W. Chatfield Ave. Replacement $212,640.00 $212,640.00 Hogback Pump VFD Replacement 67,850.00 67,850.00 SEWER PROJECTS Sewer Rehabilitation 25,000.00 25,000.00 Dutch Creek Rehabilitation 22,827.19 (22,827.19) W. Chatfield Ave. 123,378.00 123,378.00 W. Coal Mine Ave. 70,208.00 70,208.00 S.C.A.D.A. Comm. & Hardware Upgrade 102,400.00 102,400.00 OFFICE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 14,042.76 98,436.41 (98,436.41) CONTINGENCY/EMERGENCIES 127,228.00 127,228.00 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $14,042.76 $121,263.60 $728,704.00 $607,440.40 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $152,697.26 $544,963.02 $2,353,237.00 $1,808,273.98 REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $115,746.18 $226,289.05 ($1,119,673.00) $1,345,962.05 BEGINNING FUNDS AVAILABLE $24,892,856.64 $24,892,856.64 ENDING FUNDS AVAILABLE $25,119,145.69 $23,773,183.64 5 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actual Compared to CM/YTD Budget For the Four Months Ending April 30, 2017 ------CURRENT MONTH------YEAR TO DATE------ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE Favor(Unfavor) REVENUE Investment Income $35,637.32 $27,978.67 $7,658.65 $144,842.66 $111,914.68 $32,927.98 Service fee $129,975.82 $129,975.82 $129,975.82 $134,055.00 ($4,079.18) Sewer Lease/City of Littleton 7,500.00 7,500.00 Office Rent Income 4,514.88 6,700.00 (2,185.12) 6,314.88 8,500.00 (2,185.12) Plan Review and Inspections 8,465.42 3,333.33 5,132.09 25,234.92 13,333.32 11,901.60 W&S Tap Administration Fees 25.00 25.00 Tap Fees - Water 77,000.00 77,000.00 223,500.00 140,000.00 83,500.00 Tap Fees - Sewer 12,100.00 12,100.00 68,904.00 16,500.00 52,404.00 Annexation Fees 157,500.00 157,500.00 Other Income 750.00 375.00 375.00 7,454.79 1,500.00 5,954.79 TOTAL REVENUE $268,443.44 $38,387.00 $230,056.44 $771,252.07 $433,303.00 $337,949.07 OPERATING EXPENDITURES GENERAL OFFICE Office Administration $41,024.25 $42,000.00 $975.75 $120,980.59 $125,000.00 $4,019.41 Dues & Seminars 166.67 166.67 1,237.50 666.68 (570.82) Office Supplies 125.00 125.00 1,041.45 500.00 (541.45) Public Relations 3,125.00 3,125.00 8,119.91 12,500.00 4,380.09 Legal Notices - Ads 62.48 16.67 (45.81) 62.48 66.68 4.20 Bank Charges 106.41 (106.41) 480.49 (480.49) Miscellaneous 129.17 129.17 516.68 516.68 PROFESSIONAL & CONSULTING Audit 5,400.00 6,000.00 600.00 Legal Services 6,001.98 2,916.67 (3,085.31) 13,129.44 11,666.68 (1,462.76) Legal Fees - Backcharges 1,824.00 416.67 (1,407.33) 8,995.00 1,666.68 (7,328.32) Technical Advisory Committee 7,500.00 15,000.00 7,500.00 Engineering - Backcharges 500.00 500.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 Engineering Water 416.67 416.67 234.84 1,666.68 1,431.84 Engineering Sewer 416.67 416.67 78.28 1,666.68 1,588.40 Engineering - GIS 3,693.60 (3,693.60) 10,206.04 5,000.00 (5,206.04) DWD COLLECTION FEE 3,413.25 (3,413.25) 3,413.25 3,413.25 INSURANCE 1,138.87 1,187.50 48.63 4,797.86 4,750.00 (47.86) DIRECTORS FEES 500.00 500.00 1,800.00 2,000.00 200.00 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE 38.25 40.00 1.75 137.70 160.00 22.30 REPAIR & MAINT - OFFICE BLDG 4,419.69 2,500.00 (1,919.69) 12,086.53 10,000.00 (2,086.53) UTILITIES & TELEPHONE 4,445.63 2,666.67 (1,778.96) 13,663.40 10,666.68 (2,996.72) WATER OPERATING EXPENDITURES Repairs & Maintenance 30,733.00 26,000.00 (4,733.00) 66,592.68 85,000.00 18,407.32 R&M - Hogback Pump Station 440.00 1,000.00 560.00 2,125.55 4,000.00 1,874.45 Utilities - Hogback Pump Station 2,116.87 2,291.67 174.80 10,165.15 9,166.68 (998.47) Telemetry - Hogback Pump Station 155.24 154.17 (1.07) 655.99 616.68 (39.31) R&M Contract - Emergencies 9,210.79 8,333.33 (877.46) 21,348.42 33,333.32 11,984.90 R&M Contract - Remedial 9,171.05 10,125.00 953.95 27,394.38 33,750.00 6,355.62 SEWER OPERATING EXPENDITURES Repairs & Maintenance 16,772.00 24,750.00 7,978.00 75,743.61 79,500.00 3,756.39 R&M Flow Meters 2,916.67 2,916.67 4,166.68 4,166.68 Utilities - Flow Meters 119.19 145.83 26.64 531.46 583.32 51.86 Telemetry - Flow Meters 480.60 500.00 19.40 1,447.27 2,000.00 552.73 R&M Contract - Emergencies 1,666.67 1,666.67 6,666.68 6,666.68 R&M Contract - Remedial 2,123.25 4,166.67 2,043.42 2,123.25 16,666.68 14,543.43 UTILITY NOTIFICATION 664.10 775.00 110.90 2,206.90 3,100.00 893.10 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $138,654.50 $139,948.37 $1,293.87 $423,699.42 $493,456.73 $69,757.31 6 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actual Compared to CM/YTD Budget For the Four Months Ending April 30, 2017 ------CURRENT MONTH------YEAR TO DATE------ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE Favor(Unfavor) CAPITAL OUTLAY WATER PROJECTS: SEWER PROJECTS: Dutch Creek Rehabilitation $22,827.19 ($22,827.19) OFFICE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 14,042.76 (14,042.76) 98,436.41 (98,436.41) CONTINGENCY/EMERGENCIES 10,602.33 10,602.33 42,409.32 42,409.32 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $14,042.76 $10,602.33 ($3,440.43) $121,263.60 $42,409.32 ($78,854.28) TOTAL EXPENDITURES $152,697.26 $150,550.70 ($2,146.56) $544,963.02 $535,866.05 ($9,096.97) REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES $115,746.18 ($112,163.70) $227,909.88 $226,289.05 ($102,563.05) $328,852.10 BEGINNING FUNDS AVAILABLE $24,892,856.64 $24,892,856.64 ENDING FUNDS AVAILABLE $25,119,145.69 $24,790,293.59 7 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Cumulative Revenues and Operating Expenditures Compared to Budget and YTD Capital Outlay January 2017 to December 2017 $2,200 Actual $2,000 Revenue $1,800 Budget Revenue $1,600 Actual $1,400 Operating Expenses $1,200 Budget Operating Dollars $1,000 Thousands Expenses $800 Capital $600 Outlay $400 $200 $0 Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Pl atte Canyon Water & Sani tati on Di stri ct Schedul e of I nvestment Bal ances Investments Held by Type As of April 30, 2017 I nvestment Type Amount Per centage Cash - Checking $253,728.25 2.40% Certi f i cates of Deposi t $994,000.00 9.40% Colotrust - Prime 0.00 0.00% Colotrust - Plus 2,880,025.49 27.22% ColoTrust - Trust Account 463,994.13 4.39% Treasury Bills 0.00 0.00% Treasury Notes 999,798.56 9.45% U.S. Government Instrumentalities 4,988,036.89 47.15% Totals $10,579,583.32 100.00% DISTRIBUTION BY INVESTMENT TYPE: Checking 2% Certificates of Deposit 9% ColoTrust 32% U.S. Government Instrumentalities 47% Treasury Notes 10% Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of I nvestment Balances April 30, 2017 **T-Bills Activity** DATE OF DATE OF FACE BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD AMOUNT 03/31/17 M PURCHASES MATURITIES 04/30/17 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - * * T r easur y Note Activity* * DATE OF DATE OF FACE BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD AMOUNT 03/31/17 M PURCHASES MATURITIES 04/30/17 06/09/14 06/30/17 0.870% $ 1,000,000.00 $ 999,697.85 $ 100.72 $ - $ 999,798.56 $ 1,000,000.00 $ 999,697.85 $ 100.72 $ - $ 999,798.56 * * Agency Activity* * DATE OF DATE OF FACE BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD AMOUNT 03/31/17 M PURCHASES MATURITIES 04/30/17 FHLB 07/01/16 12/28/18 1.083% $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,002,865.50 $ (135.16) $ - $ 1,002,730.33 FHLMC 07/02/13 06/11/19 1.928% 500,000.00 494,044.17 223.06 0.00 494,267.24 FHLMC 11/27/13 06/11/19 1.800% 1,000,000.00 990,690.65 348.66 0.00 991,039.32 FNMA 08/25/16 08/25/21 1.450% 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 FFCB 07/19/16 01/19/23 1.875% 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 $ 5,000,000.00 $ 4,987,600.32 $ 436.56 $ - $ 4,988,036.89 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of I nvestment Balances April 30, 2017 **Certificate of Deposit Activity** DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD PRI NCI PA L 03/31/17 PURCHASES MATURITIES 04/30/17 Fowl er State Bank 04/03/16 04/03/17 0.8500% 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 100,000.00 0.00 Sol era Nati onal Bank 04/19/14 04/19/17 0.9000% 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.00 249,000.00 0.00 Fowl er State Bank 06/11/16 06/11/17 0.8500% 150,000.00 150,000.00 0.00 0.00 150,000.00 CO State Bank & Trust 01/20/16 06/20/17 0.6000% 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 0.00 250,000.00 Bank of Denver 10/04/16 10/04/17 0.7500% 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 Fowl er State Bank 04/03/17 04/03/18 1.0500% 100,000.00 0.00 100,000.00 0.00 100,000.00 Sol era Nati onal Bank 04/19/17 04/19/18 1.2500% 249,000.00 0.00 249,000.00 0.00 249,000.00 Fl ati rons Bank 09/22/16 10/06/18 0.7500% 145,000.00 145,000.00 0.00 0.00 145,000.00 $ 1,343,000.00 $ 994,000.00 $ 349,000.00 $ 349,000.00 $ 994,000.00 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of I nvestment Balances April 30, 2017 **ColoTrust PRIME** DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD 03/31/17 PURCHASES REDEMPTIONS 04/30/17 ColoTrust Prime 03/31/17 04/30/17 0.0500% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - **ColoTrust PLUS** DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD 03/31/17 PURCHASES REDEMPTIONS 04/30/17 ColoTrust Plus 03/31/17 04/30/17 1.0100% $ 3,027,573.20 $ 2,452.29 $ 150,000.00 $ 2,880,025.49 $ 3,027,573.20 $ 2,452.29 $ 150,000.00 $ 2,880,025.49 * * ColoTrust - Trust Account* * DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD 03/31/17 PURCHASES REDEMPTIONS 04/30/17 Col oTrust Pl us - UM B 03/31/17 04/30/17 1.0100% $ 464,161.38 $ 356.51 $ 523.76 $ 463,994.13 $ 464,161.38 $ 356.51 $ 523.76 $ 463,994.13 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of I nvestment Balances Summary by M onth of M aturity at Par Value 4/30/17 M ay-17 $3,344,019.62 Jun-17 1,400,000.00 Jul-17 0.00 Aug-17 0.00 Sep-17 0.00 Oct-17 100,000.00 Nov-17 0.00 Dec-17 0.00 Jan-18 0.00 Feb-18 0.00 M ar-18 0.00 Apr-18 349,000.00 M ay-18 0.00 Jun-18 0.00 Jul-18 0.00 Aug-18 0.00 Sep-18 0.00 Oct-18 145,000.00 Nov-18 0.00 Dec-18 1,000,000.00 Jan-19 0.00 Feb-19 0.00 M ar-19 0.00 Apr-19 0.00 M ay-19 0.00 Jun-19 1,500,000.00 Jul-19 0.00 Aug-19 0.00 Sep-19 0.00 Oct-19 0.00 Nov-19 0.00 Dec-19 0.00 Jan-20 0.00 Feb-20 0.00 M ar-20 0.00 Apr-20 0.00 M ay-20 0.00 Jun-20 0.00 Jul-20 0.00 Aug-20 0.00 Sep-20 0.00 Beyond 2,500,000.00 Total $10,338,019.62 A verage Y i el d 1.2573% Estimated Income/Month $10,831 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Distribution by Maturity: $5,000,000.00 $4,500,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $3,500,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $2,500,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $500,000.00 $0.00 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District 5.00% 4.50% 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% Investment Yield Yield % 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2017 2017 2017 2017 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Five Year Investment Balance Comparison $10,800,000.00 $10,750,000.00 10,753,183.85 $10,700,000.00 $10,650,000.00 10,638,608.41 Investment Balance $10,600,000.00 10,578,981.67 10,577,598.38 10,579,583.32 $10,550,000.00 $10,500,000.00 $10,450,000.00 Dec 2013 Dec 2014 Dec 2015 Dec 2016 Apr 2017 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedul e of I nvestment Bal ances Investments Held by Type As of April 30, 2017 I nvestment Type Amount Per centage Cash - Checking $4,679.85 0.02% Certi f i cates of Deposi t $2,341,537.80 9.41% Colotrust - Prime 0.00 0.00% Colotrust - Plus 2,662,720.31 10.70% ColoTrust - Trust Account 3,803,849.24 15.29% Treasury Bills 0.00 0.00% Treasury Notes 6,024,298.83 24.22% U.S. Government Instrumentalities 10,039,328.00 40.36% Total s $24,876,414.03 100.00% DISTRIBUTION BY INVESTMENT TYPE: Certificates of Checking Deposit 0% 10% ColoTrust U.S. Government 26% Instrumentalities 40% Treasury Notes 24% Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedul e of I nvestment Bal ances **T-Bills Activity for Month** April 30, 2017 DATE OF DATE OF FACE BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD AMOUNT 03/31/17 PURCHASES MATURITIES 04/30/17 01/01/02 01/02/02 0.000% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - * * Treasury Note A cti vi ty* * April 30, 2017 DATE OF DATE OF FACE BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD AMOUNT 03/31/17 PURCHASES MATURITIES 04/30/17 04/16/14 10/31/17 1.066% 1,000,000.00 998,199.62 253.57 0.00 998,453.20 04/06/11 02/15/21 3.463% 5,000,000.00 5,026,405.06 (559.43) 0.00 5,025,845.63 $ 6,000,000.00 $ 6,024,604.68 $ (305.86) $ - $ 6,024,298.83 **Agency Activity** April 30, 2017 DATE OF DATE OF FACE BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD AMOUNT 03/31/17 PURCHASES MATURITIES 04/30/17 Federal Farm Credi t Bank 05/02/11 04/06/20 3.530% $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,045,390.09 $ (1,236.79) $ - $ 1,044,153.30 Federal Home L oan Bank 07/19/16 01/19/21 1.429% 3,000,000.00 2,996,833.59 68.39 0.00 2,996,901.98 Federal Nati onal M ortgage A ssoci ati on 08/25/16 08/25/21 1.450% 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 Federal Home L oan M ortgage Corp 08/25/16 08/25/21 1.621% 2,000,000.00 1,998,239.87 32.86 0.00 1,998,272.73 Federal Farm Credi t Bank 07/19/16 01/19/23 1.875% 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 $ 10,000,000.00 $ 10,040,463.54 ($1,135.54) $0.00 $ 10,039,328.00 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedul e of I nvestment Bal ances **Certificate of Deposit Activity** April 30, 2017 DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD PRI NCI PA L 03/31/17 PURCHASES MATURITIES 04/30/17 Fowl er State Bank 06/11/16 06/11/17 0.8500% 150,000.00 150,000.00 0.00 0.00 150,000.00 CO State Bank & Trust 01/20/16 06/20/17 0.6000% 250,000.00 250,000.00 0.00 0.00 250,000.00 Fowl er State Bank 01/17/16 07/17/18 0.9000% 99,000.00 99,000.00 0.00 0.00 99,000.00 CDARS: Amarillo National Bank 08/25/16 08/24/17 0.6000% 243,500.00 243,500.00 0.00 0.00 243,500.00 CDA RS: Capi tal Bank Corporati on 08/25/16 08/24/17 0.6000% 243,500.00 243,500.00 0.00 0.00 243,500.00 CDARS: Customers Bank 08/25/16 08/24/17 0.6000% 243,500.00 243,500.00 0.00 0.00 243,500.00 CDA RS: Fi rst Capi tal Bank of Texas. N.A . 08/25/16 08/24/17 0.6000% 13,847.06 13,847.06 0.00 0.00 13,847.06 CDA RS: L egacy Texas Bank 08/25/16 08/24/17 0.6000% 111,690.74 111,690.74 0.00 0.00 111,690.74 CDA RS: M eri di an Bank 08/25/16 08/24/17 0.6000% 243,500.00 243,500.00 0.00 0.00 243,500.00 Bank of Denver 10/01/16 10/01/17 0.7000% 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 Centenni al Bank 01/05/17 01/05/18 0.8000% 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.00 0.00 249,000.00 Fl atI rons Bank 09/22/16 10/06/18 0.7500% 145,000.00 145,000.00 0.00 0.00 145,000.00 Sol era Bank 02/24/16 02/24/19 1.2400% 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.00 0.00 249,000.00 $ 2,341,537.80 $ 2,341,537.80 $ - $ - $ 2,341,537.80 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedul e of I nvestment Bal ances **ColoTrust PRIME** April 30, 2017 DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD 03/31/17 PURCHASES REDEMPTIONS 04/30/17 ColoTrust Prime 03/31/17 04/30/17 0.0500% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - **ColoTrust PLUS** April 30, 2017 DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD 03/31/17 PURCHASES REDEMPTIONS 04/30/17 ColoTrust Plus 03/31/17 04/30/17 1.0100% $ 2,530,617.11 $ 132,103.20 $ - $ 2,662,720.31 $ 2,530,617.11 $ 132,103.20 $ - $ 2,662,720.31 * * ColoTrust - Trust Account* * April 30, 2017 DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD 03/31/17 PURCHASES REDEMPTIONS 04/30/17 Col oTrust Pl us UM B 03/31/17 04/30/17 1.0100% $ 3,775,298.27 $ 29,416.50 $ 865.53 $ 3,803,849.24 $ 3,775,298.27 $ 29,416.50 $ 865.53 $ 3,803,849.24 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedule of I nvestment Balances Summary by M onth of M aturity at Par Value 4/30/2017 M ay-17 $6,466,569.55 Jun-17 400,000.00 Jul-17 0.00 Aug-17 1,099,537.80 Sep-17 0.00 Oct-17 1,100,000.00 Nov-17 0.00 Dec-17 0.00 Jan-18 0.00 Feb-18 0.00 M ar-18 0.00 Apr-18 0.00 M ay-18 0.00 Jun-18 0.00 Jul-18 99,000.00 Aug-18 0.00 Sep-18 0.00 Oct-18 145,000.00 Nov-18 0.00 Dec-18 0.00 Jan-19 0.00 Feb-19 249,000.00 M ar-19 0.00 Apr-19 0.00 M ay-19 0.00 Jun-19 0.00 Jul-19 0.00 Aug-19 0.00 Sep-19 0.00 Oct-19 0.00 Nov-19 0.00 Dec-19 0.00 Jan-20 0.00 Feb-20 0.00 M ar-20 0.00 Apr-20 1,000,000.00 M ay-20 0.00 Jun-20 0.00 Jul-20 0.00 Aug-20 0.00 Sep-20 0.00 Beyond 14,000,000.00 Total $24,559,107.35 A verage Y i el d 1.8067% Estimated Income/Month $36,976 Southwest Metro Water & Sanitation District Distribution by Maturity: $10,000,000.00 $9,000,000.00 $8,000,000.00 $7,000,000.00 $6,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $4,000,000.00 $3,000,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $0.00 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Investment Yield 5.00% 4.50% 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% Investment Yield Yield % 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% Month Southwest Metro Water & Sanitation District Five Year Investment Balance Comparison $35,000,000.00 $30,000,000.00 31,935,908.37 $24,876,414.03 29,231,919.59 $25,000,000.00 25,961,316.19 24,857,148.48 $20,000,000.00 Investment Balance $15,000,000.00 $10,000,000.00 $5,000,000.00 $0.00 Dec 2013 Dec 2014 Dec 2015 Dec 2016 Apr 2017 Manager’s Information Report Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District May 2017 Personnel Matters Employee Training and Certifications Cynthia Lane, Adam Morse, Scott Hand and I participated in a webinar sponsored by Citilogics and U.S. EPA describing RTX:LINK, a new software tool the links SCADA data to an analytics program to make better use of the raw data. The open source program was developed by EPA and Citilogics and is being offered to selected utilities to test and help further develop the software. Ms. Lane is submitting an application for Platte Canyon to be one of the participants. Long Term Financial Plans (PC and SWM) The Long Term Financial Plans for Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan will be updated in 2017. The plans extend the period of analysis from the 10 year period included in the annual budgets for an additional 20 years to capture long term infrastructure rehabilitation and replacement needs. The plan supplies the information needed to schedule capital replacements and improvements, revenue requirements and also presents options for revenue sources needed to meet revenue requirements. Customer Outreach, Newsletters and Websites (PC & SWM) Alyssa Quinn is researching alternatives to Host Works, the company that currently hosts the websites for Platte Canyon, Southwest Metropolitan and Bow Mar. We have been experiencing a steady decline in the quality of service provided by Host Works and believe we can move to a more innovative, responsive and less costly provider. The goal of the project is to not only move the sites to a new host, but to redesign each of the websites as well. At this point Ms. Quinn is researching contractor capabilities and potential costs for inclusion in the 2018 budget. 1 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Pressure Reducing Valve Ownership and Maintenance Responsibility (PC and SWM) A number of disputes have arisen recently between Denver Water and Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan over the ownership and maintenance responsibility of some pressure reducing valves (PRVs) and pipelines adjacent to Denver Water conduits. Scott Hand has created lists of all PRVs and conduit connections, including our understanding of the entity responsible for maintenance. District staff met with Denver Water staff in December 2013 to clarify ownership and maintenance responsibility for several pressure reducing valves and connections to Denver Water facilities. Since some of the valves effect the operations of non-owner entities, District staff also sought to prepare an informal agreement with Denver Water to provide for joint operation of the facilities so long as advance notice is provided. In October 2015, District staff reached agreement with Denver Water staff on the ownership of Pressure reducing valves and adjacent facilities. Denver Water agreed to prepare a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the operation of the pressure reducing valves, isolation valves, and related inlet and outlet piping. The MOU will describe communication protocols for operation of the valves when the other entities operations are or could be affected. February 2016: Tony Cocozzella and Scott Hand again met with Denver Water staff to finalize our understanding of ownership and maintenance responsibility for the pressure reducing valves and pipeline connections to Denver Water facilities. Denver Water will now prepare a memorandum of agreement to memorialize the determinations reached during previous meetings. May 2017: We have decided to move forward on our own to prepare draft memorandums of understanding (MOUs) describing the ownership and maintenance responsibility for each of the pressure reducing valves and Denver Water conduit connections owned and/or used by Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan. Cynthia Lane will work with Scott Hand and Tony Cocozzella to prepare the draft MOUs. When completed the memorandums will be submitted to Denver Water for review and approval. Geographic Information System (PC & SWM) In 2011, Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan contracted with Merrick & Company (Merrick) to migrate the Districts’ Spatialnet GIS software to ESRI Map View software. ESRI is the industry leader for GIS software and it is currently used by Denver Water, Littleton-Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant and numerous other Denver Metro Area entities. Spatialnet worked well for the Districts, but was unable to continue to provide long term, reliable support for its software. Subsequent to completion of the initial migration to ESRI software, additional functionality was added to improve mobile operations and maintenance and administrative support programs. For example, in 2012 work was conducted to map and index the Districts’ easements and map and create data bases for water and sewer tap and service line locations. Fire hydrant branch lines and additional hydraulic features were added in 2013. All surface facilities were surveyed using GPS technology in 2013 and 2014 and Merrick incorporated the acquired data into each Districts’ GIS. 2 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Over the past four years, the GIS has been expanded to include water and sewer service pipe (tap) locations, aerial photo overlay, parcel data acquired from Jefferson, Arapahoe and Douglas Counties, water pressure zone boundaries, sewer basin boundaries, topographic data, and creation of a water main isolation program. Merrick and Company has been retained to perform the services on an “on call” basis at fixed hourly rates within a not to exceed budget. In addition, for 2016 Merrick has been retained to incorporate a hydraulic analysis of the Districts’ water systems into the GIS. Adam Morse is scanning and linking all District water and sewer tap permits to the GIS so the data is easily accessible to office and field staff. November 2016: District staff is working with Tim Flynn to prepare an agreement with Merrick & Company to perform on call GIS and mapping services for Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan. It is anticipated that these contracts will provide an option for renewal for two additional one year periods beyond 2017. The contracts will be submitted to the Boards of Directors for approval at the December meeting. December 2016: The on call agreement for Platte Canyon will be placed on the December meeting agenda for Board consideration. March 2017: Southwest Metropolitan and Platte Canyon each have numerous intergovernmental agreements with adjacent districts and municipalities to share water and sewer facilities. The agreements typically contain provisions for sharing facility operations, maintenance, and repair and replacement costs. In order to help track the cost sharing arrangements, District staff is developing a scope of work to add a layer to each District’s GIS and link each facility to a database containing the pertinent intergovernmental agreement and details on cost sharing provisions. The project will be proposed for funding in the 2018 budgets. April 2017: Merrick & Company is currently linking digitized as constructed drawings to Platte Canyon’s and Southwest Metropolitan’s GIS. This effort will allow District operations staff to access information contained on the drawings that is not available on the GIS, thus saving the time to return to the District office to research the information. Merrick is also creating a data base for easements and is drawing the easements on the Valley Sanitation District GIS. The easements granted to Valley over the past 60 years have not been mapped nor have they been organized in a database making it very difficult to tie easements to district assets. May 2017: Both Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan have numerous intergovernmental agreements with other water and sanitation districts that provide for sharing capacity in various water and sewer mains. The capital, maintenance, repair and replacement cost sharing provisions vary with each agreement. To more effectively track the facilities and cost sharing arrangements prescribed in the agreements, staff is going to prepare a scope to work to add a data base and mapping layer to the Districts’ GIS. At this time staff is working to determine a cost estimate for the project that can be proposed for the 2018 budgets for each of the districts. 3 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Purchase of Property Located West of the Columbine Pump Station from Denver Water to Platte Canyon (PC) Denver Water owns vacant land immediately west of the Columbine Pump Station. The property housed a treated water reservoir which was abandoned and demolished several years ago. Denver Water has no immediate plans for the property. In conjunction with the rehabilitation of the Columbine West Pump Station District staff have requested use of a portion of the property for a construction staging area. In discussing the potential use of the property we have decided to expand our request to include acquisition of the property for future materials storage. Purchase of the property would also provide safer and more efficient access to the pump stations site. Tony Cocozzella has initiated conversations with Denver Water property management staff and we will continue to inform the Board of the status of these discussions as they move forward. March 2016: Denver Water has informed us that they will not consider subdividing the Ken Caryl Ave. property because the small parcel Platte Canyon is interested in has a large impact on the value of the entire site. We have asked for an assessment of the valuation of the entire site to determine if it is worth pursuing acquisition. April 2016: Denver Water has now informed us that the Columbine West property has not been determined to be “surplus property” making it unavailable for sale. They are reviewing any future need for the property and will advise us soon if the property will be available for sale and the appraised value. May 2016: Denver Water is not ready to release the appraisal report for the Columbine West property, however Tony Cocozzella has been informed that the value of the 7,812 square foot parcel we would like to acquire is $48,600; $7,700 for the property and $40,900 for the reduction in value to the remaining property. The value of the total four acre parcel is $533,200. Acquisition of the property will be placed on the May Board meeting agenda for discussion. Outside of our discussion with Denver Water on purchasing the property, we are moving forward with acquisition of an easement to use the property for construction staging. The cost of the temporary easement is $2,000, Denver Water’s standard easement and license agreement processing fee. July 2016: A meeting was held on July 14 with Tim Flynn, Denver Water’s legal representative, Denver Water property management staff, Tony Cocozzella and me. Denver Water expressed conditional interest in expanding the boundaries of the property we wish to acquire although they are not willing to sell the entire site. Tony Cocozzella is going to work with a surveyor to obtain a topo survey of the area surrounding the site we are acquiring to assure Denver Water that they will have adequate access to the entire site if the site being acquired by Platte Canyon is enlarged. In the meantime, Denver Water will issue a temporary easement so the initial site can be used for construction staging. Tim Flynn will work with Denver Water’s attorney and the Jefferson County attorney to prepare documents to proceed with a friendly condemnation of the property we ultimately agree to purchase. 4 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx August 2016: As requested by Denver Water, Tony Cocozzella has obtained a topographic survey of a portion of the Denver Water property to determine if a road with acceptable grade can be constructed to provide access to all of the remaining Denver Water property if a larger parcel is sold to Platte Canyon. The survey will be provided to Denver Water and we will then continue our discussions regarding the size and shape of the parcel to be acquired by the District. September 2016: Tony Cocozzella has submitted the topographic survey to Denver Water with a conceptual drawing of the property we are requesting to purchase. Denver Water has issued a letter to the Platte Canyon providing for the use of their property for construction phasing. October 2016: Tony Cocozzella is continuing to work with Denver Water to satisfy their seemingly insatiable request for information in order to agree to the boundaries of the property to be sold to Platte Canyon. Dewberry Engineering has been retained to prepare a basic design for the shared access drive off of S. Zepher St. into Denver Water’s property and the entrance to the site we hope to acquire. December 2016: A location and site improvement drawing is being prepared by Dewberry Engineers and will be submitted to Denver Water staff when completed. At that time we will request an expeditious review so we can proceed with acquisition of the property. January 2017: Tony Cocozzella has made significant progress in the effort to acquire a tract of land adjacent to the Scott J. Morse Pump Station from Denver Water. A meeting was recently held with Denver Water property staff and legal representatives with Mr. Cocozzella and Tim Flynn to establish a framework and schedule for concluding the property sale. The attorneys are now working on a plan to pursue a friendly condemnation of the property. March 2017: Denver Water staff is reviewing all of the information submitted by Platte Canyon and will prepare a Board of Water Commissioners action item to declare the tract surplus property. At that point, we will work with Denver Water legal staff to purse a friendly condemnation of the property. We have been advised that the review process for declaring the property “surplus” will take approximately two months. April 2017: Denver Water has now determined that the friendly condemnation effort should precede the agency’s declaration of the property as surplus. There is some concern that Jefferson County will object to the friendly condemnation if they know that the effort is being done for the purpose of avoiding the County’s subdivision regulations. Tim Flynn is working with Denver Water’s attorney to process the condemnation. May 2017: Tim Flynn is working with Denver Water legal staff to prepare the necessary documents to move forward with condemnation of the subject property. A resolution to authorize condemnation will be submitted to the Platte Canyon Board in May or June. 5 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Upgrades (PC and SWM) Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan use SCADA to monitor and control pump station and sewer flow monitoring station operations. The analog telephone communication network used to transmit data between the SCADA server at the District office and each of the facilities has become unreliable and the service provider, Qwest, does not appear to be fully engaged in maintaining an adequate level of service quality. Given the difficulties we have experienced over the past two years, we have launched an investigation into alternative communication solutions, including digital cable service. District staff will update the Board on possible communication alternatives as well as potential costs as our investigation continues. February 2016: Scott Hand and Tony Cocozzella are working to obtain proposals from Dewberry Engineers and Browns Hill to review and propose alternatives to the Districts’ current SCADA analog communication system. The analog system is becoming difficult to service and is therefore increasingly unreliable. Alternative that may be considered include radio, cellular and digital cable. April 2016: Scott Hand has determined that we can work directly with Browns Hill to review options for upgrading or replacing the SCADA system and avoid the cost of Dewberry’s involvement. Scott is working with Ashley Dalton to prepare a purchase order to Browns Hill to proceed with an analysis of viable alternatives. May 2016: A purchase order has been issued to Browns Hill to assess the Districts’ SCADA system and present alternatives to improve the functionality and reliability of the communication system. June 2016: Browns Hill has completed the field work associated with this project and is in the process of preparing recommendations for SCADA communications alternatives. July 2016: Scott Hand and Ashley Dalton met with representatives from Browns Hill to discuss their findings relative to SCADA communication alternatives. It is their recommendation to use radios where direct line of sight is available between sites. This technology does not have monthly fees and is very reliable. Cellular devices would be installed where line of sight is not available. The pump stations would communicate to the District office via the internet using DSL or cable. During the assessment, Browns Hill discovered the devices that would allow the new communications equipment to work with the existing SCADA system are not proven to be reliable. They did not feel comfortable recommending purchasing and installing these devices that may continue to have communication problems. It is their recommendation to not upgrade the communication portion until the SCADA system is upgraded as well. Browns Hill will assess the cost involved in upgrading the SCADA system at the same time as the communications. As part of the Columbine West Pump Station construction project the SCADA will be upgraded. Other individual sites can be upgraded to the newer technology with no effect on the existing infrastructure. 6 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx August 2016: Ashley Dalton and Scott Hand are in the process of evaluating a proposal received from Browns Hill to upgrade the Districts’ SCADA systems. The information received from the contractor will be used to budget for the project in 2017. May 2017: Scott Hand is working with a vendor to replace components in two Southwest Metropolitan sewer flow meter SCADA control units. Parts for the units are becoming increasing difficult to acquire as the manufacturer is attempting to move current users to a newer model. Mr. Hand is working with the manufacturer and our SCADA consultant to determine the cost for replacing all of the sewer flow meter controllers with either the newer version of the current equipment or different equipment. It is not yet known if there are sufficient funds available for this work in the 2017 budget, or if the project will need to be delayed to 2018. District staff is also pursuing ways to better analyze and use the raw data produced from the pump stations, sewer flow meters, and water pressure monitors currently used by Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan. One of the options being considered is RTX:LINK which is described briefly in the Employee Training section above. Southwest Metropolitan/ Platte Canyon Office Building Remodeling Project (PC and SWM) Alyssa Quinn is obtaining a proposal for preliminary planning and design for the office remodeling project. The scope of the proposal will include review of current office space use and consideration of future needs, and development of a conceptual plan for remodeling the reception area, offices, restrooms and conference areas, including selection of materials, colors and possible furniture purchases. This first phase of the project will provide the information needed to prepare project specifications for bidding later this year. March 16: Ashley Dalton is preparing a purchase order for the preliminary phase of the office remodeling project. This phase consists of space planning and selection of materials, colors, furniture and other fixtures as well as providing a project cost estimate. When this work is completed staff will present the conceptual plan to the Boards prior to proceeding with phase II planning and contracting. April 2016: A purchase order has been issued to Genterro, LLC for phase I of the remodeling project. A schedule for the work and a presentation to the Boards will be developed once we meet with the consultant. June 2016: District staff met with Jennifer Terry to discuss the scope of work, budget and schedule for the office remodeling project. Ms. Terry will develop a design plan and material selections for a meeting with staff in early to mid-July. A proposal will then be developed for submittal to the Board in July or August. July 2016: District staff is scheduled to meet with Jennifer Terry on July 13 to receive her preliminary design plans. A presentation to the Boards will be made during the July or August meeting. 7 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx August 2016: Ashley Dalton and Tim Flynn are working on an agreement with Genterro in accordance with the last months Board meeting discussion. September 2016: A preconstruction meeting with Jennifer Terry will be conducted as soon as certificates of insurance have been received. We will have a more definitive schedule for the work subsequent to the meeting. October 2016: District staff conducted a preconstruction meeting with Jennifer Terry to finalize project details and refine the project schedule. Some of the material has been ordered and is scheduled to arrive prior to year-end. Ms. Terry has solicited bids from installation contractors and will be submitting them shortly. Given the lengthy lead times for manufacturing and delivering some of the materials, it is likely the majority of the project will be conducted in late 2016 and early 2017. November 2016: Alyssa Quinn has been meeting with Jennifer Terry to coordinate selection of materials and installation contractors, and to schedule construction of the various project elements. Work will begin in December. December 2016: We continue to expect that work will begin this month. A status report will be provided during the upcoming meeting. January 2017: Following a number of delays to this project, some unavoidable and some very avoidable, we conducted a meeting with our designer/contractor to determine an acceptable process and schedule to move forward with the project. We now feel we are back on track and construction will begin shortly. February 2017: Genterro, LLC and its subcontractors have made substantial progress over the past month. We now expect the project to be completed by the end of February. March 2017: the project schedule now calls for substantial completion on March 24. We are requiring that Genterro, LLC obtain lien releases from all subcontractors to ensure that the money we are paying Genterro is flowing through to the subcontractors. April 2017: The project has been completed with the exception of installation of bathroom partitions. Genterro has been put on notice that its repeated failures to install the partitions, despite agreeing to completion deadlines, is unacceptable and the District will now complete the work at Genterro’s expense. Also, Jennifer Terry and District staff recently performed an inspection of the completed work and developed a punch list of necessary repairs. Genterro has been given a hard deadline of April 27 to complete the punch list work, after which the District will complete any incomplete or unacceptable work at Genterro’s expense. May 2017: Bathroom partitions have been ordered and will be installed within the next two weeks. Genterro has been notified that the cost of the materials and installation will be deducted from the final payment to be made to Genterro. New lighting fixtures have been ordered and a contract has been executed with an electrician for installation. A notice for 8 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx final settlement with Genterro has been advertised in the legal section of the Littleton Independent. If no claims are filed within the 30 day notice period we will process final payment to Genterro. Overlook Plateau Subdivision Annexation (SWM) District staff recently discovered that the Overlook Plateau Subdivision consisting of 10 single family lots is not within Southwest Metropolitan boundaries, despite the fact that the District has been providing water and sewer services since 2014. The subdivision is located south of Mineral Ave., between S. Overlook Way and the Nevada Ditch. Ashley Dalton, Tim Flynn and I have been working together to develop a plan to annex the property into the District. As a first step, Ashley and I are meeting with the Board of Directors for Overlook Plateau on September 16. We will explain the situation and advise them that annexation will result in no increase in taxes or fees since Southwest does not impose a mill levy and the water service fee is already being assessed to the property owners on their water bills. In addition, Southwest Metropolitan will incur all costs associated with the annexation. If a majority of the property owners agree to annex, we will work with Tim to schedule an election to approve annexation. A majority vote of all property owners will enable the District to annex the entire subdivision property. October 2016: Tim Flynn is preparing a resolution for the Southwest Metropolitan Board to provide notice of the District’s intention to annex the Overlook property. Following that resolution, a second resolution calling for an election to annex the property will be submitted to the Board for consideration. Upon adoption of the election resolution, District staff will work with Mr. Flynn’s office to conduct the election. November 2016: The first of two required resolutions will be submitted to the Southwest Metropolitan Board during the November meeting. Consideration of the second resolution and the public hearing will be scheduled for the December meeting. December 2016: a statutory requirement to provide written notice of the public hearing to all property owners will necessitate that the hearing be continued to the January Board meeting. January 2017: Notice of a public hearing to consider the proposed inclusion has been mailed to all property owners within the inclusion boundaries. The hearing to consider a resolution to call for the inclusion of the property and to request that the District Court set a date for a vote of the property owners will be conducted during the January 27 Board of Directors meeting. February 2017: Tim Flynn has filed an order with the District Court to set the date for the inclusion election. The mail ballot election will be scheduled for May 2, 2017. March 2017: The mail ballot election date is set for May 2, 2017. A copy of the mail ballot plan is available upon request. May 2017: The annexation election passed with a vote of nine electors in favor and zero electors opposed. Tim Flynn will now file an order and decree with the District Court. 9 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Denver Water Distributors’ Rates and Fees Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) (PC & SWM) In mid-2003, Platte Canyon entered into an intergovernmental agreement with Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District, Southeast Englewood Water District, Lakehurst Water and Sanitation District, and Bancroft-Clover Water and Sanitation District to form the Denver Water Distributors Rates and Fees Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to review and monitor Denver Water cost of service rate studies and other issues that impact water rates assessed by Denver Water to distributors. Between 2004 and 2012, fifteen additional members have joined the TAC, bringing total membership to 19 entities serving over 75,000 individual customers. TAC has executed consulting agreements with MWH Global, Inc (MWH) and Geitner Environment, Inc. (Geitner). Jason Mumm (MWH) is the chief financial consultant, Kees Corssmit (Geitner) provides expert advice and guidance and Fernando Aranda (MWH) performs expert analysis of Denver Water rate and fee structures, studies and reports for professional financial and rate analysis services. A budget and membership dues schedule are approved by TAC members each year. Dues have dropped from an initial assessment of $1.57 per customer account to $1.08 assessed for 2013. The TAC budget has ranged from $80,000 to $110,000 per year. TAC’s primary work effort each year includes the analysis of Denver Water’s comprehensive, annual cost of service study that establishes water rates for all Denver Water customers, including the various distributor customer classes. Over time, additional studies have been conducted including an analysis of Denver Water’s outside combined service area rate structure, system development charge assessments, the Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency (WISE) financial model and Denver Water’s capital cost allocation process. Some of these supplemental studies resulted in modifications to Denver Water’s rate model with significant reductions in distributor customer rates. In October 2011, TAC members approved a supplement scope of work under Red Oak’s consulting agreement to authorize Red Oak to provide technical assistance, analysis and modeling in conjunction with negotiations with Denver Water on an alternative rate model. Members also agreed to schedule a special meeting with attorney’s for distributor entities to discuss the rate provisions of distributor contracts as they relate to Denver Water’s decision to adopt an across the board rate increase. Members further agreed to schedule a meeting with representatives of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck (Brownstein) to discuss possible representation on Denver Water rate related matters. It was determined by TAC members after meeting with representatives from Brownstein to not retain legal services, but to continue to work with and negotiate with Denver Water on development of a new rate model. The rate model negotiations culminated in 2012 when the Denver Board of Water Commissioners adopted a new rate model. TAC did not oppose adoption of the model, but expressed concern about some of the model’s provisions and requested that the group have the opportunity to work with 10 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Denver Water staff to address those concerns. A copy of a white paper outlining the concerns is available upon request. TAC is continuing to work with Denver Water staff to fully express its reservations about certain components of the rate model and propose revisions to be incorporated in future annual cost of service rate studies. Following the September 28, 2012 meeting of the Rates and Fees TAC, a letter was sent to Jim Lochhead supporting the 2013 rate proposal but also expressing a need to clarify certain components of the rate model and a request to convene a meeting with senior Denver Water staff to explain our concerns with calculations used to determine the rate of return, cost of debt and cost of equity. TAC membership decided that these concerns, while being significant, did not rise to a level that would prompt opposition to adoption of the rate proposal. I reiterated points made in the letter to the Board of Water Commissioners during their September 26, 2012 meeting. In June 2013, Todd Cristiano reported that Denver Water would soon launch a study of rate structure alternatives. The primary concern prompting the study is the extreme variability in rate revenue resulting from Denver Water’s heavy reliance on consumption charges rather than fixed service charges. Such a structure causes revenue to increase in hot dry periods and fall off significantly during wet periods and periods when watering restrictions are implemented. Mr. Cristiano assured TAC members that they will be consulted and involved in the rate structure review. In September 2013, Fernando Aranda and Jason Mumm met with Todd Cristiano to review the 2014 Denver Water Cost of Service Study. Mr. Aranda reported at a meeting with all TAC members that his preliminary analysis of the study identified neither abnormalities nor adjustments that benefit one class over any other class. The rate of return and “additional amount” appear to be reasonable and consistent with industry norms as well as Denver Water commitments. As a result of his analysis, Mr. Aranda recommended that TAC support Denver Water’s rate proposal for 2014. Following review of Mr. Aranda’s recommendation, the Rates and Fees TAC sent a letter to the Board of Water Commissioners endorsing the 2014 rate proposal. The letter pointed out that the rate of return exceeds the level that TAC finds acceptable, but the group agreed to continue to work with Denver Water staff to bring future rate increases to a more acceptable level. In March 2014, in my capacity as chairman of the TAC, I received a letter from Grant Water and Sanitation requesting that TAC members pursue legislation in 2015 to essentially restrict Denver Water’s rate setting authority and limit the rate of return that can be charged to outside users. While the proposal is laudable, in my opinion it has no chance of success and will likely destroy future cooperation with Denver Water staff. The majority of TAC members realize that Denver Water is probably exceeding a reasonable rate of return, but believe the excess does not rise to a level that would generate support for a legislative and/or legal challenge. In previous discussions, members have agreed to rely on our consultants to continue to monitor Denver Water rate practices, including documentation of the actual rate or return so a rational decision can be made as to when such a challenge is warranted. A discussion of the Grant District proposal will be planned for the April TAC meeting. An open and frank discussion regarding Grant Water and Sanitation District concerns was conducted during the April 2014 TAC membership meeting. At the conclusion of the discussion, 11 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Grant representatives agreed that pursuing legislation to limit Denver Water’s rate of return from suburban users should not be attempted at this time. They also acknowledged that the TAC has probably made a positive difference in Denver Water rate proposals and that there is a benefit to having the TAC analyze Denver Water rates over an extended period of time. Not all of the benefits realized by the TAC can be easily quantified, but members feel strongly that Denver Water is more attentive to distributor concerns when staff’s work is being critically reviewed by expert rate consultants. In October 2014, Jason Mumm and Fernando Aranda presented the results of the annual review of Denver Water’s Cost of Service Study. They reported that Denver Water’s rate of return on outside-city rate base exceeds the limitation that we asked the Board of Water Commissioners to adopt when the rate methodology was changed a couple of years ago. As a result, TAC members voted to not endorse the proposed rate proposal for 2015. Rather, we have requested a meeting with the Board of Water Commissioners to present our concerns. The Rates and Fees TAC made a presentation to the Denver Board of Water Commissioners expressing our concerns with the 2015 Cost of Service Study and 2015 rate increase in December 2014. Following the somewhat contentious meeting, Denver Water rate staff submitted a list of questions to clarify some of the issues raised during the session. Jason Mumm and Fernando Aranda are prepared a white paper to explain TAC positions on the issues raised during and after the meeting and submitted the document to Denver Water senior staff and the Board of Water Commissioners. Also in December 2014, MWH Global withdrew from its consulting agreement with TAC. Following TAC membership review and discussion regarding options for future consulting services, Fernando Aranda, chief technical analyst for MWH, was retained as an employee of Geitner Environmental, Inc. rather than MWH. TAC also retained Eric Rothstein with Galardi Rothstein, Inc. headquartered in Chicago, Illinois as its primary consultant. Kees Corssmit with Geitner Environmental was retained to provide additional consulting services as required. In early 2015 TAC devoted its attention to participating in Denver Water’s Rate Structure Study. In June 2015 TAC agreed to support the recommendation of the Rate Structure Stakeholder Group which called for raising the monthly service charge from $6.74 to $8.79; reducing the number of blocks in the tiered rate structure from four to three, and lowering the threshold for the first block from 11,000 gallons to the greater of each residential customers average winter consumption or 5,000 gallons. The impacts of the proposed rate structure included 1) an increase in the fixed portion of revenue which is derived from service charges from 7% to 10% of total rate revenue to produce greater stability in revenue, and 2) a reduction in the subsidy from large lot owners and water consumers to smaller lot owners and water consumers. November 2015: Rates and Fees TAC members authorized submittal of a letter to Denver Water outlining issues with the 2016 cost of service study that have been raised by the group’s professional consultants. The primary issue continues to be the continuing increase in returns on distributor rate base which now equals 12.95%. The dollar amount of the excess profit received from distributors is $25 million, up from $18 million in 2015. Other concerns that we wish to address include the use of variables in the COS study that appear to be biased toward achieving a 12 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx goal of reaching a certain level of return from distributor service rather than to pursue an unbiased, equitable cost based rate proposal. We have requested an opportunity to present our concerns to the Board of Water Commissioners during their December 16, 2015 meeting. We have also requested an opportunity to work with Denver Water staff to discuss the origin and basis for the above referenced variables, and determine if there is a way to achieve a more equitable, cost based rate structure. A copy of a PowerPoint presentation delivered to TAC members by the group’s consultants is available upon request. December 2015: TAC has been granted permission to make a brief presentation to the Board of Water Commissioners during their meeting on December 16. The presentation will focus on our primary concerns with the 2016 cost of service (COS) study and not the rate structure alternatives nor the proposed rate increase. The goal of the presentation is to establish a process and a schedule to clarify questions and issues we have with the COS study and determine if there is a way to amicably discuss and resolve our concerns. Eric Rothstein will make the presentation for the TAC. TAC members adopted a budget and dues assessment of $1.00 per customer account for 2016. The dues assessment is the same as 2015 and will allow the TAC to maintain a reserve of approximately 50% of its annual expenses. January 2016: Eric Rothstein, Tim Lowe and I made a presentation on TAC concerns about Denver Water’s cost of service allocations to the Board of Water Commissioners on December 16. We asked the Board to commit to a series of meetings between Denver Water rate staff and TAC representatives to further discuss our concerns. The Board agreed to honor our request and the first meeting is scheduled for February 5. A copy of the draft work plan for the meetings with Denver Water staff is available upon request. February 2016: Eric Rothstein, Fernando Aranda, Tim Lowe and I met with Denver Water staff and their rate consultant Tom Gould on February 5 in the first of four planned meetings to discuss Rates and Fees TAC concerns with Denver Water’s 2016 cost of service study. Patti Wells reiterated Denver Water’s position that the Board of Water Commissioners has extensive latitude and discretion is setting rates and does not even need to conduct cost of service studies, or adhere to cost of service principles. She also made it abundantly clear that the Board will not allow rates to be lower for outside city customers for similar levels of service, i.e. total service customers. She did, however, acknowledge that it is possible to have lower rates for read and bill customers since they receive a lower level of service than inside city customers. When Denver Water changed the rate methodology in 2013, distributors were promised a credit for payments made under the “split allocation method” used to allocate capital costs. Under that formula distributors paid up to 70% of the costs for capital projects that it is now clear will be used equally, or at a higher percentage, by inside city customers. While Denver Water includes the credit in the cost of service study allocations, the “additional amount” charged to distributor’s ends up assessing the credit back to them. Allocating capital costs in accordance with previous commitments would result in lower rates for all distributor classes. Thus, it is unlikely that distributors will be granted the credit that was promised absent a lawsuit which has a minimal chance of success and very little support from distributors. In recognition of this situation, TAC 13 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx is concentrating on future capital cost allocations, and ensuring that they are distributed based on current use between inside and outside city customers. March 2016: The second of four planned meetings between TAC consultants and representatives and Denver Water staff took place on March 11. The meeting was largely devoted to discussing various methods for calculating the “additional amount” which Denver Water is required to recover for the sale of water outside city boundaries. Ten alternatives were discussed and narrowed to four for further analysis. A portion of the meeting was also devoted to a discussion of the definition of “additional amount” and whether the Board of Water Commissioners understands that Denver Water can recover an additional amount from suburban customers that receive the same level of service as in-city customers, even though the nominal rates are the same. This is possible due to the capital contributions made by suburban customers over the years. I raised this as an issue because there seems to be a perception that the nominal rate must be higher for outside- city customers in order to meet the requirement for receiving an “additional amount.” All parties agreed that there needs to be a combined effort to educate the Board on this matter. May 2016: The parties have agreed to use the baseline rate model prepared by Fernando Aranda to evaluate alternatives to calculate the “additional amount” provided for in distributor contracts. The model is being refined by Mr. Aranda and Eric Rothstein for use during the next meeting with Denver Water staff which is scheduled for May 24. During the meeting we will continue to push for a schedule to present our positions and recommendations to the Board of Water Commissioners. June 2016: The May 24 meeting with Denver Water staff was devoted to narrowing the alternatives to calculate the “additional amount” recovered by Denver Water from distributor customers. For each alternative, meeting participants discussed the industry standard for a reasonable return, and for each alternative it was determined that Denver Water’s current return exceeds what would be considered reasonable using generally accepted industry standards. The group decided to hold one more meeting and focus on the alternative calling for applying a multiplier to the calculated unit cost of service. TAC consultants propose that the multiplier be 10% to 15%. Denver Water’s current return would require a multiplier of 35% to 41% to provide the “additional amount” the agency is currently receiving. It is anticipated that a presentation on the group’s findings and recommendations will be made to the Board of Water Commissioners on July 27. July 2016: A joint meeting of the Rates and Fees TAC and the Distributor Forum will be held on July 19 to receive information on and discuss the draft proposal for an alternative methodology to calculate the “additional amount” charged to distributors in accordance with Denver City Charter and Distributor Agreements provisions. If found to be acceptable by distributors, the recommendation will be presented to the Board of Water Commissioners on July 27. As of July 13, the recommendation is still being negotiated with Denver Water staff. Within the range of alternatives being discussed, all options will result in a narrowing of the rate differential between Denver and suburban customers. Additional information on the recommendation will be presented during the July Board meeting. 14 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx August 2016: A presentation on the status of our discussions with Denver Water rate staff was made to the Board of Water Commissioners on July 27. The Board agreed to continue discussions with a focus on use of a methodology to calculate the additional amount consisting of adding a percentage multiplier to the actual unit cost of service. The Board also encouraged the TAC to continue to work with Denver Water staff to work on the details of the methodology. Subsequent to the presentation, Denver Water executive staff met with the Board to further discuss policy issues. The Board indicated they are comfortable with the integrated system concept which eliminates allocation of assets to inside and outside users as has been the practice in the past. They also stated that they do not want to see higher rate increases for Denver customers. I informed Denver senior staff that there will very likely be a need for higher increases for Denver customers relative to distributor customers in order to reduce the additional amount to a number we find reasonable, although we have agreed to phase in such increases over a number of years and have also suggested ways the Denver Water can reduce future rate increases by adjusting debt levels and increase in-City system development charges to the true cost of service. Following a lengthy discussion staff seemed to be a bit more flexible on the rate increase issue. A meeting of the workgroup is being scheduled for the week of August 21. The session will be devoted to reviewing the rate impacts from various levels of multiplier (10%, 15%, 20% and 30%). A TAC membership meeting will then be scheduled to present the status of our negotiations and determine if there is support to move forward. September 2016: The TAC workgroup presented its proposal to Denver Water senior staff on September 6. The proposal was in line with the comprehensive, collaborative discussions held with Denver Water rate staff over the past seven months. The proposal was summarily rejected by the CEO/manager, attorney and finance director. As stated by the CEO/manager, TAC does not have a compelling argument and the board could not defend our recommendation to the mayor of Denver. I am in the process of scheduling a meeting with TAC members to discuss and determine where we want to go from here. October 2016: Discussions are continuing between Denver Water and the Rates and Fees TAC. A meeting with Jim Lochhead, Julie Anderson and Angela Bricmont is scheduled for October 20 to discuss a counterproposal to be offered by Denver Water. A TAC meeting to inform the members of the status of the negotiations was held on October 13. November 2016: Discussions are continuing but we have yet to find a compromise that is acceptable to distributors and Denver Water. December 2016: The rate proposal based on the 19% multiplier methodology will be presented to the Board of Water Commissioners on December 14. A resolution describing the rate methodology and the agreement to apply the 19% multiplier will also be considered by the Board on the 19th. A copy of the draft resolution is available upon request. January 2017: The Rates and Fees TAC has adopted a budget for 2017 that calls for a reduction in dues from $1.00 per account to $.60 per account. I am working with Eric Rothstein and Fernando Aranda on the work plan for 2017. The plan will likely propose a continuation of TAC’s 15 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx annual participation in Denver Water’s Cost of Service Study, and will also propose an expansion of our collaboration into additional financial matters that affect Denver Water distributors. February 2017: Eric Rothstein has completed a review of Denver Water’s capital financing structure and we have requested a meeting with Denver Water staff to discuss the findings. Mr. Rothstein is generally complimentary of the agency’s capital financing plan; however, he has requested more information and establishment of an ongoing dialog on capital finances and other financial matters that impact distributor rates and fees. March 2017: A meeting to discuss Mr. Rothstein’s review of Denver Water’s capital financing strategy has been scheduled for April 11. Jim Lochhead and Julie Anderson will attend the meeting in addition to finance staff. April 2017: A TAC membership meeting was held on April 11 after which Eric Rothstein, Tim Lowe and I met with Jim Lochhead, Angela Bricmont and Julie Anderson to discuss a recent memorandum prepared by Mr. Rothstein. The memorandum summarized the findings of Mr. Rothstein’s review of Denver Water financing strategy and requested that the TAC receive additional information and be offered the opportunity to provide comments and advice. Denver Water representatives were very reluctant to share additional information and made it abundantly clear that finance decisions are “not dual decisions”. TAC representatives stated that the TAC fully understands Denver Water is the decision maker; however, financing decisions have an impact on costs and water rates and everyone benefits by having distributors better informed and better able to respond to distributor governing board and water user inquiries about Denver Water policies. Distributors are much more likely to support Denver Water, particularly on rate increases, if they have more knowledge about the issues driving the increases. At the conclusion of the meeting, Denver Water representatives reluctantly agreed to continue the discussions. May 2017: A copy of a letter responding to the TAC’s questions and request for additional information pertaining to Denver Water’s financing strategy is attached hereto as Attachment 1. The letter is minimally responsive and helpful so the TAC will continue to pursue our objective of working in a more informative and collaborative manner by attempting to work with staff members that are not as defensive and uncooperative as some of the finance staff. Littleton - Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Pretreatment Program Platte Canyon staff are working with the Tim Flynn to review and comment on a proposed addendum to the District’s Wastewater Connectors’ Agreement with the City of Littleton. The addendum is being required by the U. S. EPA in order to clarify authorities and responsibilities for implementation and enforcement of the Industrial Pretreatment Program. January 2016: Littleton Englewood treatment plant staff have reported that the addendum to the District’s Wastewater Connectors Agreement will be submitted to the Supervisory Committee for 16 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx approval during their December meeting. When approved, the agreement will be submitted to each of the Littleton and Englewood connector districts for approval and execution. I have objected to submittal of the agreement to the Supervisory Committee before the final draft version is submitted to the connector districts for review and comment. I have been told that the agreement will be presented to the connector districts prior to approval by the Supervisory Committee, but I have yet to receive the agreement. February 2016: Ashley Dalton and I attended the January Supervisory Committee meeting and advised the Board that the draft agreement should be resubmitted to the connector districts for review prior to consideration by the Supervisory Committee and the City Councils. The committee agreed and directed staff to consult with connector districts prior to submitting the agreement to them for approval. It is now one month after the meeting, and we have still not heard from plant staff. April 2016: Littleton-Englewood staff mailed a letter and copy of the draft Addendum to each connector district asking them to sign and return it. No changes have been made to the addendum since the last submittal, despite several proposed revisions being sent to plant staff. I sent a letter on behalf of Platte Canyon, Southwest Metropolitan, Bow Mar, Columbine, and Valley stating that the districts will not sign the addendum until they have an opportunity to discuss proposed revisions with the appropriate parties. May 2016: David Robbins, attorney for the Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant, is going to call each attorney that provided comments or expressed reservations about signing the Pretreatment Addendum. October 2016: David Robbins, Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant attorney, has contacted attorneys for some of the connector districts to receive additional information on their concerns relative to the proposed pretreatment addendum to the connector agreements. He has indicated that he is willing to accept some amendments to the proposed addendum. Mr. Robbins is also working with the city attorneys for Littleton and Englewood to prepare amendments to city ordinances related to wastewater pretreatment requirements. The proposed amendments are in response to a recent audit of the treatment plant’s pretreatment program conducted by the EPA. December 2016: We have reached agreement with attorneys from Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant and the City of Littleton on a pretreatment addendum to the Districts’ sewer connection agreements. The Addendums will be submitted to the Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan Boards for approval when we receive executable copies. January 2017: The Addendums approved by Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan Boards of Directors have been delivered to the City of Littleton for approval. The Valley Sanitation District, and Bow Mar and Columbine Water and Sanitation Districts have also approve the Addendums. 17 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx The City of Littleton is pursing amendments to its municipal code to incorporate revisions to sanitary sewer pretreatment requirements. I have requested that the connector districts be given an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed revisions prior to scheduling a public hearing. March 2017: Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant staff transmitted a review copy of proposed revisions of both the City of Englewood and City of Littleton municipal codes as they pertain to wastewater treatment rules and regulations. Each Council will hold public hearings on the revisions in the next several weeks. May 2017: Littleton City Council approved amendments to the City’s municipal code as they pertain to wastewater collection and treatment. The amendments were largely focused on wastewater pretreatment regulations, particularly to clarify and expand the City’s and Littleton Englewood Treatment Plant’s authority to enforce pretreatment regulations both inside the City and in connector entity jurisdictions. A copy of a memorandum from Jon Bridges, Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant’s pretreatment coordinator, summarizing the municipal code revisions is available upon request. City Council also approved the connector entity contract addendums that were recently approved by each of the connector entities. The addendums also clarified the City’s, the treatment plant’s and connector entities authority to conduct and enforce pretreatment regulations. TABOR Lawsuit (PC & SWM) U.S. District Judge William Martinez recently ruled that a constitutional challenge to the TABOR Amendment can go to trial, thus rejecting arguments that the plaintiffs in the lawsuit do not have standing. The suit was filed by 33 plaintiffs who argue that TABOR violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee that every state have a republican form of government or one where people elect officials to govern, rather than a direct democracy where citizens govern directly. October 2013: The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on September 23, 2013, on whether the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the TABOR Amendment should go forward. The lawsuit, initially filed in U.S. District Court in 2011 by several current and former state and local elected officials, claims that TABOR usurps governmental power to impose taxes, which in turn prevents governmental officials from doing the jobs they were elected to perform. “TABOR violates a fundamental requirement of the U.S. Constitution, that each state maintain a republican form of government,” stated David Skaggs, one of the attorneys representing plaintiffs in the case. Last year, U.S. District Judge William Martinez rejected an argument from the Colorado Attorney general’s office that the suit is a direct attack on the state’s initiative and referendum process. In his ruling, Martinez said that while citizens have the right to pass ballot measures, including amending the state’s constitution, they do not have the right to approve unconstitutional provisions, if they prove to be so. It is that ruling that the attorney general’s office is appealing. 18 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx December 2013: Recent guest columns published in the Denver Post regarding the TABOR lawsuit were mailed to District directors in early December. March 2014: On March 7, 2014, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision upholding the U.S. District Court decision declaring that plaintiffs have standing and a right to sue. The Appeals Court noted that the “Supreme Court has held that members of a state legislature may have standing to sue in order to vindicate the ‘plain, direct and adequate interest in maintaining the effectiveness of their votes.’ ” The Colorado Attorney General is reviewing the decision and will make a decision whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future. A copy of the Circuit Court’s ruling is available on request or will be available for downloading at the www.taborcase.org website in the near future. The website also contains an extensive amount of information on the background of the lawsuit and all of the pleadings. January 2015: The U.S Supreme Court is expected to decide soon whether to allow the challenge to the TABOR Amendment to go to trial. A decision may be made as early as January 15. April 2015: We are approaching the fourth anniversary of the original pleading in this case (May 23, 2011), and continue to await a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on whether the case will be allowed to go to trial. June 2016: The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 3, 2016 that the group of current and past Colorado legislators that are plaintiffs in The TABOR lawsuit do not have standing to challenge the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights. In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the 10th Circuit to revisit its ruling on the case. The high court vacated the earlier decision by the 10 Circuit Court when it ruled that a group that included state lawmakers had standing to challenge TABOR in court. The Supreme Court’s ruling sent the case back to reconsider in light of its ruling involving Arizona’s process for drawing congressional district boundaries. In that case, the legislature, as a whole, challenged an amendment to the state constitution that gave redistricting power to a commission. The Supreme Court accepted the Arizona legislature pursuing its challenge, but the 10th Circuit found a significant difference between that case and the TABOR case, notably the Arizona case was brought on behalf of the entire legislature rather than a few lawmakers. Plaintiffs options now are to request an en banc hearing before the full 10th Circuit Court, appeal again to the Supreme Court, or refile the case in a lower court. May 2017: A federal judge once again has dismissed the case Kerr et al. v. Hickenlooper (TABOR Lawsuit), this time for lack of standing. “The Court finds that none of the named plaintiffs (be they political subdivisions, former or current elected officials, educators, citizens, or anything else) have standing to pursue this action,” U.S. District Judge Raymond Moore wrote in his decision. The lawsuit was filed six years ago and proceeded all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and back to the federal court in Denver without ever actually dealing with issue: Does TABOR wrongly take away the taxing authority from legislators and local government. Michael Feeley, one member of a team of attorneys representing the TABOR opponents, stated “we will read the decision very carefully and determine what options may be available. We hope to have our day in court. The courts have never addressed the merits of the case.” 19 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Annexation of Wild Plum Farm (Tuck Property) (SWM) An application for annexation of 104.8 acres of land located south of Fairway Lane between Platte Canyon Rd. and the South Platte River (Wild Plum Farm) has been filed with the Southwest Metropolitan by JPB Holdings, LLC. The property is located within the Town of Columbine which is processing a development plan calling for 100 single family detached homes. Sewer service can be provided by Southwest Metropolitan and water service can also be provided by Southwest contingent upon an agreement with Columbine Water and Sanitation District and Denver Water for a connection to a water main owned by Columbine/Denver. The connection is necessary to provide looped water system using both Southwest Metropolitan and Columbine as water sources. District staff is pursuing the water connection agreement prior to submitting the annexation application to the Southwest Metropolitan Board of Directors. February 2017: The District has received a Petition for Inclusion and will now advertise for a public hearing during the March meeting. I am working with Tim Flynn to prepare an intergovernmental agreement between Southwest Metropolitan and Columbine Water and Sanitation District to allow Southwest to connect to a Columbine water main in Fairway Lane. This connection will be needed to provide looped water service to the Wild Plum property. March 2017: A public hearing to consider annexation of the Wild Plum Farm property is scheduled for the March 24 Southwest Metropolitan meeting. Tim Flynn and the attorney for Columbine Water and Sanitation District have exchanged drafts of an agreement to allow Southwest Metropolitan to make a connection to a Columbine owned water main in Fairway Lane adjacent to the Wild Plum Farm property. The connection is needed to provide looped water service to property. April 2017: The District has submitted an invoice for inclusion fees in the amount or $157,500 to CalAtlantic Homes. Once paid, Tim Flynn will file the inclusion Order and Decree with the District Court. Denver Water has reviewed and accepted the Columbine – Southwest Metropolitan Water Connection Agreement. The agreement has been submitted to the Columbine Water and Sanitation District for approval and execution. May 2017: Annexation fees have been paid and I have asked Tim Flynn to proceed with the filing of the order and decree to annex the property into Southwest Metropolitan. Property Tax Residential Assessment Rate (PC, BM, Columbine, Valley) The Gallagher Amendment requires that the values of residential property be adjusted to maintain a constant relationship with non-residential property. The most recent economic forecast by the state’ Legislative Council indicates that the constitutionally required adjustment to the residential assessment rate is expected to decrease from 7.96 percent to 6.85 percent of actual value. The 20 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx change in assessment rate effects each taxing authority differently based on the mix of residential, commercial and other taxable property within each jurisdiction. Vanessa Shipley is consulting with Jefferson, Arapahoe and Denver Counties to determine the approximate impact on Platte Canyon, Bow Mar, Columbine, and Valley tax revenues. Market adjustments in the biennial reassessment of property values will offset some of the loss in tax revenue, but each entity is still likely to experience a decrease. May 2017: The Colorado General Assembly passed legislation setting the residential assessment rate for 2018 at 7.2% rather than the 6.85% initially proposed by the Colorado Division of Property Taxation. The final assessment rate will provide some relief to taxing entities that were expecting up to a 20% decrease in property tax revenues in 2018. The adopted assessment rate combined with the increase in real property valuations will result in many taxing entities experiencing no loss in revenue. Grant Water and Sanitation District Sewer Agreements for Clement Park (PC & SWM) Grant Water and Sanitation District provides water and sewer service to several Foothills Park and Recreation District facilities located in Clement Park. Both Southwest Metropolitan and Platte Canyon have intergovernmental sewer agreements for transmission of wastewater originating from the facilities. Recent remodeling of the facilities has resulted in Grant exceeding the service limitations in the Platte Canyon IGA. Thus, an amendment to the existing agreement is being prepared to expand Grant’s capacity for Clement Park. The amendment will be submitted to the Platte Canyon Board for approval during the March meeting. Southwest Metropolitan’ IGA with Grant provides sufficient capacity and does not need to be amended. April 2017: Tim Flynn is preparing a new agreement between Grant and Platte Canyon to add additional sewer capacity for Clement Park and to change the methodology used to calculate the number of single family equivalents for commercial sewer taps. May 2017: District staff is working with the Grant Water and Sanitation District to finalize the agreement so it can be submitted to the Platte Canyon Board for approval during the June Board meeting. Meadowbrook Fairview Metropolitan District Sewer Agreement with Southwest Metropolitan (SWM) Southwest Metropolitan received a request for a “will serve” letter for sewer service for a rezoning application for a 96 unit residential development in Meadowbrook Fairview Metropolitan District. Southwest has a sewer agreement with Meadowbrook in which Southwest agrees to transport wastewater from up to 1,886 single family equivalent taps in the Meadowbrook District. Since Meadowbrook requires Southwest’s acceptance of its wastewater into Southwest’s sewer system, Jefferson County requires a “will serve” letter from Southwest in addition to Meadowbrook. Meadowbrook only has 80 single family equivalent taps remaining under the current agreement with Southwest, thus we did not issue the requested letter. We have informed both the developer 21 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx and Meadowbrook that an amendment to the existing sewer agreement must be processed prior to proceeding with the proposed development. May 2017: Don Vogt, attorney for Meadowbrook Fairview Metropolitan District, has informed me that Meadowbrook will not request an expansion in the sewer capacity available to Meadowbrook until the developer’s (CalAtlantic Homes) development plan has been approved by Jefferson County. Intergovernmental Services Bow Mar Water and Sanitation District Water Billing Software During the May 10 Bow Mar Board of Director’s meeting, the Board requested that Platte Canyon staff obtain information on water billing software that would provide for electronic payments. During the AMR metering project Platte Canyon staff obtained proposals for new billing software, but the Board decided not to proceed due to the estimated cost of the project. We will review and update our previous work and submit it to the Bow Mar Board in July. Columbine Water and Sanitation District Willowcroft Subdivision Sewer Deficiencies During a final acceptance inspection of sewer mains installed in the Willowcroft Subdivision at Bowles Ave. and Middlefield Rd., District staff discovered a number of deficiencies. Scott Hand and Tony Cocozzella have devoted a great deal of time televising and performing inclination assessments of the sewer system to document the problems. During a recent meeting with the builder, Taylor-Morrison, and the sewer contractor, the contractor refused to perform any corrections to the system stating that he believes it remains within reasonable tolerances and still functions. Another meeting with the developer/builder, the contractor and Columbine’s attorney is being scheduled at which time we intend to inform them that 650 feet of the pipe must be excavated and replaced. Should they again reuse to perform repairs, we will recommend that the Board take legal action. May 2016: The Columbine Board of Directors held a special meeting to discuss and develop a position on how to correct the deficiencies to the Willowcroft sewer system. Tony Cocozzella and I attended the meeting and recommended that the developer be required to replace 650 feet of sewer pipe and provide an extended warranty on the remainder of system to allow us to evaluate its condition over time to determine if additional segments need to be replaced. The Board 22 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx accepted the recommendation and a meeting between the developer (Taylor Morrison), the developer’s attorney, the District’s attorney and Tony and I has been scheduled for June 2 to present the District’s requirements. June 2016: Negotiations are continuing with Taylor Morrison over correction of deficiencies to the Willowcroft sewer system. It is likely that the amount of pipe to be replaced will far exceed 650 feet in order to avoid future monitoring of marginally functioning pipe that may ultimately require replacement. July 2016: The Columbine Board at a special meeting scheduled for July 21 will consider a sewer repair and replacement proposal received from Taylor Morrison. The proposal consists of spot repairs that are not as comprehensive as the recommendation made by Platte Canyon staff. August 2016: Unfortunately, the District and Taylor Morrison have not reached an agreement on the scope of repairs necessary for the District to accept the Willowcroft sewer system. Discussions are now occurring between the District’s attorney and Taylor Morrison’s attorney. We are providing information and assistance as requested. October 2016: The attorneys’ for Columbine and Taylor Morrison have been exchanging proposals and agreements for remediation of sewer system deficiencies. A moratorium on the issuance of sewer tap permits will remain in place until the parties reach an agreement. December 2016: Subject to minor modifications, the Board of Directors approved an agreement with Taylor Morrison for repair of the Willowcroft sewer system. Taylor Morrison will make repairs and the District will observe operation of the system for two years. At the end of the two year period the District will make a final determination whether to accept the system. January 2017: A sewer repair plan has been submitted to the District by Taylor Morrison and accepted by the District. Repairs will begin in mid-January. February 2017: Repairs to the Willowcroft sewer system are nearly complete. Tony Cocozzella and Scott Hand will inspect the repairs and, if accepted, Columbine will issue additional sewer taps in the development. The developer has agreed to an extended two year warranty for the sewer system. March 2017: The sewer repairs have been completed with the exception of three specific areas that Platte Canyon staff have determined are not acceptable. The District is issuing tap permits and allowing connections to the sewer mains while the developer proposes a solution to the three problem areas. The District will monitor the system for two additional years to ensure that it functions as intended. May 2017: There are three areas in the Willowcroft sewer system that remain a problem. Taylor Morrison has proposed that they be allowed to provide $30,000 to the District to compensate for increased future sewer maintenance costs due to the remaining deficiencies rather than attempt to do structural repairs. The builder has also requested that the $5 23 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx million bond they were required to provide be reduced substantially. The requests will be taken up by the Columbine Board of Directors at their next meeting on June 2. Lochmoor Water and Sanitation District No activity to report Valley Sanitation District Customer Outreach The Valley Board of Directors has asked Platte Canyon staff to prepare a newsletter to explain the deterioration of portions of its sewer collection system and the recent discovery of a significant concentration of methane in portions of the District’s outfall sewer. The board wants District customers to understand the need for additional revenue in order to repair and rehabilitate its sewer system prior to making any decisions on a method to generate the revenue. May 2016: Barrie Brinkley completed the newsletter and supervised printing and distribution to Valley customers. The Valley Board expressed their appreciation for Ms. Brinkley’s efforts. December 2016: Platte Canyon staff has prepared a PowerPoint presentation for the Valley Sanitation District to explain basic facts about the District and describe the need for relocating the portion of the interceptor sewer located in the abandoned landfill. Four informational meetings are being organized by the Board at which time Platte Canyon staff will make a presentation. District staff also assisted the Board in developing a postcard notice for the meetings that will be sent to all District residents in early 2017. January 2017: Alyssa Quinn and Scott Hand have prepared a PowerPoint presentation for use at several Valley open house sessions. These meetings are being scheduled throughout the District in February, March, April and May. The presentation consists of an overview of District functions, information on District assets, and financial information. The location, age and condition of the District’s outfall sewer is emphasized along with the engineering study recommending relocation of a portion of the sewer main. February 2017: The first of three open houses was held on February 15. Alyssa Quinn, Scott Hand, Tony Cocozzella participated in the presentation made during the two hour meeting. While only 21 residents attended the session, they were very engaged and offered numerous suggestions and recommendations for engaging more of the community in the District’s efforts to obtain additional revenue to relocate the District’s outfall sewer outside of the abandoned landfill. The meeting was also attended by a Denver Post reporter who wrote an article that appeared in the February 17 issue of the newspaper. March 2017: During the initial open house to present information on the interceptor sewer problem, a number of attendees suggested that the District prepare a one page fact sheet for 24 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx distribution to Valley residents. The Valley Board of Directors subsequently asked Platte Canyon staff to draft the fact sheet, obtain Board approval and mail it to all Valley customers. April 2017: The third and final informational meetings on the Valley sewer interceptor problem is scheduled for April 12. Alyssa Quinn is working with the Nextdoor website operator to get access to allow us to send messages to all of the Nextdoor neighborhoods within the Valley Sanitation District. May 2017: Cynthia Lane and Alyssa Quinn are working on a communication plan for the Outfall Sewer Relocation Project and the proposed TABOR election in November. Additional information on the plan will be provided during the May 26 Board meeting. A copy of a frequently asked questions (FAQ) document prepared by Ms. Lane is attached hereto as Attachment 2. Outfall Sewer Rehabilitation The majority of Valley’s outfall sewer main has been lined with either PE pipe or CIPP epoxy lining. However, 1,015 feet or 21-inch and 24-inch concrete pipe located south of Oxford Rd. and west of Platte River Dr. has not been rehabilitated and is experiencing corrosion. Platte Canyon staff has recommended that the pipe be CIPP lined in 2015 and the Valley Board of Directors has authorized design of the project. A contract with ENS Consulting was approved by the Valley Board of Directors during their April 8 meeting. May 2015: Tony Cocozzella is working with Rich Cassens to develop a bypass pumping pipe alignment and acquire landowner permission for the alignment. July 2015: Mr. Cocozzella continues to consult with a property owner in the Valley District in an effort to acquire an easement for bypass pumping facilities needed for the rehabilitation of a portion of Valley’s outfall sewer main in the vicinity of Oxford Ave. and Platte River Dr. September 2015: The outfall sewer rehabilitation project has been put on hold pending resolution of the methane contamination situation described below. November 2015: We have requested a proposal from Dewberry Engineering to investigate alternatives for moving the District’s outfall sewer main out of a landfill located south of Oxford Ave. and west of the South Platte River. As noted below, we recently discovered that the sewer main is collecting methane gas from the landfill, and we therefore do not want to proceed with lining the existing pipe if it is feasible to move it away from the landfill. December 2015: The proposal to investigate outfall sewer relocation alternatives received from Dewberry Engineering was approved by the Valley Board of Directors during their December 9 meeting. March 16: Dewberry Engineering is nearing completion of the alternatives analysis for relocating a portion of the District’s outfall sewer from its current location in a landfill. Once completed, the 25 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx analysis will be submitted to the Valley Board of Directors for discussion and approval. District staff will then initiate a discussion with the Colorado Department of Health and Environment to determine if funding is available to relocate the pipe. April 2016: Dewberry has completed their report and recommends that the outfall sewer currently located in the abandoned land fill be relocated at a cost of $2.35 million. Dewberry researched two alignments for relocation and determine that only one is a viable option. Relocation will necessitate construction of a sewage lift station which is a major part of the cost estimate. The report will be discussed with the Valley Board of Directors on April 13 after which District staff will seek financing assistance from the State. May 2016: The Board of Directors accepted Dewberry’s report and requested that Platte Canyon staff pursue financing to relocate the outfall sewer outside of the landfill. As explained above in the Sewer Service Fee and Pipe Condition Assessment section, Ashley Dalton is exploring alternatives for financing rehabilitation of the District’s 8-inch concrete pipe as well as for the relocation of the outfall sewer. The District will need over $2.0 million to complete both projects. June 2016: The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment will begin accepting applications for Clean Water Revolving Fund loans on June 15. Ashley Dalton is preparing an application for both the relocation of the portion of Valley’s outfall sewer that is located in an abandoned landfill and the lining of 8-inch concrete collection system pipe. We anticipate the request will total $2,000,000 and will require a TABOR election. July 2016: Ashley Dalton has submitted the application to get on the loan eligibility list and is now preparing the pre-qualification form which is the next step in the loan application process. The Valley Board will consider a resolution calling for a TABOR election in November to incur debt and assess a mill levy to retire the debt. August 2016: Ashley Dalton will continue to pursue a loan for construction of a sewage lift station and bypass sewer around the abandoned landfill even though the Valley Board has chosen to delay the TABOR election needed to obtain the loan. The state will allow the District to continue to process the loan application and will make final approval contingent upon voter approval of a TABOR ballot proposal. September 2016: The recently released Colorado Water Quality Control Division 2017 Intended Use Plan includes Valley Sanitation on the eligibility list for a clean water revolving fund loan up to $2,500,000. The District is also included on a separate list of entities eligible to receive funds in 2017. October 2016: Alyssa Quinn developed a PowerPoint presentation to explain the services provided by Valley Sanitation District as well as to inform customers of the need for a loan and/or additional revenue to conduct needed repairs to the District’s outfall sewers. The presentation was shown to the Board during their October meeting. The Board suggested a few changes to the presentation and asked that Ms. Quinn present it to various citizen groups over the next few months. 26 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx The Board also requested that Ms. Quinn prepare a serious of postcards to be sent to District customers informing them of the important issues confronting the District. December 2016: We have not been able to devote much attention to pursing the loan after the resignation of the assistant manager. However, District staff has been working closely with the Valley Board of Directions on a public information campaign to explain the need for relocating the outfall sewer away from the abandoned landfill. January 2017: On behalf of Valley, Platte Canyon staff have requested a proposal from Dewberry Engineering to assist with processing an application for a Clean Water Revolving Fund loan from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. March 2017: Platte Canyon staff met with several members of the Colorado Department of Public Health Loans and Grants Section and the Division of Local Government to discuss the process for obtaining a State Revolving Fund loan for relocating the interceptor sewer outside of the abandoned land fill. The dialog was very informative and we are proceeding with Valley Board authorization to process a loan for $2.5 million. April 2017: Cynthia Lane will head up the effort to acquire a loan for the interceptor relocation project and will work with Dewberry Engineering to conduct preliminary planning and engineering for the project. May 2017: A copy of the project plan and schedule prepared by Cynthia Lane is attached hereto as Attachment 3. Ms. Lane will provide additional information during the May Board meeting on efforts being made by Platte Canyon staff to plan and complete the project. Outfall Sewer Methane Contamination Littleton – Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant staff discovered hazardous levels of methane in portions of Valley’s outfall sewer main. The sewer main traverses an old landfill and decomposing trash is apparently infiltrating the sewer main and/or manholes. District staff is negotiating a contract with a consultant to evaluate options for moving the 18-inch sewer main from the land fill. It is very likely that a sewage lift station will be required if the sewer is relocated. Since the District does not have sufficient reserves to construct a lift station and relocate the sewer, we intend to seek funding from the state. May 2017: See discussion above in the Outfall Sewer Rehabilitation section. 27 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Denver Water Department Matters Board - Distributor Communication The April Forum meeting included a presentation by Denver Water staff on contractor requirements for lead service line replacements. The May Forum meeting held on May 16 included presentations on the National Western Complex redevelopment, RTX:LINK, backflow prevention communications protocol between Denver Water and Master Meter Distributors and the schedule for preparing the rate study for 2018 rates. Denver Water is relocating its lab facilities from Marston Reservoir to the National Western site. The agency will share a building with Colorado State University and will collaborate on water innovation and research. Cynthia Lane is continuing work with Sarah Dominick who is leading the Integrated Resource Plan for Denver Water. Easements Denver Water has made significant changes to the easement forms that distributors are required to use. The changes provide greater clarity of some previously ambiguous provisions and are stricter in terms of structures, landscaping and materials that can be placed on the surface of the easement. Denver Water will no longer allow changes to the body of the easement, but will allow acceptable changes of terms and conditions to be added as special provisions. Copies of the easements and a document summarizing the changes is available upon request. Cost of Service Study for 2018 Rates During the May Distributor Forum meeting, Fletcher Davis, Denver Water Manager of Rates, presented the proposed schedule for the 2018 Rate Study. The revenue requirements/adjustments will be completed by August 15, the Financial Plan by October 17 and the 1st reading for 2018 rates on October 25. The Board is scheduled to approve the rate proposal on November 15, and the new rates will take effect on March 1, 2018. Water Conservation Alyssa Quinn, Chair of the Distributor Water Conservation Subcommittee has been working with Denver Water staff to develop a Children’s Water Festival program. Ms. Quinn was working on developing such a program for Denver Water distributors when she learned that Denver Water was also beginning to plan for a water festival inside Denver. She reminded Denver Water staff that distributors represent one-half of Denver Water customers and revenue, and a joint effort to 28 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx coordinate development of a water festival which would be available to the entire Denver Water service area would be a much better approach. Denver Water has somewhat reluctantly agreed and is working with Ms. Quinn and other distributors to bring the water festival concept to fruition. Alyssa Quinn participated as a representative of Denver Water Distributors in a LEAN rapid improvement event for the conservation rebate program. Rapid improvement events are designed to seek out process efficiencies and eliminate waste. We were pleased that Denver Water sought distributor input because their staff often does not understand, or attempt to consider the impact Denver Water procedures and processes have on distributors and their customers. March 2015: The Colorado Water Conservation Act of 20014 requires water providers that supply over 3,000 acre feet of water to have a state-approved water efficiency plan containing certain required minimum plan elements. The plans are required to updated and re-approved ever seven years. Denver Water has updated the integrated system water conservation plan approved in 2007 and submitted it to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for approval. May 2015: Denver Water Conservation staff recently presented its annual review of water conservation programs to the Board of Water Commissioners. A copy of the presentation is available upon request. March 2016: Denver Water is forming a stakeholder group to consult with on revisions to its Water Conservation (now referred to as Water Efficiency) Plan. There will be a distributor representative on the group and Denver Water is encouraging someone other than Alyssa Quinn to be the official member. Alyssa chairs the Distributor Water Conservation Subcommittee, is on the board of directors of WaterWise and has been the most active distributor representative working on Denver Water conservation matters. It appears to be the same game that Denver Water played with the rate structure stakeholder group. Alyssa has contacted other members of the conservation committee and none of them are willing to devote the time and attention needed to be an effective distributor advocate. Therefore, we are going to nominate Ms. Quinn as the distributor representative and will be as forceful as necessary to ensure distributors are well represented. April 2016: Alyssa Quinn has been informed that she has been appointed as the Denver Water Distributor representative on the Water Efficiency Plan stakeholders group. June 2016: The Water Efficiency Working Group had their first meeting on May 25. The meeting was largely devoted to establishing protocols, goals and expectations for the group. Essentially, the group is charged with updating Denver Water’s water efficiency (conservation) plan. January 2017: The Water Efficiency Working Group, of which Alyssa Quinn is a member, will conclude their work and present the results of their meetings and recommendations to the Board of Water Commissioners in February. April 2017: The Water Efficiency Working Group has completed its work and issued a final recommendation report for review and comment from stakeholders and other interested parties. The report will be finalized and delivered to the Board of Water Commissioners in April 2017. 29 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx May 2017: Jeff Tejral and the Water Efficiency Stakeholder Group presented the draft Water Efficiency Plan to the Board of Water Commissioners on May 10. The Plan establishes metrics and goals for single family indoor use, single family outdoor use, multifamily indoor and outdoor use, commercial industrial and institutional use, and public space use. The Plan is now available for public review and comment for a 60 day period after which the Board will approve or request amendments to the Plan. A copy of the presentation provided to the Board is attached hereto as Attachment 4, and a copy of the entire plan is available upon request. A copy of the latest quarterly Denver Water Fixture Rebate and Retrofit Report is attached hereto as Attachment 5. Denver Metro Children’s Water Festival Alyssa Quinn continues to be very involved in the organization and planning for the first Denver Metro Water Festival that will be held on the Metropolitan State University of Denver campus on May 21, 2014. Ms. Quinn has been instrumental in coordinating distributor and suburban school district involvement in planning for the festival. Absent her intervention in the organization process, it is unlikely Denver Water would have involved suburban school districts in the festival. Ms. Quinn is now heading up a sponsorship drive to generate funds to replace budget cutbacks by Denver Water. April 2014: Planning for the Water Festival is moving forward with about 800 6th grade students scheduled to attend on May 21. The students are divided equally between Denver and distributor area school districts (at the insistence of Alyssa Quinn). A number of Platte Canyon employees are being allowed to assist with Water Festival activities. Ms. Quinn has done an excellent job representing Denver Water distributors in planning for the upcoming festival. May 2014: The culmination of many hours of arduous work by Alyssa Quinn and others will reach fruition on May 21 at the Auraria Campus in downtown Denver. Along with Ms. Quinn, several Platte Canyon employees have volunteered their time for the Water Festival. We look forward to the festival being a big success and the initiation of many more annual events. July 2014: Alyssa Quinn will make a brief presentation relative to the successful Denver Metropolitan Water Festival during the August Board meeting. December 2014: Alyssa Quinn has begun work with Denver Water staff to plan the second Children’s Water Festival schedule for May 2015. The program will be expanded to involve twice the number of students that attended this year. February 2015: Alyssa Quinn continues to be heavily involved in the planning for the 2015 Water Festival. This year the festival will expand to 1218 students, 738 from schools located in distributor service areas and 480 students from Denver schools. The festival will be held on May 19. 30 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx May 2015: The water festival is scheduled for May 19 at the Auraria Campus. Alyssa Quinn has been instrumental in organizing, planning and coordinating this year’s festival which has doubled in size from last year’s effort. September 2015: Alyssa Quinn and other members of the planning committee have initiated the planning for the 2016 Water Festival. The number of students will be held to approximately 1200, but different schools will be invited to participate. February 2016: Alyssa Quinn has initiated the planning work for the 2016 Water Festival. Ms. Quinn represents the interests of all Denver Water distributors on a planning committee for the festival. It remains a very popular event for elementary schools throughout the Denver Water service area and a number of schools had to be turned down due to the increasing popularity. March 2016: Planning for the festival is well under way and the planning group is seeking volunteers to work at the one day festival. If you are interested in participating in this fun and informative event, please contact Alyssa Quinn. April 2016: Alyssa Quinn is still seeking volunteers to assist with the Water Festival. If you or someone you know may be interested, please contact Ms. Quinn at the District office. May 2016: The Water Festival was conducted on May 17 with over 1,000 students in attendance. Alyssa Quinn was one of the primary organizers for the event and her hard work was significant in making the festival a huge success once again. May 2017: The Water Festival was held on May 17 with over 1,000 students in attendance. Alyssa Quinn was once again one of the organizers of the event and several Platte Canyon employees assisted during the all-day session. Integrated Resource Plan Mark Wagge from Denver Water presented a status report on the Integrated Resource Plan during the July Distributor Forum. Denver Water has slowed work on the IRP until a federal permitting decision is made on the Moffat Expansion Project. However, Mr. Wagge reported that “based on several fundamental assumptions, including those listed below, Denver Water has sufficient water supply to meet its customers’ short-term needs through approximately 2030: 1. The enlargement of Gross Reservoir is completed, along with the non- potable recycling project and downstream gravel pit storage projects; 2. Denver reaches its goals in the 2016 water conservation plan, which they are on track to do; and 3. Denver Water does not suffer a major loss of supply or have a major change in climate during this period. February 2014: I have requested that Denver Water staff make a presentation during a future Distributor Forum meeting on the current status of the Integrated Resource Plan. Distributors are 31 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx particularly interested in Denver Water’s study of conjunctive use of ground water and surface water (see Aquifer Storage and Recovery Pilot Project below). The presentation has preliminarily been scheduled for the March 18, 2014 Forum meeting. March 2014: As reference above in the Denver Water – Distributor Communication section, Denver Water staff provided a presentation on Aquifer Storage and Recovery during the March 18 Forum meeting. Additional projects being considered as part of the Integrated Resource Plan will be discussed during future Forum meetings. January 2016: Denver Water delayed work on its Integrated Resource Plan until the Moffat Collection System Project was nearing the end of the permitting phase. They now believe that the permitting is far enough along that they can once again begin work on the plan. Staff recently had a work study session with the Board of Water Commissioners and is scheduled to make a presentation to distributors on the work plan for the coming months during the January 19 Distributor Forum meeting. May 2016: Mike King, director of planning for Denver Water, recently stated during the spring water user’s meeting of the Northern Colorado Water Conservation District that Denver Water will not be seeking additional diversions from the West Slope for the foreseeable future if the Gross Reservoir expansion project moves forward. June 2016: As reported by Jim Lochhead during the recent distributor breakfast meeting, Denver Water is working on an update of the Integrated Resource Plan. The project is expected to take 18 months. July 2016: A lengthy presentation on the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) was provided to the Board of Water Commissioners during its July 13 meeting. I was unable to attend the meeting, but will request that a presentation be brought to a future Distributor Forum meeting. Jim Lochhead mentioned during the most recent manager’s breakfast meeting that Denver Water will engage with, and inform important stakeholders such as the Distributor Forum on the IRP process. March 2017: Denver Water staff is currently updating the agency’s Integrated Resource Plan to “institute a secure water future for customers through 2065”. Staff is using a planning method called scenario planning which plans and prepares for multiple futures based on many different factors rather than focusing on a single predication of the future based largely on historical circumstances and conditions. Once the current system assessment is complete in late 2017, staff will begin a gaps and opportunities analysis and estimate completing the plan around July 2018 Denver Water staff is scheduled to make a presentation on the IRP during the March 21 Distributors Forum meeting. April 2017: As referenced above in the Board – Distributor Communication section, Denver Water provided a presentation on the Integrated Resource Plan to the Distributor Forum. Distributors have requested more active involvement in the development of the plan and will pursue greater collaboration as the plan moves forward. 32 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx May 2017: As referenced above, Cynthia Lane is continuing to work with Sarah Dominick from Denver Water on development of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). We are fortunate that Ms. Lane has a previous working relationship with Ms. Dominick and she has been open and collaborative in working with Ms. Lane as an “unofficial” representative of distributors. Lead and Copper Rule Denver Water has amended its lead testing procedure in response to EPA” and Colorado Department of Health and Environment’s issuance of lead testing guidelines. The agency is also providing test sampling kits to homeowners on request. Further, Denver Water’s policy on replacement of lead service lines was changed. Previously, when a lead service line was encountered during water main repair or replacement projects, Denver Water replaced the portion of the service pipe between the water main and the meter, and encouraged the property owner to replace the pipe between the meter and the home. Now, Denver Water is replacing the entire lead service between the water main and the home to ensure that none of the lead pipe is left in service. October 2016: Denver Water is replacing lead service pipes between the water main and the interior of the residence when they are encountered during water main repairs or replacements. There is no cost to the customer for this work. The agency is also paying for testing water for any homeowner that has a lead service pipe and requests the test. At this time, Denver Water is not paying to replace lead service lines that are not disturbed during construction; however, they are planning to contribute $1.0 million to fund a revolving loan program that would be administered by Denver Urban Renewal Authority to loan funds at low or no interest to enable customers to replace lead pipes. There are up to 6,000 lead service lines in Denver, and the estimated replacement cost is $42,000,000. January 2017: The Board of Water Commissioners approved an intergovernmental agreement with Denver Urban Renewal Authority to provide financial assistance to homeowners to replace lead service pipes. Denver Water will pay DURA $160,000 to fund the lead reduction program, and $32,000 for a 20 percent administrative fee. To participate in the program homeowner must 1) be the owner of a single family residence or duplex; 2) have a water service line that is entirely or partially made of lead: 3) be located within Denver or a total service distributor service area; 4) not be delinquent on property taxes. If the program is successful, it will be expanded in the future. May 2017: Denver Water staff provided an update on the agency’s lead abatement program during the April Distributor Forum meeting. Denver Water is continuing to provide lead testing when requested by customers that are likely to have lead service lines. For Denver customers that exceed the lead action level, Denver Water is working with Denver Urban Renewal Authority to provide financial assistance to eligible customers through low interest loans to replace the entire service line. In addition, when Denver Water replaces water mains and encounters lead service lines, they are replaced at no expense to the customer. A copy of the presentation made during the Forum meeting is attached hereto as Attachment 6. 33 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Comprehensive Quarterly Organizational Report During the May 10 Board of Water Commissioners meeting, Jim Lochhead reported that staff will no longer submit purchasing contracts to the Board for approval unless they exceed the budget authorization or require an amendment to Denver Water financial policies. He explained that the Board adopts a comprehensive detailed budget each year and it is staff’s responsibility to operate within the parameters of the adopted budget. Therefore, there is no need for the Board to approve individual contracts, regardless of the amount. In lieu of obtaining Board approval for expenditures, staff will present a comprehensive quarterly report covering operational and financial metrics which will clearly indicate where staff is not meeting prescribed standards and objectives. I have requested that distributors be provided access to the quarterly reports. Staff also reported that the budget process is being changed to replace the annual budget with a two year budget. Water Quality Report The Water Quality Report for 2017 is attached hereto as Attachment 7. The EPA no longer requires that the report be mailed to every customer as long as notice is provided to customers indicating that it is available on the water suppliers web site and that copies are available upon request. Littleton - Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Matters Joint City Council Meeting I attended a joint City Council meeting held to receive information and discuss treatment plant administrative and operational issues. Some council members chose to use the meeting as a forum to criticize staff rather than have an informative and productive discussion about permitting and potential capital improvement cost issues confronting the plant. Despite the wasted time and distractions, other council members raised questions about the possible benefits and downside of requesting a reduction in the permitted capacity of the plant and the potential large costs involved with meeting proposed nutrient standards. The two councils decided to reconvene in the next two months to continue the discussion. At that time more information should be available on the final, revised plant discharge permit and effluent standards that may cause a need to invest in new treatment technologies and processes. 34 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Pretreatment Program Littleton- Englewood Treatment Plant staff have scheduled a meeting to discuss with connector district representatives a recent audit of the pretreatment program conducted by the EPA. One of the issues raised by the EPA is the apparent lack of designation of authority to enforce pretreatment standards. In order to clarify authority for enforcing pretreatment regulations, plant staff have proposed an amendment to each districts connector agreement. Scott Morse and I have been consulting with pretreatment staff and have proposed an arrangement similar to the Denver Water integrated system agreement between Denver Water and all distributors. The amendment to each connector agreement mimics the concept we have been promoting. January 2015: Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant (Plant) staff together with Englewood and Littleton staff have submitted a proposed addendum to Wastewater Connectors for review and comment. The addendum seeks to clarify each entities responsibilities and obligations to implement and enforce Clean Water Act Industrial Pretreatment Regulations. I am working with Tim Flynn to prepare comments on behalf of Platte Canyon, Southwest Metropolitan, and Valley. I am also working with Icenogle Seaver Pogue, PC to prepare comments on behalf of Columbine Water and Sanitation District. February 2015: Comments on the proposed amendment to the Littleton and Englewood Connectors’ Agreements have been submitted by Columbine, Valley, Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan. The Englewood Littleton Treatment Plant’s attorney will now work with the Littleton and Englewood City attorneys to draft a uniform amendment that all connectors will be expected to approve. March 2015: Littleton Englewood Treatment Plant staff have reported that comments received on the proposed connector’s agreement addendum have been referred to the plant’s attorney and the two city attorneys. The goal is to consolidate the comments and produce one addendum for all connectors to sign. January 2016: Treatment plant staff have reported that the proposed pretreatment addendum to the Littleton and Englewood connector agreements will be submitted to the Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisory Committee for approval in December. Upon approval, the addendum will be submitted to connector districts for approval and execution. I have objected to submittal of the agreement to the Supervisory Committee before the final draft version is submitted to the connector districts for review and comment. I have been told that the agreement will be presented to the connector districts prior to approval by the Supervisory Committee, but I have yet to receive the agreement. February 2016: As referenced above, the Littleton – Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Supervisory Committee directed plant staff to refer the final draft of the pretreatment addendum to connector districts prior to seeking approval by the supervisory committee. To date, plant staff has yet to submit the final addendum to connectors. April 2016: Platte Canyon, Southwest Metropolitan, Bow Mar, Columbine, and Valley are in receipt of the Pretreatment Addendum transmitted by the Littleton–Englewood Wastewater 35 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Treatment Plant (Plant) pretreatment staff. None of the changes requested by Tim Flynn on behalf of Platte Canyon, Southwest Metropolitan, Bow Mar and Valley, and Jennifer Ivey on behalf of Columbine were made to the draft Addendum. I have informed Plant staff that the two attorneys and District staff cannot recommend approval of the Addendum to the districts’ boards of directors until changes are made, or a meeting is convened to discuss the districts’ concerns. May 2016: As referenced above, David Robbins, attorney for the treatment plant is going to contact each connector district attorney that provided comments on the Pretreatment Addendum. July 2016: David Robbins, attorney for LEWWTP, is in the process of contacting connector district attorneys to discuss their concerns about the pretreatment addendum. October 2016: David Robbins, attorney for the Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant, has met with Tim Flynn and Jennifer Ivey, attorney for Columbine Water and Sanitation District, to discuss their concerns with the pretreatment addendum. He is drafting a revised addendum to address some, or all of the issues brought to his attention. Pretreatment staff have drafted proposed changes to industrial pretreatment sections of the City of Littleton and City of Englewood municipal codes. The changes address corrective actions required by EPA in the 2014 pretreatment audit of the Industrial Pretreatment Program, changes required in the 2016 Pretreatment Compliance Inspection, recommended by EPA per the Pretreatment Streamlining Rule, and changes recommended by the L/E WWTP Industrial Pretreatment Division. Each City Council is scheduled to consider the proposed changes on first reading in early December and on second reading in early January 2017. December 2016: Several attorneys for Littleton and Englewood connector districts and municipalities have reached an agreement on a final version of the Pretreatment Addendum to the connector agreements. The Addendums for Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan will be placed on the December meeting agenda for Board consideration. January 2017: Platte Canyon, Southwest Metropolitan, Valley, Bow Mar and Columbine have all approved the pretreatment addendum. Littleton is preparing a revision to its municipal code to incorporate EPA requested revisions into the sanitary sewer regulations. I have requested the connector districts be given an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed revisions prior to scheduling a public hearing before City Council. March 2017: Littleton and Englewood are revising the wastewater section of their respective municipal codes to incorporate revisions to the administration and enforcement of the pre- treatment program. EPA Region 8 has reviewed and accepted the proposed code revisions. The cities will hold study sessions and public hearings on the code revisions in April. May 2017: Both Littleton and Englewood City Councils are in the process of approving revisions to their respective municipal codes. The amendments are largely focused on wastewater pretreatment regulations, particularly to clarify and expand each city’s’ and Littleton Englewood Treatment Plant’s authority to enforce pretreatment regulations both inside the cities and in connector entity jurisdictions. 36 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx The Councils have approved connector entity contract addendums that were recently approved by each of the connector entities. The addendums also clarifiy the cities, the treatment plant’s and the connector entities authorities to conduct and enforce pretreatment regulations. Discharge Permit Littleton – Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant is expecting the Colorado Water Quality Control Division to issue a draft of the renewal of the plant’s discharge permit within the next few weeks. Once issued, the plant is given two weeks to review the permit prior to issuance of a public notice and a 30 day public review period. Following the review period the Division will review comments, amend the permit at its discretion, and issue the final permit. June 2016: Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plan (Plant) staff reports that the Plant’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be issued for public notice in June. The Plant does not receive a copy of the draft permit before if goes public. Staff reports that it is very likely there will be updated nutrient removal requirements for nitrate and phosphorus that will increase the Plant’s chemical costs for nitrate reduction, and will also require additional treatment equipment at a potential cost of $6 to $8 Million for phosphorus control. August 2016: Littleton Englewood Plant staff met with Colorado Department of Health staff to discuss the impending draft discharge permit. CDPHE staff would not discuss or reveal specific permit parameters but did offer comments on general permit provisions. The permit was scheduled to be offered for public comment on July 22 for a 60 day period. Plant staff are scheduled to provide an overview of the permit to the Littleton City Council August 23. September 2016: Public notice for issuance of the discharge permit was published on July 22 with a September 22 deadline for comments. L/E WWTP staff are working with Brown and Caldwell, engineers for the plant, to analyze permit conditions and provide comments to the Water Quality Control Division. Littleton City Council held a study session on August 23 to receive a presentation from L/E WWTP staff on the draft discharge permit October 2016: Brown and Caldwell and David Robbins have submitted comments on the draft discharge permit on behalf of the Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Department of Health will consider all comments and issue the final permit later this year. One issue strongly opposed by Littleton and Englewood is the Water Quality Control Division requirement that the plant add an assumed 10% increase to the plant’s discharge to create a reserve to accommodate future requests from property owners to discharge water from basement dewatering systems into the sewer system. The Cities prohibit such discharges, and therefore claim that a “reserve” is unnecessary. 37 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx March 2017: Plant staff has met twice with the Colorado Water Quality Control Division to discuss issues with the draft discharge permit. A copy of a document prepared by plan staff that describes some of the permitting issues is available upon request. May 2017: The Colorado Water Quality Control Commission continues to review comments submitted prior to the September 22, 2016 deadline and has not provided a timeline for issuance of the discharge permit. Staffing and Space Needs Assessment The Supervisory Committee approved a proposal from Carollo Engineers, Inc. to evaluate L/E WWTP’s current and future staffing levels, leadership and management competencies, organizational approaches, and provide third party consulting services through the transition to the new plant manager. The objective of the assessment is to document current industry best practices, analyze the existing business process practices, and provide recommendations for continuous improvement and alignment of existing staffing. The budget for the assessment is $100,000. Strategic Operating Plan The Supervisory Committee authorized staff to prepare a request for proposals (RFP) to evaluate plant modifications that would be needed to address more stringent permit limits within the soon to be issued discharge permit. Beneficial reuse of resources such as recovery of heat, methane gas or phosphorus, will be a part of the study as will evaluation of improvements to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and reduce costs associated with the use of chemicals and energy. The 2017 budget includes $500,000 for the Strategic Operating Plan. Biogas Feasibility Study Plant staff together with consultant Corollo Engineers is proceeding with a feasibility study for the beneficial use of biogas generated by the plant. Two alternatives have been reviewed; conversion of digester biogas to renewable compressed natural gas (CNG) and conversion of the gas to renewable natural gas to be injected to the national gas pipeline grid. Staff has informed the Supervisory Committee that it is proceeding with the second alternative and will be purchasing a digester gas conditioning skid to purify biogas to renewable natural gas quality. Treatment Plant Capacity During a joint meeting of the Englewood and Littleton City Councils, a couple of council members requested information on potentially reducing the permitted capacity of the treatment plan. Hill 38 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx and Robbins, attorneys for the plant, were asked to prepare a memo analyzing the possible legal and regulatory ramifications of decreasing the capacity. Brown and Caldwell, engineers for the plant, were asked to analyze the cost differences involved in a reduction in plant capacity. This issue has implications on all of the connector districts so I have requested a copy of the memo and an opportunity to comment on the matter. March 2017: Some members of the Littleton and Englewood City Councils have proposed reducing the permitted capacity of the treatment plant to reduce the cost of future capital expenditures. Plant staff and the plant’s attorney have advised the council members that there are ramifications that must be considered before any decision is made to reduce capacity, including the possibility of breaching sewer connector agreements with a host of connectors. So far there has been no discussion between the plant, cities and connector districts regarding the needs of the connectors. I have attached a copy of a memo prepared by the plant attorney’s, David Robbins and Matt Montgomery regarding this issue. In the discussion about connector district contracts the memo states, “Although the contracts with the Connector Districts are limited in duration, and thus theatrically terminable at some point in the future, the Plant’s refusal to treat the wastewater from the Connector Districts would likely result in significant impacts on public-health, safety and the environment: therefore, it is unclear whether the Cities would ever actually be able to extract themselves from the responsibility to treat wastewater from the Connector Districts.” May 2017: Plant staff has recommended that the Supervisory Committee approve a professional services agreement with Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. in the amount of $40,610 to conduct a population study for the L/E WWTP service area. The study will include the City of Englewood, City of Littleton and all entities with connector agreements. The study will aid in the determination of future growth and treatment capacity requirements. Clarification Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) for Ownership of Interceptor Sewers During the treatment plant modification and expansion in the 1980s the interceptor sewers entering the plant were relocated. Recently there has been confusion as to the ownership of these sewer mains and to clarify the situation MOUs have been created to depict the ownership transition points from Littleton, Englewood and Valley to the L/E WWTP. Platte Canyon staff worked with the plant’s attorney to develop the Valley MOU. All MOUs have now been approved by the Supervisory Committee. Denver Water Corrosion Control Denver Water has been working on a corrosion control study for lead abatement. One of the options being considered is to dose the system with orthophosphate to create a scale on lead service lines to prevent lead leaching. L/E WWTP staff is concerned that the process 39 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx will increase the level of phosphate entering the wastewater stream and the treatment plant increasing the plant’s need for expensive phosphate treatment. Plant staff is coordinating with Denver Water, Metro Wastewater Reclamation District and the Barr-Milton Watershed Association to identify opportunities for a cooperative solution. Temperature Standards Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant (Plant) is participating in a large group effort to amend a proposal for amending water quality standards for temperature of water discharged from treatment plants. The draft standard recognizing a higher temperature allowance in the summer months, but calls for an immediate jump from the winter temperature standard to the summer standard. The Plant meets the proposed standards in most months, but cannot meet it during the transition between winter and spring and fall and winter without actually chilling the water being discharged. The Plant and other wastewater treatment utilities have proposed a shoulder season where the temperature standard ramps up and down more gradually than the draft standard. The Colorado Water Quality Control Division appears to be sympathetic to the proposal, but EPA is opposed. A hearing before the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission is scheduled for June 15, 2016. Colorado Legislation, Regulation, and Litigation Colorado Legislation The Colorado General Assembly convened its 2017 session on January 11, 2017. I will once again monitor legislation by participating in the Colorado Special Districts Association and Colorado Water Congress legislative committees. Colorado Water Plan Governor Hickenlooper issued on May 14, 2013 an Executive Order (EO) directing the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) to commence work on a Colorado Plan. The EO referenced work done by the Interbasin Compact Committee and Basin Roundtable processes as providing a basis for preparation of the Water Plan. In addition, the EO directed the CWCB to utilize the Interbasin Compact Committee and the Basin Roundtables in drafting the Colorado Water Plan. The Colorado Water Conservation Board initiated a preliminary discussion on the preparation of a Colorado Water Plan during its Board meeting held on July 16 and 17, 2013 in Alamosa, Colorado. The CWCB staff recommended a framework for the plan including the following elements: 40 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx • Reflect Colorado’s values -Productive economy that supports vibrant and sustainable cities, viable and productive agriculture, and a robust skiing, recreation, and tourism industry -Efficient and effective water infrastructure promoting smart land use -A strong environment that includes healthy watershed, rivers and streams, and wildlife • Align projects, studies, funding • Determine opportunities for water rights held by state agencies and evaluate opportunities for those rights • Align State’s role in project permitting and emphasize expediting permitting processes for projects that stress conservation, innovation, collaboration, and other criteria • Recognize link between water quality and quantity • Work with other state and federal agencies • Address the looming gap between water supply and demand while minimizing the buy-and-dry of irrigated agriculture • Protect Colorado’s compact entitlements • Recommend legislative changes where necessary for implementation • Affirm the doctrine of prior appropriation Basin Roundtalbles were directed to complete basin implementation plans to explain existing water sources, future needs for water and the gap between current supplies and future needs. The basin plans were expected to be the basis for development of the water plan. The basin plans were completed and submitted to the CWCB in July 2014. As expected, the Colorado Basin plan emphasized water conservation, and provided for transbasin diversions only as a last resort after all other options to solve other basin water supply gaps have been exhausted. The Platte River and Metro Basin plans called for enhanced conservation also, but recognized the need for agricultural and transbasin diversion to eliminate the front range water supply gap. The Front Range Water Council, a group of large east slope water providers, recently submitted a letter signed by Jim Lochhead demanding that the Colorado Water Plan contain some “assurance, and not simply a hope, that a new supply project will, in fact, be a fundamental part of the total “filling the gap” package.” The West Slope, on the other hand, continued to assert that no new water supply project could be planned or studied until it was determined exactly how much Colorado River water is available for development given the impacts of climate change and the possibility of a Colorado River Compact call. In September 2014, the Colorado General Assembly’s Interim Water Committee held hearings throughout the state on development of the Colorado Water Plan. The hearings were required by legislation passed in 2014 to enable the legislature to maintain involvement in the Water Plan. The draft Colorado Water Plan was released for public review and comment in November 2014. The CWCB approved the draft water plan and forwarded it to Governor Hickenlooper on December 9, 2014. The plan was also made available for public review and comment before being revised and finalized for submittal to the Governor by the deadline of December 10, 2015. 41 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx John Stulp, the governor’s water advisor, described the plan as achieving five major goals: fostering collaborative solutions to address the state’s looming supply gap, creating alternatives to the buy and dry of agricultural lands, protecting Colorado’s compact entitlements, pushing federal regulators to move more quickly on approval processes, and aligning state policies with dollars. One of the largest controversies that arose over the draft plan was whether the Conceptual Agreement (see Conceptual Agreement section below) which describes the method and requirements for pursing future transmountain diversions should be included in the plan. West Slope interests that oppose additional transmountain diversions expressed opposition to including the concept in the plan until it underwent additional discussion and was accepted by West Slope parties. The deadline for public comment on the draft Colorado Water Plan was May 1, 2015. By that date the state had held more than 850 river basin roundtable meetings at the local level and received more than 24,000 comments on the draft plan. The second draft of the water plan was released on July 7, 2015 and was offered for review and comment until September 17, 2015 at which time the plan was scheduled to be finalized and submitted to Governor Hickenloopein in December of 2015. During a presentation to the Special District Association John Stulp, Governor Hickenlooper’s water advisor, stated that “the water plan will call for a cultural change affecting how the state’s residents, farms and businesses use water, in part, at least, because there are going to be so many of them.” According to the state demographer, Colorado’s population is expected to double in the next 35 years. “We will have to provide for the next five million citizens very differently than we did for the first five million,” Stulp said. “We will have to learn how to live differently.” Stulp stated that the revised draft water plan would call on municipalities and industrial water users to conserve up to 400,000 acre-feet of water. The state’s role in that conservation is to provide “best practices” management to the local communities. “There’s nothing like a drought to get you in the mod to conserve,” Stulp said. But nobody is off the hook for conservation and that includes agriculture. “Ag is getting better at preserving water rights,” he said. Several changes were made in the second draft of the Colorado Water Plan. The biggest change from the first draft was the addition of a chapter that focused on actions that the CWCB could take on its own, with legislative recommendations taking a secondary role. There was also more information included about climate change and the potential impact on water supplies. Further, there was a new goal for reducing municipal water demand by 400,000 acre-feet. The draft plan identified the municipal water demand reduction as a “stretch goal.” The plan stated that the goal would require changes in customer behavior, new regulatory mandates, possible land use controls and innovations in technology. This would result in “high levels of customer participation,” according to the draft. Another change to the second draft was the inclusion of the “conceptual framework” for development of future trans-mountain diversions. Many West Slope parties opposed the inclusion of any discussion of trans-mountain diversions in the plan and continued to insist that there is no more water on the West Slope available for diversion without risking a call on the Colorado River from downstream states. The draft also included a section on land use and its relation to water 42 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx demand and supply. A number of stakeholders promoted land use as the way to achieve greater efficiency of existing water supplies, and a way to avoid future trans-mountain diversions. September 17 marked the end of the comment period on the second draft of the water plan. Front Range water providers including Colorado Springs, Northern Colorado Water Conservation District, Denver Water, and Aurora demanded that the final version of the Colorado Water plan include a pledge to build more water storage rather than focus almost exclusively on water conservation to meet future municipal water demands. In addition, the providers requested that the plan include a more focused, prioritized list of water projects to meet future demands, rather than an all-encompassing list of potential projects without any priority or schedule for moving them forward. In response to the demands, 46 Colorado Water Conservation Board staffers were tasked with revising the plan to include a commitment for new reservoir storage of 130 billion gallons of water, the same amount of water proposed to be conserved by municipal entities over the next 20 to 30 years. CWCB staff also reduced the action item list in the plan from 200 projects to 36. The Colorado Water Plan was approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board and submitted to Governor Hickenlooper on November 19, 2015. The final plan promotes a list of projects identified during the drafting process, but does not give priority or funding to any of them. It does however establish measurable outcomes and timetables to meet general goals which include: • Reducing the projected 2050 municipal and industrial water gap of 560,000 acre-feet by 2030. This reflects the gap first identified in the 2004 Statewide Water Supply Initiative. • Achieving 400,000 acre-feet of urban conservation by 2015. It also sets a goal of 75 percent of Colorado citizens living in communities that have incorporated water-saving land use concepts. • Developing voluntary temporary transfers of at least 50,000 acre-feet of agricultural water by 2030. • Attaining 400,000 acre-feet of additional storage by 2050. Much of that would come from projects already in the planning and development process. • Raising $100 million annually in additional revenue to fund water projects from 2020-2050, a total of $3.0 billion. • Covering 80 percent of locally prioritized rivers with stream management plans and 80 percent of critical watersheds with watershed protection plans by 2030. After accepting the plan, Governor Hickenlooper downplayed the prospect of future trans- mountain diversion of water from the Western Slope to the Front Range. “What comes through loud and clear again and again in that water plan is that there ought to be ways to make sure that we have sufficient water to satisfy the growth along the Front Range without diverting the water across the mountains,” Hickenlooper said. We’ve addressed storage, conservation, you go down the list of all the approaches here, our goal from the very beginning was trying to make sure that where the water is, the water stays, but within the realm of the legal system that we operate in.” 43 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx A number of Front Range water providers want to leave the option open for more Western Slope water diversion to meet their increasing demands, as they see the continued “buy and dry” of agricultural lands in eastern Colorado as the “default solution.” February 2016: The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB), the Interbasin Compact Committee and the individual river basin committees are now turning their attention to implementation of the Colorado Water Plan. Jacob Bornstein, a program manager in CWCB’s water supply planning department told members of the Colorado Water Congress that the State is researching ways to provide $1.4 to $1.6 billion between now and 2050 to guarantee loans amounting to $14 to $16 billion. However, adding the potential costs for environmental restoration and public education will likely bring State funding needs to $3, 0 billion by 2050. One option being explored is to seek voter approval for raising $100 million per year, or $1.0 billion by 2050. Another issue being promoted by some water suppliers is encouragement of the State to support or promote water projects such as Denver Water’s Moffat project and Northern Water Conservation District’s Windy Gap project. The state has taken the position that it will not support a water project until all environmental studies have been completed. Mike Applegate with the Northern District stated that, “we really need to get some leadership here to stand up and say, “This is a good idea, let’s start doing this.” Dave Merritt, an engineer who sits on the Colorado River District Board of Directors, also recently said, “The governor needs to make a statement. Are you going to support it? Or are you not going to support it at this point.” When you are in a political leadership position, you are not an agency making a determination, you are the governor of the State of Colorado,” he added. May 2016: I have attached an opinion piece written by Eric Kuhn, manager of the Colorado River District, with thoughtful observations on Colorado water planning, Colorado River Basin water and drought planning, conservation and efficient water use, and construction of additional water storage reservoirs. June 2016: The Colorado Water Conservation Board has directed staff to research and develop plans for funding elements of the Colorado Water Plan. In response to the Board’s request, staff developed and participated in a Statewide Funding Committee. During the May 18-19 CWCB meeting, staff reported that “the Committee will continue to play a critical role in providing input towards the development of a realistic, sustainable funding plan that addresses the action items identified in Chapter 10 of the water plan”. Further, staff presented a draft policy to develop a long term funding plan for implementation of action items identified in the water plan. July 2016: Colorado Water Conservation Board staff reported to the CWCB that measurable progress has been made on many of the critical actions identified in Chapter 10 of the Colorado Water Plan. “Basin roundtables are hard at work moving forward on action items and projects identified in the Basin Implementation Plans, even with challenges associated with severance tax funding. CWVB staff also reported that a long term funding plan for implementation of action items identified in the Water Plan will be presented to the Board at the September 2016 Board meeting. 44 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx The Denver Post published a joint opinion column by Jon Goldin-Dubois, president of Wester Resource Advocates, and Jim Lochhead on critical actions needed on the Colorado Water Plan. August 2016: Jim Lochhead recently called for more attention to be devoted to development of a coordinated plan for meeting statewide water needs with an emphasis on “developing more flexible water management options that allow for greater sharing of the resources” and less emphasis on generating billions of dollars for unspecified water development projects. Mr. Lochhead’s opinion is being increasingly shared by other members of river basin committees who are disappointed in the lack of specific action items and state supported programs and projects to reduce the water supply gap. September 2016: During a presentation made to the Colorado Legislature’s Interim Water Resources Review Committee, Bill Levine, budget director for the Department of Natural Resources, stated that the state’s mineral severance tax, which is used in part to fund water project loans, will drop significantly this year due to a state Supreme Court decision and depressed oil and gas prices. Revenues that totaled $271 million in 2014 dropped to $57 million this year. In addition, the state is looking at repaying potential $20 million to BP Petroleum and other companies based on the Supreme Court decision. This will significantly impact the plan for the state to provide funding of $100 million annually for water projects. Also during the interim committee’s meeting, pollster Floyd Ciruli told the committee that state voters are supportive of spending money for planning, conservation, enhancement of river habitat, new water supplies and new storage projects. “The public is ready for implementation of water projects” he stressed. October 2016: The Colorado Water Conservation Board has released a September 2016 update of the status of implementation of the Colorado Water Plan. A copy of the document is available upon request. January 2017: The Colorado Water Conservation Board has requested that state legislators provide $5 million per year for the next five years to create stream protection plans throughout the state. The money would be used to develop watershed plans in accordance with the provisions of the Colorado Water Plan. The plans would be developed within the eight river basin “roundtable” forums that Colorado has relied on for addressing water challenges and providing input to the Water Plan. James Eklund, Director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and Russ George, Chairman of the Colorado Water Conservation Board recently contributed a column to the Denver Post to update the status of the Colorado Water Plan. March 2017: The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) is requesting that the General Assembly authorize Colorado’s Water Plan Funding to include $25 million for the implementation of the Funding Plan and $30 million for a Loan Guarantee Fund. CWCB pointed out that the $25 million Funding Plan of three years is less than 0.5 percent of the $20 billion needed for funding identified in Colorado’s Water Plan. The Funding Plan is comprised of the following: 45 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx • Water Supply Reserve Fund - $10 million Supplemental Funding • Watershed Restoration Program - $5 million • Water Plan Implementation Funding - $10 million • Creation of a Loan Guarantee Fund - $30 million West Slope legislators sent a letter to Governor Hickenlooper warning that there is no more water available for diversion from the West Slope to the Front Range. A copy of the letter is available upon request. Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Study The Colorado Water Conservation Board and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have determined that it is feasible to reallocate 20,600 acre feet of storage space in Chatfield Reservoir from flood control to water supply. Water users that are interested in using the storage space determined amongst themselves how the 20,600 acre feet would be divided. Denver Water is not pursuing use of any of the potentially available storage space but is working to ensure that its current storage space is not detrimentally affected. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) approved the Chatfield proposal during its meeting on January 25, 2005. The water allocation agreement reached by the parties together with the CWCB’s endorsement will enable the Chatfield reallocation process to move forward with an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement. Project sponsors and Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) staff are in the process of completing the Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement (FR/EIS) for the Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation project. It is anticipated that the Corps of Engineers will issue a Record of Decision in mid-2009. It is proposed that CWCB will own the additional storage space if the project reaches fruition. The project sponsors will continue to own and control the water rights that will utilize the expanded storage space. CWCB staff is working with a large coalition of interested stakeholders to complete a Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Study related to the proposed reallocation of existing storage space in Chatfield Reservoir to gain additional water supply along the Front Range. Coordination among affected DNR agencies will continue to be paramount as key elements of the project unfold. Two related studies, jointly sponsored by the CWCB and State Parks, are underway to investigate: 1) Socio-economic impacts due to potential reallocation of storage space, and 2) Feasibility of modifying/relocating recreation facilities based on new Corps guidance with respect to the recalculated 10-year flood pool elevation. In addition, the project stakeholders have collectively hired a public outreach firm to assist with outreach activities to enhance planned activities by the Corps to meet NEPA requirements. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted a key meeting, known as an Alternatives Formulation Briefing (AFB), on May 14, 2009 at its Tri-Lakes project office in Littleton. Corps personnel from the Headquarters (Washington, D.C.), Division (Portland, Oregon), and District (Omaha, Nebraska) offices participated to discuss high level policy issues as well as more specific 46 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx tasks needing attention prior to public release of a draft feasibility report and environmental impact statement (FR/EIS). The CWCB and a cadre of water providers and other study team members attended as well to observe the meeting and to provide technical support as necessary. The Corps received two letters from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regarding comments on the preliminary FR/EIS, which precipitated the need for the two federal agencies to discuss and resolve several important issues raised in the letters. In related news, several study team member from Colorado visited with Congressional Delegations members and staff from Corps Headquarters in Washington, D.C. on June 25th to discuss appropriations, study status, and next steps. July 2011: The Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (FR/EIS) for the Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project has now been printed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District, for final review by the Agency Technical Review Team, the Division Office in Portland, Oregon, and the Headquarters Office in Washington, D.C. Depending on the type and quantity of comments received from the review process, the Draft FR/EIS may be released to the public as early as August of this year. Several outstanding topics need to be discussed and resolved over the coming months in order to make sure that remaining environmental and recreation concerns from the State and other stakeholders are appropriately addressed. (Tom Browning - CWCB). July 2012: The Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (IFR/EIS) has been released for public comment by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). Three public involvement meetings were held by the Corps on June 25, 26 and 27, one of which was located at Dakota Ridge High School. Following the meetings, in response to public comments the Corps extended the public comment period on IFR/EIS to September 6, 2012. A copy of the abstract from the IFR/EIS is available upon request, and the entire 500 plus page document is available at www.chatfieldstudy.org. In addition, copies of Denver Post, Columbine Courier and Westword articles pertaining to the proposal are available upon request. August 2012: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement continues to generate considerable media attention as the Audubon Society and other activists have become more vocal in their opposition to the project. Most water utilities and many environmental groups support the project as being a reasonable, environmentally harmless way to increase water storage for a diverse group of municipal and agricultural water suppliers and users. However, others have expressed concern with habitat losses and reduced flows in the South Platte River below Chatfield. September 2012: The comment period for the Chatfield Reservoir Storage reallocation Project has expired and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (AC)E) will now review the comments and prepare a Record of Decision and, if applicable, a permit to proceed with the proceed. February 2013: Some of the participants in the Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project have abandoned their rights to acquire reservoir storage space. The Colorado Water Conservation Board has stepped forward to purchase these “orphan shares.” At its November 2011 meeting, the CWCB approved a $13 million authorization to purchase orphan allotments (Orphan Shares) of Project storage space that were anticipated to revert back to the CWCB. The General Assembly approved the CWCB Projects Bill, including $13 million Chatfield funding, during the special 47 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx session last year. Orphan Shares from Colorado Parks & Wildlife and Perry Park Country Club were included in the transfer agreement. CWCB staff recently notified the Board that additional orphan shares may revert back to the CWCB. The best estimate currently available is that up to $49 million in orphan shares (roughly 5,500 acre-feet of storage, or one-fourth of the Project reallocation storage space) could revert back to the State. In February 2013 the CWCB agreed to allocate $49.0 million for purchase of the additional orphan shares with the intention of selling them to a water provider when the Project is permitted and moves forward. October 2013: The comment period for the final Environmental Impact Study for the Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project ended in early ended in early September. The Army Corps of Engineers will now review and respond to comments and issue a record of decision in early 2014. February 2014: The Final Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (FR/EIS) is complete and a Record of Decision (ROD) is expected to be issued by the federal government in the very near future. The Fish, Wildlife and Recreation Mitigation Plan has been completed, approved and released by the Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission on January 9, 2014. The Plan addresses impacts in reservoir along with upstream and downstream impacts. The in reservoir impacts are addressed through an operations plan, fluctuation zone mitigation, water quality adaptive management and an environmental pool. The upstream and downstream impacts are addressed through habitat restoration and flow control measures. A copy of the Plan is available upon request. June 2014: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has issued a Record of Decision approving the Chatfield Reservoir Storage Reallocation Project. The recommendation, sent by Steven Stockton, Director of Civil Works, to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) states: The Omaha District Commander recommends implementation of the Selected Plan, Alternative 3, which would reallocate 20,600 acre-feet of exclusive flood storage to joint flood control/conservation storage to provide an average annual yield of 8,539 acre-feet per year for the purpose of municipal and industrial water supply and other purposes including agriculture, environmental restoration, and recreation and fishery habitat protection and enhancement. At FY 14 price levels, the estimated fiscal first cost to implement the reallocation project is $124,152,754, which includes an estimated $16,285,392 payment to the U.S. Treasury for the cost of storage. I concur with the findings of the district commander and his recommendation. I recommend you determine that the work proposed to be performed by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources is integral to the reallocation project: approve the Final FR/EIS with Addendum No 1, and sign the Record of Decision. Upon completion of those actions, the Corps will complete negotiations and submit for your approval an agreement with CDNR for implementation of the reallocated water storage, recreation modifications and compensatory mitigation features. July 2014: According to ACOE project manager Gwyn Jarrett, it could be three to four years before work is underway and two to three years after that before it is completed. According to Ms. 48 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Jarrett, “most of the work will be done in the offseason, but people can expect that certain portions of the park could be closed at times. Part of the construction will include improving some of the amenities at the park such as new recreation buildings, picnic tables, beach areas and bathhouses.” October 2014: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approved the Chatfield Reservoir Expansion Project and is now working with the state and project participants to contract for design and construction of mitigation elements called for in the permit. The state estimates that it will take three years to get all of the contracts in place, get detailed plans in place and complete the early mitigation work. Unfortunately, the project may also be delayed due to a lawsuit filed by the Audubon Society which is claiming that there are less environmentally damaging ways to meet the project purpose and need, and therefore the project cannot be permitted. September 2015: The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) has transferred 1,000 acre feet of storage space in the project to Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW). A loan in the amount of $7,000,000 has been granted by CWCB to CPW to pay for the storage space. The loan will be paid back from the Wildlife Cash Fund. The CWCB acquired the storage rights when other project participants discontinued participation in the project. May 2016: The Audubon Society of Greater Denver (Audubon) filed a lawsuit (Audubon Society of Greater Denver v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et. al. 14CV02749, D. Colo.) opposing the issuance of a federal 404 permit for the Chatfield Reallocation Project. Audubon raises several challenges in its opening brief including: 1) that the Corps violated the Clean Water Act by failing to select the least damaging alternative for the project; 2) that the Corps violated NEPA because it failed to evaluate reasonable alternatives; and 3) that the Corps violated NEPA because it failed to foster informed decision making and public participation. The Colorado Department of Natural Resources disagrees and has intervened in support of the Corps. The Department worked closely with the Corps as it developed the project and EIS over nearly a decade. The Corps’ Answer Brief is due May 25 and the Intervenors’ brief in support of the Corps is due June 6. Audubon then has 15 days to file a reply brief. July 2016: The Audubon Society filed its opening brief in which it claims: 1) that the Corps of Engineers violated the Clean Water Act by failing to select the least damaging alternative for the project; 2) that the Corps violated NEPA because it failed to evaluate reasonable alternatives:, and 3) that the Corps violated NEPA because it failed to foster informed decision making and public participation. The Colorado Department of Natural Resources disagreed with the claims and intervened in support of the Corps. The parties have requested oral argument and are awaiting a court order granting oral argument. January 2017: Despite the lawsuit filed by the Audubon Society, The Chatfield Storage Reallocation Project is moving forward. Eight water provider entities have formed a new non- profit organization called the Chatfield Reservoir Mitigation Company (CRMC). The board of the organization is selecting a program management team and has signed an agreement with CDM Smith and Leonard Rice Engineers to being work on the design process to implement the approved and required project components. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently reviewing the preliminary designs. 49 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx March 2017: Dominion Water and Sanitation District which supplies water to the Sterling Ranch Development is acquiring 500 acre feet of available storage space in Chatfield Reservoir. The cost is $7,000 per acre foot for the opportunity to store whatever water is separately supplied by Dominion. The Chatfield Reservoir Mitigation Company (CRMC) has been formed for the purpose of designing and constructing the mitigation projects called for in the permits for the Chatfield Storage Reallocation Project. CRMC anticipates having final design plans submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for both the recreation modification and the on-sit environmental mitigation along Plum Creek by June 1, 2017. The final design plans for on-site mitigation work along the South Platte River and Marcy Gulch are anticipated to be completed by August 2017. Final USACE review of the design plans is scheduled for late summer of 2017. May 2017: The Audubon Society of Greater Denver filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to prevent the Chatfield Expansion Project. Briefs have been filed by the Audubon Society, the Corps and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources in support of the Corps. The Judge has not yet issued a decision in the case and Audubon is concerned that construction might begin before the Judge issues a ruling. Audubon recently filed a motion for a status conference and site visit with the Judge. The Department of Natural Resources opposed the site visit but not a telephone status conference with the Judge to determine the status of his review. Federal Defendants opposed both the site visit and the status conference. Lead and Copper Rule Over the past few months, as part of a national EPA directive, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (Department) has been communicating with EPA Region 8 and the Colorado Water Utility Council regarding Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) implementation in Colorado. In February 2016, EPA contacted all states and encouraged them to ensure that the LCR is being implemented correctly and to assure that the public health risks associated with lead in drinking water are addressed (see Lead and Copper Rule Section in the Federal Legislation, Regulation and Litigation Section). As part of the Departments continuing work in assessing and enhancing Colorado’s LCR implementation, it updated the lead and copper tap sampling guidance. Specifically, the Department removed reference to flushing water lines prior to the six-hour stagnation period. The Department is also encouraging water utilities to ensure they are processing the required number of samples and that they are obtained from the required sources – those residences with lead service lines. Finally, the Department is asking the utilities pipe inventories be evaluated to ensure that they list properties that have lead service lines. 50 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Federal Legislation, Regulation, and Litigation Election – Cabinet Appointments The Senate confirmation hearing for Scott Pruitt, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to head the EPA, is scheduled for January 18. Environmental organizations are running ads and lobbying both Democrat and Republican senators urging them to oppose the nomination. Pruitt is currently attorney general for Oklahoma and is suing the EPA over its greenhouse gas and other rules. It is expected that Pruitt will be confirmed since Republicans hold a 52-48 majority and rules adopted by the Democratic majority in 2013 eliminated the filibuster for executive branch nominees. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has been nominated by President-elect Trump to be attorney general. “Sessions will oversee the incoming administration’s litigation strategy which will almost certainly seek to withdraw already-issued Obama administration rules, such as the Clean Power Plan and the Water of the U.S. Rule, form ongoing judicial review.” [InsideEPA.com] Legislation The First Session of the 115th Congress convened on January 3, 2017. Bills of interest will be tracked as they are introduced and move through the legislative process. 2017 Budget and Appropriations President Obama’s fiscal year 2017 budget released on February 9 call on Congress to increase EPA’s budget from $8.14 billion in 2016 to $8.27 billion in 2017. The budget proposal calls for offsetting spending increases with a $422 million cut to the agency’s clean water state revolving fund (CWSRF). It proposes spending of $1.02 billion for the drinking water state revolving fund (DRSRF), a $166 million cut from last year’s $1.186 billion request, but greater than Congress’ $863 million appropriation for fiscal 2016. The CWSRF would receive $979.5 million under the president’s budget, a 12 percent drop from the $1.116 billion the administration asked for last year and only three-quarters of what Congress set aside in the most recent spending bill. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that oversees EPA stated that the proposed budget is “already being disregarded” in the GOP Congress. Neither the House nor the Senate will even call on White House Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan to testify on the budget. May 2016: Despite the lack of action on adoption of a budget, the Senate has approved the first of 12 appropriation bills - the energy and water spending bill - that primarily funds Energy Department and Army Corps of Engineers programs. The funding levels for each bill will not change substantially compared to FY 16 funding levels because an overall FY17 discretionary 51 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx spending level of $1.07 trillion was already agreed to in the two-year budget deal signed in December of 2015. June 2016: Both House and Senate Appropriations Committees are considering bills in early June to fund the U.S EPA, the Interior Department and Forest Service. The House bill retains funding near the 2016 appropriation of $32 billion, $1 billion below the White House request. EPA would receive $7.98 billion, about two percent less than the administration’s request for $8.26 billion. However, the agency’s regulatory program appropriation would be cut by $43 million from this year’s level and $187 million below the administration’s proposal. The bill also includes a number of policy riders that would block proposed regulations including the Clean Power Plant rule and the Waters of the United States rule. The riders are unacceptable to Democrats and if passed would result in a veto by President Obama. The Senate is expected to consider a much cleaner bill, but if passed will eventually have to be reconciled with the House bill in a limited amount of time before the chambers recess for the summer and election campaigns. At this time it does not appear likely that Congress will be able to agree on a bill and will ultimately have to adopt a continuing appropriation or an omnibus spending bill later this year. July 2016: The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the $32.7 billion bill to fund U.S. EPA, the Interior Department, and the Forest Service. While the Senate bill is not as controversial and partisan as the House appropriation bill, Senate Democrats have vowed to block a floor vote. The House bill contains many policy riders including preventing implementation of the Water of the United States Rule. The bill is certain to be vetoed if approved in its present form. As stated above, there is a very good chance that Congress will be forced to adopt a continuing appropriation or an omnibus spending bill after the summer recess. August 2016: Congress left for its summer recess on July15 and will not return until September 5. Work on the FY 2017 appropriations bills was not completed by the Senate leaving little time for action before the beginning of the fiscal year on October 1. Prior to the recess the House passed its Department of Interior, EPA, related agencies bill following debate over 130 amendments that were opposed by Democrats. The bill also proposes steep cuts to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program of $400 million while proposing a slight increase of $100 million for the Drinking Water Revolving Fund. September 2016: House and Senate legislators continue to work toward a stopgap funding measure to fund the government beyond the end of the fiscal year on September 30. The House is considering a measure to provide funding at current levels through mid-December after which a series of bills, known as minibuses, each containing three or four of the annual appropriations bills in the lame-duck session, with a goal of having all 12 spending bills becoming law. Senate Republicans, however, have said they will begin moving a continuing resolution by mid- September that would run until December 9 and then wrap up spending in the lame duck. October 2016: Congress beat the September 30 end of fiscal year 2016 deadline by passing a continuing resolution (CR) which keeps the Federal Government funded through December 9. Both chambers will return on November 15 for a post-election lame duck session to complete funding for the 2017 FY. The CR includes $1.1 billion in funding to combat the Zika Virus and $500 million for Louisiana and other states coping with recent severe flooding. It does not, 52 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx however, include funding for aid to Flint, Michigan. That issue resulted in a large dispute when Democrats demanded that aid to Flint be included in the CR. As a compromise, the Flint aid package was included in the Water Resource Development Act (WRDA) (S. 2848 and H.R. 5303) and was subsequently passed by both chambers. Reconciliation of the two bills will be taken up during the lame duck session. January 2017: Prior to adjourning in December, Congress passed a Continuing Resolution (CR) to fund government through April 28, thus narrowly avoiding a government shutdown The CR maintains Fiscal Year 2017 federal spending at Fiscal Year 2016 levels through April, postponing major appropriations decision-making until the new Congress and Administration are in place. April 2017: Congress is fast approaching the end of the current Continuing Resolution (CR) funding the federal government. Progress is being made on an omnibus spending measure with the major objection being where to set funding levels for EPA. The House backed measure would cut EPA funding by $164 million to $7.98 billion, while the Senate bill would provide a more modest cut to $8.1 billion. To avoid a government shutdown. Agreement must be reached on an omnibus bill or another CR by April 28. May 2017: President Trump signed a $1.2 trillion Omnibus spending package for 2017 on May 5, keeping the federal government funded through the end of the fiscal year on September 30, 2017. The Omnibus will provide $1.394 billion for the Clean Water Revolving Fund (equal to FY16), and $863 million for the Drinking Water Revolving Fund (equal to FY16). The bill provides $8.058 billion in total funding for EPA which is $81 million from FY16 funding levels. Major cuts proposed by the administration were rejected and will now be confronted during the FY18 debate. 2018 Budget and Appropriations The Trump Administration released its preliminary Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget on March 16 for all federal agencies, including EPA. The EPA proposal slashes the agency’s funding by 31 percent, the largest cut of any federal department yet maintains funding for State Revolving Funds (SRFs) at $2.3 billion, a $4 million increase over the 2017 CR. The budget proposes funding EPA at $5.7 billion, $2.6 billion less that FY 2017. It is questionable whether the EPA funding cuts can pass the House, and very unlikely that it will receive 60 votes needed for Senate approval. H.R. 5 Regulatory Accountability Act This bill incorporates a series of reform measures the House passed in the 114th Congress, and has the backing of industry groups that have fought EPA rules they describe as unlawfully strict or otherwise overreaching. Specifically, it would add new mandates for agencies to choose the least burdensome option for accomplishing statutory goals; create new requirements for regulators to give advance notice of rulemakings in development; broaden requirements for reviewing proposed rules’ effects on small businesses; automatically stay some “major” rules when they are challenged in court; and repeal two landmark Supreme Court decisions that mandated deference to agencies 53 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx when they interpret “ambiguous” statutory or regulatory text. The bill was approved by the House on a 238-183 vote on January 11. H.R. 26 and S. 21 Regulation From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act. (REINS Act) The REINS Act would require congressional approval of federal regulations with an estimated annual economic impact of more than $100 million. It would also require each federal agency promulgating a new rule to identify and repeal an existing rule to offset annual costs and would create a process for Congress to review all rules currently in effect over a 10-year period. The bill passed the House on January 5 on a largely party-line vote of 237-187. The Senate considering similar legislation (S.21) H.R. 465 Water Quality Improvement Act of 2017 This bill would allow cities to address their Clean Water Act wastewater and stormwater requirements on a pollution priority basis rather than all at once (integrated planning). Status: Referred to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment H.R. 469 and S.119 The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2017 These bills would require agencies to publicly post and report to Congress any information on lawsuits, consent decrees or settlement agreements. They also prohibit same-day filing of complaints and pre-negotiated settlements. Sue-and-settle tactics are used solely to hide an agency’s regulatory ambitions from the American people until it is too late,” stated Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). H.R. 861 To Terminate the Environmental Protection Agency This bill would abolish the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and move the agency’s duties to states. Status: Referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee, Agriculture Committee, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Science, Space and Technology Committee. 54 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx H.R. 988 Searching for and Cutting Regulations That Are Unnecessarily Burdensome (SCRUB) Act This bill would set up a five-year commission to review rules ripe for repeal. The goal is to reduce regulations in the Federal Register by 15 percent. Status: Approved by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee H.R. 1004 Regulatory Integrity Act This bill would require agencies to post an online record of rules and their status. It would also force agencies to disclose every communication about rules and would prohibit them from promoting the rules on social media. Posts informing the public of the “substance” or a rule would be permitted. Status: Approved by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee H.R. 1009 Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Insight, Reform and Accountability Act. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). An agency in the White House Office of Management and Budget, reviews significant federal regulations. H.R. 1009 would put under congressional oversight rather than the executive branch. It would also require a report on proposed rules and retrospective review to eliminate outdated regulation. Status: Approved by the Oversight and Government Reform Committee H.R. 1068 Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 2017 This bill would require U.S. EPA to hasten its review of lead and copper limits in drinking water. It would require EPA to institute many of the changes the agency is already considering in its review of the Lead and Copper Rule which were outlined in a white paper released by EPA in October 2016. It would require utilities to review corrosion control treatments in water any time source water or treatment is changed. It would also require the EPA to ensure water utilities use sampling methods for testing lead in households shown to be most accurate. Utilities would also be required to test lead and copper levels at schools, something the Lead and Copper Rule does not currently do. Status: Referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Environment. 55 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx H.R. 1647 The Water Infrastructure Trust Fund Act of 2017 This bill would establish a voluntary program through which water–dependent private companies would pay a fee for a logo indicating support for water infrastructure. Proceeds from the voluntary fee would augment federal investments in the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. Status: Assigned to the Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees. H.R. 1974 National Opportunity for Lead Exposure Accountability and Deterrence (NO LEAD) Act This bill would lower the action level of lead allowed in drinking water from 15 parts per billion to 10 ppb by 2010 and 5 ppb by 2026. It would also direct water sampling to focus on high-risk homes like those occupied by pregnant women and children. Status: Assigned to the Energy and Commerce Committee S. 692 Water Infrastructure Flexibility Act This bill would provide local communities with increased flexibility when complying with Clean Water Act requirements, giving communities more autonomy as they prioritize and plan for wastewater and stormwater projects. Specifically, the bill would codify the Integrated Planning Framework that EPA release in 2012, would require EPA to revise the 1997 Financial Capability Guidance for negotiating combined sewer overflow consent decrees, and would ensure EPA integrates the use of green infrastructure for managing stromwater throughout its Clean Water Act compliance programs. Status: Assigned to the Environment and Public Works Committee. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously approved the bill on April 5. S.914 The Safe Drinking Water Assistance Act This bill would establish a national strategy to coordinate federal response to emerging contaminants, encourage research, and provide guidance and resources to states. Its introduction was largely the result of concerns over drinking water issues such as perfluorinated chemicals (PRCs) contamination in New Hampshire groundwater. Status: Referred to the Senate Committee on Public Works and the Environment 56 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Federal Regulation Regulatory Reform President Trump signed an executive order (EO) on January 30, 2017 directing EPA and other regulatory agencies to eliminate two existing rules for every one the enact, while also setting on overall “budget” for new regulatory costs each year. “Unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed,” the order states. Industry and environmentalist attorneys say the EO as written is unclear on whether it is meant to apply to rules EPA is required by law to issue, but regardless of the EO’s intent, a statutory mandate would take precedence over the EO. The president followed up with the issuance of another EO on February 24, 2017 directing each federal agency to deto collect signate a Regulatory Reform Officer to “oversee the implementation of regulatory reform initiatives” and to form a Regulatory Reform Task Force that will work to identify which existing rules should be repealed, replaced or modified. May 2017: EPA held the first in a series of meetings with state and local officials, industry and environmental groups and other stakeholders to being collecting advice on existing policies that can be targeted for repeal or modification. The meetings are intended to collect recommendations from the public for the regulatory reform task force the agency is crating as required by President Tump’s Executive Order 13777, which requires that EPA and other agencies designate regulatory reform officers and establish a regulatory reform task force with the goal of identifying existing regulations for repeal or modification. A progress report from EPA’s Regulatory Reform Task Force is due by May 26. Clean Water Act - Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule The joint EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Waters of the United States (WOTUS) Rule currently stayed from implementation under an appellate court order -- aims to resolve long-running uncertainty about the water law's reach, though critics challenging the rule in court and Congress claim it exceeds the agencies' authority. The statutory goal of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters, and protect against unlawful discharges or pollutants or dredge or fill material into navigable waters, which the law describes in section 502 as waters of the United States, and the territorial seas. But Congress never defined the term “waters of the United States,” leaving EPA and the Corps to define it through regulations -- which have repeatedly been the subject of federal court challenges. For example, the Corps in its implementing CWA regulations defined waters of the United States to include “waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce . . .” 57 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx In the earliest Supreme Court ruling to examine the scope of the water law, the high court in a unanimous ruling issued 1985 in United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes held that wetlands adjacent to navigable waters are jurisdictional, finding that the protection of water quality and aquatic ecosystems under the CWA “inseparably bound up with” jurisdictional waters. In 1986, the Corps then issued its “migratory bird” rule which attempted to clarify the reach of its CWA section 404 dredge-and-fill permitting authority by defining the scope of intrastate waters covered by 404. The Corps said the waters which would serve as habitat for migratory birds that cross state lines or are protected by federal treaties, endangered species, or are used to irrigate crops sold in interstate commerce should be considered jurisdictional. But the Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling in 2001 in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC), Petitioner v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al., concluded that the rule was not “fairly supported” by the CWA. The justices' decision effectively barred regulators from citing the presence of migratory birds as the sole basis for asserting jurisdiction over wholly intrastate waters. The SWANCC ruling focused more attention on CWA jurisdiction issues generally, and on tributaries to jurisdictional waters and “adjacent” wetlands, which EPA and the Corps said in 2003 guidance remain subject to the CWA only if they can be shown to be adjacent to or flow into traditionally navigable waters. That guidance said that regulators “should continue to assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters (and adjacent wetlands) and, generally speaking, their tributary systems (and adjacent wetlands),” but supported jurisdictional and permitting decisions on a case-by-case basis. Competing Tests In 2006, the Supreme Court in Rapanos et ux, et al., v. United States, the high court in a 4-4-1 decision remanded to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit a challenge by developers to determine whether the wetlands at issue were jurisdictional under the water law. But the justices did not agree on the appropriate legal test for determining whether wetlands should be protected, and did not issue a binding majority opinion on that issue. Instead, they created two competing tests for determining CWA jurisdiction that have left major uncertainty and prompted the calls for EPA and the Corps' rulemaking. Four justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts and associate justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – wrote in a plurality opinion authored by Scalia that the CWA extends only to waters that are "relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing" or to wetlands that are immediately adjacent to such waters. Four other justices -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens -- said in a dissenting opinion written by Stevens that Congress' intent in crafting the CWA was far more comprehensive and aimed at protecting not only wetlands adjacent to navigable waters themselves, but also to wetlands adjacent to tributaries of navigable waters. 58 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote an opinion concurring with Scalia's decision to vacate and remand, but for different reasons. Like Scalia, Kennedy says there should be limits on CWA protections for remote waterbodies, but said waterbodies with a "significant nexus" to navigable waters should still be protected. Kennedy says waterbodies can have this nexus if they significantly affect the integrity of navigable waters. Observers said at the time that Kennedy's opinion would likely carry the most weight in the lower courts, due in part to the Supreme Court's ruling issued in 1977 in Marks v. Whitney, in which the justices unanimously held that when a court is split in a plurality, those members who concur "on the narrowest grounds" have the controlling opinion. Regulatory Response The Rapanos ruling drove calls for EPA and the Corps to draft new regulations that clearly state what is and is not jurisdictional under the CWA and resolve confusion left by the justices' competing tests. The George W. Bush EPA in 2008 guidance established its policy response to the ruling, which asserted jurisdiction over TNWs, wetlands adjacent to TNWs, tributaries that are "relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing" or to wetlands that are immediately adjacent to such waters. The guidance said that other tributaries and non-adjacent wetlands would be evaluated on a case- by-case basis for determination as to whether they shared a significant nexus to TNWs. In 2011, EPA and the Corps then released a draft guidance for public comment that advanced a broad interpretation of Kennedy's opinion in Rapanos. But the draft guide drew significant criticisms from industry, states and many GOP lawmakers, who charged that it does not provide enough certainty on when waters are regulated and would extend the law's reach beyond current policy and was never finalized. After President Obama took office, EPA and the Corps then pursued a formal rulemaking to clarify the scope of the water law, receiving extensive public comment on the plan. EPA and the Corps released the proposed rule and accompanying fact sheet on March 25, stating that the plan generally finds all tributaries of traditional navigable waters and interstate waters, and adjacent water bodies, are automatically jurisdictional because they share a “significant nexus” to navigable water, a legal term stemming from the divided 2006 Supreme Court ruling in Rapanos V. United States. In May 2014, Western Governors expressed concern about the WOTUS rule to the EPA and Corps. A letter signed by Governor John Hickenlooper, Western Governors Association chairman, asserts that the rule was developed without sufficient consultation with states and could impinge on state authority. The letter proffers that “as co-regulators of water resources, states should be fully consulted and engaged in any process that may affect the management of their waters.” However, “the conversations to date have not been sufficiently detailed to constitute substantive 59 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx consultation” and that “Western Governors strongly urge both EPA and the Corps to engage states as authentic partners in the management of Western water.” The Western States Water Council representing 18 western governors released a supplemental letter to the EPA and Corps with additional but similar concerns as those expressed in the governors’ letter. Also in May 2014, more than 200 members of the House of Representatives, including 19 Democrats, sent a letter arguing that the regulatory proposal oversteps limits on federal jurisdiction set by the Supreme Court in 2001 and 2006, as well as Congressional intent. “Contrary to your agencies’ claims, this would directly contradict prior U.S. Supreme Court decision, which imposed limits on the extent of federal Clean Water Act authority”, they wrote. “Although your agencies have maintained that the rule is narrow and clarifies CWA jurisdiction, it in fact aggressively expands federal authority under the CWA while bypassing Congress and creating unnecessary ambiguity.” The House Committee on Small Business held a hearing on May 29 on the CWA Jurisdiction Rule. During the hearing several committee members blasted the potential economic impact of the proposed rule. Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.) called the proposal “the greatest water grab that we’ve seen by the federal government in the history of the United States.” Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) said that farmers are “scared to death” of the rule. And Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) deemed the proposal a “vast expansion” of federal power. Republican members of the committee sent a letter to top officials at the EPA and the Corps calling for the agencies to withdraw the proposed rule, complete an analysis of its impact on small businesses as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and then resubmit the rule. In June 2014, EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers extended the comment period on the Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Rule from July 21 to October 20. The House Science, Space and Technology Committee held a hearing in July 2014 on the impacts of the WOTUS rule. The hearing, entitled “Navigating the Clean Water Act: Is Water Wet?” provided members the opportunity to ask EPA Deputy Administrator Robert Perciasepe questions about the rule. Perciasepe was the only witness at the hearing and members grilled him about specific issues in their districts. During the opening statement, Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) showed a picture of all intermittent and ephemeral streams in the Western United States that would be regulated under the proposed rule. He noted that “EPA’s rule is so vague that it does little more than extend an open invitation to trial lawyers and government drones.” Perciasepe said EPA’s rulemaking would actually reduce the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act and would not assert jurisdiction over waters not currently under federal protection. Many members of the Committee strongly disagreed with his assessment. Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) demanded EPA withdraw the rule. “What you’ve shown is a disregard for listening. You don’t listen,” Collins said. “Congress doesn’t trust you, the Farm Bureau doesn’t trust you, counties don’t trust you, and the public doesn’t trust you.” 60 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Chairman Smith and other committee members also questioned Perciasepe on EPA proposing the Rule before the completion of the connectivity study meant to justify the measure, which is under review by the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB). Even though EPA has promised not to finalize the rule until after the report is done, Smith blasted Perciasepe for preventing direct communication between committee members and the SAB. August 2014: Key Senate Democrats are joining critics who have asked EPA to revise its Waters of The United States (WOTUS) Rule. A letter signed by 12 Democrats, including key leaders as well as several senators who are facing tough re-election races in farm states, is the most direct criticism yet to be levied at the proposed rule by congressional Democrats who have largely been supportive. The senators’ letter seeks more clarity in two areas of the rule: a specific definition of what constitutes a waterbody’s “bed and bank,” which they say “will significantly help resolve confusion as to which agricultural features can be classified as tributaries,” and a detailed guide to when ditches located in floodplains are jurisdictional. “In a guidance document on the EPA website, it states that the agency intends to include ditches collecting runoff or drainage from crop fields as upland ditches, However, the rule itself mentions only “ditches that are excavated wholly in uplands, drain only uplands, and have less than perennial flow.” Many producers are concerned because their farms contain fields in floodplains”, and thus are not wholly in uplands. Agricultural groups and state and local regulators are also increasingly arguing that if the administration finalizes the rule as proposed it would further confuse the already uncertain landscape of CWA jurisdiction, even when, unlike many industry opponents, they agree with the rule’s goals. September 2014: The EPA is now claiming that the WOTUS rule will benefit regulated entities by reducing their liability for citizen suits filed under the Clean Water Act because it would eliminate an existing “gray area” regarding what types of waters are jurisdictional. Yet, as referenced above, citizen suits are already being filed and the rule has not even been adopted. The EPAs latest defense of the rule is contained in a document titled Questions and Answers About Waters of the U.S. Proposal. Some members of a Science Advisory Board (SAB) panel are urging EPA to expand the WOTUS rule oversight to indicate that groundwater in many cases should be considered jurisdictional and subject to regulation, a plan that if adopted would undoubtedly increase opposition to the rule. One member of the Board stated that the “exclusion of groundwater is a concern, and should be recognized as such,” adding that groundwater, or subsurface drainage systems, is an important pathway for some nutrients and pollutants that may end up through nonpoint sources in downstream traditionally navigable waters, or those considered traditionally jurisdictional. Apparently, the fact that EPAs authority under the CWA generally prohibits regulation of groundwater means little to these folks. EPA’s local government advisors are urging the agency to provide greater clarity on critical definitions to the WOTUS rule in order to avoid regulatory confusion and ensure consistent field implementation of the rule among regulators in EPA’s 10 regions and the Army Corps of Engineers. “It needs to be crystal clear, because the point we’re at right now, it’s not with the public,” one Local Government Advisory Committee source reported during a recent EPA 61 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx listening session. “There may be a disconnect between EPA headquarters staff that crafted the rule and Corps district field regulators responsible for making jurisdictional determinations after the final rule is issued. That disconnect needs to be addressed before the agency finalizes the rule.” The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 5078 that would prevent EPA from adopting the proposed WOTUS rule (see Legislative section above). October 2014: EPA has extended the comment period on the proposed Waters of the U.S. rule to November 14, 2014. The EPA’s Science Advisory Board sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy saying that the regulatory proposal is supported by science and in fact should be more expansive. The SAB stated in the letter that the proposed rule may be excluding too many irrigation ditches, which gives agricultural interests even greater concern about the rule. The SAB even went so far as to state that groundwater connections are very important to wetlands and other waters and should be included as waters of the U.S. November 2014: EPA’s Science Advisory Board is urging the agency to develop a methodology to better quantify the connections between upstream waters with downstream waters traditionally regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA). A boost for industry groups that say EPA’s planned method is scientifically unsound and could extend the CWA’s scope. The recommendations could increase criticisms from industry and other opponents of the rulemaking that both proposed rule and the draft study do not clearly address how regulators plan on distinguishing all nexuses or connection from “significant” ones, and could lead to jurisdictional findings that are based on flawed information. A letter signed by 24 U.S. senators urging EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to withdraw the Waters of the U.S. rule has been sent to Gina McCarthy, administrator of EPA, and John McHugh, Secretary of the Army. The letter states that, “undoubtedly, there is a disconnect between regulatory reality and the Administration’s utopian view of the proposed “waters or the United States” rule. A copy of the letter is available upon request. Colorado Attorney General John Suthers also sent a letter to EPA and the Corps urging them to withdraw the Waters of The U.S. rule. January 2015: Various attempts by Congress to halt funding for implementation of the WOTUS rule prior to adjournment of the 113th session failed. Many Republican senators and representatives have committed to introduce legislation to prevent EPA from moving forward with adoption of the rule, or to prevent the use of funds to implement the rule. EPA, however, continues to move forward and is now planning to adopt the rule as early as April 2015. Litigation is likely to be pursued from a number of affected parties if the rule is adopted as planned. February 2015: During testimony before a joint meeting of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told lawmakers that EPA is planning several revisions to the controversial Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule defining the scope of the Clean Water 62 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Act, including expanding exclusions from the law to include stormwater infrastructure and other features, and rewriting its definition of a “tributary” subject to the CWA in order to resolve uncertainty on the term. McCarthy said she understands concerns raised by stakeholders that the proposed rule’s language defining “tributaries” and subjecting all waters meeting that definition to default CWA protection creates fears about certain agricultural erosional features, which are waterbodies created from erosion. She also said the agency would examine how the tributary definition in the proposed rule relates to ephemeral streams – responding to concerns from lawmakers, EPA’s science advisers, and others that the proposed language hinges on certain characteristics, such as an “ordinary high water mark,” that might not be present in ephemeral streams. Finally, McCarthy indicated that the agency will try to shore up its definition of “significant nexus” in the final rule, referring to the legal test created by Supreme Court Justice Kennedy’s ruling in Rapanos v. United States. The joint hearing gave critics and proponents of the proposed rule a chance to outline their positions on the policy, with some opponents urging EPA to clarify disputed terms in the rule and others pushing for withdrawal of the rule. The agency has not said that it will scrap the policy, although McCarthy suggested that EPA’s non-binding April deadline for releasing the final rule could slip. [EPA Water Policy Report] April 2015: EPA has sent the final Clean Water Act -Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The agency is pushing for a release date in April, the last major regulatory step before it can issue the rule. EPA’s decision to send the final rule for review on April 6 underscores the agency’s opposition to calls from some GOP lawmakers to re-propose the regulation to address a host of concerns raised over it. The EPA has acknowledged that they are planning several revisions to clarify the rule, including the definitions of “tributary,” “floodplain,” “and “uplands,” and concerns that the rule was developed without proper consultation with state and local governments and small businesses. Many Senators are not accepting EPA’s proposal to revise the rule and recently approved by a 59- 40 vote to approve a budget resolution amendment that seeks to limit the scope of the rule by establishing “bright lines” for determining when smaller waters are considered subject to the water law. A joint House-Senate hearing over the rule on February 4 did little to ameliorate concerns. Despite EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s efforts to clarify the proposal and respond to expressed concerns, Republican legislators remained dissatisfied. They continue to insist that the rule be withdrawn and re-proposed following extensive outreach to state and local governments, agricultural groups, small businesses and others. Some Senators are considering development of a bipartisan bill to force EPA to withdraw the draft rule until the outreach conditions are met. May 2015: Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) and Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio) have introduced legislation (H.R. 1732) to prevent promulgation of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. The Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015 would require EPA and the ACOE to withdraw the rule within 30 days of enactment. The agencies would have to propose a new rule based on public comments received on the April 2014 proposal and a related cost-benefit analysis and scientific 63 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx study on waters’ connectivity that the agencies used to develop and justify the proposed rule. Additionally, the bill’s text says it would require the agencies to jointly consult with “representative State and local officials, stakeholders, and other interested parties on how to define the term ‘waters of the United States’” in the Clean Water Act and include any consensus advice from stakeholders in a new proposed rule. The legislation specifies that a new proposed rule must preserve state and local authority and private property rights over natural and man-made water features, incorporate advice from the consultations on accounting for differences in local geography, hydrology, legal frameworks and address other local concerns. The consultation process must be initiated within three months of enactment and result in publication of a report responding to each of the more than one million public comments submitted on the proposed rule and the connectivity study, along with a “detailed explanation of how the new proposed rule addresses the advice and recommendations provided by the State and local officials,” according to the bill text. The bill was passed by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and is expected to be passed by the full House soon. A similar bill was approved last year by a vote of 262-152. The Senate is also considering a bill (S. 1140) that would require the EPA and ACOE to issue a revised rule no later than December 31, 2016. The rule would be required to outline the types of waters that would be subject to CWA requirements. The bill also specifies that a “water of the U.S.” should not include: water that is located below the surface of the land, including soil water and groundwater; water that is not located within a body of water including channels that have no bed, bank or ordinary high water mark or surface hydrologic connection to traditional navigable water; isolated ponds; stormwater and floodwater management systems; wastewater management systems; municipal and industrial water supply management systems; agricultural water managements systems; streams that do not have enough flow to carry pollutants to navigable water; prior converted cropland, and areas lawfully filled pursuant to a permit or areas exempt form permitting. June 2015: Two Senate hearings on different provisions of the WOTUS rule were held on May 18. The Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Fisheries Water and Wildlife heard testimony in support of S. 1140 which is the opponents preferred legislation for countering the rule. The bill would send U.S. EPA and the ACOR back to the drawing board with the proposed rule. The agencies would be required to consult with small businesses, states and other groups before redrafting the rule. The other hearing was held by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee to hear testimony on the economic implication of the rule. The EPA claims that the rule would generate $2.00 in benefits for every $1.00 in cost, but opponents argue that the economic analysis was fundamentally flawed and the regulation would have a negative ripple effect across the economy. The EPA and ACOE released the revised WOTUS rule on May 27. The rule will automatically apply jurisdiction to all tributaries and adjacent water, or water bordering, neighboring or contiguous to other jurisdictional water. It lists five specific types of “similarly situated” waters that will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they are jurisdictional. These waters include prairie potholes, Carolina and Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools and Texas coastal prairie wetlands. Waters within a 100-year floodplain of other waters would be 64 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx subject to case-by-case jurisdiction analysis, while a host of water features, such as ditches with ephemeral flow that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary, groundwater, erosional features, and stormwater control features would be excluded from jurisdiction. The revisions to the proposed rule satisfied some of the concerns expressed by interests such as wastewater and stormwater utilities, but other groups including farmers, ranchers and small business interests remain largely opposed. The EPA has yet to publish the rule in the Federal Resister, which will trigger a 120-day window under the Clean Water Act for filing suit over it. Alternatively the agencies might publish the rule under Administrative Procedure Act authority which sets a 90-day window for filing suit. It is very likely that the rule will be challenged when it is published. The rule is also being challenged in Congress through the 2016 budget appropriation process. The House passed the appropriation for the Interior Department and EPA with a provision that would prevent the EPA and the ACOE from adopting or enforcing the rule. President Obama has threatened to veto either S.1140 and appropriation bills that contain riders delaying or halting implementation of the WOTUS rule. July 2015: Twenty six states have now filed lawsuits in federal district courts over EPA’s Waters of the United States rule claiming it violates the Clean Water Act, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution. Colorado is participating in one of the lawsuits with twelve other Western states and state agencies. A copy of a press release issued by Attorney General Cynthia Coffman is available upon request, and a copy of the complaint is available upon request. August 2015: Municipalities are seeking additional clarity form EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers on regulatory exclusions that the agencies’ joint Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule creates for municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4) and certain types of ditches, including which party is responsible for enforcing the exclusions. EPA stated that the agency is in the process of “sitting down with each of the states to make sure we’re on the same page with what the rule means.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit has been chosen to hear suits over the rule, consolidating challenges filed in several circuits. The decision is considered to be a win for industry groups that asked the 6th Circuit to hear the case, though any briefing is likely to wait until federal district court cases over the rule are resolved. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is arguing that a series of memos between the Corps of Engineers and EPA show that EPA failed to fully consult with the Corps on the rule and the rule is, therefore, lacking factual, technical and legal support and should be withdrawn. The memos reveal strong disagreement between the two agencies over certain provisions of the rule. The EPA claims that the disagreements were prior to the rule being published. September 2015: The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota Southeastern Division granted a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of the WOTUS rule in a lawsuit filed by 13 states, including Colorado. The judge indicated in his ruling that he would likely rule in favor of the plaintiffs because the rule likely oversteps the Supreme Court’s standard for federal 65 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx authority set in its 2006 Rapanos v. United States decision, and that the EPA and Corps of Engineers also appear to have violated Administrative Procedures Act requirements. In a decision made after the initial injunction, Judge Erickson ruled that the injunction would apply only to the 13 states that filed the initial lawsuit. The EPA is proceeding with implementation of the rule in all other states. Lawsuits filed by other states in different district courts and courts of appeals have been stayed until a decision is made on whether the suits should be heard in district courts or courts of appeals. With the various lawsuits and the confusion over jurisdiction, it is likely that the legality of the WOTUS rule will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) during its recent annual meeting failed to reach consensus on a resolution expressing “dissatisfaction” with the WOTUS rule, reflecting a longstanding split among the states over whether to support the policy. A vote over a resolution outlining the group’s opposition to the regulation ended in a 19-19=1 tie that meant it failed. October 2015: The litigation situation has become even more complicated with a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit order blocking EPA from implementing its Clean Water Act jurisdiction rule nationwide while it weighs whether it has authority to hear suits over the rule, though at least two judges suggest if they hear the suit then they will scrap the policy for exceeding EPA’s authority. The court is still weighing arguments over whether it has authority to hear challenges to the WOTUS rule. The Clean Water Act is unclear on whether challenges to nationally applicable rules issued under the water law must be heard in federal district or appellate courts, prompting myriad lawsuits at both levels. More than a dozen lawsuits have been file in various federal district courts. On October 13, the seven member federal court multi-district litigation (MDL) panel signed an order that stating it would be “inappropriate” to centralize the various district court suits in one case since none are expected to involve fact-finding and will instead require judges to rule on whether the rule’s text, or the differences between its proposed and final versions, overstep the bounds of the CWA or Administrative Procedure Act (APA). “Centralization will not serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation,” the order says. The decision clears the way for the several district court cases to proceed, and in at least one of the cases the challengers are citing the order in calling for their suit to advance. Legislatively, Senate Republicans are pushing a Congressional Review Act (CRA) disapproval resolution to scrap the WOTUS rule, a move that if successful could prevent future administrations from crafting a similar policy to clarify the law's scope. The resolution has gained the support or 46 Republican senators, but no Democrat senators. November 2015: The legal battles are continuing with little progress made toward determining of a venue or venues for hearing lawsuits challenging WOTUS. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments on December 8 to determine whether proper venue is the court of appeals or district court. Once that decision is made, the lawsuits will move forward either in numerous federal district courts or several appeals courts. Regardless, it is hard to see how the 66 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx litigation will not eventually end up at the U.S. Supreme Court. Importantly, due to previous court decisions, the rule is currently stayed from implementation in the entire United States. December 2015: U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota Judge Alice Senechal has rejected EPA’s bid to stay a suit over the WOTUS rule pending an appellate court decision on whether it has authority to hear challenges to the rule, with the judge saying the agency failed to show “sufficient reason” for halting the lawsuit. In the order, Senechjal set a November 20 deadline for the U.S. Department of Justice to file a certified index to the administrative record, with any motions to supplement the record due by December 4. The state’s motion for summary judgement is due January 4, 3016 with a reply brief by February 29, 2016, and DOJ’s motion is due by February 15, 2016, with final briefs due by March 21, 2016. In a separate case, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit held oral arguments on December 8 to decide whether challenges to the WOTUS rule should be heard in U.S. courts of appeal or in U.S. district courts. The dispute revolves around language in the Clean Water Act that requires certain challenges to sections of the Act to proceed to a court of appeals as opposed to a federal district court. The 6th Circuit previously stayed implementation of the rule until it issues a decision on whether it has authority to hear consolidated appeals suits over the rule. Legislatively, the U.S. Senate on November 4 passed a resolution to kill the WOTUS rule under the Congressional Review Act, opponents second attack on the rule after a previous attempt to block implementation of the rule was stopped by Democrats. The resolution was approved by a vote of 53-44. The House, which has voted a number of times to oppose the rule, is expected to approve a similar resolution, but the Obama administration has been clear that it will veto the measure. Finally, 90 lawmakers have signed a letter urging House leaders to include policy riders to block the WOTUS rule in the year-end omnibus spending bill. As of December 10 a rider to halt implementation of the rule remains in the House funding bill. January 2016: The Government Accountability Office issued a legal opinion finding that the EPA engaged in “covert propaganda” in violation of federal law when it blitzed social media to urge the general public to support President Obama’s controversial Waters of the United States rule. Despite the finding, the continuing controversy and the multitude of lawsuits challenging the rule, Congress removed a policy rider which would have blocked implementation of the rule prior to approval of the 2016 omnibus appropriations bill. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives approved their version of Senate Joint Resolution 22 which would give Congress 60 days after finalization of the rule to block its implementation. The Senate previously approved the resolution on November 4, 2015. President Obama has promised to veto the resolution. EPA has launched a campaign to change the reference to the WOTUS rule from Waters of the United States, which carries the connotation that the rule covers all waters in the United States to the Clean Water Rule. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy stated, “I’m really concerned that we weren’t crystal-clear, out of the gate, not just about what we intended to do, but about what we weren’t intending to do, because it left all kinds of room for people to wonder not just about what the words said but about what we were trying to accomplish.” 67 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx The multitude of lawsuits continue to wind their way through the federal court system with the current focus of the primary suit, State of North Dakota, et al., v. EPA being what should be included in the administrative record. The group of 14 states suing EPA are seeking a broad administrative record in the case to include Army Corps of Engineers staffers’ memos faulting a draft version of the rule, saying the documents will help prove the state’ claims that the rule was issued in “bad faith.” The Department of Justice is fighting to keep the memos out of the record. February 2016: President Obama vetoed Senate Joint Resolution that would have prevented implementation of the WOTUS rule. The White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB) is reviewing EPA’s draft formal response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) criticisms that the agency violated legal restrictions on use of appropriations in how it promoted the WOTUS rule. At a February 11 House Agriculture Committee on the impact of the agency’s rules on the rural economy, several lawmakers quizzed EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy about the rule. Critics echoed long- running attacks on the rule which was jointly proposed by the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Several lawmakers during the hearing criticized EPA’s efforts to promote the rule. “I think it’s a big deal because it goes to the integrity of the comment process,” Rep. Bob Gibbs (R- OH) said. McCarty responded that she believe EPA’s actions followed allowable guidelines and should not be considered to be lobbying. [INSIDEEPA.COM] March 2016: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit issued a ruling stating that it will rule on challenges to the WOTUS rule. The question before the Court was whether lawsuits filed over the WOTUS rule should be heard in federal district court or be elevated to the federal appeals court level. Several lawsuits have been file at both the district court and appeals court levels and most were stayed pending a ruling on the issue by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The ruling was a 2-1 decision with one judge ruling in favor only because a previous case ruling which he believes was decided incorrectly established a precedent for the case under review. So, the ruling did little to provide clarity on current litigation as it failed to resolve whether the myriad federal district court cases over the rule will continue and the majority’s reasoning could be vulnerable to a rehearing request. In fact, the plaintiffs in the case have file a petition for en banc rehearing by the full 6th Circuit. It is unclear how many courts outside of the 6th Circuit’s states of Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee will acknowledge the appellate ruling, but Oklahoma district court is adhering to the ruling. Another appellate case on the rule is pending in the 11th Circuit where Georgia and 10 other states are seeking to overturn a federal district court ruling that said the appellate court is the correct venue for the suit. A ruling in that suit has not been made. Finally, the EPA has filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by 13 states in the District Court in North Dakota. The North Dakota court was proceeding with arguments in the case and had previously ruled that the district court was the proper venue for the case. The Court has not ruled on EPA’s motion. April 2016: Six groups including thirteen state governments (including Colorado), a coalition of Georgia industries, the Utility Water Act Group representing 200 power providers, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association the Chamber of Commerce, the Washington Cattlemen’s 68 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Association, and the Texas Alliance for Responsible Growth, Environment and Transportation have all filed petitions for an en banc rehearing of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that the Court of Appeals is the appropriate venue for hearing challenges to the WOTUS rule. In the meantime, the District Court for the District of North Dakota has yet to rule whether to defer to the 6th Court of Appeals decision or to proceed to trial on its own. Clearly, there remains a lot of confusion and dissension on the proper venue for WOTUS challenges. The main issues concerning the legality of the rule cannot move forward until these matters are resolved. So, litigation will undoubtedly continue for several months, if not years. Nearly half of the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are calling for an appropriations bill rider that would block federal funding for implementing the WOTUS rule. The lawmakers asked the leaders of the House Appropriations Subcommittees on Energy and Water and Interior and Environment to add the rider to their fiscal 2017 spending bills. It would block the EPA or the ACOE from using any federal funds to implement the WOTUS rule. The same funding restriction has been attempted for the last two years and have been abandoned each year to avoid a shutdown of the federal government. May 2016: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit rejected requests from several states and industry groups to review the three judge panel’s decision giving the court authority to hear suits over the WOTUS rule, leaving a Supreme Court appeal as the last option for the rule’s critics to challenge the decision. “The original panel has reviewed the petitions for rehearing and concludes that the issues raised in the petitions were fully considered upon the original submission and decision of the cases,” stated the April 21 order. Following the Court’s order, a new order was issued setting a May 30 deadline for petitioners and EPA to submit a joint briefing proposal seeking recommendations for the length of each brief, length of time for completion of briefing ahead of planned oral argument, whether additional briefing by intervenors is necessary, and other issues. The EPA, in response to the 6th Circuit’s decision to not conduct an en banc hearing filed a motion to dismiss four lawsuits filed in federal district court in Texas challenging the EPA’s rule, arguing that the 6th Circuit’s ruling is controlling and deprives the district court of authority under the Administrative Procedure Act, and creates duplicative litigation. At the same time, a coalition of 13 states, including Colorado, filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota arguing that the 6th Circuit’s ruling is not binding in the North Dakota District Court because it is in the 8th Circuit. Therefore, the state’s lawsuit should proceed. In another suit, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio’s Eastern Division dismissed a challenge to the WOTUS rule that was filed by three states. The Court cited the 6th Circuit’s ruling as the reason for dismissal. Finally, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ordered a new briefing in a lawsuit over the WOTUS rule seeking input on how the case is affected by the 6th Circuit’s decision. In that case, 11 states are seeking to overturn a ruling by a federal district court stating that the Court of Appeals is the proper venue for challenges to the rule. On the legislative front, an attempt to add an amendment to the Senate’s energy and water appropriations bill prohibiting implementation of the WOTUS rule failed in a 56-42 vote. June 2016: In response to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to not conduct an en banc hearing on its decision that the proper venue to hear challenges to the WOTUS rule is the Court of 69 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Appeals, the District Court in North Dakota halted proceedings until the issue is decided in appeals court or the Supreme Court. However, the judge refused to dissolve a preliminary injunction blocking the rules implementation in 13 states. The Circuit Court of Appeals is continuing to review motions on whether to defer similar challenges to the WOTUS rule or defer to the 6th Circuit Court. Likewise, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has set a briefing schedule to hear an appeal filed by state and business groups seeking to overturn a U. S. District Court ruling dismissing the groups’ challenges to the rule for lack of jurisdiction. July 2016: A group of 30 states including Colorado is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit to reverse a lower court’s decision to defer to a 6th Circuit ruling that appellate courts are the proper venue for suits over challenges to the WOTUS rule claiming that it unlawfully restricts parties’ Administrative Procedure Act judicial review rights. The states argue that the lower court’s reliance on the 6th Circuit ruling is improper because it expands section 509 of the Clean Water Act, which ultimately restricts APA review of final agency actions by barring filings after 120 days of EPA issuing an action. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on July 8 on procedural challenges to a lower court ruling that denied a preliminary injunction to kill the rule. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has set a briefing schedule for motions concerning the administrative record and for merits arguments in Murray Energy, et al, v. U.S. EPA, et al, which consolidates a host of suits filed by industry groups, states, and others over the WOTUS rule. July 8 is the deadline for motions regarding the administrative record and September 30 is the deadline for opening briefs to be filed by state, business, and association petitioners and November 30 is the deadline for briefs to be filed by the Department of Justice on behalf of EPA and the Corps of Engineers. August 2016: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has halted litigation over EPA and ACOE’ WOTUS rule in the appellate court and a lower court, deferring to ongoing consolidated challenges to the rule in the 6th Circuit which will soon advance to briefing on the merits of the cases. The abeyance order applies “pending a decision of the 6th Circuit on the issue involving the validity of the Clean Water Rule, or until further order of this Court,” according to the decision. October 2016: Thirty one states and multiple agriculture, livestock, oil and other industry opponents of the WOTUS rule have filed petitions with The U.S. Supreme Court to resolve the “jurisdictional Quagmire” of legal challenges over the proper venue to hear lawsuits pertaining to the rule. As the petitions await a Supreme Court decision, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals is moving ahead with the litigation and has issued a briefing schedule that begins on November 1 and concludes with final briefs being filed no later than March 8, 2017. January 2017: The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up the dispute over which lower courts have jurisdiction to hear challenges to the WOTUS rule. The Court will reconsider the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to hear legal challenges over the rule. In February 2016, the Ohio-based 6th Circuit ruled 2-1 that it had jurisdiction to hear the challenges and issued a nationwide stay of the rule pending the resolution of the litigation. The decision by the Supreme Court to review the 6th Circuit decision is a big setback for the Obama administration, which has sought to keep the litigation in the appellate court and avoid fights in district courts that might be more sympathetic to challengers of the rule. 70 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Despite the Supreme Court decision, the 6th Circuit is proceeding with the litigation and briefs have recently been filed by the Plaintiffs and Respondents. A response will now be filed to the Respondents brief prior to oral arguments. April 2017: In a notice signed by EPA and published in Federal Register on March 2, EPA and the ACOE say they are acting President Trump’s February 28 Executive Order to start reworking the WOTUS rule, and indicate that they will do so without changing the record the Obama administration built to support it. “A revised rulemaking based ‘on a reevaluation of which policy would be better in light of the facts’ is ‘well within an agency’s discretion,’ and a change in administration brought about by the people casting their votes is a perfectly reasonable basis for an executive agency’s reappraisal of the costs and benefits of the programs and regulations.’’ says the notice, which serves as an advance notice of the agencies’ intent to review and either amend or rescind the existing rule. The administration is laying the groundwork for arguments that revising the policy regardless of its factual grounding is valid based on Supreme Court precedent protecting regulators’ ability to switch position on purely legal issues. [Inside EPA.com] The Justice Department filed a motion requesting the Supreme Court pause the lawsuit challenging the decision of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals that proper jurisdiction to hear suits over the WOTUS rule reside with the Circuit Court. Environmental groups filed opposing motions and the Supreme Court on April 3 denied the Justice Department motion allowing oral arguments to move forward in the fall leading to a possible decision prior to the end of the year. May 2017: The Trump administration has established an aggressive timeline for rewriting the WOTUS rule. EPA and U.S. Corps of Engineers meetings signal that the administration will invoke authority to issue a new rule based on revising the Obama administration’s legal interpretations rather than developing a new scientific record to justify a new version. The expedited schedule may cause challenges to the revised rule’s scientific basis. EPA officials during an April 19 meeting with state and local officials proposed options for crafting a revised rule using the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s narrow test for jurisdiction, including whether to literally apply the test as written and pros and cons regulators might face in using Scalia’s test. States and industry groups are urging EPA to develop a clear “administrable” revised rule that allows for quick implementation and consistency on how to determine when waters are subject to the law, in lieu of regulators having to make judgement calls or ask EPA for further clarification in each case. It is clear that the revised rule will use the Scalia jurisdictional test rather than the Justice Kennedy test. Scalia’s test limits federal jurisdiction to “relatively permanent” waters that share a “continuous surface connection” with navigable waters while the Kennedy test says any waterbodies sharing a “significant nexus” with navigable waters should be considered jurisdictional. EPA submitted the proposed rule, Definition of Waters of the Untied States – Recodification of Preexisting Rules, to the Office of Management and Budget for review on May 2. 71 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Lead and Copper Rule EPA is developing regulations to implement the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act which President Obama signed in January 2011. The law changed the Safe Drinking Water Act’s definition of “lead free” to require all pipes and potable water plumbing fixtures to have a weighted average of no more that 0.25 percent lead content. Previously, pipes and pipe fittings could contain up to eight percent lead and still be considered lead-free. Implementing the law is proving to be difficult, however, because a number of issues have not been addressed in time for the law’s effective date and will now have to be dealt with in pending revisions to the EPA’s lead and copper rule. One issue that will impact most water utilities is a recent pronouncement from EPA that fire hydrants with leaded nozzles do not fall under the exemption for pipes and fixtures that are used exclusively for nonpotable services because they “can be, and are, used in emergency situations to provide drinking water when there are disruptions to the normal operations of the drinking water distribution system. Water providers are strenuously opposing the EPA’s reasoning and federal legislation is being introduced to reverse the EPA’s interpretation. The EPA decision not to exempt fire hydrants from the lead-free requirement will cost utilities and hydrant manufacturers millions of dollars. EPA has agreed to consider utilities concerns, but has yet to change its decision. January 2014: EPA is revisiting how it defines a public utility’s authority to oversee implementation of regulations intended to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water as part of a newly launched effort to make comprehensive revisions to the lead and copper rule. A new working group has been established by the National Drinking Water Advisory Council to work through a number of lead and copper rule revision issues, one of which is how to define “control” over lead service lines. Under the standard promulgated in 1991, EPA required public water systems to replace each year seven percent of the initial number of lead service lines (LSLs) in the distribution system if they do not meet action level requirements after corrosion control or other treatment designed to prevent lead leaching from lead pipes and plumbing fixtures. In the 1991 standard, EPA presumed that a public water system “controls” the water service line up to the wall of the building unless the system does not own the line: does not have the authority to replace, repair, or maintain the service line or have the authority to set standards for construction, maintenance or repair of that line. Under this definition, a utility cannot rebut this presumption unless it demonstrates that its control is limited by state statute, local ordinance, another public service contract or some other legal authority. Under the current LCR, systems must replace the portions of the LSL that the water system owns, rather than the broad definition of “control” under which a system “controls” a line if it owns it or has any other authority to replace, repair or maintain it, provided it doesn’t conflict with local statutes. EPA wants the working group to consider whether it should eliminate the partial LSL requirement entirely when a property owner cannot pay for the replacement of the portion of the LSL on his or her property. The agency is also directing the working group to consider re-opening public comment on the broader control definition again. 72 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx April 2014: The Lead and Copper Rule Working Group held its first of six meetings in March to consider several possible revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR). The March 25 – 28 meeting was focused primarily on ensuring the drinking water treatment process does not cause corrosion in lead service lines, which can result in lead leaching into drinking water. One of the primary ways utilities ensure compliance with the rule is to optimize their corrosion control techniques. During future meetings the working group will explore whether the rule should require partial or full lead service line replacement, including whether EPA should expand the areas where water utilities would be required to replace service lines: whether water samples are being taken in the right places to detect lead and copper exceedances: and whether to change the protocol for collecting samples. October 2014: EPA has begun a rulemaking to codify an amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) that lowered the amount of lead content that can be allowed in drinking water pipes and fixtures. The law, which changed the statutory definition of lead-free plumbing fixtures, went into effect January 4, 2014, but the agency officials said in 2012 that the implementing regulation would take longer to develop. The proposed rule is expected to address whether manufacturers should demonstrate that a product is lead-free: whether all plumbing products should meet the lead-free definition or whether there should be dual lines of products allowing higher lead content for some statutorily noted exemptions: how non-portable products would be identified if dual product lines are allowed: how to identify lead-free products: how to calculate lead content, and whether one part of a system or facility can be repaired using lead-free component parts and returned to service even if other component parts that were not repaired do not meet the new lead- free definition. December 2014: An EPA advisory panel is generally in favor of requiring drinking water utilities to replace all portions of lead service lines to reduce lead in levels in drinking water, but the group is struggling to develop a recommendation on how the agency should address that in forthcoming revisions to the lead and copper rule. Under the current rule, water systems that do not meet the required lead action level after the installation of corrosion control treatment (CCT), a program which is also under review as part of the workgroup, and/or source water treatment, must replace at least seven percent of the initial number of lead service lines in their distribution system annually. But a system is currently only required to replace the portion of the lead service line that it owns or controls, which does not extend to pipes that connect homes or businesses to water mains in public right of ways. Work group members at a November 12–13 meeting appeared to agree that the requirement for “partial” replacement, the rule’s definition of “control” and the requirement for seven percent replacement must be revisited because they do not adequately protect the public from the harmful effects of lead contamination, a position long urged by environmentalists. However, several legal and policy questions remain over whether EPA can mandate full line replacements and if the agency cannot require it, how it can encourage utilities to do it. [EPA Water Policy Report] April 2015: An EPA advisory committee is considering recommendations for the agency to require drinking water utilities to design their own long-term programs to replace their lead service lines to reduce lead levels in drinking water as part of forthcoming revisions to the lead and copper rule (LCR), in order to get past the issue of whether utilities “control” all of the pipes delivering 73 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx water to customers. The National Drinking Water Advisory Council’s Lead and Copper Rule Working Group, which is charged with developing recommendations for updating the rule, has struggled with determining whether full lead service line (LSL) replacements can be mandated, and if not, how utilities can be encourage to do so. Under the current LCR, water systems that detect lead levels higher than enforceable standards at the consumers’ taps must replace at least seven percent of LSLs in their system annually. The replacement requirement, however, only applies to the portion of LSLs the utility owns or controls, which does not extend to pipes that connect homes or businesses to water mains in public right of ways. It is unclear what authority EPA might have to compel utilities and homeowners to replace the full line under the Safe Drinking Water Act when lead levels do not meet the required action level. May 2015: The National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) Lead and Copper Rule Working Group is recommending that the EPA provide drinking water utilities with a “checklist” of actions to completely replace lead service lines (LSLs), placing an emphasis on continued improvement rather than just meeting deadlines to reduce lead levels in drinking water. The group has concluded in prior meeting that utilities should be required to replace all portions of LSLs, rather than the partial replacements allowed under the current rule. However, the question of how to encourage utilities to do so, as well as the way to define who controls which portions of lead pipes is still up for debate within EPA. The checklist lists a number of actions or activities a utility could choose from to indicate that it is making progress toward meeting the requirements of the new proposed lead and copper rule. The group recommends that utilities work toward the requirements in a sequence of three-year milestones, beginning 36 months after the enactment of the new rule, with a faster pace for milestones early on since “progress may be more difficult to achieve in later years with those LSLs that remain at that time.” The milestones include: confirming that “targeted education” programs for homeowners with LSLs are in place; providing status and results of a consumer lead sampling program; confirming operational policies are in place, and providing with an update on their line replacement progress. August 2015: The National Drinking Water Advisory Council’s Lead and Copper Rule Working Group has concluded that it cannot ask the EPA to require all drinking water utilities to cease partial lead service line replacements, despite scientific expertise suggesting that the partial replacement are not effective in reducing drinking water lead levels, and is weighing options to instead strongly encourage the full service line replacement. The group had previously considered prohibiting the current widespread practice of partial replacement and wanted to require utilities to replace the entire service line, even in cases where the utility does not own of maintain portions of the line. November 2015: An EPA advisory panel is recommending that the agency provide public water systems with suggestions for how the systems can encourage full replacements of lead service lines, including “creative” financing options for low-income communities as a way to address environmental justice concerns. The final draft of recommendations from the Nation Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) Working Group details plans to strongly encourage full lead service line replacement (LSLR), by setting goals for replacement, working with customers to speed up replacement and receiving credit for replacement of lead- 74 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx containing connecting pipes and/or confirmation that a service line initially inventoried as an LSL is not lead. The full NDWAC is scheduled to finalize the report at a November 17-19 meeting in Washington, D.C. December 2015: EPA’s National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) during its meeting on November 17-19 unanimously supported a work group’s recommendation on how the agency should revise its lead and copper drinking water rule despite concerns from environmental, public health, and municipal advocate who say the recommendation fail to adequately protect water customers from the effects of lead poisoning. NDWAC’s recommendation strongly encourage drinking water utilities to conduct full lead service line replacements (LSLRs), rather than partial replacements, by setting goals, working with customers to speed up replacement and receiving credit for replacement of lead-containing connecting pipes and/or confirmation that a service line initially inventoried as an LSL is not lead. The recommendations do not call for prohibiting partial replacements. In addition, the final recommendations advise EPA to strengthen corrosion control treatment (CCT); modify monitoring requirements to provide for customer-requested tap samples and to assess the effectiveness of CCT; establish a health-based, household action level that triggers a report to the consumer and to the applicable health agency for follow up and separate the requirements for copper from those for lead, with new requirements targeting water that is corrosive to copper. February 2016: It has been very prominently reported in the nation media that Flint, Michigan exceeded the Federal Drinking Water Act action level for lead for several months resulting in high blood lead levels in children. A task force charged with determining responsibility for the contamination and lack of response has assigned primary blame to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. The head of the department has since resigned and the manager of the water quality section has been fired. The administrator for EPA Region 5 has also resigned following accusations that EPA knew of the contamination, but did not act to correct it in a timely manner. The governor of Michigan has also been roundly criticized for his delayed reaction to the situation. In the meantime, several lawsuits have been filed, the U.S. Congress has held hearings and demanded corrective action, a dispute over authorization of relief funds for Flint has halted progress on the bipartisan energy bill that has been in the works for many months, and Michigan and the federal government have declared Flint a man-made disaster area and granted several million dollars in aid. The federal lead and copper rule that is undergoing revision (see above) is likely to be strengthened significantly as a result of the Flint situation. Testing and reporting requirements will probably be enhanced and the replacement of lead service lines, regardless of ownership is undoubtedly going to receive more attention. The revised rule is anticipated to be issued sometime in 2017, but there will be increasing pressure to move the proposed rule forward as soon as possible. April 2016: In response to the Flint Water Crisis (see below), the EPA sent letters to governors and water regulators across the County promising greater enforcement of the lead and copper rule. Further, the letters urged every state to locate lead water service lines as required by the rule. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said her staff would meet with leaders of all state drinking water programs to make sure they are properly carrying out and enforcing the rule. 75 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx EPA water officials are pushing back against some Republican lawmakers’ suggestion that the agency’s failure to update its lead and copper rule (LCR) since 1991 contributed to the Flint, MI, drinking water crisis, while also saying the agency is considering a wide range of comments in deciding how to revise the rule.” “I do not accept the conclusion that says the reason things went wrong [in Flint] is because you have a rule that was broken,” EPA drinking water chief Peter Grevatt told drinking water utilities. “If a rule, no matter how good it is, is implemented poorly, that rule is not going to protect the public. You need people who are rolling up their sleeves. You cannot do that with a good rule alone, you have to make sure everyone is playing their part.” Both Grevatt and EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Joel Beauvais in their comments to the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies stressed that they would consider comments on the National Drinking Water Advisory Council’s lead and copper rule recommendations carefully as they work through what Beauvais called the “pretty gnarly and difficult policy challenges” wrapped up in the revision process. The EPA is proposing to release a revised lead and copper rule in 2017. [inside EPA.com] Drinking water utilities are supporting changes to EPA’s lead and copper rule and are pledging to work with customers to remove all lead service lines, even as they acknowledge there needs to be a “serious discussion” about how utilities and customers will pay the estimated $30 billion cost of replacement. The board of the American Water Works Association voted unanimously to accept EPA’s National Drinking Water Advisory Council’s final recommendations for the agency to revise the rule emphasizing its support for replacement of lead service lines and increased monitoring and outreach to customers. Four bills have been introduced in Congress to increase funding for lead reduction, enhance monitoring, and reporting on lead levels in water and require testing of lead levels in blood in children. These bills are listed in the Federal Legislation section of my report. May 2016: The Colorado Department of Health responded to EPA’s letter requesting better enforcement of the lead and copper rule with a letter stating that Colorado shares EPA’s urgency in protecting public health and that it has a “robust program under the state-specific lead and copper regulatory requirements, which is as stringent as the National Primary Drinking Water Regulation and where we work to be consistent with the complex and frequently changing national guidance and EPA’s associated clarification memoranda.” The letter goes on to criticize EPA by stating, “The lead and copper rule is the most complicated part of the drinking water regulations to implement, and yet the database tool provided by EPA to implement this rule has grave deficiencies related to sampling schedules, compliance calculations, and tracking required activities.” More than 100 water utility leaders from throughout the United States and Canada met in Washington D.C. to share strategies for removing lead service lines. During the session, representatives from Boston Water and Sewer Commission, Cincinnati Water Works, Halifax Water in Nova Scotia, and Lansing (Michigan) Board of Water and Light described methods they used to remove lead services. The American Water Works Association who organized the meeting estimates there are 6.1 million lead service lines that serve seven percent of the population. Replacement of all lead services is estimated to cost upwards of $30 billion. The main obstacle to replacing the services is that in the vast majority of jurisdictions, the pipes are privately owned and 76 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx the water utility has no right or obligation to remove them. This issue will continue to get increasing attention in response to the Flint water crisis (see below), and the EPA’s focus on issuing a revised lead and copper rule in 2017. June 2016: Recent EPA guidance for lead sampling has prompted the Association for Metropolitan Water Agencies to seek clarification on whether the EPA is requiring that water utilities conduct a precise inventory of all lead service lines rather than ensure that lead sampling sites are locations known to have lead service lines. AMWA is concerned that the guidance could be interpreted to be a much more exact and comprehensive analysis than it believes is required by the lead and copper rule. The agency’s Office of Water Deputy Assistant Administrator Joel Beauvais stated that his interpretation of the requirement is that “systems are required to be aggregating new information as they go through routine maintenance and operating of their systems. Some systems are behind the curve in their knowledge of where the lead service lines are and it’s appropriate to catch them up on that.” August 2016: EPA is encouraging water utilities to improve their lead service line inventories to help ensure they are taking lead samples from valid Tier 1 sites (those residences that have lead service lines). EPA is also asking that the location of lead service lines and sampling results be posted for public review. Several states have reported they have limited information on the location of lead service lines because they are private and inventories have not been kept. Some states and utilities have also declined to post individual sampling results citing privacy concerns. These issues will likely be addressed as the revised Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) is finalized and promulgated. A letter signed by 61 members of Congress urges the EPA to lower federal standard for lead in drinking water so that it better reflects the latest science on the brain-damaging toxin. The aim is to better protect the public, members of Congress said. Many activists are claiming that several states and utilities have used “loopholes” in the LCR to “cheat” while performing lead sampling. They claim that guidance issued by EPA prohibits pre- flushing service lines prior to taking samples. The rule actually prohibits flushing six hours prior to sampling, which does not preclude some utilities advisories that customers flush the pipe six hours before the sample is taken. The activists’ argument relies on a letter sent from EPA to the Alliance for Healthy Homes in 2008 in response to questions about lead sampling from that organization. The letter was not issued as guidance to utilities, but was merely responding to lead testing inquiries from the Alliance. Official guidance was not issued by EPA on the issue until February 2016 in response to the Flint crisis. It is now clear that pre-flushing is not to be conducted. 77 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Federal Litigation Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. et al v. EPA A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, vacated and remanded EPA’s 2008 water transfer rule, which says a transfer of water between two jurisdictional waterbodies, absent intervening industrial, agricultural or other use, does not require a discharge permit. The judge stopped short of completely vacating the rule, but told EPA to “reexamine and reevaluate some new ideas” on remand. He stated that the blanket exemption from National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits that the rule sought to provide is incompatible with the Clean Water Act goal of regulating the “discharge of a pollutant” into protected water. While the case is almost certain to be reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and possibly the Supreme Court, the judge did not stay his decision pending appeal, raising the possibility that the rule is no longer in effect, which would leave operators conducting water transfers, including irrigation district, drinking water utilities, stormwater systems and other, that were authorized by the regulation open to citizen suits and other enforcement measures. June 2014: EPA and several western states are appealing the lower court ruling that vacated the agency’s rule exempting water transfers from Clean Water Act (CWA) permit requirements. Governors from the states that filed the appeal including those from Colorado, New Mexico, Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, Texas, Utah and Wyoming earlier this month urged the EPA to appeal the district court’s ruling and pledged to support the agency’s defense of the rule. December 2014: Appellate judges considering one of environmentalists’ two ongoing challenges over EPA’s rule exempting water transfers from Clean Water Act (CWA) permit requirements could decide the case without reaching the validity of the rule, after signaling at oral arguments that they were considering a ruling base on site-specific factors instead. A three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which heard arguments in Oregon Natural Resources Council (ONRC) Action v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, November 21, appeared reluctant to address environmentalists’ claims that the water transfer rule is illegal. Instead, they asked attorneys for both sides if the suit could turn instead on the question of whether water was transferred between “distinct” waterbodies, or was instead moved through a single river, in which case the transfer rule would be irrelevant. While Trout Unlimited is a facial challenge to the transfer rule, ONRC Action deals with the legality of specific transfers of water by the BOR. The 9th Circuit could hold that the transfers are illegal because the transfer rule is invalid – environmentalists’’ primary argument in the appeal – but they could also decide that the two waterbodies are not hydrologically separate, which would invalidate the case as the Supreme Court has held that the CWA does not regulate the movement of water between two parts of the same waterbody. [EPA Water Policy Report] March 2017: The U.S Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in a 2-1 ruling reversed a lower court and found EPA’s Clean Water Act rule exempting the transfer of water from one basin to another from discharge permits is a reasonable interpretation of the law, and therefore should be upheld 78 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx under the agency judicial deference doctrine known as Chevron. EPA’s Water Transfers Rule, promulgated in 2008, determined that “water transfers” are not activities that require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Under the rule, a “water transfer” is defined as “an activity that conveys or connects water of the United States without subjecting the transferred water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use.” Water transfers are employed throughout the country and are especially important is Western states, where water providers seek water supplies for rivers, lakes and streams located in entirely different watersheds. Fifty percent of Denver Water’s water supply originates from the West Slope and is considered a “water transfer.” April 2017: States, tribes and environmental groups have filed rehearing petitions asking the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals asking the court to either set a new argument date before the same panel that backed the rule, or to rehear the suit by the full court. Gulf Restoration Network, et al. v. EPA Environmentalists have filed two major lawsuits aimed at forcing EPA to step up its efforts to strictly regulate high nutrient levels under the Clean Water Act (CWA), a move that is likely to revive controversy over the issue just as the agency has begun to get states to craft measures aimed at curbing nutrient pollution. On March 13, a broad coalition of groups filed a suit, Gulf Restoration Network, et al. v. EPA, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana seeking to compel EPA to force Mississippi River Basin states to adopt strict numeric nutrient criteria after the agency last year denied a 2008 administrative petition on the issue. A representative from the American Farm Bureau Federation has expressed strong concern that EPA will settle the lawsuits in a manner that will comply with the suits’ demands, specifically requiring numeric criteria for states in the Mississippi River basin. The National Association of Clean Water Agencies issued a press release blasting the lawsuits and explaining that they seek to impose extremely high costs on municipal wastewater treatment plants while accomplishing little to solve the nutrient. June 2012: A federal court has granted a request from industrial and municipal dischargers, including, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies, to intervene in environmentalists’ high-profile litigation aimed at compelling EPA to strictly regulate nutrient pollution in Mississippi River Watershed states -- a move that would give industry a seat at the table should EPA and activists initiate settlement talks. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana May 4 approved a recent request from the Federal Water Quality Coalition (FWQC) -- whose members include municipal, industrial and agricultural companies and trade groups -- to intervene in Gulf Restoration network, et al. v. EPA. 79 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx The underlying suit, filed last March, seeks to compel EPA to force Mississippi River Basin states to adopt strict numeric nutrient criteria and develop pollution load limits, known as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), after the agency last year denied a 2008 administrative petition on the issue. The motions to intervene in the case would ensure that, should settlement negotiations begin in the suit, the industry groups would have the right to be present and participate in those negotiations. April 2013: Following is an article from NACWA The Water Voice which describes the complexities involved in nutrient litigation cases. A few weeks ago, NACWA and a number of other groups filed legal briefs in an ongoing federal court case over regulation of nutrients in the Mississippi River Basin (MRB). At its heart, the case is about whether the federal government or individual states should take the lead in developing nutrient water quality criteria, and about which approach will lead to the most effective, holistic reduction in nutrient impairment. The case is also a perfect example of just how complex the nutrient issue can be from both a legal and regulatory perspective. It has implications not just for municipal clean water utilities discharging to the MRB, but for all utilities across the country. The court battle began in March of last year when several environmental activist organizations sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its decision not to develop federal numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for the MRB. But in reality, the legal fight stretches back much further. In 2008, the activist groups filed a petition with EPA, alleging that the individual states within the MRB had failed to make adequate progress in addressing nutrient issues or developing nutrient criteria. The groups also stated that EPA was legally required under the Clean Water Act to develop federal NNC for the entire MRB— as well as for other waters where necessary nationwide—in the states’ stead. In 2011, EPA issued a letter denying the petition’s requests. EPA’s response acknowledged the significant environmental concerns presented by nutrient water quality impairment, but also indicated its belief that use of federal rulemaking authority was not an effective or practical means of addressing nutrient problems. EPA outlined some of the significant work it is already doing with individual states to help address nutrient issues. The Agency also poignantly noted that imposition of federal NNC would do little to address the significant nutrient impairment coming from nonpoint sources. The activist groups were not satisfied with EPA’s answer, so challenged the decision in court in March 2012. NACWA moved quickly to participate in the case after it was filed and represent the municipal clean water perspective. Several other groups potentially affected by the case moved to join as well, including the American Farm Bureau and related agricultural interests, a group representing the fertilizer industry, and the Federal Water Quality Coalition. 80 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Together with NACWA, this group filed a joint brief in early March 2013 supporting EPA’s denial of the petition and decision not to promulgate federal NNC. At first blush, this may seem an odd group to join together on a legal document, particularly given some of the legal disagreements (see prior posting on Chesapeake Bay nutrients litigation) that NACWA and agricultural interests have had over the role of nonpoint sources in nutrient impairment. But in this specific case, we could all agree that federal NNC for the MRB would be both illegal and inappropriate, and that individual states must take the lead in developing standards and criteria for water quality protections with each state’s jurisdiction. However, because nonpoint sources do play an outsized role in the nutrient problem, NACWA also filed our own, standalone presenting the unique municipal perspective on these critical nutrient issues. NACWA’s brief goes beyond the joint brief to make clear that a fair and balanced watershed approach among all contributing sources of nutrients—especially nonpoint sources—is the only way to achieve meaningful nutrient reduction. The brief argues that federal NNC are an insufficient tool to solve a problem that demands a holistic solution, and instead suggests that states should take the lead on developing nutrient criteria and control programs that will result in more equitable reduction efforts across all sources. Interestingly, several individual MRB states have also joined the case and submitted their own joint brief in support of EPA and against promulgation of federal NNC. The state brief highlights both the importance of state primacy on water quality criteria development and the need for greater nonpoint source control. These are both points that echo and reinforce arguments raised in the NACWA brief. Resolution of the case is still a long way off. The activist plaintiffs will have an opportunity to respond to all the briefs filed in the case, and the judge will have to review all of the competing arguments and ultimately make a decision. Regardless of the judge’s final ruling, it is likely some party to the case will not like the outcome and will decide to appeal. But one thing is clear from all of the competing arguments and positions outlined by the various parties in the case: Nutrient control is an exceptionally complex issue, and especially so when viewed through a legal lens. Just as clean water agencies both within the MRB and nationwide will continue to do their part to address nutrients in a fair and equitable way, NACWA will continue to aggressively advocate on their behalf and provide a valuable municipal perspective on this complicated topic. May 2013: The National Association of Clean Water Agencies participated in a reply brief filed May 10, 2013 in the Gulf Restoration Network v. EPA case. The brief supports EPA’s decision to deny Gulf Restoration’s petition requesting federal numeric nutrient criteria for the entire Mississippi River Basin. 81 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx October 2013: A federal judge has ordered EPA to craft a formal response to environmentalists’ petition seeking strict new nutrient limits for states in the Mississippi River Basin, but the judge says the agency can deny the petition by citing the costs to craft and litigate such standards, reasons which the agency had previously cited to sidestep a determination. In his September 20 decision in Gulf Restoration Network et al. v. EPA et al. Judge Jay Zainey, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana said EPA must take a definitive stand on whether states’ current nutrient policies are adequate to address water quality impairment in the basin and the Golf of Mexico. Environmentalists are touting the ruling as a victory, but the decision appears to give the agency an open door to reject the petition on the grounds that enforcing federally crafted nutrient limits would be expensive and inefficient, even if the agency finds that more stringent policies are needed to meet water quality goals. April 2014: In a March 17, 2014 order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit granted without comment EPA’s March 5 motion to stay the district court’s order in Gulf Restoration Network et al. v. EPA et al until the appellate court rules on the merits of the case. The litigation is significant because it will determine whether EPA and states will be forced to craft regulatory measures to limit nutrients in as many as 31 states that contribute nutrients to the Mississippi River, which is believed to be responsible in par for the Gulf of Mexico’s hypoxic “Dead Zone.” May 2015: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in this case finding that EPA has significant discretion in how it responds to an activist group petition requesting federal numeric nutrient criteria for the entire Mississippi River Basin. The decision will make it much more difficult for activist groups to pursue federal numeric nutrient criteria, both within the Mississippi basin and elsewhere in the country. United States of America v. Miami-Dade County Environmentalists are seeking to force EPA to consider sea-level rise and other effects of climate change in a proposed enforcement settlement seeking to prevent overflows in Miami-Dade County’s sewage collection and transmission system, is a case which could force the agency to adopt a policy stance beyond its current position. The litigants, Biscayne Bay Waterkeeper, Inc. is facing legal hurdles as the Department of Justice (DOJ) is fighting its efforts to intervene in pending litigation, United States of America v. Miami-Dade County, to enforce a future draft consent decree. The Waterkeeper group filed a motion in the U.S. district Curt for the Southern District of Florida seeking to intervene on DOJ’s behalf, but state and federal attorneys are opposing the group’s intervention. The Waterkeeper group claims that the proposed consent decree fails to consider how climate change related impacts to the Biscayne Bay region might complicate a proposal to repair and upgrade wastewater treatment systems. They claim that failure to account for climate change caused rise in sea levels will result in major failures in sewage collection and treatment systems during their useful life. 82 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Sierra Club v. BNSF Railway Company A federal court has rejected industry efforts to dismiss environmentalists’ novel lawsuit seeking Clean Water Act. (CWA) discharge permits for train cars carrying coal and other pollutants, enhancing efforts to block new coal export terminal though the ruling leaves open the possibility that industry could still succeed after further briefing. Environmentalists argue that coal and coal dust is dislodged from open-top train cars during transportation and falls into jurisdictional waterbodies. This activity constitutes a discharge from a point source necessitating a NPDES permit. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co. The matter before the court in this case is whether a Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Determination (JD) is a final agency action that can be challenged in court under the Administrative Procedure Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit decided in 2015 that a JD create practical consequences for recipients, leaving them effectively unable to fill wetlands on their property without either going through a potentially expensive permitting process or risking a costly enforcement action. The case, which was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 30, 2016, concerns the Hawkes Company, which harvest peat for golf courses. When the Company wanted to begin a peat-mining operation in Minnesota, the ACOE issued a JD stating that the land contains waters of the United States and was thus protected under the Clean Water Act. Though the property was 120 miles from the nearest major navigable waterway, the ACOE said the land contained wetlands and is adjacent to other waters that ultimately connect to the river. With that determination, certain uses of the lands required the company to apply for a clean Water Act permit which can take several years to process. Hawkes challenged the decision in federal court and the district court dismissed the case, finding that the determination was not a final agency action subject to judicial review. Hawkes appealed, and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the determination is subject to review under the Administrative Procedures Act. Supreme Court justices during oral arguments appeared to back Hawkes suit to allow pre- enforcement judicial review of federal agencies’ findings that waters are covered by the Clean Water Act. “The person who is subject to a JD has to take certain steps because of the law. One, spend $150,000 to try to get an exception and fail, or two, do nothing, violate it, and possible go to prison. Those sound like important legal consequences that flow from an order that, in respect to the agency, is final, for it has nothing left to do about that interpretation. And B, is perfectly suited for review in the courts,” Justice Stephen Breyer said. June 2016: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that property owners who receive a Clean Water Act jurisdictional determination (JD) saying their lands include waterbodies subject to the CWA may challenge those findings immediately in court rather than waiting for EPA or the Corps of Engineers to initiate permitting or enforcement action. Justice Kennedy wrote in his concurring opinion that “the Act, especially without the JD procedure were the government permitted to foreclose it, continues to raise troubling questions regarding the government’s power to cast doubt 83 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx on the full use and enjoyment of private property throughout the Nation.” Further, “based on the government’s representations in the case, the reach and systemic consequences of the Clean Water Act remain a cause for concern.” General Federal Related Matters Colorado River Water Supply and Demand Study On June 6, 2011, the Bureau of Reclamation, in conjunction with Colorado and the other six Colorado River basin States, released the first interim report on the the Supply and Demand for Water in the Colorado River Basin. The Basin Study, funded jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Colorado River Basin States, is a forward-looking cooperative effort by all parties to address what future water supplies may exist in the Colorado River, the demands on those supplies and potential strategies to deal with imbalances in this important river system. Future releases of the Basin Study will begin to identify opportunities and solutions to the water supply challenges to be faced with regard to supply and demand imbalances. This report has been receiving a great amount of press in newspapers across the Southwest, and was a constant topic of conservation at the CU Summer Conference on the Colorado River hosted by the Natural Resources Law Center. For more information, see www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy.html. June 2012: The Bureau of Reclamation completed and released Technical Memorandum C - Quantification of Water Demand Scenarios to the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. The memorandum summarizes water demands by geographic regional and category (agriculture, municipal and industrial, energy, minerals, tribal, fish, wildlife and recreation). The May 2012 memorandum updates information from the June 2011 report and quantifies demands for six water demand scenarios. The final study report is due to be released later this year. August 2012: The final Colorado River Supply and Demand Study report has been delayed until September 2012 as the Bureau of Reclamation continues to analyze 150 proposal designed to reduce demand, increase supplies or invoke new management strategies for the Colorado River. September 2012: Release of the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study final report has been delayed from September 2012 to November 2012. December 2012: The final Colorado River Supply and Demand Study report was released on December 12, 2012. It is available for viewing or download at www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy.html. It is interesting to note that prior to release of the study it was widely reported in the media that one of the options considered in the report to meet future water demands is the importation of water from the Missouri River to Colorado’s Front Range. 84 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx February 2013: A summary of the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study prepared by the Colorado River District is available upon request. May 2013: The Bureau of Reclamation and representatives from numerous States have presented information of the basin study at dozens of conferences and workshops to educate the water community about the contents of the study. The Basin States and The Bureau are now finalizing a process for exploring “next steps” and are intending to roll out the process by the end of May 2013. June 2013: the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) convened a meeting of Colorado River stakeholders to determine “next steps” following release of the Colorado River Supply and Demand Study. The study predicted a shortfall of 3.2 million acre-feet of water by the year 20160 due to increasing demands brought about by population growth, diversion of water for energy development and stream flows that have to be maintained at certain levels due to enhanced environmental needs. Sixty percent of the increase in use is projected to come from the lower basin states of Arizona, New Mexico, California and Nevada. At the conclusion of the meeting, three inter-state committees were established to devise plans for conservation, possibly including water reuse, desalination, water banking and the sale of water from farms to cities. The committees have been ordered to have their recommendations ready by the end of 2013 July 2013: A copy of a Water Law & Policy Monitor article pertaining to the BLM Colorado River Supply and Demand study is available upon request. August 2013: The Water and Power Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee heard testimony from several federal, state and tribal officials on the Bureau of Reclamation’s Colorado River Basin Water Demand and Supply Study. Witnesses, including Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor, Upper Colorado River Commission Director Don Ostler and Kathleen Ferris, executive director of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, stressed the importance of the Colorado River to western states. The river and its tributaries provide water for 40 million people in the United States and Mexico, where the river empties into the sea of Cortez, and they provide irrigation water for 15 percent of the crops produced in the United States. They also support a $26 billion recreation economy. But there is increasingly less water to meet the needs of cities, farms, endangered species, recreation and other demands on the river. The study projects a 3.2 million acre foot gap between available supply and demand in the basin by 2060. The river is already over allocated in the lower basin, and there is not enough water to meet demand in some areas, a number of witnesses warned. Further, climate change is expected to reduce flows by nine percent, increasing the risk of shortages for cities, farms and habitat. September 2013: The Bureau of Reclamation continues to work with workgroups created to develop plans for resolving the gaps between future Colorado River supplies and demands. A paper describing the effort is available upon request. September 2014: The three workgroups (municipal and industrial conservation and reuse, agricultural conservation and transfers, and environmental and recreation flows) continue to meet 85 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx and develop data and information for the reports on their respective subject matters. The workgroups will be reviewing draft reports within the next couple of months, and the reports are now scheduled to be published by the end of December, 2014. July 2015: The Bureau of Reclamation released the Moving Forward Phase 1 Report that documents opportunities and potential actions to address the future water supply and demand imbalances projected in the 2012 Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study. The report is part of the Colorado River Basin study effort launched in May of 2013. Three major, broad recommendations are made in the report: 1. Increase water use efficiency by making the best use of supplies available for municipal, industrial and agricultural purposes, while aligning management of supplies with the environment and recreation in mind, where possible. 2. Reduce system losses by identifying and reducing conveyance and distribution system losses. By minimizing those losses, costs can be reduced and water conservation, revenue and water availability for others increases. 3. Maximize reuse of supplies by reusing supplies more than once, especially outside the hydrologic basin. The report notes that generally across the basin’s major metropolitan areas, per-capita use has decreased anywhere from 11 percent to 38 percent since 1990 and by 10 percent since 2000. The consumption rates have declined even in the face of growing populations and persistent drought and are in part due to conservation efforts mounted by water providers. Phase 2 of the Moving Forward effort will be underway later this year and will include the selection and implementation of several pilot projects. The report is available at www.usbr.gov/lc/region/programs/crbstudy/MovingForward November 2015: A group of 23 scientists including Brad Udall from Colorado State University are claiming that the Colorado River study conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation overstated how much water the river will have and how much people will demand from it. They are strongly encouraging an independent review be conducted by the National Academy of Sciences into how the federal government is researching the river’s problems, issues and management. The group made their request in a letter sent to Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. The Interior Department has not yet responded to the letter. January 2016: Deputy Interior Secretary Michael Connor during a speech during a meeting of the Colorado River Water Users Association warned the if water interests in Arizona, California and Nevada cannot find a fix for the Colorado River’s problems, the federal government will. Connor talked of the need to prevent Lake Mead from falling to dangerously low level, potentially low enough to force Draconian cutbacks in water deliveries to cities, farms and Indian tribes in Arizona. The risk in now up to 30 percent that Lake Mead will drop to potentially dangerous levels in five years, Connor said. He further stated that he hoped the states will have reached agreement by the time of next year’s conference. The primary concern of the Bureau of Reclamation is that water levels will drop in Lake Mead and, possibly, Lake Powell to a point 86 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx where there is a significant drop in the ability to produce hydropower which supplies electricity to large sections of Nevada and California. The revenue from the sale of power is used to pay for operation of the Colorado River storage facilities and many other Bureau of Reclamation programs. Colorado River Compact With significant and continuing decline in the water level in Lake Mead, the lower Colorado River basin states, Nevada, Arizona, and California have begun negotiations to respond to a possible reduction in water availability imposed by the Bureau of Reclamation. Negotiations are ongoing but a few details have emerged. For starters, the Bureaus of Reclamation has pledged to cut 100,000 acre-feet annually through efficiency measures such as lining irrigation canals to prevent seepage, or possible by re-opening the Yuma Desalination Plant. Arizona would give up 512,000 acre-feet of its total 2.8 million acre-feet per year allotment if Lake Mead drops below a 1,075 feet threshold. Further reductions would occur if the reservoir continues to drop. Nevada would take a much smaller share of the cuts by giving up 8,000 acre-feet of its, 300,000 acre-feet allotment if Lake Mead drops below 1,045 feet and an addition 2,500 acre-feet if it drops further. As a result of a 1968 law that authorized the Central Arizona Project, California’s 4.4 million acre- feet allotment is shielded form most of the cuts should a shortage on Lake Mead be declared. However, in the new negotiations, California has volunteered to cut its water use by 200,000 acre- feet if Lake Mead’s level falls below 1,045 feet and up to 350,000 acre-feet if levels drop to 1,030 feet. August 2016: Lake Mead bottomed out this year on July 1 at a level of 1,071.61 feet. The lake has risen two feet since then, but it remains five feet lower than it was at this time last year and 43 feet lower than it was in early August 2012. The amount of water being drawn from the Colorado River for use in Nevada, Arizona and California is on track to hit its lowest level in more than 20 years, a sign that conservation efforts and temporary cuts by water users are having an effect, at least on the demand side of the ledger. Though Lake Mead’s decline is expected to continue for the next two years at least, forecasters say the reservoir is likely to contain just enough water on January 1, 2017 and January 1, 2018 to avoid a first-ever federal shortage declaration that would trigger mandatory water reductions for Nevada and Arizona. [Las Vegas Review Journal] Development, Planning and Construction Activity Platte Canyon No activity 87 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Southwest Metropolitan Wild Plum Farm District staff have responded to a Town of Columbine referral of a development plan and preliminary plat for the Wild Plum Farm development. The Town was advised that water and sewer service is available through Southwest Metropolitan subject to annexation of the property and completion of a water main connection agreement between Columbine Water and Sanitation District and Southwest Metropolitan. Jefferson Corporate Center Tony Cocozzella has been working with the developer’s engineer on a conceptual water and sewer plan for a 345 unit apartment complex prior to responding to a Jefferson County referral of a site development plan. Water service to the propery will require a single water pump station for the entire development or individual pumps within each building. Platte Canyon Tap Permit Sales – Attachment 8 Permits issued in April 2017 Water Taps Sewer Taps 0 :-inch new water tap permits 0.00 s.f.e. sewer tap permits 0 1-inch new water tap permits 0.00 s.f.e. renewal sewer tap permits 0 12-inch water tap permits 0.00 s.f.e. equivalent (commercial) 0 2-inch water tap permits Permits issued Year to Date 2017 Water Taps Sewer Taps 1 :-inch new water tap permits 1.00 s.f.e. sewer tap permits 1 1-inch new water tap permits 0.00 s.f.e. renewal sewer tap permits 0 12-inch water tap permits 2.00 s.f.e. equivalent (commercial) 0 2-inch water tap permits 88 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx 89 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx Southwest Metropolitan Tap Permit Sales – Attachment 8 Permits issued in April 2017 Water Taps Sewer Taps 10 :-inch new water tap permits 10.00 s.f.e. sewer tap permits 0 1-inch new water tap permits 0.00 s.f.e. renewal sewer tap permits 0 12-inch water tap permits 0.00 s.f.e. equivalent (commercial) 0 2-inch water tap permits 0 3-inch water tap permits Permits issued Year to Date 2017 Water Taps Sewer Taps 12 :-inch new water tap permits 12.00 s.f.e. sewer tap permits 2 1-inch new water tap permits 0.00 s.f.e. renewal sewer tap permits 2 12-inch water tap permits 5.00 s.f.e. equivalent (commercial) 1 2-inch water tap permits 0 3-inch water tap permits Miscellaneous 1. Two Denver Post articles pertaining to property valuations and the residential property tax assessment rate (Attachment 9). 2. A Special District Associtation newsletter article describing options for moving special district elections to odd numbered years. The SDA is seeking members’ opinions on the proposal prior to the 2018 Colorado legislative session (Attachment 10). 90 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD Version 052617.docx ATTACHMENT 1 1600 West 12th Ave Denver. CO 80204 341 2 D> DENVER WATER 303.628.6000 denverwoter.or9 May 9, 2017 TO: Denver Water Distributors' Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Water Rates Group Eric Rothstein, Galardi Rothstein Group FROM: Fletcher Davis, Denver Water Manager of Rates Usha Sharma, Denver Water Treasurer Re: Capital Financing - Financial Policy Review Responses On February 6th, 2017 the Denver Water Distributors' Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Water Rates Group and Eric Rothstein submitted a memorandum titled "Capital Financing Financial Policy Review". This memorandum included specific questions about Denver Water's capital financing strategy. The purpose ofthis memorandum is to respond to those questions, which are repeated below: Question 1: What is the status of existing bond proceeds, and when are unspent bond proceeds anticipated to be spent out - and on what projects? Denver Water Response: Denver Water currently has no unspent bond proceeds. Question 2: What, if any, future bond refinancing opportunities are anticipated to be available? When are existing series bonds callable? What options have been reviewed in terms of variable rate instruments? Denver Water Response: We evaluate refunding opportunities on outstanding bonds on a continuous basis. Our threshold for refunding consideration is 3% net present value savings on outstanding bonds. Denver Water has achieved NPV savings ranging from 11% to 24% in the bonds it has refunded in the last five years. George K. Baum, Denver Water's Financial Advisor, has analyzed Denver Water's outstanding bonds to see if there is any opportunity for refunding during the 2017 bond issuance and did not find meaningful savings in the current interest rate environment. Denver Water issues bonds that have a 10-year par call. Denver Water holds a line of credit with a variable interest rate. .. Denver Water Capital Financing - Financial Policy Review Responses to Denver Water Distributors' Technical Advisory Committee Page 2 of 3 Question 3: What is the planned timing, composition (e.g., loans, bonds) and sizing of prospective debt issues? What are the advantages of issuance of Green Bonds and what, if any, additional issuance or interest costs are associated with this form of debt? Denver Water Response: Denver Water is planning on issuing debt in May 2017. $160M of debt will be issued in the form of Green Bonds to finance the Operational Complex Redevelopment project, and $45M of debt will be issued as traditional revenue bonds to finance capital projects. Denver Water is issuing Green Bonds to attract new investors and to test the Green Bond market, taking advantage of the sustainable features incorporated into the Operational Complex Redevelopment project. There are no additional issuance costs or savings projected with Green Bonds. Denver Water is marketing these bonds as Green to expand its investor base, which may lower interest rates on future bonds. Question 4: What has been the recent (e.g., 5-year) history of planned vs. actual capital spending? If significant variances have been experienced or are anticipated with higher future capital spending, are short-term instruments (e.g., commercial paper) a useful option for bridging project delivery needs? Denver Water Response: Below you will find a summary of planned vs. actual capital spending for 2012 through 2016. Values are in $1,000. 5-Year 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total Budgeted Capital (1) $106,065 $89,002 $117,757 $98,214 $140,492 $551,530 Spent Capital (2) $111,900 $79,498 $97,541 $106,672 $124,842 $520,453 Over/(Under) Budget$ $5,835 ($9,504) ($20,216) $8,458 ($15,650) ($31,077) Over/(Under) Budget% 5.5% -10.7% -17.2% 8.6% -11.1% -5.6% 1 - Published Denver Water Budget 2 - Published CAFR Statement of Cash Flows (2016 Unaudited Values) Although there has been variability from year to year, the five year summary of expenditures falls within 5.6% of Denver Water's budget. We do not believe this to be a significant variance given the unknowns of capital projects (e.g. outage schedules, weather, permitting delays). Denver Water has a line of credit that can be used to bridge project delivery needs. Denver Water Capital Financing - Financial Policy Review Responses to Denver Water Distributors' Technical Advisory Committee Page 3 of 3 Question 5: What are the service rate impacts of alternative mixes of debt vs. cash financing of future capital spending? May the planned 3.0 - 3.8% per annum rate increases (which result in approximately a 16% to 20% increase to current rates by 2020) be altered? Denver Water Response: Increasing cash funding may increase the planned rate increases while increasing debt funding may decrease the planned rate increases over the 5-year study period. Denver Water believes it has chosen the optimum mix of cash and debt funding for our future capital needs but reviews our projections annually to ensure our capital funding mix results in the lowest rates for our customers while still meeting our financial policies. Question 6: How may variances from projected revenues and expenses affect DW's capital financing and rate increase plans? Given robust financial performance projections, may the 3.8% annual increases be viewed as an upper bound? Denver Water Response: Unexpected changes to projected revenues and expenses may require Denver Water to revisit and potentially modify the projected financing and rate increase plans. These changes may be due to numerous reasons such as an unexpected increase or decrease of revenues due to weather variability or changing water quality regulations. This inherent uncertainty is why Denver Water reviews its projections regularly to ensure our capital funding mix results in the lowest rates for our customers while meeting our financial policies. The Board exercises its legislative authority by reviewing rates annually and determining whether or not an adjustment is necessary. We hope these answers address the TAC's questions about Denver Water's capital financing strategy and policy and look forward to responding to any follow up questions. ATTACHMENT2 Valley Sanitation District 8739 "'· Coal Mine Ave., Littleton, CO 80123 INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT- QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 1. Who is Valley Sanitation District? Valley Sanitation District is located in Arapahoe and Denver Counties in the State of Colorado. The District, a political subdivision of the State of Colorado, is a Special District organized and created pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado by decree of the District Court in Arapahoe County on August 10, 1955. It is a quasi-municipal corporation with the right to levy property taxes. The boundaries of the District encompass approximately 1.3 square miles located within the cities of Littleton, Englewood, Denver and Sheridan. 2. Who is Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District? In 2007, in response to the need for full time operation of the District's infrastructure, the Valley Board of Directors considered a proposal from the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District to perform maintenance services for Valley. Understanding the need to have a continuous and routine maintenance program, the Valley Board chose to execute an agreement with Platte Canyon to provide sanitary sewer operations and maintenance services and some select administrative services. 3. Why do I pay the City of Englewood for sewer services? All the wastewater generated by Valley's customers is sent to the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant for treatment. This plant is jointly managed by both the cities of Englewood and Littleton, although Englewood has primary ownership. Valley's wastewater treatment agreement with the City of Englewood allows the City to bill Valley customers directly for treatment services. Englewood retains all of the revenue from this charge. An additional charge shown on the Englewood sewer bill (Valley Surcharge) is returned to Valley for capital improvement projects, such as rehabilitation or replacement of existing sewer pipes. Neither Valley nor Platte Canyon maintain the type of software system that would allow them to bill customers directly for wastewater service. Because the City of Englewood has this capability and Valley customers have to pay Englewood to treat their wastewater, it's simpler for Englewood to bill Valley's customers directly. All funding for standard operation and maintenance of Valley sewer mains is provided through taxes assessed to each property holder. 4. What is the problem? Valley Sanitation District's main wastewater collection pipeline (the Interceptor Sewer) is 4.5 miles long and runs from Belleview Avenue to the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant (located at Dartmouth Avenue and the South Platte River). Due to old age, just over 3.5 miles of this sewer line has been rehabilitated and is in good working condition. Unfortunately, about 0.75 miles of the sewer line has not been rehabilitated and is corroding internally, putting the line at risk of structural failure and collapse. The pipe has not been rehabilitated because it is located within an abandoned landfill (that is currently privately owned) and is buried 50 feet deep. Additionally, the location of this pipe within the landfill has resulted in methane and other hydrocarbon gases leaking into the pipe, at times reaching levels that could result in an explosion or fire within the pipe. The depth of the pipe, location of the pipe on private property, and potentially explosive levels of methane within the pipe makes operation and maintenance of this segment of the pipe extremely dangerous and nearly impossible. {VAL 00041730.1} ll Page Valley Sanitation District 8739 W. Coal Mine Ave., Littleton, CO 80123 INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 5. What are you proposing as the solution? The Valley Sanitation District has conducted an extensive analysis to determine how to solve this pressing problem. The Board contracted with an engineering consultant last summer to quickly study the issue and recommend some options for consideration. After the Board reviewed those recommendations, they decided the best path forward is to construct a wastewater pumping station and a new sewer pipe - both located outside of the abandoned landfill. The new pumping station would be located in a parking lot currently owned by the City of Englewood. The new sewer pipe would run along South Federal Boulevard to South Clay Street and then turn east along West Oxford Avenue, ending at an existing manhole just west of the South Platte River. At the moment, this option also has the lowest overall cost. Current estimates put the cost of this project around $2,500,000. 6. How does this project solve the problem? The location and depth of the new sewer pipe would greatly improve the ability for District staff to operate and maintain it. The new sewer pipe would be buried approximately 10 feet deep - significantly more shallow than current conditions. Additionally, as the pipe wouldn't be located within the abandoned landfill, there would no longer be leakage of methane into the pipe, therefore eliminating the potential for explosive conditions within the pipe. All of these changes result in much more safe working conditions for the District staff who are responsible for making sure this sewer line is always in service. 7. What if this project doesn't happen? Valley's customers are at risk of a catastrophic failure of the sewer pipeline located within the closed landfill. Failure of the pipeline would result in untreated wastewater contamination of private properties and the South Platte River. Were a failure to happen before this project is completed, customers would be without sewer service for a period of time until temporary bypass pumping is put in place. Control ofthis failure and the resulting wastewater discharge would likely take days. Permanent repairs would take weeks to complete and be tremendously expensive. 8. How will this project be paid for? The Valley Board of Directors is pursuing a low interest loan from the Colorado Water Resources & Power Development Authority to enable the District to begin the relocation of the interceptor sewer in 2018. Repayment of the loan would require voter approval of an annual property tax increase so the District can repay the loan in the necessary timeframe. {VAL 00041730.1) 21 Pag e Valley Sanitation District 8739 l¥. Coal Mine Ave., Littleton, CO 80123 INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT- QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 9. What have I been paying for so far and why is more money needed? The majority of the funding needed to operate and maintain the District's wastewater collection system is provided by property taxes (approximately $150,000 per year). These taxes are collected by the application of a "mill levy" on property located within the boundary of the Valley Sanitation District service area. A mill levy is a tax rate applied to the assessed value of that property- one mill is equal to one dollar per $1,000 dollars of assessed value - with Valley's mill levy being set at 2.265. These property taxes are collected every year by the County you live in and sent to Valley. The property tax money goes to pay for standard maintenance and operation of the Valley wastewater collection system to include easement/manhole location review, root cutting/treatment, television inspection and cleaning of the sewer pipes. It also goes to pay for administrative costs incurred by the District including management services, Board operations, customer communications, maintaining Intergovernmental Agreements, and other miscellaneous expenses associated with being a Special District in Colorado. Additionally, some money paid by District customers to the City of Englewood is transferred to Valley Sanitation District (approximately $60,000 per year). This funding allows the District to rehabilitate and/or replace existing sewer pipes or other infrastructure needed to provide services to Valley's customers. Unfortunately, the cost of this priority project is substantially higher than the amount of money the District collects. Therefore, the District is looking for other ways to fund the project that would distribute the financial burden over several decades, instead of all-at-once. 10. Why do I have to vote on a Ballot Issue? In order for the Valley Sanitation District to pay for the project in a reasonable period of time, it is going to have to incur debt by obtaining a loan from the Colorado Water Resources & Power Development Board. Incurring debt (multi-year financial obligation as defined by TABOR -the Taxpayer Bill of Rights) requires the approval of the voters through a TABOR ballot issue. The Valley Board has researched the issue and believes the safest, best and most transparent way to move forward is to hold an election to approve obtaining this loan from the Authority and increasing the property tax mill levy to repay the loan. This approach provides for a distribution of project costs to those that benefit from the project - Valley's customers - over a period of several decades instead of in a condensed timeframe. 11. What happens if I vote yes? If you vote "yes" on the ballot question and the measure passes, property taxes would increase. This would also mean the project can immediately move forward into design and construction, minimizing the risk to Valley customers of a failure in the existing sewer line. • If a loan with a 30-year term was obtained, the resulting annual property tax increase on a home valued at $200,000 would be $26.44 and for a home valued at $300,000 the increase would be $39.66. • If a loan with a 20-year term was obtained, the resulting annual property tax increase on a home valued at $200,000 would be $36.06 and for a home valued at $300,000 the increase would be $63.28. {VAL 00041730.1} 31 Page Valley Sanitation District 8739 l\T. Coal Mine Ave., Littleton, CO 80123 INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT- QUESTIONS & ANSWERS 12. What happens if I vote no? If you vote no, the District will have no immediate way to pay for this high priority project and will be unable to take on debt to do so. Without incurring debt, the District would have to generate about $2,000,000 in revenue over a period of one to five years, which is the maximum time the District would like to leave the sewer main in operation. To do this, the only available financing option available to the District is to increase the service charge that is currently billed by the City of Englewood on Valley customers' sewer bills. This option would result in much higher annual costs to customers - leading to a potential sewer surcharge of $200 to $1,000 per year per residence - and delay this project several years until sufficient revenue is accumulated. This approach also puts the financial burden solely on the current customers as the full project cost would need to be raised in the next few years, instead of spreading those costs over the entire loan term, which could be up to 30 years long. 13. Wait a minute - I just voted "no" on a tax increase. How can you add a significant surcharge to my bill without my approval? TABOR places many financial restrictions on districts like the Valley Sanitation District. These districts are generally required to have voter approval before issuing new debt or imposing a tax increase. However, TABOR does allow districts to create a fund called an "enterprise fund" for a specific purpose. Money is raised for that fund by imposing surcharges on customers, typically through their regular water or sewer bill. This process is often used to more quickly generate funds for high-priority emergency projects, especially when taking on multi-year debt is either not approved by citizens or not feasible. Valley's Board of Directors has the authority to create an enterprise fund by passing a resolution during a Board meeting. 14. What government agencies will you be working with? We are currently working with many stakeholder agencies on this project including the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDP HE), the Water Resources & Power Development Authority, City of Englewood, Tri-County Health Department, Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT), and the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). Others will be contacted as needed during the project. 15. What about environmental impacts? One of the first steps in this project is the completion of an Environmental Checklist. CDP HE will review that document to determine if a full Environmental Assessment is required. Both those processes will identify any potential environmental impacts and suggest mitigation strategies to minimize the project impacts. At this time, we do not expect any adverse environmental impacts due to the location of the project in developed corridors. 16. Where can I go for more information? This website will be updated frequently as new information is available about this project. The webpage address for the Valley Sanitation District is www.colorado.gov/ valleysanitation . 17. Who can I contact for more information? You can email any questions to [email protected]. Cynthia Lane, the project manager, can be reached at 303-979-2333, extension 106. {VAL 00041730.1) 41P ag e ATTACHMENT 3 VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT – INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT PROJECT PLAN PROJECT GOALS 1. Relocate existing gravity sewer outside of the closed Mile Hi Landfill 2. Provide better access to the pipeline for long-term maintenance activities 3. Provide a safe working environment for anyone working on that pipeline 4. Obtain a Clean Water SRF loan to pay for the project 5. Hold a successful TABOR election in November 2017 MAJOR PROJECT COMPONENTS 1. Flow rate study in May and June 2017 2. Soil borings to determine conditions along proposed alignment (establish we are not constructing within the limits of the closed landfill 3. New pump station located in the parking lot of Centennial Park 4. Approximately 4,000 feet of 12” pipe, routed from the new pump station along Federal Boulevard to South Clay Street to West Oxford Avenue, discharging into an existing manhole 5. Abandon existing gravity sewer line and manholes; suggested abandonment method is capping manholes and installing methane vents to prevent explosive conditions 6. Relocate existing sewer services on the landfill property as needed MAJOR PROJECT UPDATES Week of 4/17 – Project Plan created; conversations started with major stakeholder agencies including CDPHE, City of Englewood, Tri-County Health Week of 4/26 – TO #1 approved with Dewberry for completion of PNA and assistance with EC; submitted land request letter to Englewood; scheduled project kick-off meeting (on 5/18) with CDPHE Week of 5/1 – confirmed meeting with Englewood (on 5/8); call w/ CDPHE about possible design services loan; scheduled start of flow monitoring study (on 5/8); established account on Your Hub Week of 5/8 – flow monitoring study commenced; met with City of Englewood; posted stories to Next Door and Your Hub websites; Board approved negotiations w/ Dewberry for Phase 1 Week of 5/19 – started next communication piece; met with CDPHE, DOLA, WRPDA {VAL 00041316.1} 1 | Page VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT – INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT PROJECT PLAN PROJECT SCHEDULE Activity Length Start Date Target Date Notes Submit SRF pre- April 18 Completed by CL qualification application Submit letter of interest April 28 Requested by Dave Lee, Open Space Manager for the to City of Englewood City; completed by CL on April 24, 2017; meeting held on requesting land for PS May 8, 2017 CDPHE review of 30 days April 18 by May 16 CDPHE, DOLA and CWRPDA have 30 days to review the application application (in progress) Flow rate study 10 weeks May 1 July 10 Monitoring runs from May 8 – July 3; one week needed for scheduling at the start; one week at the end for data analysis and review Meeting with CDPHE, May 16 May 18 Scheduled for May 18 at 1pm at CDPHE office (per email DOLA, WRPDA exchange with Randi on 4/26) Complete PNA and April 24 May 22 Contract with Dewberry for this work as part of the On Environmental Checklist Call Services Agreement (contract approved on 4/24); cannot submit to CDPHE until after the in-person mtg. CDPHE review of PNA & 45 days May 22 July 3 CDPHE has 45 days to review the PNA, provide Environmental Checklist comments and provide a decision regarding the environmental review (initial indications are that a full EA will likely be required) RFP, proposal review, 14 days May 1 May 22 Timeframe delayed to allow for Board discussion of path award and NTP 4 weeks May 24 June 23 forward and review of RFP by legal counsel Public meeting By July 30 Can be held any time after CDPHE has submitted (required per CDPHE) comments on the PNA and environmental checklist; suggest combining this meeting with a pre-election public information meeting Work on preliminary 12 weeks May 22 August 7 Still an aggressive schedule; for design report, need to design report and site June 26 Sept. 18 conduct soil borings along proposed alignment, survey application; submit to of identified area and environmental assessment (if CDPHE required by CDPHE) CDPHE review period 60 days August 7 October 2 CDPHE is allotted 60 days to perform the project review; Sept. 18 Nov. 13 initial indications are that they will need this entire time due to workloads Respond to CDPHE 30 days October 2 October 16 We have 30 days to respond to CDPHE comments; I comments Nov. 13 Nov. 27 suggested doing this within 14 days if possible; Valley staff and the consultant will develop a response document to address any comments CDPHE review period 60 days Oct. 16 Dec. 11 CDPHE is allotted 60 days to perform the project review; Nov. 27 Jan. 22 with any luck this can be reduced significantly to hit an accelerated timeframe Submit final plans and 8 weeks Nov. 13 January 8 Submit final design before loan application package specs to CDPHE Jan. 2018 March 2018 Submit loan application Nov. 15 Shows six month delay package April 2018 {VAL 00041316.1} 2 | Page VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT – INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT PROJECT PLAN Activity Length Start Date Target Date Notes CDPHE review & 60 days Nov. 15 Dec. 18 Review period is 60 days however there is a two month approval of final bid Mar. 2018 June 2018 backlog before that starts due to staffing levels package Loan approval by Jan. 2018 The District’s SRF loan application will be included on the WRPDA June 2018 agenda Advertisement for 4 weeks January 9 February 6 Open period for bids to be accepted Construction Bids June 2018 July 2018 Loan execution 60 days Jan. 2018 March 2018 This process takes approximately 60 days (per Erick June 2018 Aug. 2018 Worker) Award construction March 2018 Contract cannot be officially awarded until the load is contract Aug. 2018 executed Finalize construction 8 weeks Mar. 2018 May 2018 contract & mobilize Aug. 2018 Oct. 2018 Construction start date 6 months May 2018 Nov. 2018 Oct. 2018 April 2019 Project completed Nov. 2018 April 2019 Notes about the project schedule: • There is likely another public meeting component associated with the environmental assessment component of the SRF loan application process. More details on that will be available once the determination is made regarding the environmental impacts of this project. • Not included in this schedule is the interaction with the City of Englewood regarding obtaining ownership/access to a portion of the Centennial Lake Park parking lot in order to locate the pump station. Once more details are available, that information will be included. {VAL 00041316.1} 3 | Page VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT – INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT PROJECT PLAN ELECTION SCHEDULE Activity Target Date Notes Notify Arapahoe County of our intent to July 28 Complete online form participate in the coordinated election Adopt Election Resolution calling for the August Board The resolution will call for the special election, appoint special election meeting Designated Election Official, and approve ballot issue Execute IGA with all parties August 29 Receive and review a Cost Estimate and IGA from Arapahoe County, which details in full the County and Jurisdiction’s responsibilities for the election Certify ballot content to Arapahoe September 8 Ensure use of their required formatting for the ballot County Receive issue summaries and pro/con September 22 These are applicable for TABOR (tax/debt) issues; statements statements may come from issue committees and community members Submit TABOR notice to Arapahoe September 26 Use required template to prepare and format TABOR County notice Coordinated election for tax increase November 7 Coordinated election with Denver and Arapahoe counties Notes about the election: • The TABOR election schedule is also a work-in-progress. Some already known dates are included in the schedule and others will be added as identified. {VAL 00041316.1} 4 | Page VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT – INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT PROJECT PLAN COMMUNICATIONS Short-Term Project Communication Needs (next 1-2 months): Goals for this phase of communications include: • Follow-up to lightly attended public meetings • Create awareness of project components, schedule, issues, upcoming election • Develop contact list of interested citizens In order to develop the contact list, an extensive community outreach effort is needed. One current restriction to the outreach is the lack of knowledge about how the community would like to be informed about the project. From observations, it seems a combination of in-person and electronic communications are needed. Therefore, the following options are suggested: Postcard Mailing – Develop an email list of interested citizens by conducting a postcard mailing that provides brief project information and a return card for them to provide their contact information. The postcard would include: • Brief project overview • What is the upcoming action item • Website link • Staff point-of-contact • Place to send us their name, email address Community Canvassing – Another means to do gather this information is to reach out to the neighborhoods and see if there is a community bulletin board or other canvassing methods available to collect information. This could happen at a clubhouse, community office or something similar. Next Door website – This is a newly available method of communicating directly with specific communities. Once access has been granted to staff, postings should be put on the website directing people to the project website. We should request interested citizens send us their email address if they want more frequent communications on the project. Valley Sanitation District website – The website needs to be updated immediately to include a project page where citizens can go for more information. The webpage should also include answers to the following questions: • Who is Valley Sanitation District? • Who is Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District? • Why does my bill say City of Englewood? • What is the problem? • What are you proposing as the solution? • How does this project solve that problem? • How will this project be paid for? • What have I been paying for so far and why is more money needed? • What if this project doesn’t happen? {VAL 00041316.1} 5 | Page VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT – INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT PROJECT PLAN • Why do I have to vote on this? o What happens if I vote yes? What happens if I vote no? • What government agencies will you be working with? • What about environmental impacts? • Where can I go for more information? • Who can I contact for more information? The website should also include a form for citizens to submit their email address to us if they want to be contacted about the project. Mid-Term Project Communication Needs (through TABOR election): Goals for this phase of communications include: • Expand awareness of project components, schedule, issues, upcoming election • Hold public meeting as required by CDPHE • Transition election communications to a citizens-based Issues Committee In order to continue gaining support for the project, regular communications must be issued through a variety of media channels. At a certain point in the schedule (after the Board adopts the resolution to hold an election for the District Ballot Issue), the District has to cease communications that specifically address the Issue. Project updates can still be provided online but should take a neutral position on the Issue. Suggested activities prior to the adoption of the resolution include: • Electronic communications: o Regular progress reports posted to the project website and Next Door; email a notice to those we have contact information for letting them know new information is available o Email a regular project update to those that have provided us with their email address (consolidating all the web-based information into one communication piece) o Include in all electronic communications a reminder of the upcoming election and request citizens reach out to staff/Board with any questions or with a request for a representative to attend a public meeting not organized by the District • Public forums – If public forums are identified (community center, senior center, grocery store), post flyers with project updates on a regular basis; offer a representative to attend to discuss the project and the upcoming District Ballot Issue • Newspapers – Contact local newspapers to see if articles can be published that highlight the project and draw attention to the upcoming Ballot Issue (written by District staff or journalists) • Mailing – Suggest one additional mailing to communicate to those without access to email or the project webpage; this mailing should conform with CDPHE requirements for public meetings • Public meeting (as required by CDPHE) – The public meeting associated with obtaining the Clean Water SRF loan will be scheduled prior to the Board adopting the election resolution. This public meeting is required to communicate the scope and environmental impacts of the project. The meeting must be appropriately noticed for 30 days. A meeting summary, including an agenda, attendee list and record of discussion, must be prepared and submitted to CDPHE after the meeting is held. This is another good opportunity to highlight the need for the project and for citizens to approve the District Ballot Issue. {VAL 00041316.1} 6 | Page VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT – INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT PROJECT PLAN After the Board adopts the election resolution, any official advocacy for a “yes” vote on the District Ballot Issue has to come from unpaid/unfunded activities. Staff and/or Board members are allowed to respond to any questions they receive about the Issue and can communicate a position of advocacy adopted by the Board related to the election as long as it is done through established, customary processes. Board members and/or District staff may also expend personal funds and/or time to advocate in favor of the Issue. Suggested activities after the adoption of the resolution include: • Electronic communications: o Continue the regular progress reports posted to the project website and Next Door o Email a regular project update to those that have provided us with their email address (consolidating all the web-based information into one communication piece) o Be strongly aware of the way the Ballot Issue is discussed during this timeframe • Newspapers – Contact local newspapers to see if an article can be published with general project updates and mention of the upcoming election (no official advocacy included in it) A citizen-based Issues Committee could be established for grass-roots advocacy. These committees have been successful in other areas as the local activism is sometimes more effective than the messaging coming directly from the District. Note the Committee cannot spend any District money when undertaking any activities to get citizens to vote “yes” on the resolution. Long Project Communication Needs: This portion of the communication plan could shift depending on the outcome of the TABOR election. Assuming that everything goes well with the summer public meeting and the election, communication efforts can ramp down significantly. Goals for this phase of communications include: • Continued awareness of project components and schedule to ensure citizen support. Suggested activities during this timeframe are simple and include: • Electronic communications: o Continue the regular progress reports posted to the project website and Next Door o Email a monthly project update to those that have provided us with their email address (consolidating all the web-based information into one communication piece) • Other media channels – It is not anticipated that any in-person or newspaper-based communication activities would be needed during this time Public communications efforts can ramp down during this phase of the project. Regular communications are needed to keep citizens updated on the project since they will likely be quite invested in it by this time. Upon request by interested citizens, District staff and/or Board members can provide in-person project updates at relevant community meetings. {VAL 00041316.1} 7 | Page VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT – INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT PROJECT PLAN Proposed Schedule for Communication Activities: By May 5 – establish access to Valley neighborhoods on Next Door website – COMPLETED By May 5 – create email address for Valley project communications – suggest it be a plattecanyon.org email address to facilitate ease of response over the next two years ([email protected]); this would allow multiple staff to manage the inbox – COMPLETED By May 5 – obtain quote for mailing of the postcard – COMPLETED By May 10 – have Valley website updated with answers to the identified questions – COMPLETED By May 11 – put first posting on Next Door website directing people to the project website; include the new email address, contact name and phone number – COMPLETED; post a project update every two weeks By May 12 – if cost of postcard is not prohibitive, have it mailed to all community members who will be able to vote in the TABOR election; if the cost is prohibitive, suggest using community-based activities to gather contact information – IN PROGRESS By June 1 – contact local newspapers to develop a schedule of articles and proposed content – IN PROGRESS By June 15 – begin regular email communications about the project; send emails every two weeks (corresponding with updates on Next Door) By June 23 – schedule next project mailing and public meeting; the mailing should conform to the notice requirements associated with the public meeting required by CDPHE; also include a notice of the public meeting in local newspapers, on Next Door and other relevant media as identified By July 30 – hold public meeting as required by CDPHE (see communication requirements below) By mid-August – at the Board meeting, the District Board will adopt a resolution calling for the TABOR election; any communication paid for by the District related to pros/cons of the TABOR election must cease; project updates can continue and the TABOR election can be mentioned but advocating that citizens vote for the resolution is prohibited Communication requirements for acquisition of pump station land: To be determined upon conversations with City of Arapahoe. Initial outreach was performed via email, voicemail and letter to David Lee, Open Spaces Manager for the City. As requested by the City, an official letter was submitted to them on April 24 with the following information: • An official request, addressing what the land will be used for and the amount of land needed • Map detailing approximately where the pump station will be located That letter will be circulated by Dave to the Public Works Department, community development groups and the City attorneys. A meeting will be scheduled in the coming weeks to determine the next steps. {VAL 00041316.1} 8 | Page VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT – INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT PROJECT PLAN RECORD OF CONVERSATIONS AND MEETINGS Date Name & Company Content of Conversation & Follow-up April 13 Margaret Pauls, CDPHE Project Called regarding my process questions; helpful but is leaving CDPHE Manager (since departed) effective April 14; suggested getting the pre-qualification application in as soon as possible to ensure the timeline can begin from CDPHE’s side April 13 Brad Monson Called regarding my questions for the A/E procurement process; while a CDPHE Grants & Loans project of this size is not considered an equivalency project (and is not [email protected] subject to the CDPHE procurement requirements), he would still strongly 303-692-2286 suggest conforming with that process since public funds will be used April 18 Heather Barbare Called regarding my questions about abandoning the pipeline; their main Solid Water Permitter, CDPHE concerns are preventing methane migration and disturbing the cap; [email protected] suggested that a Materials Management Plan would be required if our 303-692-6346 project disturbed any old landfill material; if it will, need to evaluate for any potential asbestos and adjust activities as required; if we plan to disturb the existing landfill cap, a plan will be needed to address the reconstruction of that cap; suggested contacting Tri-County Health Dept. for more locally relevant info; suggested contacting Brian Long at CDPHE for any notification provisions with landfill disturbance; wasn’t as knowledgeable about this situation as needed to feel confident about her answers April 19 Lisa Oliveto Called regarding my questions about abandoning the pipeline; she Solid Waste Specialist believes that filling and permanently capping the manholes will be Tri County Health Department acceptable; methane vents will be required to avoid an explosive 303-439-5914 conditions; she will confirm with their engineer – Warren Brown; she will [email protected] also send over their standard health & safety practices for construction projects in/around landfills; I suggested a meeting when we are further into the project to confirm the abandonment requirements; she agreed; CAL to make contact once the soil boring information is available April 19 Dave Lee, Open Spaces Manager Left message – requesting an official letter from Valley Sanitation City of Englewood District; should include information on where exactly the pump station 303-762-2687 will be located, what the land would be used for, how much land is needed, also include a map; he will take the information to the PW Dept., community development group and attorneys to determine the path forward April 19 Erick Worker, Project Manager Erick indicated the project is very much eligible for the SRF program; CDPHE WQCD, Grants and Loans looks like it would be fully funded; at a project cost of $2.5M it would be (303) 692-3594 direct funded with a 2% interest rate; if above $2.5M it would be a [email protected] leverage loan; he will convene a meeting within 30 days of the project team to include Erick, rep from DOLA and rep from WRPDA; we are okay to start working on the PNA and environmental checklist but do not finalize those until after the meeting; initial indications are that an EA will be necessary; the public meeting can be held after the PNA is submitted and CDPHE has provided comments back to us (Erick will send a checklist for public meeting requirements); for the PDR/SA – the review process is extensive; 60 days for CDPHE (and they will likely take the whole time since their workloads are high), then 30 days for us to {VAL 00041316.1} 9 | Page VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT – INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT PROJECT PLAN Date Name & Company Content of Conversation & Follow-up respond to their comments, then 60 days for the next review before officially accepting; there is the potential to accelerate that process; CO CDPHE has their own set of specifications for inclusion in the bid package; Erick will send those over when we are further along in the process as they change 2-3 times per year; he believes we will be able to hit the November loan application date; if we do and the loan is approved at the January meeting, it will be 60 days before the loan is fully executed; we can’t officially award the construction contract until the loan is executed; can advertise and receive bids but have to hold on the notice of award; regarding the TABOR election, DOLA is a good resource; if any issues arise during the election the loan will not be approved until those are completely resolved; later discussions will address federal requirements including Davis Bacon and American Iron & Steel, mostly contractor requirements April 20 Randi Johnson-Hufford, CDPHE Left message – Reviewing the pre-qualification form, need to know what Grants and Loans Unit WWTP the interceptor discharges to randi.johnson- CL – left voicemail around 1:30pm same day with that information [email protected] 303-692-2203 April 24 Barry Cress, DOLA, Questions about loan application: wanted to understand service charge, [email protected] monthly bill, and the cost of service for the L/EWWTP portion of the bill; asked that we share the draft audit question with DOLA when it is developed; requested a copy of the 2016 audit once it’s approved by the Board; reminded me that we can’t be approved for a loan until the election has been fully resolved April 24 – CL sent rates to Barry (from Englewood website) April 26 Randi Johnson-Hufford Exchanged emails and talked regarding the project kick-off meeting with CDPHE, DOLA and WRPDA staff; meeting is set for May 18 at 1pm; Cynthia, Tony and Chad to attend May 1 Randi Johnson-Hufford Call to discuss Valley’s funding challenges; CDPHE does require detailed Erick Worker plans & specs before the loan application so they know the project is CDPHE “shovel ready” – they say this is an EPA requirement; regarding the specific issue, Randi mentioned there is the possibility of obtaining an interim loan for the design services; this will be discussed further during the May 18 meeting; the interest rate for that loan is higher but it can be wrapped into the full SRF loan through a refinance process as the goal is to have everything in one financial package {VAL 00041316.1} 10 | Page VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT – INTERCEPTOR RELOCATION PROJECT PROJECT PLAN Date Name & Company Content of Conversation & Follow-up May 8 City of Englewood – City Meeting to discuss potential to acquire part of the parking lot within Manager, Director of Public Centennial Park for the lift station; reception was generally positive Works, Director of Parks, Open however they do not want to sell the land since it requires a vote of the Space Manager, L/EWWTP citizens; would prefer a perpetual operation easement and temporary Managers (both new and old); construction easement; want input on design items – odor control both District – Cynthia, Tony, Chad at lift station and discharge point, noise mitigation, above-ground appearance, security controls, environmental protection for spills; need an appraisal and legal description to officially begin the negotiations; want us to check on the status of any existing easements through the park; concerned about timeline and duration of construction – avoid times of highest use; want a contract for the easement that would release them of liability in the event of a “crisis” and terms that address the abandoned sewer line; main POC for District Staff will be Dave Henderson – Director of Public Works May 19 CDPHE – Randi Johnson-Hufford, Meeting summary in development – generally positive outcome with Brad Monson; DOLA – Barry direction provided on schedule, deliverables and loan application Cress; WRPDA – Eric Johnson; process Valley – Cynthia & Tony; Dewberry – Chad Weaver; ERO – staff representative {VAL 00041316.1} 11 | Page ' ' ATTACHMENT 4 WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS Jeff Tejral - Public Affairs Sonrisa Lucero - Water Efficiency Working Group iS) DENVER WATER Agenda • A quick look at the last 10 years • Water Efficiency Plan timeline • Evolving from Conservation to Efficiency • Recommendations from our Water Efficiency Working Group • Next steps • Discussion 4/11/17 0) DENVER WATER 0::: w ~ ~ 0::: w > wz roa t.... "'ca Q) >. 0 T-...... I'-...... ca ...... J"' --...... --""" ------ (") I c::: w ~ ~ c::: w >z w raa Cl) c: ·-Cl) ·-.....E c: m -a.. ~ (.) c: Cl) ·-(.) ·-:1 w s...... Cl) ~ -CtS "'0 C> "'c: c: -CtS ·-..,0 a.. (.) c: :::J 0 -c ·-...... Li.. CtS ..,°' C! :::J (l) .c0 c: CtS "' ,..._ 0 ...... "' --..... u -..,"' --~ water Efficiency Plans Targeted messages Goal Measure balances each Iiva bi Iity with customer efficient use Focus on Customers people who are seen as a choose part of the products and water system behaviors 4/11/17 0> DENVER WATER Water Efficiency Working group Interest I Perspective Member Orga ni zati on Associated Landscape Contractors of Landscape Industry Kristen Fefes Colorado Large lrrigator Laurel Mattrey Denver Public Schools Environmental Drew Beckwith Western Resource Advocates Commercial Jeannie Renne-Malone ProLogis Diverse Communities Amber Valdez Valdez Public Affairs West Slope and Citizens Advisory Hunter Causey Colorado River District Committee Distributor Alyssa Quinn Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation Denver Mayor Hancock's Office of Sonrisa Lucero City and County of Denver Sustainability Suburban City Representative I Jonathan Wachtel City of Lakewood Sustain ab i Iity One World One Water - Metro State University/Research Tom Cech University Denver City Council/Customer Amanda Schoultz Denver City Council/Resident 4/11/17 i5) DENVER WATER Single Family Residential Indoor Current Year 5 49% SOGCD 40GCD 55% Efficient Current Benchmark Efficient 4/11/17 C) DENVER WATER 0::: w ~ ~ 0::: w > zw c I.. 0 (fl 0 -c -c: ·-...... c: Q) ·--c ·-E ca u. Q) -C) c: ·-en ., - .... 0 0 -c....., :::J 0- ·-....., c: Cl) ·--c - ·-E u..co Cl) -C> c: ·-en a:: w ~ ~ a:: w > zw a (fl - ..-N Single Family Residential Outdoor <5 51,500 28% 5-12 66,995 36% 12-18 37,662 20% 18-30 23,134 12% >30 5,819 3% Current 16 GPSF 12 GPSF Year 5 65% 75% Efficient Current Benchmark Efficient 4/11/17 i5) DENVER WATER - ·-..... c: Q) ·--c - ·-E ca u. Q) -C) c: ·-tn -- Multifamily Residential Indoor Current 52 GCD 40GCD Year 5 41% 46% Efficient Current Benchmark Efficient 4/11/17 [;) DENVER WAT~R s... 0 0 -c -~ ->. ·-E ~ ·-...... -:J I'- ..- ..- --..- ~ .q--- Multifamily Residential Outdoor <5 3,823 31% 5-12 3,549 29% 12-18 1,944 16% 18-30 1,651 13% >30 1,276 10% Current 12 GPSF Year 5 60% 20 GPSF Current 63% Efficient Benchmark Efficient 4/11/17 6) DENVER WATER c::: w ~ ~ c::: w > wz 0 (Cl - ·- ...c: Q) ·--c - ·-E ~ ·--... -ca c: 0 ·-...... :J ·-...... tn c: -9' -ca ·-...... 1.. tn :J -c c: -9' -ca ·-(.) I.. C2' E E 0 0 ~ w V1 ~ ~ ~ ~ u !ii.... w ·- Vl > - ro ~ z w ..c a.. !ii.... c ::l c ro (Cl a.. ro a.. !ii.... Vl ..c !ii.... Q) -0 ..c !ii.... Q) > 0 -1-' ::l > c ..c ::l ..c c Q) u 0 ::l Q) 0 Vl Vl Vl 0 C1' "'(.) ca c. en (.) ·.c- c..:::J - 0 N Other recommendations Keep working toward: • Alternative Sources of Water - Graywater regulations, rain barrels and storm water • Collaborating on Policies - New construction and redevelopment • Communicating to Customers - Detailed Meter Reads • Motivation for efficient water use - Environmental benefits • Connecting water efficiency to the Denver Water System - IRP and Water Efficiency Plan 4/11/17 i5) DENVER WATER Summary of recommendations • Move to a plan where we focus on individual efficiency benchmarks vs. overall reduction • Create 3,000 acre-feet of water savings from residential customers alone • Maintain the water savings from the past 10 years. • Define efficiency benchmarks for commercial, institutional and industrial customers. • Use our public space partners as models • Maintain and enhance livability while attaining measurable water savings. 4/11/17 i5) DENVER WATER z 0 en en u:::> en c- ATTACHMENT 5 Denver Water Fixture Rebate and Retrofit Program Report Quarterly Report for January 1 to March 31, 2017 Rebates by Customer Type - Rebates by Distributor Type - January 1 to March 31, 2017 January 1 to March 31, 2017 • Residential Rebates • Denver Water Inside City • Low Income Retrofit Program II Master Meter D WaterSense Cl Denver Water Read Challenge &Bill •Denver Water Total •Commercial Service Rebates Customer Type Count Percent Distributor Type Count Percent Residential Rebates 1,906 95% Denver Water Inside City 1,324 66% Low Income Retrofit Program 57 3% Master Meter 249 12% WaterSense Challenge 0 0% Denver Water Read & Bill 244 12% Commercial Rebates 42 2% Denver Water Total Service 188 9% 2,005 100% 2,005 100% Program Descriptions: Rebates not matched to a distributor 0 • Residential Rebate Off._erinqs 2017 Quarter 1 Total 2,005 • Commercial Rebate Ofterinqs • Low-income retrofit program: Denver Water provides high-efficiency toilets to income-qualified or 501(c)3 customers. A third party, Mile High Youth Corps, installs the fixtures at no cost to the customer. • WaterSense Challenge: Denver Water provides WaterSense certified toilets, showerheads and faucet aerators at no cost to qualifying apartments or community associations. Selected apartments or associations then hire a vendor of their choosing for the fixture installation and Denver Water reimburses a portion of those installation costs. Note: Any difference in rebate totals is due to geo-coding limitations. Denver Water Fixture Rebate and Retrofit Program Report Quarterly Report for January 1 to March 31, 2017 Distributor Rebates Percent Distributor Rebates Percent ALAMEDA W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% HI-LIN W&S DISTRICT 1 0.0% ARAPAHOE ESTATES WATER DISTRICT 1 0.0% HILLCREST W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% BANCROFT-CLOVER W&S DISTRICT 68 3.4% HOLLY HILLS W&S DISTRICT 16 0.8% BEAR CREEK W&S DISTRICT 20 1.0% HOLLY MUTUAL WATER COMPANY 0 0.0% BENNETT BEAR CK FARM W&S DISTRICT 1 0.0% KEN-CARYL W&S DISTRICT 8 0.4% BERKELEY W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% KING, LLOYD J. 0 0.0% BONVUE W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% LAKEHURST W&S DISTRICT 8 0.4% BOW-MAR W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% LAKEWOOD, CITY OF 0 0.0% CASTLEWOOD W&S DISTRICT 3 0.1% LITTLETON, CITY OF 91 4.5% CHARLOU PARK W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% LOCHMOOR W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% CHERRY CREEK VALLEY W&S DISTRICT 3 0.1% LORETTO HEIGHTS RE-SUB. WTR. ASSN. 0 0.0% CHERRY CREEK VILLAGE WATER DISTRICT 0 0.0% MANSFIELD HEIGHTS W&S DISTRICT 1 0.0% CHERRY HILLS HEIGHTS W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% MEADOWBROOK WATER DISTRICT 5 0.2% CHERRY HILLS NORTH W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% NORTH LINCOLN W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE, CITY OF 0 0.0% NORTH PECOS W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER 1324 66.0% NORTH WASHINGTON ST. W&S DISTRICT 1 0.0% COLUMBINE W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% PANORAMA PARK WATER ASSOCIATION 0 0.0% CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL WATER COMPANY 120 6.0% PLATTE CANYON W&S DISTRICT 85 4.2% COUNTRY HOMES METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 0 0.0% S. SHERIDAN WTR.SWR.&STRM.DRNG .DIST 2 0.1% CRESTVIEW W&S DISTRICT 1 0.0% SHERIDAN, CITY OF 2 0.1% DEVONSHIRE HEIGHTS W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% SOUTH ADAMS COUNTY W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% EDGEWATER, CITY OF 1 0.0% SOUTH UNIVERSITY PLACE WTR ASSN 0 0.0% FEHLMANN SUBDIVISION WATER ASSOC 0 0.0% SOUTHEAST ENGLEWOOD WATER DISTRICT 40 2.0% GALLERIA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 0 0.0% SOUTHGATE WATER DISTRICT 43 2.1% GLENDALE, CITY OF 0 0.0% SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN W&S DISTRICT 90 4.5% GRANT W&S DISTRICT 11 0.5% SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN DENVER W&S DIST. 16 0.8% GREEN MOUNTAIN W&S DISTRICT 25 1.2% VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 0 0.0% GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CITY OF 0 0.0% WHEATRIDGE WATER DISTRICT 3 0.1% HAVANA W&S DISTRICT 5 0.2% WILLOWBROOK W&S DISTRICT 4 0.2% HIGH VIEW WATER DISTRICT 0 0.0% WILLOWS WATER DISTRICT 6 0.3% 2,005 100.0% Rebates not matched to a distributor: 0 2017 Quarter 1 Rebate Total: 2,005 Note: Any difference in rebate totals is due to geo-coding limitations. ATTACHMENT 6 LEAD REDUCTION PROGRAM Distributor Forum April 18, 2017 What We'll Cover • Background • Lead reduction program • Customer resources ... J • Outreach efforts to contractors • Q&A 5/18/2017 0) DENVER WATER Lead and Public Health • Lead is a naturally occurring metal that is all around us. It was used for many years in paints, plumbing and other products found in and around homes. • High levels of lead can have significant health impacts, especially for children and pregnant women. 5/18/2017 i5) DENVER WATER Lead in Drinking Water • The water we deliver is lead-free. But lead can get into water as it moves through lead- c • ontaining household plumbing and service lines. 5/18/2017 6) DENVER WATER Denver Water Service Area Where? • Homes in our service area that Adams were built before 1951 are more likely to have lead service lines. • Water providers in the service area may or may not own the service lines. • Denver Water does not own the service line, so has limited records on where they are located. • This is a community health • ~~HIU issue, so public education is c::J -eo..-. fundamental to protecting .. o.--llllll'S....-.., .___...... _...... , • .._1u11..,....._ ..._._. .. 1aeoar....._ ""-'-· ....,, ~....,..,. ... .,..INd-UMdbJ'pltll'Mn..,balllln; ri ... Jlllilll..Jlla.S-..h?Z a ...... ,. • people from lead exposure Gt'tt...tl!Cadsol.,.._...tem _.. ~,.._.._,.,.._ _...... ,.._ lldt amppw otwrwcumsd~ n Slldlr"C91MUlllilll ...... lft ..._.. . tanhUnlD_..lna..._faall.-.llaalpmtr...IUd'laM9..t· ~----.-.,------...... F"tdnl111111 .-..------ialillld t.b"1 ZM .. ..., • ...._. ·_ ...... "'-. ~ f~t... •clnlnelrmft For adclta'lll ~gm mbnp·t.,...... _QCl!!W*A'*M'tYWS*bt' ef"K'mprt r:1C11 XJJ..81l3.2444 fj) DENVER WArER + Denver Water Service Area 5/18/2017 i5) DENVER WATER Service Lines OUTSIDE METER INSTALLATION PROPERTY LINE , 5/18/2017 6) DENVER WATER Lead Reduction Program • Maximize removal of lead service lines while minimizing costs to rate payers. • Education to customers about lead sources and encourage them to fully replace lead service lines. • Outreach to plumbers and contractors. 5/18/2017 i5) DENVER WATER Customer Education Resources • Website • Videos • Handouts lhemottmnmon.ourcn~tuanb.-.cl._... ___,...... ,. ... ~llnK.tnl>Kl¥tfWll:IK'i....-.W.. ~-...... llnesn~bUlltbffof•ttM_,.1MOl.Wyau ..1Dmaw-.tllDl'lll ..... h,_._., • Water quality tests 11ctn11C1plUmbtl'C1nttll'l'OMl'llMIO.....,..llll .... rt ... or..,_.,..,.. http://www.denverwater.org/WaterQualitv/WaterSafety/LeadCopper/ http://www.denverwater.org/WaterServiceSupport/HomeownerResponsibility/ 5/18/2017 [j) DENVER WATER Contractor Outreach • Plumbing professionals can lend their expertise and show their concern for customers' health and safety by encouraging them to replace lead service lines. • We want to make sure contractors are knowledgeable about best practices and available customer resources. • Technical resources and discussions • Information sessions- referrals? http:ljwww.denverwater.org/WaterServiceSupport/Construction/ReplacingleadServicelines/ 5/18/2017 i5) DENVER WATER Denver Water & Denver Urban Renewal Authority (DURA) Partnership • Pilot in City & County of Denver for low cost financing options to eligible participants to replace lead water service lines. • Pre~qualified DURA contractors. • Contractors interested in participating can contact DU RA. 5/18/2017 0) DENVER WATER C11 ...... --CX> • • 0 I\) --0 -· ...... c.... en ~ -...J ~ c ...,r+ ~ CD - -· 0 C"' CD-· C"' en c .+ (/) r+ 0 r+-· 0 CD CD ..., () Q) en cc 0 ..., ::l CD .+ :::J D> () .+ ·.V g cm z D> DENVER WATER 2017 Water Quality Report REPORTE DE CALIDAD DE AGUA ATTACHMENT7 WHAT IS THIS REPORT? The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency requires public water suppliers terminal reservoirs at Strontla Springs, that serve the same people year-round (community water systems) to provide Marston and Ralston. The potential consumer confidence reports to their customers. These reports are also sources of contamination that may exist known as annual water quality reports. This report summarizes information are: EPA Areas of Concern; Permitted regarding water sources used, any detected contaminants, compliance and Wastewater Discharge Sites; Aboveground, educational information. Underground and Leaking Storage Tank Sites; Solid Waste Sites; Existing/ Where does your water come from? Mile Canyon, Cheesman, Dillon and Gross. Abandoned Mine Sites; Other Facilities; Denver's drinking water comes from From these reservoirs, the water is then Commercial/Industrialtrransportation; rivers, lakes, streams, reservoirs and sent to one of three treatment plants in Residential, Urban Recreational Grasses; springs fed by high-quality mountain the city through a complex system of Quarries/Strip Mines/Gravel Pits; snow runoff. Denver Water's supply is streams, canals and pipes. Agriculture; Forest; Septic Systems; Oil/ 100 percent surface water that originates After treatment, drinking water is fed Gas Wells and Road Miles. For more in sources throughout the watershed by both gravity and pumps to a system information on the report, contact the that encompasses 4,000 square miles on of underground, clear-water reservoirs Colorado Department of Public Health and both sides of the Continental Divide. before continuing to your home or Environment by calling 303-692-2000. business. More than 3,000 miles of pipe Mountain water sources carry water to Denver Water customers. lnformacion importante acerca de la Denver Water's water sources are the calidad del agua South Platte River and its tributaries, the Source water assessment Para recibir la version en espafiol del streams that feed Dillon Reservoir and The state health department has Reporte de Calldad de Agua de 2017 the creeks and canals above the Fraser completed a source water assessment de Denver Water, llame a Servicio al River. Denver Water stores its water in of the potential for contaminants cliente al 303-893-2444 o vlsite five mountain reservoirs - Antero, Eleven reaching any of Denver Water's three www.denverwater.org/Espanol. 2 2017 Water Quality Report DENVER WATER'S SYSTEM Devoted to water quality the state's population with less than 2 Denver Water proudly serves high percent of all the water used in the state. quality water to 1.4 million people in the The natural environment is our lifeline, COAGULATION/F.LOCCULATION city of Denver and many surrounding and we help protect it by promoting wise suburbs. Since 1918 we have expertly water use. planned, developed and operated a We take our water quality very reservoir. before water. 1s transported complex system that provides clean, seriously. Last year we collected more by closed RiReline to the treatment safe, great-tasting water. The utility is than 35,000 samples and conducted a public agency funded by water rates, more than 68,000 tests to ensure our new tap fees and the sale of hydropower, water is as clean and safe as possible. not taxes. We are Colorado's oldest Denver Water vigilantly safeguards small 1Jar.t1cles to •• and largest water utility - Denver our mountain water supplies, and the I • I"' lil•ml•lmlm~ Water has a total water service area of water is carefully treated before it approximately 300 square miles. reaches your tap. This brochure provides Denver Water serves 25 percent of data collected throughout 2016. • I I I • I I• I"' I"' I I I treatment plant. As smaller, suspended ...... d1m1nishes and clear. water. emerges. bacteria, viruses the water flows into reservoirs throughout the distribution system and into your home or. business. Denver. Water. carefully monitors ttie of disinfectant added tain quality of the water. at the farthest reaches of the system. F.luorid .. naturally in our. water. but is also added to treated water, when needed. Denver Water serves 25% of the state's population with less than 2% of all the substan'ces to redu-ce corrosion water used in the state. the distribution system 2017 Water Quality Report I 3 WATER AT A GLANCE All drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be Is There a Presence of expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. Cryptosporidium and Giardia? The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that Denver Water has tested for the water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants Cryptosporidium (Crypto) and Giardia and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the Environmental in both raw and treated water since the Protection Agency's Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 or by 1980s. Since that time, Denver Water visiting http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants. has never detected a viable indication of either in the treated drinking water. Some people may be more vulnerable which are the pipes that connect the Crypto and Giardia are microscopic to contaminants in drinking water water main under the street to the home. organisms that, when ingested, can cause than the general population. Homes built before 1988 may have diarrhea, cramps, fever and other gastro Immunocompromised persons such lead solder in their plumbing - lead intestinal symptoms. Crypto and Giardia as those with cancer undergoing solder was banned from use on domestic are usually spread through means other chemotherapy, those who have plumbing in 1988. Homes that do not fall than drinking water. undergone organ transplants, people within these two categories are at lower While most people readily recover with HIV-AIDS or other immune system risk for lead contamination in the water. from the symptoms, Crypto and Giardia disorders, some elderly, and infants Lead exposure can cause serious can cause more serious illness in people can be particularly at risk of infections. health problems, especially for pregnant with compromised immune systems. The These people should seek advice about women and young children. The most organisms are in many of Colorado's rivers drinking water from their health care common sources of lead in drinking and streams and are a result of animal providers. For more information about water are materials and components wastes in the watershed. At the treatment contaminants and potential health for service lines and home plumbing. plants, Denver Water removes Crypto and effects, or to receive a copy of the U.S. Denver Water is responsible for Giardia through effective filtration, and Environmental Protection Agency providing high-quality drinking water, Giardia is also killed by disinfection. (EPA) and the U.S. Centers for Disease but cannot control the materials used Control (CDC) guidelines on appropriate in plumbing components. When your means to lessen the risk of infection by water has been sitting for several Cryptosporidium and microbiological hours, you can minimize the potential contaminants, call the EPA Safe Drinking for lead exposure by flushing your cold Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791. water tap for up to a couple of minutes before using water for drinking or Lead in Drinking Water cooking. Always start with cold water, Since 1992, Denver Water has tested consuming hot water directly from water inside homes within its the tap is not recommended as the distribution system considered at risk for environment within a hot water tank is lead and copper contamination, per EPA considered corrosive. standards. Denver Water's source water, Denver Water customers can request water leaving the treatment plants, and a free water quality test for lead for water in the distribution system have no single-family and multi-unit residences, detectable lead and trace levels of copper. limit one per household. Information Lead can get into water through on lead in water, testing and steps to lead-containing household or building minimize exposure is available from plumbing. Softened water is more the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at aggressive toward household plumbing. 1-800-426-4791, at epa.gov/safewater/ Homes and buildings built in 1950 or lead, at denverwater.org/Lead or at If you are concerned about lead. you may wish to have your water tested. earlier may have lead service lines, 303-893-2444. 4 I 2017 Water Quality Report WATER QUALITY MONITORING VIOLATION In 2016, our water system violated a drinking water monitoring requirement. Although this situation did not pose a safety risk and does not require that you take immediate action, as our customers, you have a right to know what happened, what you should do and what we have done to correct this situation. radioactive material. It We are required to monitor your drinking Health and Environment required that water for specific contaminants on Denver Water monitor water from its a regular basis. Results of regular treatment plants for SOCs in the 2013 to monitoring are an indicator of whether 2016 timeframe. The regulation requires or not our drinking water meets health us to collect two sample sets, each in standards. From Jan. 1, 2013, to Dec. 31, different quarters during one of the 2016, we did not complete all monitoring three years. Denver Water is required to for synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) in monitor 31 SOC compounds triennially. - viruses, bacteria and other. m1crooes accordance with compliance schedules. With the exception of two compounds . . sewage treatment (dlquat and endothall), the remaining !)lants, septic systems, agricultural What should I do? SOC compounds were monitored per the I I.. • I • I There is nothing you need to do at required schedule. Because the correct this time. sampling frequency was not followed for diquat and endothall, this caused metals, whicn . .. What happened? What is being done? Denver Water to have an SOC monitoring occurring o~ result from The table below lists the contaminant we violation per the Colorado Primary uroan storm water. runoff, . . did not properly test for: Drinking Water Regulations. domestic wastewater. discharges. oil Denver Water has had an active production. mining or. farming. monitoring program for more than 10 Contaminant socs• years and we have not detected SOCs in our system in past compliance cycles. - chemical substances Required Sampling Triennially Frequency For more information, you can contact sources.such Customer Care at 303-893-2444 or 1600 agricultural and urban storm wale~ Number of Samples 1 set (requirement Taken was 2) West 12th Avenue, Denver, CO, 80204. Please share this information with all When Samples January 2013 to Should Have Been the other people who drink this water, December 2016 Taken especially those who may not have including S'.Y'.nlhet1c 2nd Quarter 201 7 received this notice directly (for example, organic chemicals. which When Samples Will and 3rd Quarter Be Taken people in apartments, nursing homes, byJJroducts of industrial processes and 2017 schools, and businesses). You can do this ...... production. and also may by posting this notice in a public place or come from gas stations. .. The Colorado Department of Public distributing copies by hand. water. runoff and septic systems. "SOCs: Endrin, BHC-Gamma, Methoxychlor, Toxaphene, Dalapon, Diquat, Endothall, Di(2-Ethylehexyl) Adipate, Oxamyl. Simazine, Dl(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate, Picloram, Dinoseb, Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, Carbofuran. Atrazine, Lasso. Heptachlor, Heptachlor Epoxide, 2,4-D, 2,4,S-TP. Hexachlorobenzene, Benzo(A)Pyrene, Pentachlorophenol, Total Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB), 1,2-Dibromo-3-Chloropropane, Ethylene Dlbromide, occurring or. be Chlordane, Aldicarb, Aldicarb sulfoxide, Aldicarb sulfone I t I and mining activities. 2017 Water Quality Report I 5 Alum mum ppD NIA bU - lUU \:>Mt.;L) Jb \L:I - HJ) NO Montn1y t:ros1on ot natural aepos1 Antimony ppb 6 6 0.05 (br' - 0.08) No Monthly Discharge from petroleur Erosion of natural deposi Arsenic ppb 0 10 0.5 (br - 0.5) No Monthly solder Barium ppm 2 2 0.03 (0.02 - 0.04) No Monthly Erosion of natural deposi Chromium ppb 100 100 0.6 (br - 1) No Monthly Discharge from steel and Copper ppm N/A 1.0(SMCL) 0.003 (br - 0.02) No Monthly Erosion of natural deposi Iron ppm N/A 0.3 (SMCL) 0.02 (br - 0.14) No Monthly Manganese ppb NIA 50 (SMCL) 7 (br - 28) No Monthly Selenium ppb 50 50 0.5 (br - 0.6) No Zinc ppm N/A 5 (SMCLl 0.0 02 (br - 0.005) No Monthly Uranium ppb zero 30 0.5 (br - 1.4) No Monthly Erosion of natural deposi Gross Alpha pCi/L 15 br (br - 1) No Annually Erosion of natural deposi Chloride ppm N/A 250 (SMCL) 19 (4 - 35) No Monthly Erosion of natural deposi Fluoride ppm 4.0 4.0 (2.0 is SMCL)' 0.7 (0.2-1 .1) No Monthly from fertilizer and alumi1 Monthly Runoff from fertilizer USE Nitrate as N ppm 10 10 0.1 (br - 0.2) No deposits Sodium ppm N/A N/A 14.8 (7.5 - 20) No Annually Naturally present in the E Sulfate ppm N/A 250 (SMCL) 40 (16- 67) No Monthly Naturally present in the E TT s0.30 NTU in 95% Highest Turbidity Level for 2016: 0.18 12 times daily/ Turbidity' NTU N/A of samples/month Percentage ol Samples <0.3 NTU: 100% No plant Soil runoff Compliance Description Denver Water uses enhanced treatment to remove Total Organic Carbon N/A TT the required amount of natural organic material No Weekly Natural organic matter It and/or demonstrates compliance with alternative criteria. UCMR (Entry Point to the Average Level Detected 3 MCLG Violation? Distribution System)' (2013) (Range of All Results) Chromium, Total ppb 100 100 <0.2 (<0.2 - 0.37) No Chlorodifluoromethane -ppb N/A N/A <0.080 (<0.080 - 0.097) No Quarterly Refrigerant, discharge In Hexavalent Chromium (Dissolved) ppb N/A N/A 0.06 (<0.03 - 0.25) No Quarterly Byproduct of disinfection Molybdenum ppb N/A N/A 6.8 (<1 - 15) No Quarterly Erosion of natural deposi Strontium ppb N/A N/A 159 (44-240) No Quarterly Erosion of natural deposi Vanadium ppb N/A N/A 0.3 (<0.2 - 0.66) No Quarterly Erosion of natural deposi . l 1· ? Sampling S f I . I Regulated in the Distribution System V10 a ion. Frequency ources o con am1nan Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM) ppb NIA 80 Highest locational RAA' : 27 (14 - 42) No Monthly Byproduct of drinking wa Haloacetic Acids (HAA,l -ppb N/A 60 Highest locational RAA: 17 (6 - 28) No Monthly Byproduct of drinking wa Absent or No more than 5% Highest monthlfi percentape: 0.24% in June 2016 Total Coliform zero Number of pos ives out o number of samples for No Daily Naturally present in the E Present positive per month the year: 1 out of 4,832 samples or 0.02% Lowest monthly percenta~e of samples meeting TT reiuirement of a detectab e (greater than or eiual to .2 ppm) residual: 99.75% in November 201 Disinfectant as Total Cl, ppm TT For any two consecutive months, at least 95% No Daily Drinking water disinfecta of samples (fier month) must have a detectable disinfectant evel. Four out of 4,906 samples had a non-detectable residual in 2016. No. of Samples Regulated at the Customer's Tap' MCLG Action Level al the 90th Percentile Value Violation? Sampling Dales Sources of contaminant 90th Percentile exceeding Action Level Copper ppm I 1.3 1.3 0.26 0 out of 167 homes No April- June Corrosion of household p Lead -ppb 0.0 15 10 7 out of 167 homes No April· June Corrosion of household p Copper ppm / 1.3 1.3 0.24 0 out of 356 homes No July - November Corrosion of household p Lead ppb 0.0 15 10 13 out of 356 homes No July - November Corrosion of household p Raw Source Waler Positives Sample Size foot1ota 11d Defi1lti111s: !· ~~~~.~.~~ : ~~t~~;~:~~!:bl.~ : ~:W:.~'~~~~ "~a~E~ . ~~.~!:~~~~~~~~e_~~!~!he lowest reliable level that can be measured. ~ @DenverWater @ @Denver_Water ~ facebook.com/DenverWater D youtube.com/YourDenverWater f-TAP DenverWaterTAP.org ATTACHMENT 8 Page No 5/1 /2017 PLATTE CANYON MONTH END TAP REPORT DATEISSlJE ADDRESS BLOCK LOT SUB WATER SEWER TYPE BUILDER STATUS WTRFEE SWRrEE ADMFEE CHECKNO Wo.--ter y+d $ 0.()Q Sewe\ ~+d di 5,ooo. - Page No. 511/20 17 SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN MONTH END TAP REPORT DATEISSU I ADDRESS BLOCK LOT fil1!l WATER SEWER TYPE STATUS WTRFEE SWRFEE ADM FEE CHECKNO 4/312017 11779 W. Portland Dr. 28 Foo!hills Overall Camnus 1.00 RS 7,000.00 1,100.00 0.00 4/3/2017 I 1789 W. Portland Dr. 29 Foothills Overall Campus 1.00 RS 7.000.00 1.100.00 0.00 123358 4/3/2017 11809 W. Portland Dr. 30 Foothills Overall Campus 1.00 RS 7,000.00 1,100.00 0.00 123357 413/20 17 11819 W. Portland Dr. 31 Foothills Overall Campus 1.00 RS 7,000.00 1,100.00 0.00 123356 4/24/2017 11839 W. Portland Dr. 32 Foothills Overall Campus 1.00 RS 7,000.00 1,100.00 0.00 126282 4/24/2017 11859 W. Portland Dr. 33 Foothills Overall Campus 1.00 RS 7,000.00 1,100.00 0.00 126283 4/24120 17 11921 W. Quarles Ave. 47 Foothills Overall Campus 1.00 RS 7,000.00 1.100.00 0.00 126284 4/24/2017 11941 W. Quarles Ave. 48 Foothills Overall Camnus 1.00 RS 7,000.00 1,100 .00 0.00 126285 4/24/2017 11961 W. Quarles Ave. 49 Foothills Overall Campus 1.00 RS 7,000.00 1,100.00 0.00 126286 412412017 11981 W. Quarles Ave. 50 Foothills Overall Camnus 1.00 RS 7,000.00 1,100.00 0.00 126287 TOTALS 70,000.00 11,000.00 0.00 ii JC).3, soo. - -- - SOUTHWEST METROPOLITA N WATER & SA NITATION DIST. SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER & SANITAT ION DIST. WATER TAP REVENUE REPORT FOR APRIL 2017 SEWER TAP REVENUE REPORT FOR APRii ~ 2017 Reoeval Total SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER & SANITATION DIST. SOUTHWEST J\tETROPOLITAN WATER & SANITATION DIST. W ATER TAP SALES REPORT FOR APRlL 201 7 SEWER TAP SALES REPORT FOR APRIL 2017 0 Reneval " Total ***************** Moving Special District Elect ions frum Even Numbered Years to Odd-Numbered Years When a prominent county clerk and re » How wou Id it affect the length of that it would still be helpful to look into corder informed SDA that he was having a terms of board members? these questions in more detail, know bill introduced to change the date for the » Would it re sult in the loss of one ing that it will be introduced again in the regular biennial elections of special dis election, or would it add one 2018 Legislative Session. tricts from the first Monday in May in even election? numbered years to odd-numbered years, Why? » How would it affect the ability to have a number of questions quickly came into Some of the benefits that have been dis TABOR elections? focus. For instance: cussed are as follows: » Do other county clerks support this change? » With the number of elections that » Why? » Does SDA support this change? fall in the laps of county clerks in » How would a transition to this new even-numbered years, including date be accomplished? While this proposed legislation has gubernatorial, legislative seats, » Is it even constitutional? been postponed this year, we thought presidential and congressional seats, Continued on page 11 Transition Regular Special District Biennial Election from Even-numbered Year to Odd-numbered Year Decrease the term of office of each seat that expires in 2018 or 2020, for one term only El ection Election Election Election** Election Election Election *Special district board terms are to be staggered, with two seats up for election one year, and three seats up for election in the next election. Reducing each term by one year as it comes up, completes the transition in five years. ** Decrease the election cycle by one year, resulting in the addition of one election and a one year cycle one time only. Increase the term of office of each seat that expires in 2018 or 2020, for one term only Election Election Election Skip** Election Election Election Increase to 5· ear te rm for 1 term* Increase to 5- ear term for 1 term* *Special district board terms are to be staggered, with two seats up for election one year, and three seats up for election in the next election. Adding one year to each term as it comes up, for one time only, completes the transition in seven years. **Skip one year in this election cycle, resulting in a three year cycle one time only. SUPPORTING COMMUNITY-BASED GOVERNMENT I SDACO.OHG I APRIL 2017 9 " and now with presidential and other "odd years", and either extending board election, biennial local district election, primary elections, assisting special terms to five years in 2018 and 2020, or or on the first Tuesday in November of districts, even those that do not decreasing board terms to three years in odd-numbered years." (Article X, Section coordinate with the clerks' offices, 2018 and 2020. In other words, the tran 20, Colo. Constitution) (emphasis added) places a great burden on clerks. sition could be accomplished by increas Note that in referring to the biennial lo » Clerks feel that they would be ing terms to five years for one cycle, or cal district election, no date is mentioned, more available to help districts with by decreasing the terms to three years so the date of the elections in odd years elections in odd-numbered years, for one cycle. would be the same as currently in even either in helping to run district years. Hence, the TABOR elections could elections, or for those districts that do How would the transition affect the length of still be held in conjunction with the dis not work with their clerks for election terms of board members trict elections in May of odd years. assistance, the clerks are still involved Under the five year cycle, the transition in helping to get required lists, etc. would be complete at the end of the terms Do other county clerks support this change? expiring in 2025, or under the three year cy It would also be easier for clerks Discussions with the Colorado County cle, the transition would be complete at the to make election equipment, such Clerks Association indicate that there end of the terms expiring in 2023. At the as voting machines and counting is general support among clerks, but end of the altered terms, the terms would machines, available for district use. the Clerks Association does not want to revert to the four year terms for all seats. » The change to odd years would push this change unless SDA supports change nothing concerning the the change. Would it result in the loss of one election, or ability of districts to conduct their would it add one election? own elections, to have independent Does SDA support the change? Using the five year cycle, one election mail ballot elections, polling place The SDA Board has expressed support cycle would be for three years, thus skip elections, or to cancel elections and asked the staff to poll the member ping the election that would otherwise as at present. Districts that do not ship to determine the membership sup have been in 2022. Using the three year coordinate with their clerk now cycle, there would be one extra election, port for such a change. The polling ques would not be required to do anything in 2020 and 2021 . tion has been sent to each district with the different in an odd year. request to respond to the proposal. Of the » Moving the board elections to the Is it even constitutional? responses received so far, a strong major odd years would remove them from The Colorado Constitution prohibits either ity have been supportive. the media and campaign frenzy that lengthening or shortening a term of an SDA has made a commitment to dis accompanies the partisan elections elected official during the term of office. cuss this change with our members state that are held during even years. However, the change can be made at the wide, and we encourage you to send us end of each term. your thoughts and ideas (please send How would the transition be accomplished? them to Ann Terry, SDA Executive Direc A bill would be introduced in the legisla How would it affect the ability to have TABOR tor, at [email protected]). The conver ture to amend several sections of Title 32 elections? sation will also continue at our upcoming (32-1-103( 17)); (32-1-305.5(3)) and Title The TABOR Amendment allows TABOR SDA Regional Trainings in June and at the 1 (1-1-104(42)); (1-13 .4-111(1)) to read elections to be held "in a state general SDAAnnual Conference in September. *** Don't Miss Dur Next Webinar with PERA Executive Director Greg Smith! Please join us on Wednesday, April 26 at 10:00 am for a review what corm;<, nr;xt, both this year and during the next special webi11ar foatming PERA's Executive Director, Greg legislative session. Smith. In this educ. SlJPPOR I ING ( OMIVllJl;rTY flASFU GOVl:RNMElfl I SDM:o OH< I /\l'l!ll ;·o I I 11 State officials: Cuts to local property taxes won't be as deep as expected in Colorado - Th... Page 1 of 4 ATTACHMENT 10 NEWS > COLORADO NEWS State officials: Cuts to local property taxes won't be as deep as expected in Colorado For residential taxpayers, the change won't prevent a tax cut set to take effect in 2018, but it could diminish it by as much as 46 percent. By BRIAN EASON I [email protected] I The Denver Post PUBLISHED: April 13, 2017 at 7:25 pm I UPDATED: April 13, 2017 at 7:31 pm A ~~. Under a proposed change to how the state calculates its tax rates, residential property taxes may only decrease by about half of what was initially expected, a dramatic shift that could stave off more than $100 million dollars in cuts to schools, local governments and special districts that provide critical services such as utilities, ambulances and fire protection. It could also have repercussions for the state's budget, which lawmakers this year have struggled to balance in part because of the projected cuts to schools. http://www.denverpost.com/2017 /04/13/colorado-property-taxes/? 4/27/2017 State officials: Cuts to local property taxes won't be as deep as expected in Colorado - Th... Page 2 of 4 For residential taxpayers, the change won't prevent a tax cut set to take effect in 2018, but it could diminish it by as much as 46 percent. The State Board of Equalization was briefed on the proposed change Thursday by JoAnn Groff, the state's property tax administrator. The reason for the cuts is complicated, stemming from t.1.1.~}~~l.~ ~ ~1:.?..:r~~.?..?.?.. ii:.~~9?1.<:lY ?..f. ~?. ~?.1:~~~~?.!1~ .. ~:??..1?:.i:.t~.= ~~. T~xp~y~r.'.~.~~~~ ?LJ3 .i .~~~~~. <1:r1~ . t.~~.q~.11.~.~~~. ~ '.'\~?.~!~~~!:~~~.. Under Gallagher, commercial properties are supposed to make up about 55 percent of the state's total assessed value, with residential properties making up the remaining 45 percent. Because residential growth is expected to outpace commercial grmvth over the next few years, it will trigger a cut to the residential assessment rate. And, because TABOR requires voter approval for tax hikes, Gallagher only works in one direction - once residential tax rates are cut, they don't go back up. Next year the rate was expected to fall from 7. 96 percent to 6.56 percent of a property's market value - but under a proposed formula change, it is now only estimated to fall to 7.2 percent. The Department of Local Affairs will finalize its recommendation in a report to be released Monday. So why the change? That, too, is complicated. In practice, the 55/45 target split fluctuates from year to year based on a rate study undertaken by the Department of Local Affairs. This year's target split was initially set at around 56/44 - but, Groff says, that was because the formula over-estimated the market value of a boom in oil and gas production. "There was great volume added to oil and gas during the two-year period from 2015 to 2016 - and yet the value of that volume fell," she said, as gas prices plummeted. "In most times there is not this anomaly," Groff said. ''You don't have increased volume without increased value. You don't have increased new construction unless it's a good time for new construction." That created a hole in the assessment formula. The increased oil and gas production dictated an increase in commercial value that didn't actually occur. As a result, Groff said, state tax officials recommended a steeper cut to the residential tax rate than was necessary. http://www.denverpost.com/2017 /04/13/colorado-property-taxes/? 4/27/2017 State officials: Cuts to local property taxes won't be as deep as expected in Colorado - Th... Page 3 of 4 Those on hand for the meeting included tax assessors and local government representatives who have been anticipating the cut with dread. In a survey by the Colorado State Fire Chiefs, nine fire departments from around the state predicted wide-ranging impacts, ranging in severity from delaying equipment purchases to "catastrophic" cutbacks to services brought on by layoffs. Some projected a 10 percent or larger drop in revenue. The mood after the meeting was one of relief - though not a total victory. "It certainly softens the impact from what we were expecting it to be in January," said Gini Pingenot, legislative director for Colorado Counties Inc. "It is encouraging news - especially for what it could have been." The change in the assessment rate would require legislation. But if approved, it could give state budget writers some flexibility to boost funding to things like .1:1. ?..~.Pi.1.<::l~.. Cl:1.~?. ~~?.?.?.~.5. ~~Cl:1. . Cl:r..~ ..~.1Cl: _t:~?.f?..r. .?..~~.P~1:1 1.~J1:i ..?..r.?.~ r.. ~?. . ?.'::1Cl::r.1~~ .. ~?.~ .. ~~.?. '.~ ~ill. i.c:>.1 1. ~1:1.?.~~.1.· Because of the cuts, the state this year had to spend an additional $135 million to backfill schools, yet it still fell short of its school funding obligations by about $50 million. If about 46 percent of the cut is restored, it would free up an extra $62 million - and it could be even more, depending on property values from district to district. TAGS: GALLAGHER AMENDMENT, TAXES, TAXPAYER'S BILL OF RIGHTS Brian Eason Statehouse reporter Brian Eason joined The Post from the Indianapolis Star, where he covered city hall for the news outlet's watchdog team beginning in 2014. Before that, he was an investigative reporter at The Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss., and covered local government at The Leaf-Chronicle in Clarksville, Tenn. He graduated in 2009 from the University of Missouri with d €VJ r~lbW ~~~ffl@BR~Y;\sfil science. SPO:'.\'SORED CO:\'TE:-0.1 http://www.denverpost.com/2017 /04/13/colorado-property-taxes/? 4/27/2017 ( Mdro Denver homeowners face property tax hikes in next two years Page 1of5 NEWS > COLORADO NEWS Red-hot real estate market leads to property tax spikes around metro Denver Property valuations will jump by up to 40 percent, hitting lower-priced homes hardest By ALDO SVALDI I [email protected] I The Denver Post PUBLISHED: April 25, 2017 at 8:32 pm I UPDATED: April 26, 2017 at 3:19 pm Homeowners across metro Denver should brace themselves for notices of property valuation arriving soon in the mail that will weigh heavily on property taxes during the next two years. The short of it: Property taxes are going to go up, and for many, they're going way up. That's the news from seven metro-area county assessors, who on Tuesday held a news conference to announce spikes in median home property valuations, ranging from about 17 percent for single-family homes in Douglas County to 40 percent for all homes in Adams County. In those counties - as well as in Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Elbert and Jefferson - property tax increases will vary greatly, depending on factors such as neighborhood popularity, amount of new construction and affordability. That last group will be among those hit the hardest. http://www.denverpost.com/201 7 /04/25/metro-denver-property-tax-spikes/ 4/27/2017 Metro Denver homeowners face property tax hikes in next two years Page 2 of 5 "Neighborhoods that had among the lower property values in 2014 are seeing the largest percentage increases in Denver, though each neighborhood has seen growth," Denver County Assessor Keith Erffmeyer said at the news conference. And for homeowners, the increase in a valuation doesn't by itself dictate how much more they'll pay in property taxes. ------·--····------·-·-----···--·-·· ----·1 City & County of Denver I Single Family and Townhome I 2015 to 2017 Median Value Change i DENVER·~ Denver County Assessor The map of property valuation increases released by Denver. (click to enlarge) MAPS: Find your neighborhood in these property valuation 'iiia r·s ·r:efeas·ea 1>y:·Aaaiiis~ · A1:apahoe; ·Bolit<1e·r:~·150'ligfa·s~ ·... ·... ·· neiiver·;... tihert'ai1d'JeH'ers011 coliiiffe·s~·· ...... · ·· ·· ·· · · · .. , ...... The amount of any increase will also vary, depending on the tax rates for schools and residential water and fire services. Then there are factors specific to a city or county, such as in Denver, where the amount of additional property taxes the county can collect off higher values is limited to 6 percent a year. County assessors in Colorado ~PP.r.<:li~-~ rr.?..P.~.r.~i~~ ~Y.~.9' .~.?. X~<:J.r.~· For the most recent round, they looked at comparable sales from between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016. http://www.denverpost.com/201 7/04/25/metro-denver-property-tax-spikes/ 4/27/2017 I Metro Denver homeowners face property tax hikes in next two years Page 3 of 5 ~?.::i.1.1:1.5.... ~?.. ~1. r.1.\Y. .. ~?.. 11?~.~'. ~~~~ r.?.5. ~ .. ':1: .. ~!1:~. ~li':1:1:1.~g.P~E~~r.1. ~ during that period, double the 19.8 percent gain measured in the prior cycle. Elbert County, which is experiencing a surge in new construction, recorded a ·························· .~~ . Jl~ .r. .~.~i:it.. .!?~iI!· Home values rose a 1!1.~.c.li.<11~ . ~? p~ r. ?€:'.~ t i ~ ~~~P. .....per...... ce...... nt in ...... Denver...... and .....24...... p ercent...... in. Boulder County...... Jefferson...... County's median increase was 22.8 percent, while in Douglas Count)', ...... home values were up 17.2 percent...... ··················· ··· ································ Illustrating the variations within a county, Jefferson County Assessor Ron Sandstrom measured a median 35.9 percent gain in home values in Edgewater, compared with a 22.3 percent median increase in Westminster, and an 18.1 percent gain in Golden and unincorporated parts of the county. In Denver's Sun Valley neighborhood, historically a distressed area, home values rose by a median 70.4 percent, the largest of any city neighborhood. The median values in Athmar Park, Elyria Swansea, Valverde and Villa Park all increased by at least 50 percent in the latest two-year cycle. On the more expensive end of the housing market, less competition and more new supply helped restrain price increases. Home values in Cherry Creek, for example, were up a median 15.5 percent over two years, tame by Denver standards. Commercial properties also saw big increases. Boulder County recorded a 23 percent median increase, Arapahoe County a 22 percent gain and Denver a 19.9 percent increase. The cost of vacant land also shot up. In Adams County, vacant parcels rose a median 68 percent in value. Higher land prices add to the costs of new homes, which could further push up all home prices. State property tax administrator JoAnn Groff, who also attended Tuesday's news conference, said that property values in nine Colorado counties rose a median of 20 percent or more over the past two years. Another 20 had gains between 10 percent and 20 percent, which point to higher property taxes in the future. But in 35 counties covering large swaths of rural Colorado, property values didn't muster increases above 10 percent, Groff said. Those parts of the state could see property tax collections drop next year due to a decrease in the residential assessment ratio. http://www.denverpost.com/2017 /04/25/metro-denver-property-tax-spikes/ 4/27/2017 Metro Denver homeowners face property tax hikes in next two years Page 4 of 5 That ratio1 multiplied by the actual value1 determines "assessed" value, or the share of a home's value that can be taxed. The legislature is expected to pass a bill to drop that r..~~~~:11~~~.1. . A lower ratio would shave nearly 9 percent off property taxes, assuming local levies for schools, fire protection and other services stay the same. Gains along the Front Range are strong enough to overcome that decrease by a wide margin. But that isn't the case in many rural areas. The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights limits how much additional revenues governments can collect in a given year in Colorado. But voters in many areas have provided local governments an exemption from those limits, which would allow them to collect more based on the higher values. Sandstrom said metro-area taxpayers concerned about the size of future property tax bills should try to influence what kind of revenue increases local districts approve in coming months. Property owners also have until June 1 to question the value that assessors came up with. In most metro counties, they can do so in writing, online or in person. A review and appeals process follows, with values locked in by early December. Next year's tax notices will go out in early January, at which point it will be too late to contest a property's valuation. That next round of property taxes will be due April 30 for those making a single payment. TAGS: HOUSING MARKET, TAXES Aldo Svaldi Aldo Svaldi has worked at The Denver Post since 2000. His coverage areas have included residential real estate, economic development and the Colorado economy. He's also worked for Financial Times Energ)Ytfm19.Vr:AY&O~~d8Wooft and Arab News. SPOJ\'.SORED CONTE:\'T How to Make Painting the http://www.denverpost.com/201 7 /04/25/metro-denver-property-tax-spikes/ 4/27/2017 Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation Districts Operation and Maintenance Summary Report April, 2017 Service Interruptions - Water Platte Canyon LOCATION: 7893 W. Friend Dr. DATE: April 27, 2017 PROBLEM: Contractor Error TYPE: 6” A.C.P. AGE: 1977 OUTAGE: Customers: Twelve Duration: Five Hours COSTS: Permit: $ 175.00 Contractor repair: $3,425.20 Asphalt/Concrete: $ 850.00 District: $2,264.43 Total: $6,714.63 COMMENTS: Sewer service contractor hit the water main with backhoe. The water main was mis-located. Discussion during the meeting. Service Interruptions - Sewer Platte Canyon No sewer service interruptions this reporting period. Southwest Metropolitan No sewer service interruptions this reporting period. Page 1 of 9 General Operations Information Platte Canyon - Sewer Notice Letters Zero sewer notice letters were sent to customers warning of a potential problem as a result of root intrusion. Southwest Metropolitan - Sewer Notice Letters Zero sewer notice letters were sent to customers warning of a potential problem as a result of root intrusion. Remedial Water Repairs (PC & SWM) April, 2017 – C&L completed two fire hydrant valve repairs and one manhole repair in Southwest Metropolitan. Additional repairs will be sent for scheduling in May. March, 2017 – C&L completed four Platte Canyon valve repairs and three in Southwest Metro. February, 2017 – A list is being compiled and will be sent to C&L to begin scheduling repairs for mid-March. January, 2017 – No information this reporting period. District Facilities Status Scott J. Morse Pump Station (PC) Reconstruction Project April, 2017 – The Water On Floor sensors are being installed and the programming is being amended to accommodate the new alarms and set points. All training of the new components has been completed. Staff continues to work with Dewberry to fine tune all operation parameters. March, 2017 – Several testing activities took place confirming correct operation of all systems before starting the pump station. Everything went well with very little issues arising. On March 17th, the station was placed in service and we now are providing normal pressure to the residents. Staff is continuing to work with the vendors fine-tuning all systems for optimal operation. Various training will be done soon so staff is educated in the operation and maintenance of the new station. Page 2 of 9 February, 2017 – Piping was disinfected and flushed. Various testing for leaks and functions were completed. Electrical components and controls will be tested soon. SCADA amendments will have to be completed before station can be returned to service. January, 2017 – Glacier is progressing completing exterior and interior piping. Flash Fill accidentally got into the new suction main. They had to re-excavate and replace approximately twelve feet of pipe. The project is still on schedule and expect to begin testing of all components late February. December, 2016 – Most of the suction piping has been installed. A new electric service has been installed and we are waiting for Xcel to install the new electric meter. Tony’s report will have more information. November, 2016 – Construction is progressing. A majority of the new discharge piping has been installed. As of the date of this report internal piping is being assembled. An update will be provided in Tony’s construction report. October, 2016 – The pump station was taken off-line on October 3, 2106. The pressure zone was re-aligned as explained in the past. Currently, the contractor is demolishing all piping and electrical within the pump station. September, 2016 – Staff is preparing for the pressure zone realignment to accommodate the demolition of the pump station. It is scheduled for October 3, 2016. August, 2016 – No activity to report this period. July, 2016 – Two meetings were held this month, the pre-construction meeting and another meeting coordinating the sequence each category will be addressed. A significant amount of time was spent planning and notifying customers for the valve cut-in at W. Ken Caryl Ave. and S. Webster St. This valve is required to accommodate adequate water pressure during construction. Approximately three hundred residents’ pressure was reduced during the installation. The project was completed in just one day and we received only one customer call. June, 2016 – A preconstruction meeting will be held sometime early or mid-June. May, 2016 – Bid opening was held May 24, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. There were four contractors present for the opening: Glacier, Archer Western, Asian, and Stanek. The low bid was Glacier for $1,097,880. April, 2016 – Mandatory pre-bid meeting is scheduled for May 18, 2016. March, 2016 – No information this reporting period. Page 3 of 9 February, 2016 – Staff received 90% submittal design from Dewberry. Staff is reviewing the nearly completed design documents. Advertising is projected for mid-April and bid opening is scheduled for April 28, 2016. January, 2016 – Dewberry submitted 60% submittal design drawings. Staff is reviewing and commenting as design advances. Denver Water is performing a courtesy design review. December, 2015 - Discussed installing direct-bury butterfly valves versus in vaults. We will need to supply water by other sources during construction. Tony and I met with Denver Water and discussed the plan to provide water from another pressure zone. Strict coordination will occur during these events and will allow adequate water service and fire protection for all customers during construction. Tony and Armando met with Dewberry and their pothole contractor to confirm the location of other utilities. This information is needed to continue the design and address any conflicts. November, 2015 - Tony and I met with Chad and Sam of Dewberry to discuss the progress of the design. Many factors were discussed, some needing additional information from staff. Future reports will reveal the progress of the design project. October, 2015 - Staff met with Dewberry and several subcontractors to review the project and finalize any questions for the design. Fire System Communication Failure April, 2017 – Both the fire system and security system have been repaired and tested. March, 2017 – Tyco will be scheduled to perform repairs and testing of both systems in April. February, 2017 – The new phone lines were installed and Tyco connected both fire and security to the control panels. Systems were tested and seem to function as expected. Some minor wiring repairs will be completed damaged during construction specifically installation of the new doors. January, 2017 – Still waiting on phone line installation. December, 2016 – We are waiting for the new phone lines to be installed before we can move forward. November, 2016 – District staff and Dewberry will work with Tyco during the final stages of construction to re-establish both fire and security within the pump station. This will take place sometime in late February or March. Page 4 of 9 October, 2016 – Nothing to report this period. September, 2016 – Nothing new to report this period. Waiting for progress of the reconstruction and the engineer and Tyco will meet to accommodate the re-installation of the fire panel and security panel. August, 2016 – Tyco presented a proposal late in the month. The cost to upgrade is just over $2,000.00. An internal meeting will be set to discuss the repair. As late as it is I intend to propose to staff we postpone the fire panel installation until after the new equipment is in place. Also, I want to discuss it with Dewberry to incorporate it during construction. July, 2016 – The cause of the communication failure was finally revealed. Once the panel was re-installed and tested we did not have communication. We shut off the pump station controls and it began to communicate. After all this time, the problem is electrical interference with the extremely sensitive fire panel. Tyco is going to propose a resolve to the issue. As of the date of this report, I have not heard anything. June, 2016 – Another vendor meet was set for Century Link and Tyco to discuss and finally troubleshoot/correct the issue. They couldn’t determine the reason for not being able to call out. Tyco took the fire panel with them to test it off-site (for the fifth time). May, 2016 – No information to report this period. April, 2016 – It is very difficult working with Tyco to resolve this issue. I have finally made it to a supervisor that promises to meet me at the site and come to a final resolve of this issue. March, 2016 – I am still working with Tyco resolving the communication error. More information will be provided in next month’s report. February, 2016 – I’ve had several conversations with Tyco to correct this issue. They assured me a proposal will be presented mid-March. January, 2016 – After the installation of a replacement fire panel, problems communicating with Tyco Integrated Systems main office have occurred. At their recommendation an additional phone line was installed and did not resolve the communication error. Tyco is proposing to install a cellular line at no cost to the district. I am waiting for Tyco’s proposal as to reestablishing communication. Meetings/Training Maintenance Staff Meeting Page 5 of 9 Monthly staff and safety meeting was held on Wednesday, April 12, 2017. These staff meetings are held monthly to discuss operational, personnel, and safety matters. Operator Certification / Training April, 2017 – No training occurred this reporting period. General Information Peakview and Wadsworth Water Main Reconstruction (SWM) April, 2017 – A contract is in place with Rich Cassens. More information concerning this project will resume in 2018. March, 2017 – No information this reporting period. February, 2017 – Staff has requested Tim Flynn prepare a design engineering contract with Rich Cassens. January, 2017 – After receiving three bids for the project it was revealed the project is above the cost assumed. Staff will work with an engineer to develop design specifications and drawings. This project will be budgeted and constructed in 2018. December, 2016 – No information to report this period. November, 2016 – Tony is still attempting to obtain the additional proposal. October, 2016 – Staff continues to acquire the third proposal from Levi. Tony Cocozzella is working with RD Pipeline to obtain a fourth proposal. Information may be provided at the November meeting. September, 2016 – Staff has obtained two proposals and is anxious to receive the third proposal. Staff intends to present a recommendation to the board at the October meeting. August, 2016 – Armando has been working obtaining proposals. We expect to have three by the end of the month and submit a request to internal staff for review. July, 2016 – I have instructed Armando Quintana to provide information to Ashley Dalton to move forward with an R.F.P. June, 2016 – Operations staff have begun working on a plan and provide the assistant manager information so he can request proposals for the final re-connection. Page 6 of 9 May, 2016 – No information this reporting period. April, 2016 – I am working with the assistant manager to prepare a RFP so this project can be completed in the very near future. March, 2016 – No information this reporting period. February, 2016 – Staff has begun developing a scope of work to send to various contractors for bids. Staff expects to complete this project late spring or early summer. January, 2016 - The planned reconnection at W. Peakview Dr. has been budgeted for 2016 under remedial repairs. 2015 - Staff has been planning for some time to abandon the 10” water line in S. Wadsworth Blvd. parallel to a 16” water line. The 10” is redundant and is not necessary anymore. C&L connected the north end to the 16” at W. Arbor Dr. The contractor for the SCL Hospital disconnected the south end at W. Coal Mine Ave. One more reconnection will occur at W. Peakview Dr. then, the line will be completely out of service. The work performed at W. Arbor Pl. and S. Wadsworth Blvd. was more expensive than anticipated due to unforeseen circumstances. S.C.A.D.A. Communication System Upgrade April, 2017 – Staff began communicating with Browns Hill to determine a scope of work and the next step to proceed with the entire upgrade. March, 2017 – Since the SCADA for the Scott J Morse Pump Station is nearly complete staff will begin the process to upgrade the entire system based on an analysis survey performed last year by Browns Hill. February, 2017 – No information this reporting period. January, 2017 – No information this reporting period. December, 2016 – No information this reporting period. November, 2016 – Staff will begin discussing the project with Browns Hill in December and expected to start the work early spring. October, 2016 – No information this reporting period. September, 2016 – A recommendation for funds in the 2017 budget will be presented during the October board meeting. Any questions may be addressed at that time. Page 7 of 9 August, 2016 – Staff has reviewed the amended proposal from Browns Hill. Funds will be recommended for the 2017 budget. More information will be provided during the October board meeting. July, 2016 – The assistant manager and I met with Browns Hill and discussed their proposal. Under the original intent, we were going to upgrade just the communication vehicle and later upgrade the controllers. Browns Hill determined that cannot be accomplished as originally thought. In the very near future we will present a proposal to the district manager and eventually to the board of directors a recommendation for a full upgrade of the SCADA system requesting funds for the 2017 budget. June, 2016 – Browns Hill provided some documentation for the project and staff has reviewed what was provided. It is incomplete and the assistant manager and I will request a meeting with them to obtain more information. May, 2016 – Browns Hill has visited all the sites twice this month. We expect a proposal from them mid-June and their recommendations for the upgrade. April, 2016 – The assistant manager is nearly completed the paperwork for this project to proceed. Browns Hill will be scheduled soon to perform the assessment of the circuit. March, 2016 – The assistant manager presented a proposal to the district manager to move forward with Browns Hill Engineering to provide an assessment of the current system and propose a new system. We expect this to be a two-phase project. First, to upgrade the communication (DSL, cable, radio) from the two-wire analog. Second, to upgrade all the controllers to current technologies. The district manager approved this project to proceed. February, 2016 – Staff has been working to obtain a proposal to upgrade the SCADA communication system. The current system is very old working on an analog two-wire system hosted by Century Link. Due to the age and support of the old system becoming extinct, it is necessary to have a reliable circuit monitoring the pump stations and sewer flow monitoring sites. Page 8 of 9 Service Contracts Bow Mar April, 2017 Completed 303 meter readings. Responded to two customer service requests. Completed six utility locate requests. Columbine April, 2017 Performed weekly and monthly lift station maintenance. Completed zero customer service requests. Completed two utility locate requests. Lochmoor April, 2017 No information this reporting period. Valley April, 2017 Attended monthly board and public meeting. Completed two customer service requests. Completed five utility locate requests. Completed 558 feet of root treatment. S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM O&M BOARD AGENDA SUMMARY.docx Page 9 of 9 PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE REPORT APRIL, 2017 4/30/2017 (FINAL) Accomplishments Man-hours Job Code Description Scheduled Completed % Scheduled Completed O.T. % 1101 General Water 0 0 8.00 0.00 0% 1102 Pump Station 4 4 100% 1 5.00 31.25 0.00 625% 1103 Customer Service 6 6.00 0.50 2.00 8% 1104 Utility Location 12 4.00 12.25 306% 1105 Valve Inspection I Maintenance 197 197 100% 45.00 24.50 54% 1106 Hydrant lnspectio_ns I Maintenance 52 52 100% 12.00 15.50 129% 1116 Hydrant Painting 28 28 100% 9.00 10.00 111 % 1107 Districbution System Flushi!Jg I Testing 35 39 II1% 9.00 7.50 83% 1108 P.R.V. Inspections I Maintenance 0 0 0% 1 0.00 0.00 1 0% ·- 1109 Air-Vac Inspections I Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 ~-6.00f · 0% 1110 Valve & Hydrant Repair 5 2 40% 23.oo l 2.00 1 9% 1120 Pressure Monitoring 0 0 0% [ 0.00 0.00 0% 1130 Water Break Repair 0 I 0.00 1151 Construction Inspection I Tesing (Warranty) 0 3 0% 0.00 O.OO j 0% 1160 Overlay Operations - Water 0 0 0% 7.00 I I 1201 General Sewer 0% 6.00 0.00 0% 1202 Lift Station 1203 Customer Service 9 6.00 2.00 6.00 33% 1204 Utility Location 19 4.00 5.50 ! 138% 1205 Hydraulic Main Cleaning 0 207 0% 8.00 1.00 13% 1206 Television Inspections 7,219 7,219 100% 52.00 30.00 58% 1207 Root Cutting I Root Treatment 2,113 2,213 105% 68.00 13 .00 19% 1208 Grease Trap Inspections I 32 31 97% 16.00 15.96 100% - 1209 Manhole Repairs I Inspections 0 0 0% 12.00 0.00 0% 1220 Flow Monitoring 1230 Sewer Stoppage 1251 Construction Inspection I Testing (Warranty) 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1260 Overlay Operatiosn - Sewer 0 0 7.25 4301 Vehicle I Equipment Maintenance 20.00 26.50 [ l.00 133% 4302 Building I Landscape Maintenance 10.00 13.80 138% 4303 Errands I Messenger 10.00 6. 13 61% 4304 . General Administrative Activities 67.00 70.40 105% --·---4315 Purchasing I Inventory 4 4 20.00 1.25 6% 4318 Training I Seminar 2 l 10.00 0.00 , 0% 4320 Staff Meetings 5 4 15 .00 10.50 70% I Total Hours 445.00 319.79 9.00 Working Days in the Month 20 Total Working Hours in the Month 1,048 Days Since Last Sewer Main Backup/Spill 940 Record Days for Sewer Backup/Spill 1,779 Days Since Last Safety Incident 194 Location Requests Number of Requests 325 Nwnber of Locations Provided 31 PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE REPORT MAY, 2017 511 /2017 Accomplishments Man-hours Job Code Description Scheduled Completed % Scheduled Completed O.T. % 1101 General Water 0 0 8.00 0.00 0% 1102 Pump Station 5 0 0% 6.00 0.00 0% 1103 Customer Service 0 6.00 0.00 0% 1104 Utility Location 0 4.00 0.00 0% 1105 Valve Inspection I Maintenance 162 0 0% 37.00 0.00 0% --f----- 1106 Hydrant Inspections I Maintenance 106 0 0% 24.00 0.00 0% 1116 Hydrant Painting 71 0 0% 23.00 0.00 0% 1107 Districbution System Flushing I Testing 13 0 0% 3.00 0.00 0% 1108 P.R.V. Inspections I Maintenance 0 0 0% - 0.00 - 0.00 0% 1109 Air-Vac Inspections I Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 - 0% 1110 Valve & Hydrant Repair 4 0 0% 22.00 0.00 0%-- 1120 Pressure Monitoring 0 0 0%1 0.00 0.00 0% 1130 Water Break Repair 0 0.00 1151 Construction Inspection I Tesing (Warranty) 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1160 Overlay Operations - Water 0 0 0% 1201 General Sewer 0% --6.00 0.00 0% 1202 Lift Station ----·- 1203 Customer Service 6.00 0.00 0% 1204 Utility Location 4.00 0.00 0% - 1205 Hydraulic Main Cleaning 5,586 0 0% 24.00 0.00 0% -· ' 1206 Television Inspections 10,343 0 0% 47.00 0.00 0% ·- 1207 Root Cutting I Root Treatment 2,013 0 0% 14.00 0.00 0% 1208 Grease Trap Inspections l 0 0% 1.00 0.00 0% 1209 Manhole Repairs I Ins ections 7 0 0% 10.00 0.00 0% 1220 Flow Monitoring Sewer Stoppage 0.00 1230 -- 1251 Construction Inspection I Testing (Warranty) 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1260 Overlay Operatiosn -Sewer 0 0 -~- --- 4301 Vehicle I Equipment Maintenance 20.00 0.00 0 4302 Building I Landscape Maintenance 10.00 0.00 0 ------4303 Errands I Messenger 10.00 0.00 0 4304 General Administrative Activities 67.00 0.00 0 4315 Purchasing I Inventory 5 0 20.00 0.00 0 f- 431 8 Training I Seminar 2 0 10.00 0.00 0 4320 Staff Meetings 5 0 15 .00 0.00 0 Total Hours 397.00 0.00 0.00 Working Days in the Month 22 Total Working Hours in the Month 1,216 Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District APRIL, 2017 Scheduled vs. Completed Sewer Ma intenance/Hours Scheduled vs . Completed Sewer Main Footage 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 "'bD ~ 4,000 ~ 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 • Sched uled TVI Feet • Completed TVI Feet • Scheduled HC Feet • Completed HC Feet •Scheduled RTC/ RT Feet • Complet ed RTC/RT Feet Scheduled vs . Completed Sewer Main Hours 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 g 40.00 I 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 • Schedu led TVI Hours • Completed TVI Hours • Scheduled- HC Hours • Complet ed HC Hours • Sched uled RTC/RT Hours •Completed RTC/RT Hours Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District APRIL, 2017 Scheduled vs. Completed Water Maintenance/Hours Scheduled vs. Completed Hydrant/Flushing Maintenance 60 so 40 20 10 0 • Scheduled Hyd rant Maintenace • Completed Hyd rant Maintenance • Scheduled Hydrant Painting • Completed Hydrant Pianting • Scheduled Flushing Maintenance • Complet ed Flush ing Maintenance Scheduled vs. Completed Hydrant/Flushing Hours 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 ~ ::> 0 I 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 • Schedu led Hydrant Hours • Completed Hydrant Hours • Scheduled Hyd rant Painting Hours • Completed Hydrant Pianting Hours • Sc hedu led Flushing Hou rs • Completed Flushing Hou rs Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District APRIL, 2017 Scheduled vs. Completed Water Maintenance/Hours Scheduled vs. Completed Valve Maintenance 250 200 150 100 50 0 • Sc hed uled Valve Maintenance • Completed Valve Maintenance • Scheduled Air Vac Maintenance • Com pl eted Air Vac Maintenance • Scheduled PRV Maintenance •Completed PRV Maintenance Scheduled vs. Completed Valve Hours 50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 g25.00 :c: 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 • Schedu led Valve Hours • Completed Valve Hours • Scheduled Air Vac Hours • Completed Ai r Vac Hours •Scheduled PRV Hours • Completed PRV Hours SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE REPORT APRIL, 2017 4/30/2017 (FINAL) T Accomplishments Man-hours Job Code Description Scheduled Completed % Scheduled Completed O.T. % 2101 General Water I 10.00 4.75 48% 2102 Pump Station 4 4 100% 5.00 9.50 190% 2103 Customer Service 18 10.00 2.00 6.50 20% 2104 Utility Location 48 10.00 19.25 193% 2105 Valve Inspection I Maintenance 422 422 100%1 96.00 51.50 54% 2106 Hydrant Inspections I Maintenance 249 249 100% 57.00 62.75 110% 2116 Hydrant Painting 152 152 100% f 49.00 54.oo l 110% ·- 2107 Districbution System Flushing I Testing 35 47 134% 9.00 12.00 133% ----2108 P.R.V. Inspections I Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.:22_ _ 0.00 0% 2109 Air-Vac Inspections I Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2110 Valve & Hydrant Repair 10 16 160% 31.00 33.00 106% 2120 Pressure Monitoring 0 0 OO// 0 0.00 0.00 0% 2130 Water Break Repair I 19.00 2.00 2151 Construction Inspection I Tesing (Warranty) 0 0 0% 0.00 1.00 0% 2160 Overlay Operations - Water 0% 2.00 0 --0 -- ~- ·- 2201 General Sewer 0 0 0% 6.00 0.00 0% 2202 Lift Station 0.00 2203 Customer Service 3 10.00 0.00 2.00 0% 2204 Utility Location 20 10.00 6.50 65% 2205 Hydraulic Main Cleaning 1,719 22,784 ##### 27.00 48.00 178% -- 2206 Television Inspections 22,239 22,993 103% 121.00 91.50 76% 2207 Root Cutting I Root Treatment 0 0 0% 4.00 0.00 0% 2208 Grease Trap Inspections 96 91 95% 48.00 42.00 88% 2209 Manhole Repairs I Inspections 100 104 104% 28.00 15 .75 56% · - - 2220 Flow Monitoring 0 0 0% 0.00 0.50 2230 Sewer Stoppage 0 0 0% 0.00 2251 Construction Ins~ection I Testing (Warranty) 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2260 Overlay Operatiosn - Sewer 0 0 0% 0.00 4301 Vehicle I Equipment Maintenance -- 20.00 26.50 133% 4302 Building i Landscape Maintenance 10.00 13.80 138% 4303 Errands I Messenger 10.00 6.13 61% 4304 General Administrative Activities 67.00 70.40 105% 4315 Purchasing I Inventory 4 4 20.00 1.25 6% 4318 Training I Seminar 2 1 I0.00 0.00 0% 4320 Staff Meetings 5 4 15 .00 10.50 70% Total Hours 683.00 603.58 10.50 Working Days in the Month 20 Total Working Hours in the Month 1,048 Days Since Last Sewer Main Backup/Spill 457 Record Days for Sewer Backup/Spill 3,025 Days Since Last Safety Incident 164 Location Requests Number of Requests 458 Number of Locations Provided 68 SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE REPORT I MAY, 2017 5/1/2017 Accomplishments Man-hours Job Code Description Scheduled Completed % Scheduled Completed O.T. % 2101 General Water 0 10.00 0.00 0% 2102 Pump Station 5 0 0% 5.00 0.00 0% 2103 Customer Service 0 10.00 0.00 0% 2104 Utility Location 0 10.00 0.00 0% 2105 Valve Inspection I Maintenance 401 0 0% 92.00 0.00 0% ·- 2106 Hydrant Inspections I Maintenance I64 0 0% 37.00 0.00 0% 2116 Hydrant Painting 74 0 0% 24.00 0.00 0% 2107 Districbution System Flushing I Testing 45 0 - ~ 12.00 0.00 0% IP.R.V. Inspections I Maintenance 0.00 2108 0 0 0% --- 0.00 0% 2109 IAir-Vac Inspections I Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2110 Valve & Hydrant Repair IO 0 0% 3 l.00 0.00 0% 2120 Pressure Monitoring 13 0 0% 5.00 0.00 0% 2130 Water Break Repair 0 0.00 2151 Construction Inspection I Tesing (Warranty) 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2160 Overlay Operations - Water 0 0 0% 0.00 2201 General Sewer 0 0 0% 6.00 0.00 0% 2202 Lift Station 0.00 2203 Customer Service 0 10.00 0.00 0% 2204 Utility Location 0 10.00 0.00 0% 2205 Hydraulic Main Cleaning 22,434 0 0% 96.00 0.00 0% 2206 Television Inspections 22,434 0 0% 103.00 0.00 0% 2207 Root Cutting I Root Treatment 0 0 - 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2208 Grease Trap Inspections 5 0 0% 3.00 0.00 0% 2209 Manhole Repairs I Inspections 87 0 0% 37.00 0.00 0% 2220 Flow Monitoring 0 0 0% 8.00 0.00 -- 2230 Sewer Stoppage 0 0.00 ---- 225I Construction Inspection I Testing (Warranty) 92 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2260 O\·erlay Operatiosn - Sewer 0 0 0% 0.00 --- - -·--- - - ·- ---- 4301 Vehicle I Equipment Maintenance 20.00 0.00 0 4302 Building I Landscape Maintenance 10.00 0.00 0 ------Errands I Messenger 10.00 0.00 4303 --- 0 4304 General Administrative Activities 67.00 0.00 0 4315 Purchasing I Inventory 5 0 20.00 0.00 0 -·------4318 Training I Seminar 2 0 10.00 0.00 0 4320 Staff Meetings 5 0 15 .00 0.00 0 Total Hours 661.00 0.00 0.00 Working Days in the Month 2 Total Working Hours in the Month 1,216 Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District APRIL, 2017 Scheduled vs. Completed Sewer Maintenance I Hours Scheduled vs. Completed Sewer Main Footage 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 • Scheduled TVI Feet • Completed TVI Feet • Scheduled HC Feet • Completed HC Feet •Scheduled RTC/RT Feet • Completed RTC/RT Feet Scheduled vs. Completed Sewer Main Hours 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 :'.' 0 r" 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 • Scheduled TVI Hours • Completed TVI Hours • Scheduled HC Hours • Completed HC Hours •Scheduled RTC/RT Hours •Completed RTC/ RT Hours Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District APRIL, 2017 Scheduled vs. Completed Water Maintenance I Hours Scheduled vs. Completed Hydrant/ Flushing Maintenance 300 250 200 ~ 150 .'£ 100 50 0 • Scheduled Hydrant Maintenace • Completed Hydrant Maintenance •Scheduled Hydrant Painting • Completed Hydrant Painting • Scheduled Flushing Maintenance • Comp let ed Flushing Maintenance Scheduled vs. Completed Hydrant/Flushing Hours 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 ~ 0 r 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 • Scheduled Hydrant Hours • Completed Hydrant Hours • Scheduled Hydrant Painting Hours • Completed Hydrant Painting Hours • Scheduled Flushing Hours • Completed Flushing Hours Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District APRIL, 2017 Scheduled vs . Completed Water Maintenance I Hours Scheduled vs . Completed Valve Maintenance 450 400 350 300 ~ 250 ~ ~ 200 150 100 so 0 • Scheduled Valve Maintenance • Completed Valve Maintenance • Scheduled Ai r Vac Maintenance • Co mple ted Air Vac Maintenance • Schedu led PRV Maintenance • Completed PRV Maintenance Scheduled vs. Completed Valve Hours 120.00 100.00 80.00 ~ 0 60.00 I" 40.00 20.00 0.00 • Scheduled Valve Hours • Completed Va lve Hours • Scheduled Air Vac Hours • Completed Air Vac Hours • Scheduled PRV Hours •Completed PRV Hours Platte Canyon I Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Sched uled vs. Completed Water Valve Maintenance/Hours Wat er Valve Maintenance - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon/ Southwest Met ro Scheduled vs. Completed soo 4SO 400 3SO 300 ~ 250 :1 200 lSO 100 so 0 II II II II II II II M ay-16 Jun-16 Ju l-16 Aug-16 Sep -16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan -17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 • Scheduled PC Valves • Completed PC Va lves • Scheduled SWM Valves • Completed SWM Valves ------·--·---··------·------~ ----·-·-·------···--····------·--- Yearly Water Valve Man Hours - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon/ Southwest Metro Scheduled vs. Completed 120 100 80 i'.' 5 60 :i:: 40 20 0 11 I 11 11 II II I II Mar-17 May-16 Jun -1 6 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb -17 Apr-17 • Scheduled PC Valve Hours • Completed PC Va lve Hours • Schedu led SWM Valve Hours • Completed SWM Valve Hours Platte Canyon I Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Scheduled vs . Completed PRV & Air Vac Maintenance/Hours Yearly PRV/Air-Vac Maintenance - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon I Southwest Metro Scheduled vs. Completed 45 40 35 30 ~ 25 ~ :,, 20 15 10 0 .1.1.I. II II May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov·16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 • Scheduled PC PRV • Completed PC PRV • Scheduled PC Air Vac • Completed PC Air Vac • Scheduled SWM PRV • Completed SWM PRV • Scheduled SWM Air Vac • Completed SWM Alr Vac Yearly PRV/Air-Vac Man Hours - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon/ Southwest Metro Schedu led vs. Completed 70 60 so 40 ~ 0 I 30 20 10 0 I. I 11 .May-16. Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 "• Scheduled PC PR\/ Hours • Completed PC PRV Hou rs • Scheduled PC Air Vac Hours •Completed PC Air \lac Hours • Scheduled SWM PRV Hou rs • Completed SWM PRV Hours Scheduled SWM Air Vac Hours • Completed SWM Air \lac Hours Platte Canyon I Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed Hydrant Maintenance/Hours Yearly Hydrant Maintenance - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon I Southwest Metro Scheduled vs . Completed 4SO 400 3SO 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 I •• II II II May-16 Jun -16 IIJu l -16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan -17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 • Scheduled PC Hydrants •Completed PC Hydrants • Scheduled SWM Hydrants • Completed SWM Hydrants Yea rly Hydrant Man Hours - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon I Southwest Metro Scheduled vs . Completed 120 100 80 :'.! 5 60 :r: 40 20 0 I 11 11 11 • 11 May-16I -Jun-16- Jul -16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 • Scheduled PC Hydrant Hours • Completed PC Hydrant Hours • Scheduled SW M Hydrant Hours • Completed SWM Hydrant Hours Platte Canyon I Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Sched uled vs. Completed Hydrant Painting Ma intenance/Hours Yearly Hydrant Painting - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon I Southwest Metro Scheduled vs. Completed 3SO 300 2SO 200 ~ ;;> lSO 100 so 0 .. 11 1111111 II II II II May-16 Jun -1 6 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16I Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan -17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 • Sc heduled PC Hydrant Painting • Completed PC Hydrant Painting • Scheduled SWM Hydrant Painting • Completed SWM Hydrant Pa inting Yearly Hydrant Painting Man Hours - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon I Southwest Metro Scheduled vs . Completed 120 100 80 !" 0 60 I" 40 20 0 ••1 111111111 11 II 11 May-16 Jun-16 Jul -16 Aug-16 Sep-16I Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 •Scheduled PC Hydrant Pa in ting Hou rs • Completed PC Hydrant Pa inting Hours • Scheduled SWM Hydrant Painting Hours • Completed SWM Hydrant Painting Hours Platte Canyon I Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed Flush ing Ma intenance/Hours Flushing Maintenance - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon I Southwest Metro Sch eduled vs. Completed 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 .11 11 II II 11 .. II ••1 1 ••1 1 ••1 1 II 1111 May-16 Jun-16 Ju l-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb -1 7 Mar-17 Apr-1 7 -• Scheduled-·· PC Flus hing • Completed PC Flushing • Scheduled SWM Flushing • Completed SWM Flushing Flushing Man Hours - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon I Southwest Metro Scheduled vs . Completed 35 30 25 20 ~ 0 :r: 15 10 0 .11 11 II II II ••1 1 .111 .•I I .••I II 1111 May-16 •Jun-16••• Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 M ar-17 Apr-17 • Sched uled PC Flu shing Hours • Completed PC Flushing Hours • Scheduled SWM Flushing Hours • Completed SWM Flushing Hours Platte Canyon I Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed TVI Maintenance I Hours TVI Footage - Past 12 M onths Scheduled vs. Compl eted 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 "' ."!"" 0 .£ 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 II 111 11 •• 1 11 II 111111 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16I Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan -17 Feb-17 M ar-17 Apr-17 • Schedu led PC TVI Footage • Completed PC TVI Footage • Scheduled SWM TVI Footage • Completed SW M TVI Footage TVI Hours - Past 12 Months Scheduled vs . Completed 160 140 120 100 l" 6 80 J: 60 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb -17 M ar-17 Apr-17 • Scheduled PC TVI Hours • Completed PC TVI Hours • Scheduled SWM TVI Hours • Completed SWM TV I Hours Platte Canyon I Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed HC Maintenance/Hours HC Footage - Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Com pleted 35,000 30,000 25,000 Q) 20,000 :'.l' b ,f 15,000 10,000 5,000 II _ _.1 0 .. II •••• .II 111 II 11 I May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16-I Oct-16 NOV·l6I Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 A-pr-17• • Scheduled PC HC Footage • Completed PC HC Footage • Scheduled SW M HC Footage • Comp leted SWM HC Footage Yearly HC Hours Scheduled vs. Completed 90 80 70 60 50 ~ ::> 0 I 40 30 20 10 0 II .•II __11 . II I 11ll •.I .1l .1I _I May-16 Jun-16 •Jul-16••• Aug-16 Sep-16I .. Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 • Scheduled PC HC Hours • Completed PC HC Hours • Scheduled SWM HC Hours • Completed SWM HC Hours Platte Canyon I Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed RTC & RT Maintenance/Hours RTC I RT Footage - Past 12 Months Sch eduled vs. Completed 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 "' 10,000 ~ 15 C2 P,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 It. .1 11.. .1. .111 I •• II • • • I May-16 IJun-16 Ju l-16 Aug-16 Sep-16- Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Ja n-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 • Scheduled PC RTC/RT Footage • Completed PC RTC/RT Footage • Scheduled SWM RTC/RT Footage • Completed SWM RTC/RT Footage Yearly RTC /RT Hours Scheduled vs . Completed 120 100 80 ~ 5 60 :r: 40 20 0 I--. ll.1 II.. .1 . I .111 I •• 11 • II May-16 Jun-16 Ju l- 16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan-17 Feb-17 Mar-17·- Ap r-17 • Scheduled PC RTC/RT Hours • Completed PC RTC/RT Hours • Scheduled SWM RTC/RT Hours • Complet ed SWM RTC/RT Hours Platte Canyon I Southwest Metropolitan I Contract Districts Completed Sewer Maintenance Completed Sewer Main Footage AUGUST, 2016 Platte Canyon I Southwest Metropolitan I Contract Districts 25,000 20,000 15,000 ~ 15 ,£ 10,000 5,000 • PC TVI Fe .... t • SWM TVJ Feet • Contract Districts TVJ Feet • PC HC Feet • SWM HC Feet • Contrar. t Districts HC FP. et • PC RTC/HT Feet 8 SWM RTC/RT Feet • Contract- Districts RTC/RT Feet Completed TV I Footage Past 12 Months Pla tte Canyon I Southwest Metropolitan I Contract Dist ricts 60,000 50,000 40,000 &', ~ 30.000 .I: 20,000 '"""" 11 11. 11 I II I J 11. I II II I May-16 Jun-16 Ju l-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Ja n-17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 • Completed PC Footage • Comple ted SWM Footage • Completed Contract Di stric ts Footage Platte Canyon I Southwest Metropolitan I Contract Districts Completed Sewer Maintenance Completed HC Footage Past 12 Months Platte Canyon I Southwest Metropolitan/ Contract Districts 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 I_ 1. _I _I .II I 111 I I I J May-16 Jun-16 ·Jul-16-- Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Jan -17 Feb-17 Mar-17 Apr-17 • Completed PC Footage • Completed SWM Footage • Completed Contract Districts Footage Completed RTC/RT Footage Past 12 Months Platte Canyon I Southwest Metropolitan I Contract Districts 25, 000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 I. . 1•• I. 1•• I_ 11_ I I I May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec.I-16 Jan -17 IFeb-17I Mar-17 Apr-17 • Completed PC Footage • Completed SWM Footage • Completed Contract District s Footage 2017 YEAR-TO-DATE TELEVSION INSPECTION REPORT PLATTE CANYON SOUTHWEST METRO BOW MAR COLUMBINE FEET Preventative Warranty / Carry - Over Total Sched. Completed Deficit Preventative Warranty / Carry - Over Total Sched. Completed Deficit Preventative Warranty / Carry - Over Total Sched. Completed Deficit Preventative Warranty / Carry - Over Total Sched. Completed Deficit Unscheduled Unscheduled Unscheduled Unscheduled JANUARY 8,089 0 0 8,089 8,089 0 26,360 627 0 26,987 26,987 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,899 0 1,899 1,899 0 FEBRUARY 10,517 0 0 10,517 10,517 0 13,763 0 0 13,763 13,763 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MARCH 10,301 0 10,301 10,301 0 10,838 401 11,239 11,239 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 APRIL 7,219 0 7,219 7,219 0 22,993 0 22,993 22,993 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAY 10,343 0 10,343 22,434 0 22,434 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JUNE 12,649 0 12,649 16,137 3,164 19,301 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JULY 0 0 0 9,386 0 9,386 18,334 0 18,334 0 2,040 0 2,040 0 AUGUST 10,806 0 10,806 13,283 0 13,283 0 0 0 0 13,181 0 13,181 0 SEPTEMBER 12,686 0 12,686 15,295 0 15,295 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OCTOBER 0 0 0 17,814 0 17,814 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOVEMBER 5,929 0 5,929 19,174 0 19,174 0 0 0 0 0 2,189 2,189 0 DECEMBER 13,838 0 13,838 17,511 0 17,511 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 102,377 0 102,377 36,126 204,988 4,192 209,180 74,982 18,334 0 18,334 0 15,221 4,088 19,309 1,899 PLATTE CANYON SOUTHWEST METRO BOW MAR COLUMBINE HOURS Preventative Warranty / Carry - Over Total Sched. Completed Preventative Warranty / Carry - Over Total Sched. Completed Preventative Warranty / Carry - Over Total Sched. Completed Preventative Warranty / Carry - Over Total Sched. Completed Unscheduled Unscheduled Unscheduled Unscheduled JANUARY 37 0 0 37 34 121 3 0 123 120 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 9 13 FEBRUARY 48 0 0 48 71 63 0 0 63 65 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MARCH 47 0 0 47 53 50 2 0 51 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 APRIL 33 0 0 33 30 105 0 0 105 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAY 47 0 0 47 0 103 0 0 103 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JUNE 580 0580 74140880 00000 00000 JULY 00 000 4300430 8400840 90090 AUGUST 49 0 0 49 0 61 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 60 0 SEPTEMBER 580 0580 7000700 00000 00000 OCTOBER 00 000 8100810 00000 00000 NOVEMBER 270 0270 8800880 00000 0100100 DECEMBER 630 0630 8000800 00000 00000 TOTAL 468 0 0 468 188 937 19 0 956 329 84 0 0 84 0 70 19 0 88 13 Page 1 TVANAL2017.123 LOCHMOOR VALLEY COMBINED ft/hr ft/hr FEET Preventative Warranty / Carry - Over Total Sched. Completed Deficit Preventative Warranty / Carry - Over Total Sched. Completed Deficit Scheduled Completed Deficit % of Sched. std. compl. % of std. Unscheduled Unscheduled JANUARY 000000 00000036,975 36,975 0 100% 218.8 221.4 101.21% FEBRUARY 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,075 0 0 9,075 9,075 0 33,355 33,355 0 100% 218.8 208.5 95.30% MARCH 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,348 0 6,348 6,348 0 27,888 27,888 0 100% 218.8 211.3 96.58% APRIL 000000 00 00030,212 30,212 0 100% 218.8 247.6 113.21% MAY 0 000 00 00 32,777 0 32,777 0% 218.8 ERR ERR JUNE 0 000 00 00 31,950 0 31,950 0% 218.8 ERR ERR JULY 0 000 00 00 29,760 0 29,760 0% 218.8 ERR ERR AUGUST 0 000 00 00 37,270 0 37,270 0% 218.8 ERR ERR SEPTEMBER 0 000 00 00 27,981 0 27,981 0% 218.8 ERR ERR OCTOBER 0 0 0 0 8,384 0 8,384 0 26,198 0 26,198 0% 218.8 ERR ERR NOVEMBER 0 0 0 0 3,931 0 3,931 0 31,223 0 31,223 0% 218.8 ERR ERR DECEMBER 0 000 00 00 31,349 0 31,349 0% 218.8 ERR ERR TOTAL 0 0 0 0 27,738 0 27,738 15,423 376,938 128,430 248,508 34% 237.5 221.0 93.07% LOCHMOOR VALLEY COMBINED working days days HOURS Preventative Warranty / Carry - Over Total Sched. Completed Preventative Warranty / Carry - Over Total Sched. Completed Scheduled Completed Deficit % of Sched. days act wrk % of Sched. Unscheduled Unscheduled JANUARY 00000 00000 169 167 2 98.80% 19 10 54.93% FEBRUARY 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 41 24 152 160 (8) 104.93% 19 10 52.63% MARCH 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 29 27 127 132 (5) 103.54% 23 8 35.87% APRIL 00000 00000 138 122 16 88.33% 22 8 34.66% MAY 00000 00000 150 0 150 0.00% 20 0 0.00% JUNE 00000 00000 146 0 146 0.00% 22 0 0.00% JULY 00000 00000 136 0 136 0.00% 21 0 0.00% AUGUST 00000 00000 170 0 170 0.00% 22 0 0.00% SEPTEMBER 00000 00000 128 0 128 0.00% 21 0 0.00% OCTOBER 00000 3800380 120 0 120 0.00% 21 0 0.00% NOVEMBER 00000 1800180 143 0 143 0.00% 19 0 0.00% DECEMBER 00000 00000 143 0 143 0.00% 21 0 0.00% TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 127 0 0 127 51 1,723 581 1,142 33.72% 250 36 14.53% Page 2 TVANAL2017.123 SCHEDULED TELEVISION INSPECTION FOR MAY 2017 W. Hf:Ll.\'lf: W A \ T ri I \\". ROWl.f-S A VF • Plallc Conyon TVI • Southwcsi ~ lct ro. TVI • BowMar TVI • Columbine TV I • l .ndlmnor .,, .. , V oll~ y TVI PLATTE CANYON, SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN, BOW MAR, COLUMBINE, VALLEY & LOCHMOOR PRODUCTIVITY REPORT April 2017 500 469 400 300 245 Performance 234 219 Standard 202 200 Feet per man hour Feet per man 141 100 0 ROOT CUT HYDRAULIC CLEANING TV INSPECTION PLATTE CANYON, SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN, BOW MAR, COLUMBINE, VALLEY & LOCHMOOR PRODUCTIVITY REPORT April 2017 8 8 7 6 6 5 5 4 4 Performance 4 4 4 4 Standard 3 3 3 Quantity per man hour Quantity per 2 1 0 INSPECT VALVE PAINT HYDRANT INSPECT HYDRANT SERVICE HYDRANT DISTRIBUTION MAIN FLUSHING PLATTE CANYON, SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN, BOW MAR, COLUMBINE, VALLEY & LOCHMOOR PRODUCTIVITY REPORT Year to Date 400 381 350 300 250 234 226 219 Performance 200 167 Standard 150 141 Feet per man hour Feet per man 100 50 0 ROOT CUT HYDRAULIC CLEANING TV INSPECTION PLATTE CANYON, SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN, BOW MAR, COLUMBINE, VALLEY & LOCHMOOR PRODUCTIVITY REPORT Year to Date 8 8 7 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 Performance 4 Standard 3 3 3 Quantity per man hour Quantity per 2 1 0 EXERCISE INSPECT PAINT INSPECT SERVICE DISTRIBUTION VALVE VALVE HYDRANT HYDRANT HYDRANT MAIN FLUSHING Southwest Metro Water and Sanitation CIP 17-1W - 8” Water Main Replacement Located in W. Chatfield Ave. Between S. Pierce St. and S. Lamar St. Capital Project Information May - 2017 Project Purpose: Cost shared project between SWM and Jefferson County for the water main replacement portion. Sections of existing water pipe are in conflict with proposed storm sewer Project Description: Replace 1649’ of 8” cement asbestos pipe with 1649’ of 8” PVC pipe Project Status: In design Budget Comparison: Budget Contract Actual % of cost - % of cost - actual to actual to Budget contract Design $0 $0 $0 Construction 212,640 0 0 0 0 Contingencies $31,896 Total $244,536 Schedule: Design: Complete Planned Schedule: June 2017 Bid Date: 3/1/17 Notice to Proceed: Submitted by Jeffco Construction: Pre construction meeting set for 5/23/17 Final Completion: Notes: Rocky Mountain Excavating was chosen as the contractor for this project {PC 00017289.1 } Southwest Metro Water and Sanitation CIP 17-2W - 8” Replace Variable Frequency Drives (VFD’s) Located at Hogback Pump Station Capital Project Information May - 2017 Project Purpose: Replace failing and outdated Variable Frequency Drives (VFD’s) Project Description: The current VFD’s are past their expected life and need upgrade to avoid service interruptions Project Status: In design Budget Comparison: Budget Contract Actual % of cost - % of cost - actual to actual to Budget contract Design $8,850 $11,780.00 $0 0 0 Construction $59,000 $0 $0 0 0 Contingencies $10,170 Total $78,028 Schedule: Design: Dewberry Engineers will design and bid the project Bid Date: May 2017 Start of Construction: Construction: Final Completion: {PC 00017289.1 } Southwest Metro Water and Sanitation CIP 17 -1S – 8” CIPP Lining of Existing Sewer Main Located in W. Chatfield Ave. Between S. Pierce St. and S. Kendall Blvd. Capital Project Information May - 2017 Project Purpose: Sections of sewer pipe showing signs of corrosion Project Description: Line 2745’ of 8” concrete sewer pipe Project Status: In design Budget Comparison: Budget Contract Actual % of cost - % of cost - actual to actual to Budget contract Design $16,093 $5000.00 $0 0 0 Construction $107,285 $0 $0 0 0 Contingencies $18,507 Total $141,885 Schedule: Design: ENS to design Bid Date: Start of Construction: Construction: Final Completion: {PC 00017289.1 } Southwest Metro Water and Sanitation CIP 17-2S - 8” Sewer Main Replacement Located in W. Coal Mine Ave. and S. Newcombe Way. Capital Project Information Maay - 2017 Project Purpose: Due to expansive soils the existing sewer has shifted causing poor flow. The solution is to re- route the flow to an existing sewer main and S. Newcombe and abandon the old sewer main and manhole. Project Description: Install 111’ of 8” PVC sewer main and abandon 547’ of 8” sewer pipe Project Status: In design Budget Comparison: Budget Contract Actual % of cost - % of cost - actual to actual to Budget contract Design $9,158 $5000.00 $0 Construction $61,050 0 0 0 0 Contingencies $10,531 Total $80,739 Schedule: Design: ENS to design Planned Schedule: Plan to bid end of June Bid Date: 6/30/17 Notice to Proceed: Construction: Final Completion: {PC 00017289.1 } Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation CIP 17-1W Located at W. Canyon Dr. between W. Canyon Ave. and S. Depew St. Capital Project Information May - 2017 Project Purpose: Replace 6” cast iron pipe due to multiple leaks Project Description: Replace 994’ of 6” Cast Iron Pipe with 994’ of 6” PVC pipe Project Status: In Design Budget/Contract Comparison: Budget Contract Actual % of cost – % of cost - actual to actual to budget contract Design/Inspection $22,365 $7450.00 $6485.00 29% 87% Construction $149,100 $0 Contingencies $25,720 Total $197,185 Schedule: Design: ENS started design Bid Date: June 16, 2017 Notice to Proceed: Construction: Final Completion: {PC 00017289.1 } Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation CIP 17-2W Located at S. Morning Glory Ln. between Blue Sage Dr. and W. Berry Ave. Capital Project Information May - 2017 Project Purpose: Replace 6” cast iron pipe due to multiple leaks Project Description: Replace 1996’ of 6” Cast Iron Pipe with 1996’ of 6” PVC pipe Project Status: In Design Budget/Contract Comparison: Budget Contract Actual % of cost – % of cost - actual to actual to budget contract Design/Inspection $43,785 $14,600.00 $11,280.00 25% 77% Construction $291,900 $0 Contingencies $50,353 Total $386,038 Schedule: Design: ENS started design Bid Date: June 30, 2017 Notice to Proceed: Construction: Final Completion: {PC 00017289.1 } Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation CIP 17-3W Located at W. Frost Dr. and S. Webster St. Capital Project Information May - 2017 Project Purpose: Severe metallic corrosion has occurred to piping within the vault Project Description: Replace a 6” PRV and associated pipe within the vault Project Status: In Design Budget/Contract Comparison: Budget Contract Actual % of cost – % of cost - actual to actual to budget contract Design/Inspection $0 $0 $0 Construction $15,000 $0 Contingencies $2250 Total $17,250 Schedule: Design: In-house; design pending Bid Date: Notice to Proceed: Construction: Final Completion: {PC 00017289.1 } Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation CIP 17-1S, 2S, 3S Three contiguous sewer rehabilitation phases located in the following streets: In S. Depew St., W. Ontario Cir. and S. Sheridan Blvd. – W. Plymouth Dr., S. Depew St., and W. Ottawa Ave. – S. Grey Ct., W. Portland Dr., and W. Quarles Dr. Cured in Place Pipe Capital Project Information May - 2017 Project Purpose: Sections of existing sewer pipe showing signs of corrosion. Project Description: Cured-in-place pipe rehabilitation of 7339’ of 8” sewer pipe and 1431’ of 10” sewer pipe. Project Status: In Design Budget/Contract Comparison: Budget Contract Actual % of cost – % of cost - actual to actual to budget contract Design/Inspection $50,378 $16,080.00 $15,440.00 31% 96% Construction $321,597 $0 Contingencies $55,476 Total $17,250 Schedule: Design: Complete Bid Date: Complete, Notice to Proceed: Complete Construction: June 1, 2017 Final Completion: {PC 00017289.1 } Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation CIP 15-1W Located at Columbine West Pump Station – 7677 W. Ken Caryl Ave. Capital Project Information May - 2017 Project Purpose: Upgrade aging pump station. Determine downsizing by use of gravity flow from DW conduit. Project Description: Replace inlet, outlet and interior cast iron and steel pipe. Evaluate condition of pumps, motors and control system components and replace as necessary. Project Status: In Design Budget/Contract Comparison: Budget Contract Actual % of cost – % of cost - actual to actual to budget contract Design/Inspection $125,000.00 $171,160.00 $171,160.00 0 1.42% 100% Construction $500,000.00 $1,097,880.00 $1,037,858.00 1.44% 94% Contingencies $93,750.00 Total $718,750.00 Schedule: Design: Complete Bid Date: 5/24/216 – Winning bid – Glacier Construction Notice to Proceed: Issues 7/13/16 Construction: Start 10/3/16 – Project Complete; work on small punchlist items complete {PC 00017289.1 } Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Checklist for the Month of May 2017 Ck. No. Payee Description Amount Net Amount 018713 Arrowhead Landscape Services $1,800.00 Repair and maintenance - office 1,600.00 Pump station maintenance 200.00 018714 Bristol Botanics Repair and maintenance - office $95.00 018715 CenturyLink Pump station telemetry $95.16 018716 Comcast Business Utilities and telephone $270.22 018717 Comcast Business Utilities and telephone $394.53 018718 Dyer Construction Co Hydrant permit deposit refund $350.00 018719 Evergreen Newspapers Legal notices/ads $62.48 018720 Jefferson County Highways Water contract emergency $175.00 018721 Dana Kepner Co. Repair and maintenance water $297.07 018722 City of Littleton Utilities and telephone $127.80 018723 Metro Pavers, Inc. $1,700.00 Water contract emergency 850.00 Water contract remedial 850.00 018724 System Communications Utilities and telephone $1,040.25 018725 Utility Notification Center Utility Notification $664.10 018726 Wired Up Electical Design, LLC Office/Garage improvements $1,875.00 018727 Waste Connections of Colorado Repair and maintenance - office $179.48 W00142 Xcel Energy $1,663.78 Pump station utilities 1,544.59 Flow meter utilities 119.19 W00143 Xcel Energy $1,029.78 TOTAL ACH/CHECKS AS OF MAY 18, 2017 $11,819.65 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Supplemental Checklist for the Month of May 2017 Ck. No. Payee Description Amount Net Amount 018728 Anthony Dursey Director fee $92.35 018729 Ken Ensor Director fee $92.35 018730 George E. Hamblin, Jr. Director fee $92.35 018731 Charles Hause Director fee $92.35 018732 Bernard J. Sebastian, Jr. Director fee $92.35 018733 Three Bridge Partners LLC Warranty Escrow Refund $14,123.00 018734 Bristol Botanics Repair and maintenance office $2,579.00 018735 C&L Water Solutions, Inc. $9,927.52 Water contract emergency 3,425.20 Sewer contract remedial 2,123.25 Water contract remedial 4,379.07 018736 CNC Distribution, LLC Office improvements $12,167.76 018737 Collins Cockrel & Cole Legal fees $4,010.18 018738 Denver Water $142.02 Pump station utilities 14.86 Utilities and telephone 127.16 018739 ET Water Systems, Inc. $438.00 Pump station utilities 219.00 Utilities and telephone 219.00 018740 Jennifer Terry Office improvements - final payment $18,111.21 018741 Granite Transformations of Denver, LLC Office improvements $4,646.00 018742 JRS Janitorial, LLC Repairs and maintenance - office $755.00 018743 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Engineering backcharges $2,163.00 018744 Merrick & Company, Inc. Engineering GIS $3,693.60 018745 Platte Canyon W&S District $114,142.30 Repairs and maintenance water 32,566.17 Repairs and maintenance sewer 24,037.94 Office administration 41,715.05 Pump station telemetry 60.41 Flow meter telemetry 483.30 Repair and maintenance office 5.88 Korterra locate software renewal 1,456.08 Deposit reimbursement 13,817.47 018746 HD Supply Waterworks Repair and maintenance water $327.69 018747 Waste Connections of Colorado Repair and maintenance office $195.63 Total Supplemental Checks as of May 25, 2017 $187,883.66 TOTAL ACH/CHECKS FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2017 $199,703.31 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Investment Principal Activity Month of: APRIL, 2017 Date Date of Number Face/ Face Purchase Purchased Purchased Redemption Purchased Maturity of Days Principal Rate Price Interest Yield Yield Totals (Wt. Avg.) (Wt. Avg.) (Wt. Avg.) (Wt. Avg.) (Wt. Avg.) NEW PURCHASES 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Average days/Weighted average rate 0 0.0000% 0.00 0.00 0.0000% Total new purchases $0.00 $0.00 REDEMPTIONS 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 Average days/Weighted average rate 0 0.0000% 0.0000 0.00 0.0000% Total redemptions $0.00 $0.00 RENEWALS 0 0 0 0 Total renewals $0.00 Net decrease in investments in April $0.00 NOTE: All redemptions are wired to checking account at Wells Fargo Bank West of Littleton or to the UMB Trust account. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF REGULAR SEMI-ANNUAL MEETING EX OFFICIO BOARD OF DIRECTORS PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT SUBDISTRICT NO. 1 Friday November 18, 2016 Jefferson County, Colorado The regular semi-annual meeting of the ex officio Board of Directors of the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District, Subdistrict No. 1 (“Subdistrict No. 1”), Jefferson County, Colorado, convened on Friday, November 18, 2016, at approximately 9:15 a.m. in the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District office, located at 8739 West Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123. The following ex officio Subdistrict No. 1 Directors were in attendance, to-wit: William D. Buckner Anthony M. Dursey Louis J. Fohn George E. Hamblin, Jr. Richard Rock The following Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District (“Platte Canyon”) staff members were in attendance: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, manager; Vanessa Shipley, financial administrator; Scott Hand, operations supervisor; Tony Cocozzella, construction, plan review and special projects coordinator; and Alyssa Quinn, administrative assistant. The following Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District (“Southwest”) Directors were in attendance, to-wit: Anthony M. Dursey Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. George E. Hamblin, Jr. Chuck Hause Bernard J. Sebastian, Jr. Also in attendance were: Richard H. Cassens, from ENS Consulting, LLC, Platte Canyon’s consulting engineer; and Timothy J. Flynn, from Collins, Cockrel & Cole, P.C., legal counsel for Subdistrict No. 1, Platte Canyon and Southwest. {00545999.DOCX / } RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the President of Platte Canyon, Richard Rock, who presided as Chair. ACTION ITEMS 1. Approval of Agenda. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Director Buckner and seconded by Director Hamblin to approve the meeting agenda, as presented. The Chair called for a vote, and the vote was as follows: William D. Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye 2. Approval of May 27, 2016 Regular Semi-Annual Meeting Minutes. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Director Buckner and seconded by Director Fohn to approve, as written, the minutes of Subdistrict No. 1’s May 27, 2016 regular semi-annual meeting. The Chair called for a vote, and the vote was as follows: William D. Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye The approved minutes were then presented to each Subdistrict No. 1 Board member for signature, as further evidence of ratification, confirmation, and approval. 3. Adoption of 2017 Budget. The Chair opened the public hearing on Subdistrict No. 1’s 2017 budget, notice of which had been published in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law. No members of the general public appeared in person, otherwise registered any objections to, or offered any amendments to the proposed 2017 budget. The 2017 budget is balanced, as required by law. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Director Dursey and seconded by Director Buckner to adopt Resolution 2016-11-SD-1-1, a copy of which is attached to the original of these minutes, which Resolution formally adopts the proposed {00545999.DOCX / } 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 2017 budget, as heretofore submitted and amended, as the official budget of the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District, Subdistrict No. 1, for the 2017 calendar year. The Chair called for a vote, and the vote was as follows: William D. Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye The Board then considered Resolution 2016-11-SD-1-2, a copy of which is attached to the original of these minutes, which Resolution appropriates a total of $28,954.00 for expenditure by Subdistrict No. 1 during calendar year 2017. A motion to adopt said Resolution was made by Director Dursey and seconded by Director Buckner. The Chair called for a vote, and the vote was as follows: William D. Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye To make the 2017 debt service payments on its Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority loan, Subdistrict No. 1 will need to generate $28,524.00 in real property taxes by certification of a property tax mill levy of 29.895 mills. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Director Buckner and seconded by Director Dursey to adopt Resolution 2016-11-SD-1-3, a copy of which is attached to the original of these minutes, which Resolution approves the certification of a property tax mill levy of 29.895 mills for debt service purposes for the 2017 calendar year. The Chair called for a vote, and the vote was as follows: William D. Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye 4. 2017 Meeting Schedule. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Director Fohn and seconded by Director Hamblin that Subdistrict No. 1 continue to {00545999.DOCX / } 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS meet semi-annually during calendar year 2017 on Friday, May 26, 2017 and Friday, November 17, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the offices of Platte Canyon and Southwest. The Chair called for a vote, and the vote was as follows: William D. Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS There were no information or discussion items presented to the Board of Subdistrict No. 1 at this meeting. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Board of Subdistrict No. 1. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board of Subdistrict No. 1, a motion to adjourn was made by Director Dursey and seconded by Director Buckner. The Chair called for a vote, and the vote was as follows: William D. Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye {00545999.DOCX / } 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Whereupon, this regular semi-annual meeting of the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District, Subdistrict No. ,1 adjourned at approximately 9:22 a.m. The next regular semi-annual meeting of the Board of Directors of Subdistrict No. 1 will be held on Friday, May 26, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District office located at 8739 West Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123. Respectfully submitted, Timothy J. Flynn, Recording Secretary {00545999.DOCX / } 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SEMI-ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT SUBDISTRICT NO. 1 ARE HEREBY RATIFIED, CONFIRMED AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUALS WHO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EX OFFICIO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAID SUBDISTRICT, WAIVE ANY AND ALL NOTICE THAT MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE STATUTES OF THE STATE OF COLORADO PERTAINING TO THE CONVENING AND THE CONDUCTING OF THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE SUBDISTRICT’S BOARD OF DIRECTORS; AND THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CONSENT TO THE SAID MEETING BEING HELD ON THE DATE, AT THE TIME AND AT THE PLACE AS HEREINABOVE SET FORTH. William Buckner Anthony M. Dursey Louis J. Fohn George E. Hamblin, Jr. Richard Rock {00545999.DOCX / } 6 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS MINUTES OF REGULAR SEMI-ANNUAL MEETING EX OFFICIO BOARD OF DIRECTORS PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT SUBDISTRICT NO. 2 Friday November 18, 2016 Jefferson County, Colorado The regular semi-annual meeting of the ex officio Board of Directors of the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District, Subdistrict No. 2 (“Subdistrict No. 2”), Jefferson County, Colorado, convened on Friday, November 18, 2016, at approximately 9:22 a.m. in the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District office located at 8739 West Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123. The following ex officio Subdistrict No. 2 Directors were in attendance, to-wit: William D. Buckner Anthony M. Dursey Louis J. Fohn George E. Hamblin, Jr. Richard Rock The following Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District (“Platte Canyon”) staff members were in attendance: Patrick J. Fitzgerald, manager; Vanessa Shipley, financial administrator; Scott Hand, operations supervisor; and Tony Cocozzella, construction, plan review and special projects coordinator. The following Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District (“Southwest”) Directors were in attendance, to-wit: Anthony M. Dursey Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. George E. Hamblin, Jr. Chuck Hause Bernard J. Sebastian, Jr. Also in attendance were: Richard H. Cassens, from ENS Consulting, LLC, Platte Canyon’s consulting engineer; and Timothy J. Flynn, from Collins, Cockrel & Cole, P.C., legal counsel for Subdistrict No. 2, Platte Canyon and Southwest. {00546024.DOCX / } RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the President of Platte Canyon, Richard Rock, who presided as Chair. ACTION ITEMS 1. Approval of Agenda. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Director Buckner and seconded by Director Fohn to approve the meeting agenda, as presented. The Chair called for a vote, and the vote was as follows: William D. Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye 2. Approval of May 27, 2016 Regular Semi-Annual Meeting Minutes. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Director Hamblin and seconded by Director Buckner to approve, as written, the minutes of Subdistrict No. 2’s May 27, 2016 regular semi-annual meeting. The Chair called for a vote, and the vote was as follows: William D. Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye The approved minutes were then presented to each Subdistrict No. 2 Board member for signature, as further evidence of ratification, confirmation, and approval. 3. Adoption of 2017 Budget. The Chair opened the public hearing on Subdistrict No. 2’s 2017 budget, notice of which had been published in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law. No members of the general public appeared in person, otherwise registered any objections to, or offered any amendments to the proposed 2017 budget. The 2017 budget is balanced, as required by law. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Director Buckner and seconded by Director Fohn to adopt Resolution 2016-11-SD-2-1, a copy of which is attached to the original of these minutes, which Resolution formally adopts the proposed {00546024.DOCX / } 2 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 2017 budget, as heretofore submitted and amended, as the official budget of the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District, Subdistrict No. 2, for the 2017 calendar year. The Chair called for a vote, and the vote was as follows: William D. Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye The Board then considered Resolution 2016-11-SD-2-2, a copy of which is attached to the original of these minutes, which Resolution appropriates a total of $29,524.00 for expenditure by Subdistrict No. 2 during calendar year 2017. A motion to adopt said Resolution was made by Director Hamblin and seconded by Director Buckner. The Chair called for a vote, and the vote was as follows: William D. Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye To make the 2017 debt service payments on its Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority loan, Subdistrict No. 2 will need to generate $29,084.00 in real property taxes by certification of a property tax mill levy of 28.336 mills. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Director Dursey and seconded by Director Buckner to adopt Resolution 2016-11-SD-2-3, a copy of which is attached to the original of these minutes, which Resolution approves the certification of a property tax mill levy of 28.336 mills for debt service purposes for the 2017 calendar year. The Chair called for a vote, and the vote was as follows: William D. Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye 4. 2017 Meeting Schedule. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Director Buckner and seconded by Director Fohn that Subdistrict No. 2 continue to {00546024.DOCX / } 3 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS meet semi-annually during calendar year 2017 on Friday, May 26, 2017 and Friday, November 17, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. in the offices of Platte Canyon and Southwest. The Chair called for a vote, and the vote was as follows: William D. Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS There were no information or discussion items presented to the Board of Subdistrict No. 2 at this meeting. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business to come before the Board of Subdistrict No. 2. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board of Subdistrict No. 2, a motion to adjourn was made by Director Buckner and seconded by Director Hamblin. The Chair called for a vote, and the vote was as follows: William D. Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye {00546024.DOCX / } 4 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Whereupon, this regular semi-annual meeting of the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District, Subdistrict No. 2, adjourned at approximately 9:30 a.m. The next regular semi-annual meeting of the Board of Directors of Subdistrict No. 2 will be held on Friday, May 26, 2017, at 9:00 a.m. in the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District office located at 8739 West Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123. Respectfully submitted, Timothy J. Flynn, Recording Secretary {00546024.DOCX / } 5 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SEMI-ANNUAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT SUBDISTRICT NO. 2 ARE HEREBY RATIFIED, CONFIRMED AND APPROVED BY THE FOLLOWING NAMED INDIVIDUALS WHO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EX OFFICIO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAID SUBDISTRICT, WAIVE ANY AND ALL NOTICE THAT MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE STATUTES OF THE STATE OF COLORADO PERTAINING TO THE CONVENING AND THE CONDUCTING OF THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE SUBDISTRICT’S BOARD OF DIRECTORS; AND THE UNDERSIGNED DO HEREBY CONSENT TO THE SAID MEETING BEING HELD ON THE DATE, AT THE TIME AND AT THE PLACE AS HEREINABOVE SET FORTH. William Buckner Anthony M. Dursey Louis J. Fohn George E. Hamblin, Jr. Richard Rock {00546024.DOCX / }