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

January 27, 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 Resolution 2017-1-1 Establishing the Date, Time and Location for the Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors of Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District and Designating the Location for Posting Meeting Notices (tab 3)

Information - Discussion Items

New Business

Adjournment

JOINT MEETING – PLATTE CANYON/SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN

Action Items

JA.1 Approval of Agenda JA.2 Approval of Minutes for the December 16, 2016 Joint Regular Meeting (tab 4)

 Page 1  Information - Discussion Items

JI.1 Platte Canyon Financial Statements (tab 5) JI.2 Southwest Metropolitan Financial Statements (tab 6) JI.3 Platte Canyon Investment/Deposit Report (tab 7) JI.4 Southwest Metropolitan Investment/Deposit Report (tab 8) JI.5 Manager’s Report (tab 9) JI.6 Operations Report (tab 10) JI.7 Construction Project Report (tab 11)

New Business

Meeting Schedule

The next meeting is scheduled for February 24, 2017.

SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT

Action Items

SWMA.1 Approval of Agenda SWMA.2 Approval/Ratification of Accounts Payable (tab 12) SWMA.3 Ratification of Investment/Deposit Transactions (tab 13) SWMA.4 Approval of Resolution 2017-1-1 Establishing the Date, Time and Location for the Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors of Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District and Designating the Location for Posting Meeting Notices (tab 14) SWMA.5 Approval of Professional Engineering Services Agreement with ENS Consulting, LLC for Design of a Sewer Main in W. Coal Mine Ave at S. Newcombe Way (tab 15) SWMA.6 Approval of Professional Engineering Services Agreement with ENS Consulting, LLC for Preparation of a Design for the Rehabilitation of a Sewer Main Located in W. Chatfield Ave. between S. Pierce St. and S. Kendall St. (CIP 17-1S) (tab 16) SWMA.7 Approval of Resolution 2016-11-6B Directing That All Necessary Actions Be Taken to Obtain an Order From the District Court of Jefferson County, Colorado Directing That the Questions of the Inclusion Be Submitted to the Eligible Electors of the Area Proposed for Inclusion (tab 17)

Information - Discussion Items

New Business

 Page 2  Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Supplemental Checklist for the Month of December 2016

Ck. No. Payee Description Amount Net Amount

ACH Patrick Fitzgerald Payroll 12/20/16 $4,922.77 ACH Scott Hand Payroll 12/20/16 $2,601.10 ACH Bruce Yarish Payroll 12/20/16 $1,670.70 ACH Armando Quintana Payroll 12/20/16 $2,735.34 ACH John Mathias Payroll 12/20/16 $2,044.00 ACH Justin Roquemore Payroll 12/20/16 $1,363.62 ACH Cory Taylor Payroll 12/20/16 $1,423.63 ACH Michael Chavez Payroll 12/20/16 $2,122.66 ACH Alyssa Quinn Payroll 12/20/16 $1,848.18 ACH Barrie Brinkley Payroll 12/20/16 $1,369.24 ACH Vanessa Shipley Payroll 12/20/16 $1,802.91 ACH Tony Cocozzella Payroll 12/20/16 $2,339.34 ACH Adam Morse Payroll 12/20/16 $1,162.90 ACH CCOERA 401/457 contributions & loan payments $7,553.36 EFTPS Electronic Federal Tax Payment FICA & Fwt $10,814.80

030908 Anthony Dursey Director fee $92.35 030909 William Buckner Director fee $92.35 030910 Richard Rock Director fee $92.35 030911 Louis Fohn Director fee $92.35 030912 George E. Hamblin , Jr. Director fee $92.35

030913 C&L Water Solutions, Inc. Water contract emergencies $11,721.15 030914 CDW-Government, Inc. Office supplies $486.66 030915 Colorado Litho, Inc. Newsletter $1,220.72 030916 Collins Cockrel & Cole Legal fees $1,830.50 030917 Cues Equipment maintenance $371.99 030918 The Denver Post Books and magazines $138.00 030919 Denver Water Maintenance supplies - sewer $547.20 030920 Gov't Finance Officers Assn. Books and magazines $35.00 030921 Jefferson County Water contract emergencies $500.00 030922 Landmark Lincoln Vehicle maintenance $472.42 030923 Metro Pavers, Inc. Water contract emergencies $2,802.34 030924 U.S. Postal Service Postage $658.00 030925 Cintas First Aid & Safety Office supplies $160.50 030926 Rocky Mountain Catering Miscellaneous $217.50 030927 Colorado State Treasurer Unemployment $799.81 W00347 United HealthCare of Colo. Medical insurance $16,828.17 W00348 WEX Bank Fuel expense $1,877.54

Total Supplemental Checks/ACH as of December 27, 2016 $86,903.80

TOTAL CHECKS/ACH FOR MONTH OF DECEMBER 2016 $478,569.05 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Checklist for the Month of January 2017

Ck. No. Payee Description Amount Net Amount

ACH Patrick Fitzgerald Payroll 1/5/17 $5,747.26 ACH Scott Hand Payroll 1/5/17 $4,163.90 ACH Bruce Yarish Payroll 1/5/17 $2,253.72 ACH Armando Quintana Payroll 1/5/17 $2,680.45 ACH John Mathias Payroll 1/5/17 $2,116.48 ACH Justin Roquemore Payroll 1/5/17 $1,619.74 ACH Cory Taylor Payroll 1/5/17 $1,768.89 ACH Michael Chavez Payroll 1/5/17 $1,542.20 ACH Alyssa Quinn Payroll 1/5/17 $2,963.49 ACH Barrie Brinkley Payroll 1/5/17 $1,369.66 ACH Vanessa Shipley Payroll 1/5/17 $3,503.67 ACH Tony Cocozzella Payroll 1/5/17 $4,227.13 ACH Adam Morse Payroll 1/5/17 $1,599.69 ACH CCOERA 401/457 contributions & loan payments $8,161.58 EFTPS Electronic Federal Tax Payment FICA & Fwt $17,093.97 EFTPS Electronic State Tax Payment State Withholding $3,515.00

030928 Professional Answering Service Answering service $64.78 030929 First Choice Coffee Service Office supplies $146.45 030930 Tyco Integrated Security LLC Pump station utilities $419.50 030931 CenturyLink $826.05 Pump station telemtry 126.93 Backcharge COL 60.41 Backcharge SWM 638.71 030932 Colorado WaterWise Council Dues and subscriptions $500.00 030933 IAPMO Books and magazines $45.00 030934 E & E Publishing, LLC Books and magazines $1,180.00 030935 Richard H. Cassens W. Canyon Dr. Water Replacement $1,740.00 030936 Fire Guard Extinguisher Equipment maintenance $749.00 030937 G&S Auto Parts, Inc. Vehicle maintenance $303.73 030938 Good Year Commercial Tire & Service Centers Vehicle maintenance $869.12 030939 Dana Kepner Co. Water maintenance and operation $205.23 030940 Market Direct, Inc. Newsletter $347.53 030941 Merrick & Company, Inc. Engineering GIS $1,741.41 030942 Metro Pavers, Inc. Water contract emergencies $1,300.00 030943 Mountain State Employer Councl Dues and subscriptions $528.22 030944 North Star, Inc. Software management $438.00 030945 Operator Certification Program Professional development $85.00 030946 Operator Certification Program Professional development $85.00 030947 Operator Certification Program Professional development $85.00 030948 Patrick Fitzgerald Professional development $773.45 030949 Sam's Club Office supplies $450.00 030950 Southwest Metro W&S District Building lease $600.00 030951 Utility Notification Center Utility Notification $114.40 030952 HD Supply Waterworks Water maintenance and operation $47.25 030953 Vision Service Plan Vision insurance $336.35 030954 City Sprint Office supplies $14.40 W00349 Wells Fargo Remittance Center $1,597.15 Equipment maintenance 106.70 Maintenance supplies 112.40 Maintenance supplies - water 140.27 Books and magazines 353.99 Professional development 212.93 Miscellaneous 670.86 W00350 AFLAC Employee accidental insurance $747.70

ACH Patrick Fitzgerald Payroll 1/20/17 $4,043.60 ACH Scott Hand Payroll 1/20/17 $2,509.43 ACH Bruce Yarish Payroll 1/20/17 $1,440.15 ACH Armando Quintana Payroll 1/20/17 $2,752.03 ACH John Mathias Payroll 1/20/17 $2,277.67 ACH Justin Roquemore Payroll 1/20/17 $1,524.83 ACH Cory Taylor Payroll 1/20/17 $1,357.29 ACH Michael Chavez Payroll 1/20/17 $1,378.90 ACH Alyssa Quinn Payroll 1/20/17 $1,835.44 ACH Barrie Brinkley Payroll 1/20/17 $1,219.61 ACH Vanessa Shipley Payroll 1/20/17 $1,891.84 ACH Tony Cocozzella Payroll 1/20/17 $2,430.98 ACH Adam Morse Payroll 1/20/17 $1,122.75 ACH CCOERA 401/457 contributions & loan payments $7,571.54 EFTPS Electronic Federal Tax Payment FICA & Fwt $11,487.21

030955 Anthony Dursey Director fee $92.35 030956 Richard Rock Director fee $92.35 030957 Louis Fohn Director fee $92.35 030958 George E. Hamblin, Jr. Director fee $92.35

TOTAL CHECKS/ACH AS OF JANUARY 20, 2017 $125,879.22 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Supplemental Checklist for the Month of January 2017

Ck. No. Payee Description Amount Net Amount

030959 Alyssa Quinn Professional development $53.56 030960 SPOK, Inc. Answering service $21.99 030961 C&L Water Solutions, Inc. $17,646.84 Water contract emergencies 10,000.34 Sewer contract remedial 7,646.50 030962 CenturyLink Pump station telemetry $66.36 030963 Collins Cockrel & Cole Legal fees $2,666.50 030964 Cues Equipment maintenance $8,519.86 030965 HireRight Solutions Inc. Maintenance supplies $41.26 030966 Dawson Infrastructure Solution Vehicle maintenance $471.82 030967 Dewberry Engineers Inc. SJM Pump Station Improvements $13,839.48 030968 DLT Solutions Software management $794.29 030969 Richard H. Cassens Normandy Estates CIP $2,695.00 030970 Glacier Construction Co, Inc. SJM Pump Station Improvements $181,545.00 030971 Dana Kepner Co. Water maintenance and operations $1,162.00 030972 Levi Contractors, Inc. W. Portland Dr. Replacement $29,420.00 030973 Metro Pavers, Inc. Water contract emergencies $1,217.50 030974 Staples Advantage Office supplies $1,707.54 030975 Cintas First Aid & Safety Office supplies $156.23 030976 Special District Association Dues and subscriptions $1,237.50 030977 Sprint Mobile phones $1,547.12 030978 Southwest Metro W&S District $24,447.74 Share of 4th qtr building expenses 24,297.74 Sewer transmission fee 150.00 030979 Vision Service Plan Vision insurance $336.35 030980 Xcel Energy Pump station utilities $82.17 W00351 Delta Dental Plan of Colorado Dental insurance $1,527.03 W00352 United HealthCare of Colo. Medical insurance $16,824.57 W00353 UNUM Life Insurance Life and disability $1,365.02 W00354 WEX Bank Fuel expense $1,448.06

Total Supplemental Checks/ACH as of January 27, 2017 $310,840.79

TOTAL CHECKS/ACH PAID FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2017 $436,720.01 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Investment Principal Activity Month of: DECEMBER, 2016

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

0 0 0 0

Total renewals $0.00

$0.00

NOTE: All redemptions are wired to checking account at Wells Fargo Bank West of Littleton or to the UMB Trust account. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-1-1

PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT

ARAPAHOE AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO

______

A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION FOR THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT AND DESIGNATING THE LOCATION FOR POSTING NOTICE OF DISTRICT MEETINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW AND SPECIAL DISTRICT ACT ______

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 32-1-903 C.R.S., the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District (“District”) is required to meet regularly at a time and in a place to be designated by the Board; and

WHEREAS, Section 24-6-402(2)(c) C.R.S., requires that the Board annually designate one or more places within the boundaries of the District as the place where notice of Board meetings, together with a meeting agenda, when available, shall be posted at least 24 hours prior to the convening of such meeting for the purpose of complying with the notice provisions of the Colorado Open Meetings Law; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 32-1-903(2) C.R.S., the District is required to post in at least three public places within the limits of the District, and in addition, in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of the Counties of Arapahoe and Jefferson, Colorado notice of the time, place and location of the District’s regular and special Board meetings; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 32-1-903(1), C.R.S., all regular and special meetings of the Board shall be held at locations which are within the boundaries of the District or which are within the boundaries of any county in which the district is located, in whole or in part, or in any county so long as the meeting location does not exceed twenty miles from the District boundaries unless such requirement is waived by the Board pursuant to Section 32-1-903(1)(a), C.R.S.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT OF ARAPAHOE AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Regular Meetings. That the Board shall meet regularly during calendar year 2017 on the dates and at the times set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto at the District office located at 8739 West Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123, or at such other location as may from time to time be designated by the Board.

Section 2. Special Meetings. Special meeting may be called by any director by informing the other directors of the date, time and place of such special meeting, and the purpose

1

for which it is called, and by posting notice as provided herein at least 72 hours prior to said meeting.

Section 3. Change of Meeting Dates. That until circumstances change and a future resolution of the Board so designates, the location of all special and regular meetings of the Board shall appear on the agenda of said special and regular meetings.

Section 4. Location for Open Meeting Law Postings. The Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District Scott J. Morse Pump Station, located at 7677 W. Ken Caryl Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123 is hereby designated as the location for posting notice of District Board of Directors meetings for purposes of complying with the notice provisions of the Open Meetings Law, Section 24-6-401, et seq., C.R.S.

Section 5. Posting Locations for Regular Meetings. Notices of the Board’s regular meetings for 2017 shall be posted in the Clerk and Recorder of the Counties of Arapahoe, Douglas, and Jefferson pursuant to Section 32-1-903, C.R.S. and at the following three locations within the District’s boundaries:

(a) Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District Scott J. Morse Pump Station, located at 7677 W. Ken Caryl Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123; and (b) Columbine Knolls Recreation District Swimming Pool located at 6191 W. Plymouth Dr., Littleton, CO 80128; and (c) Normandy Pool and Tennis Club located at 5380 W. Coal Mine Ave., Littleton, CO 80160.

Section 6. Representative Authorized to Post. Any member of the District’s Board of Directors or any designee of the Board is hereby authorized to post notice of the District’s meetings as required by statute.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 27th day of January, 2017.

PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT

By: Richard Rock, President

Attest:

William Buckner, Secretary

2 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC RESOLUTION 2017-1-1.FORM.doc EXHIBIT A

2017

Scheduled Meetings of the Boards of Directors of Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation Districts

Friday January 27, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday February 24, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday March 24, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday April 28, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday May 26, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday June 23, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday July 28, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday August 25, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday September 22, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday October 27, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday November 17, 2017** 8:30 a.m. Friday December 22, 2017 8:30 a.m.

** Third Friday of Month

3 S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC RESOLUTION 2017-1-1.FORM.doc

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

MINUTES OF JOINT REGULAR MEETING

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT

AND

PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT 1

Friday December 16, 2016 Jefferson County, Colorado

The regular monthly 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, December 16, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. in the Districts’ office located at 8739 West Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123. 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. {00543085.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 Southwest 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 Hause and seconded by Southwest Director Sebastian to approve, as presented, the Southwest agenda. 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 $2,500.00) and payable for the month of December 2016, in the aggregate amount of $209,570.94, represented by Southwest check numbers 18564 through 18588, inclusive, including two electronic fund transfers in payment of Xcel Energy bills.

Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Southwest Director Hause and seconded by Southwest Director Sebastian to ratify, approve, and confirm the vouchers paid and payable, as presented, and to authorize Southwest Directors to execute checks in payment of the payables. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board, and the vote was as follows:

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. {00543085.DOCX / } 2

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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 November 2016, 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 were redeemed, sold or matured by Southwest during the month; and

(c) Renewals. No certificates of deposit were renewed or rolled over during the month.

At the conclusion of the above-referenced Investment Transaction Report, 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 November 2016. 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

4. Acceptance of Collins Cockrel & Cole, PC Engagement Letter. Mr. Flynn reviewed the terms of an Engagement Letter between Southwest and Collins Cockrel & Cole for calendar year 2017 legal services. He noted that his hourly rate is increasing during 2017 from $340.00/per hour to $355.00/per hour. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Southwest Director Hamblin and seconded by Southwest Director Sebastian to accept the Engagement Letter with Collins Cockrel & Cole, P.C., and to authorize appropriate officers of Southwest to execute the same. The Chair called for a vote of the Southwest Board, and the vote was as follows:

Anthony M. Dursey Aye {00543085.DOCX / } 3

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian, Jr. Aye

5. Approval of Agreement for General Engineering Services with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. The manager noted that Kennedy/Jenks has an agreement with Southwest currently, which can be extended for two additional one-year periods. Kennedy/Jenks, however, has submitted a revised fee schedule, which requires amendment to the agreement. The revised schedule proposes an average increase of 4.23% for all employees and an average increase for engineers, field specialists, and technicians of 3.37%.

Rather than do an amendment, a new form of agreement was prepared by legal counsel. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Southwest Director Hause and seconded by Southwest Director Sebastian to accept the agreement for general professional engineering services with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. for 2017, with an option to extend for two additional years. 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

The motion included authority for an appropriate officer of Southwest to execute the agreement on Southwest’s behalf.

6. Approval of Cleaning Services Agreement for Southwest’s Office Building. Southwest’s current janitorial service provider, JRS Janitorial, LLC, has requested a slight increase in prices for calendar year 2017. The price for each mid-week cleaning will increase from $58.00 to $63.00, and the price for each weekend cleaning would increase from $105.00 to $110.00. The requested increase necessitates that the District enter into a new contract. JRS has been very reliable and responsive to Southwest’s requests to modify services, and has been doing the District’s office cleaning for over ten years.

Based upon staff’s recommendation to accept the JRS new prices for 2017, a motion was made by Southwest Director Sebastian and seconded by Southwest Director

{00543085.DOCX / } 4

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Hamblin to approve a new agreement for cleaning services with JRS Janitorial, LLC, which incorporates the previously two additional one-year periods for renewal if there are no increases in prices or other changes to the terms of the agreement. At the conclusion of the discussion, 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

7. Resolution 2016-12-1 Making a Final Determination to Proceed with the Inclusion of The Overlook Plateau Subdivision in Arapahoe County, Colorado. Legal counsel advised the Board that, in addition to publishing notice of the meeting at which the Southwest Board considers adoption of a final Resolution to include The Overlook Plateau, a similar notice regarding the adoption of the final Resolution also needs to be sent to the property owners within The Overlook Plateau Subdivision, and that the mailing of this notice had not been done. Accordingly, legal counsel requested that this matter be continued until the Southwest January Board meeting, scheduled for Friday, January 27, 2017.

Based upon legal counsel’s request, a motion was made by Southwest Director Hamblin and seconded by Southwest Director Ensor to continue consideration of this matter until Friday, January 27, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in the Southwest and Platte Canyon office. 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

8. Approval of Snow Removal and Landscape Maintenance Agreement. Just prior to the Board meeting, staff was informed by Arrowhead Landscape & Maintenance that it has separated its landscape and snow removal functions into two separate entities. The manager explained that the agreement in the meeting packet needs to be divided into two separate agreements, one for snow removal services and one for landscape maintenance services, and that the price for each service would be the exact same and would be on the exact same terms and conditions as in the agreement that was

{00543085.DOCX / } 5

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

included in the meeting packet. He asked that the Board authorize the execution of the two separate agreements prior to the next meeting, by appropriate officers of the District or by the District’s manager, once the agreements have been finalized and approved by legal counsel.

At the conclusion of the discussion, a motion to so authorize execution of the two separate agreements, once they’ve been finalized, was made by Southwest Director Sebastian and seconded by Southwest Director Hause. 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

9. Acceptance of Addendum to Southwest’s Sewer Service Connectors Agreement with the City of Littleton. The manager explained that the Englewood- Littleton Wastewater Treatment Plant has been advised by the EPA that the connector agreements for entities like Southwest that are outside of the City need to be amended so that it is clear that the City of Littleton has full authority to enforce its sanitary sewer regulations within Southwest and all other Littleton connectors.

A proposed form of Addendum to the Sewer Service Connectors Agreement between Southwest and the City of Littleton has been in the drafting process for over a year, and has now been agreed to by all parties. Based upon the manager’s recommendation, a motion to accept the Addendum, and to authorize its execution by appropriate officers of the District, was made by Southwest Director Hamblin 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, Jr. Aye

10. Approval of Sewer Service Line Agreement for the Kipling Retail Complex. Tony Cocozzella explained to the Southwest Board that the owner of the Kipling Retail Complex, Chat Kipling, LLC, would like to construct an additional

{00543085.DOCX / } 6

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

building on the current site and, in connection therewith, utilize the sewer service line that services the existing building. The owner wants to do this to avoid having to run a separate sewer service line for the second building a long distance across an adjacent, privately-owned parcel. Southwest is willing to permit the existing sewer service line to be used for this purpose, provided Chat Kipling, LLC enters into an agreement that will be recorded against the property. The agreement will authorize the connection, but would require subdivision of the property and the installation of a separate sewer service line in the future, if the property were ever subdivided. Based upon staff’s recommendation, a motion was made by Southwest Director Hause and seconded by Southwest Director Sebastian to accept and authorize execution of the Sewer Service Line Agreement that was reviewed and presented to the Board as part of the discussion. 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

SOUTHWEST INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS

There were no Information/Discussion Items to come before the Southwest Board.

SOUTHWEST NEW BUSINESS

There was no new business to come before the Southwest Board.

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 Rock 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:

{00543085.DOCX / } 7

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Anthony M. Dursey Aye Kenton C. Ensor, Jr. Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Chuck Hause Aye Bernard J. Sebastian, Jr. 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’ November 18, 2016 Joint Regular Meeting. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Southwest Director Hause and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Rock to approve, as written, the minutes of the Boards’ November 18, 2016 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, Jr. 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

The approved minutes of the Boards’ November 18, 2016 joint regular meeting were then presented to the members of each Board for signature as further evidence of ratification, confirmation, and approval.

{00543085.DOCX / } 8

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

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 eleven-month period ending November 30, 2016, were presented to the Boards:

(i) Statement of Net Assets, dated November 30, 2016, showing Platte Canyon’s Assets, Liabilities and Net Assets;

(ii) Statement of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets for the eleven-month period ending November 30, 2016;

(iii) Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures – Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to Annual Budget for the eleven-month period ending November 30, 2016; and

(iv) Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures – Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to CM/YTD Budget for the eleven-month period ending November 30, 2016.

At the conclusion of Vanessa Shipley’s review of the Platte Canyon financial statements, a motion was made by Platte Canyon Director Rock and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Fohn 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:

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 eleven-month period ending November 30, 2016 were presented to the Boards:

(i) Statement of Net Assets, dated November 30, 2016, showing Southwest’s Assets, Liabilities and Net Assets;

{00543085.DOCX / } 9

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

(ii) Statement of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets for the eleven-month period ending November 30, 2016;

(iii) Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures – Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to Annual Budget for the eleven-month period ending November 30, 2016; and

(iv) Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures – Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to CM/YTD Budget for the eleven-month period ending November 30, 2016.

At the conclusion of Vanessa Shipley’s review of the Southwest financial statements, a motion was made by Southwest Director Sebastian and seconded by Southwest Director Hause 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, Jr. 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 investment pools. As of November 30, 2016, Platte Canyon’s investments and deposits totaled $11,086,878.66, itemized as follows:

{00543085.DOCX / } 10

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Description Amount Percentage Checking $211,898.53 1.91% Certificates of Deposit $1,243,000.00 11.21% ColoTrust-Prime $0.00 0.00% ColoTrust-Plus $3,223,892.49 29.08% ColoTrust-Trust Account $422,956.49 3.81% Treasury Bills $0.00 0.00% Treasury Notes $999,291.63 9.01% U.S. Government Agencies and $4,985,839.52 44.97% Instrumentalities TOTAL $11,086,878.66 100.00%

The average yield on Platte Canyon’s investments for the month of November 2016, as calculated by staff, was 1.1648% 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 received a list of Southwest 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 November 30, 2016, Southwest investments and deposits totaled $25,059,949.99, itemized as follows:

{00543085.DOCX / } 11

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Description Amount Percentage Checking $850.45 0.00% Certificates of Deposit $2,341,537.80 9.34% ColoTrust-Prime $0.00 0.00% ColoTrust-Plus $2,960,499.39 11.81% ColoTrust-Trust Account $1,185,778.14 4.73% Treasury Bills $0.00 0.00% Treasury Notes $8,526,240.66 34.02% U.S. Government Agencies and $10,045,043.55 40.08% Instrumentalities TOTAL $25,059,949.99 100.00%

The average yield on Southwest’s investments for the month of November 2016, as calculated by staff, was 1.7272% per annum.

Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Southwest Director Sebastian and seconded by Southwest Director Ensor 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, Jr. Aye

2. Manager’s Information Report. The manager reviewed the Manager’s Information Report, dated December 2016, a copy of which was previously provided to both Boards. As part of his report, the manager highlighted the following matters:

(a) Denver Water Collection of Southwest Service Fee. The manager reported that Denver Water normally requires a sixty-day advanced notice in order to implement an increase in the service fee imposed by Southwest, and collected by Denver Water, on the bill Denver Water sends to Southwest’s customers. Denver Water has agreed, however, to waive the sixty-day notice period and will start collecting the District’s increased water and wastewater service fee, effective January 1, 2017. This news was welcomed by the Southwest Board.

(b) Denver Water Distributors Rates and Fees Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). The manager reported that there had been a great deal of success

{00543085.DOCX / } 12

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

reached with Denver Water’s staff, and that they had presented to the Board of Water Commissioners a proposal to increase rates, effective April 1, 2017, based upon the 19% multiplier methodology previously recommended by the TAC. The Board is also going to allocate capital costs, except those associated with Denver Water’s distribution system, both inside and outside the City based on actual water consumption. This implements a simplified regional approach to allocating capital costs. In addition, it was noted that, in the future, suburban distributors will pick up a portion of the cost of serving City and County of Denver facilities, including City parks. These costs were previously borne entirely by inside-City users.

Finally, the Board has agreed to adopt a Resolution which memorializes the methodology that is now used for developing the multiplier that will be used to calculate the “Additional Amount”, which previously was not set forth in writing and was done almost on an ad hoc basis, year-to-year, by Denver Water. These actions were taken by Denver Water at its December 14, 2016 meeting.

(c) Miscellaneous Matters. Due to the length of the meeting, the manager asked if there were any questions concerning the balance of the Manager’s Information Report, which was included in the meeting packet. There were no questions.

3. Operations and Maintenance Summary Report. Scott Hand reviewed the Operations and Maintenance Summary Report for November 2016. For the November reporting period, neither Platte Canyon nor Southwest had any sanitary sewer service interruptions. Platte Canyon had one water service interruption, which occurred on November 30, 2016, at 5590 Morning Glory Lane. Southwest also had one water service interruption, which occurred on November 11, 2016, at 12167 W. Brittany Avenue. Mr. Hand gave a brief PowerPoint presentation showing the repair activities that occurred. Both service interruptions were repaired efficiently and without significant interruption to either Platte Canyon’s or Southwest’s customers.

With respect to Platte Canyon’s Scott J. Morse Water Pump Station, Mr. Hand noted that construction is progressing. A majority of the new discharge piping has been installed, and the internal piping is being assembled. He also noted that, during February of 2017, staff and Dewberry Engineering will work with Tyco to reestablish both the fire and security systems for the Scott J. Morse Pump Station.

Staff has been planning, for some time, to abandon a ten-inch water line in South Wadsworth Blvd. that runs parallel to an existing sixteen-inch water line. The ten-inch line is redundant and, therefore, is not necessary. To-date, costs to afford the abandonment have been deemed by staff to be high. Tony Cocozzella is attempting to

{00543085.DOCX / } 13

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

obtain an additional proposal before staff makes a determination to proceed with this project.

4. Construction Project Report. Tony Cocozzella reviewed with both Boards the 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. As part of the review, Mr. Cocozzella 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, January 27, 2017 in the Districts’ offices located at 8739 W. Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, CO 80123.

PLATTE CANYON ACTION ITEMS

CALL TO ORDER

The Platte Canyon Action Item portion of the joint 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 Dursey 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 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 December 2016 in the aggregate amount of $391,665.25, represented by Platte Canyon check nos. 30852 through 30907, inclusive, together with various electronic payments for employee salaries, utility payments, and other authorized electronic fund payment vendors approved for electronic ACH payments.

{00543085.DOCX / } 14

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Platte Canyon Director Dursey and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Fohn to: (a) ratify, approve, and confirm all checks written and all electronic fund transfers occurring since the Platte Canyon November 18, 2016 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 November 2016, 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 Vanessa Shipley’s discussion of the above-referenced Investment/Deposit Transaction Report, a motion was made by Platte Canyon Director Hamblin and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Dursey to accept the Platte Canyon investment principal activity for the month of November 2016. 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

{00543085.DOCX / } 15

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

4. Acceptance of Collins Cockrel & Cole, PC Engagement Letter. Mr. Flynn reviewed the terms of an Engagement Letter between Platte Canyon and Collins Cockrel & Cole for calendar year 2017 legal services. He noted that his hourly rate is increasing during 2017 from $340.00/per hour to $355.00/per hour. Following a brief discussion, a motion was made by Platte Canyon Director Dursey and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Hamblin to accept the Engagement Letter with Collins Cockrel & Cole, P.C., and to authorize appropriate officers of Platte Canyon to execute the same. 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. Acceptance of Agreement for Geographic Information System (GIS) Consulting Services with Merrick & Company. Alyssa Quinn explained that, periodically for the last several years, Platte Canyon has been utilizing, on an as-needed basis, the GIS and AutoCAD mapping services of Merrick & Company. Rather than creating a special purchase order for each service, Platte Canyon would like to have a contract in place that locks in Merrick & Company’s rates. If such a contract were put in place, anytime Platte Canyon needs to utilize Merrick & Company’s services, it can simply execute a purchase order and proceed under the terms of an already-approved contract. Following a brief discussion, and based upon staff’s recommendation, a motion to accept the Merrick & Company GIS Consulting Services Agreement, as reviewed by Alyssa Quinn, for an amount not to exceed $15,000.00 during 2017, was made by Platte Canyon Director Fohn and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Hamblin. 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

1. Acceptance of Addendum to Platte Canyon’s Sewer Service Connectors Agreement with the City of Littleton. The manager explained that the Englewood-Littleton Wastewater Treatment Plant has been advised by the EPA that the connector agreements for entities like Platte Canyon that are outside of the City need to

{00543085.DOCX / } 16

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

be amended so that it is clear that the City of Littleton has full authority to enforce its sanitary sewer regulations within Platte Canyon and all other Littleton connectors.

A proposed form of Addendum to the Sewer Service Connectors Agreement between Platte Canyon and the City of Littleton has been in the drafting process for over a year, and has now been agreed to by all parties. Based upon the manager’s recommendation, a motion to accept the Addendum, and to authorize its execution by appropriate officers of the District, was made by Platte Canyon Director Dursey and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Hamblin. 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

2. Acceptance of Professional Engineering Services Agreement with ENS Consulting for Three Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Projects. The manager explained that, during 2017, Platte Canyon intends to perform three sanitary sewer rehabilitation projects within the Normandy Estates Subdivision, as more particularly identified in a proposed form of Professional Engineering Services Agreement with ENS Consulting, for design and bid services and compensation to be provided at an hourly rate, but not-to-exceed $16,080.00. Construction observation and project administration services would be provided on an as-needed basis, in accordance with ENS Consulting’s standard rates set forth in the Agreement.

Based upon staff’s recommendation, a motion to accept the Agreement, and to authorize its signature by appropriate officers of Platte Canyon, was made by Platte Canyon Director Fohn and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Dursey. The Chair called for a vote, 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. Acceptance of Professional Engineering Services Agreement with ENS Consulting for Platte Canyon Drive Watermain Replacement Project. The manager

{00543085.DOCX / } 17

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

explained that, during 2017, Platte Canyon intends to replace approximately 994 lineal feet of six-inch cast iron pipe in the Columbine Hills Subdivision in West Canyon Drive between West Canyon Avenue and South Depew Street. A proposed form of Agreement for Professional Engineering Services with ENS Consulting for design and bid services, for an amount not to exceed $7,450.00, and for construction observation services, as- needed, was reviewed by the manager. Following a brief discussion, and based upon the manager’s recommendation, a motion to accept the Agreement with ENS Consulting was made by Platte Canyon Director Dursey and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Fohn. The Chair called for a vote, 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

4. Acceptance of Professional Engineering Services Agreement with ENS Consulting for the Morning Glory Lane Watermain Replacement Project. The manager then reviewed with the Platte Canyon Board a proposed form of Agreement with ENS Consulting, LLC for engineering, design and bid services for a watermain replacement project in Morning Glory Lane between Blue Sage Drive and West Berry Avenue for a contract amount not-to-exceed $14,600.00. The Project entails the replacement of approximately 1,946 linear feet of six-inch cast iron pipe with 1,946 linear feet of six-inch PVC pipe. The estimated cost of the Project is $386,038.00.

Based upon the manager’s recommendation, a motion to approve the Agreement with ENS Consulting, for an amount not to exceed $14,600.00, 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

5. Approval of Medical Insurance Benefits for Platte Canyon Staff for 2017. The manager reviewed with the Platte Canyon and Southwest Boards the Platte Canyon 2017 employee health and medical insurance benefit package, which includes

{00543085.DOCX / } 18

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

health insurance provided by United Healthcare, a dental insurance plan, a vision care plan, and short-term disability, long-term disability and life insurance coverages.

The manager asked the Platte Canyon Board to retain all these plans that were in existence in 2016 and, in addition, to amend Platte Canyon’s policy, with respect to the self-insurance payment under the health insurance plan, so that Platte Canyon will pay the first $1,500.00 of the policy deductible for an employee, up to a maximum of $3,000.00/per family, and retain the employee health insurance premium contribution of 10% of dependent coverage premium costs. Platte Canyon currently pays 100% of the premium cost for the Delta dental insurance plan and the VSP vision care plan, as well as 100% of the short-term and long-term disability premiums and life insurance coverage premiums.

At the conclusion of the detailed discussion, a motion to approve the Platte Canyon health and medical insurance benefit package for 2017, as reviewed and described by the manager, 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 the 2017 Employee Salary and Benefit Package for 2017. At this point in the joint meeting, all the Platte Canyon employees left the meeting, as did Richard H. Cassens. The manager then reviewed, in detail, the salary and benefit plan for Platte Canyon’s employees for calendar year 2017. He explained, in detail, the salary ranges that are used for the various job descriptions within Platte Canyon, and the concepts utilized in calculating those salary ranges. He asked the Board for permission to increase those salary ranges by 1.9% to 2.2% from 2016 levels. He also asked that the Board authorize the manager to make individual employee wage adjustments based upon cost of living, longevity, and performance within the ranges established by the Board, and adjusted pursuant to the annual Mountain States Employers Council Salary Survey. In addition, the manager asked the Platte Canyon Board to approve the employee benefit schedule, which was set forth in writing, and which has not changed from 2016. Finally, he asked the Board to consider approval of a merit award to designated employees in recognition of their efforts and performance with an increased workload resulting from the continuing vacancy of the assistant manager’s position.

{00543085.DOCX / } 19

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

The discussion took approximately forty minutes, at the end of which a motion to approve the actions, as requested by the manager and described above, was made by Platte Canyon Director Fohn and seconded by Platte Canyon Director Dursey. 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 Information/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 Southwest Director Hamblin. 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

The Chair then called for a vote of the Platte Canyon Board, and the vote was as follows:

{00543085.DOCX / } 20

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

William Buckner Aye Anthony M. Dursey Aye Louis J. Fohn Aye George E. Hamblin, Jr. Aye Richard Rock Aye

Whereupon, this joint regular meeting of the Southwest and Platte Canyon Boards of Directors adjourned at approximately 11:15 a.m. The next regular joint meeting of the Boards will be held on Friday, January 27, 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

{00543085.DOCX / } 21

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

THE MINUTES OF THIS JOINT REGULAR 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

{00543085.DOCX / } 22

Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Statement of Net Assets December 31, 2016

ASSETS

CURRENT ASSETS Cash - Checking $233,617.73 Petty Cash 150.00 Certificates of Deposit 1,243,000.00 Investments 6,000,000.00 Fair Market Value Adjustment (67,991.33) ColoTrust Plus Account 2,851,139.03 ColoTrust - Trust Account 439,639.58 Cash County Treasury 9,506.82 Accounts Receivable 111,077.61 Property Tax Receivable 1,480,700.00 Prepaid Insurance 60,968.07 Accrued Interest Receivable 21,049.88 Deferred Interest (14,313.66) Total current assets 12,368,543.73

OTHER ASSETS Prepaid Lease (Office/Maint. Building) 365,627.82 Total other assets 365,627.82

CAPITAL ASSETS Land 5,000.00 Mains, Plant Equip. Sewer 9,339,930.27 Mains, Plant Equip. Water 12,183,094.09 Maintenance Equipment 1,431,554.84 District Office Equipment 249,014.56 Software 122,137.79 Pump Station 1,130,888.74 Construction in Process 24,887.60 24,486,507.89 Accumulated Depreciation (14,650,956.57) Total capital assets $9,835,551.32

TOTAL ASSETS $22,569,722.87

UNAUDITED 1 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Statement of Net Assets December 31, 2016

LIABILITIES & NET ASSETS

CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $286,619.53 Salaries Payable 56,222.41 Vacation & Sick Leave Payable 83,981.81 Merit Payable 217,226.50 Deferred Property Tax Revenue 1,480,700.00 Fica Withholding Tax 4,272.74 Colorado Withholding Payable 1,422.00 CCOERA Contributions Payable 3,233.92 Total current liabilities 2,133,678.91 NET ASSETS Net Assets - Beginning of Year Invested in capital assets 9,282,608.97 Restricted 82,500.00 Unrestricted 10,790,260.67 Change in net assets - current year 243,435.47

TOTAL NET ASSETS $20,398,805.11

2 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Statement of Revenue, Expenses, and Changes in Net Assets For the Twelve Months Ending December 31, 2016

OPERATING REVENUE Sewer Transmission Revenue $2,580.00 Contract Maintenance 1,315,502.91 Total operating revenue $1,318,082.91 OPERATING EXPENSES Wages $1,113,326.63 Payroll Taxes 80,413.52 CCOERA Retirement 74,668.29 Personnel Insurance 267,593.04 Communications 21,182.46 Equipment & Vehicles 68,067.10 Insurance 43,755.06 Maintenance Supplies 17,114.58 Depreciation 595,594.42 Office Expenses 82,225.14 Public Relations 12,577.56 Audits 6,800.00 Consulting 6,640.00 Engineering Fees - GIS 28,544.01 Legal Fees 30,370.50 Software Management 50,010.78 Miscellaneous 5,994.57 Sewer Maintenance & Operation 9,206.39 Sewer Contract Remedial 14,773.70 Utility Notification - sewer 2,355.50 Water Maintenance & Operation 9,327.99 Pump Station Maintenance & Operation 16,012.04 Water Contract Emergencies 50,340.62 Water Contract Remedial 71,634.06 Utility Notification - water 2,355.51 Repair and maint - Office/Maint Bldg 47,453.26 Office/Maint Building lease amortization 15,460.44 Total operating expenses 2,743,797.17 (LOSS) FROM OPERATIONS (1,425,714.26)

NONOPERATING REVENUE Tax Revenue 1,602,819.66 Net Investment Income 58,315.56 Gain on disposal of capital assets 26,833.17 Miscellaneous Income 1,475.00 Total nonoperating revenue 1,689,443.39

NONOPERATING EXPENSES Treasurer's Fees 22,293.66 Total nonoperating expenses 22,293.66 INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CONTRIBUTIONS 241,435.47

CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS Tap fees 2,000.00 Total capital contributions 2,000.00

CHANGE IN NET ASSETS 243,435.47 NET ASSETS - BEGINNING OF YEAR 20,155,369.64 NET ASSETS - ENDING $20,398,805.11

3 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures - Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to Annual Budget For the Twelve Months Ending December 31, 2016

CURRENT YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL VARIANCE MONTH ACTUAL BUDGET Favorable (Unfavorable)

REVENUE Taxes $9,508.63 $1,602,819.66 $1,588,662.00 $14,157.66 Contract Maintenance 172,010.77 1,315,502.91 1,157,370.00 158,132.91 Sewer Transmission Fees 2,580.00 2,580.00 Tap Fees - Sewer 2,000.00 12,000.00 (10,000.00) Proceeds from sale of property 26,955.00 8,000.00 18,955.00 Miscellaneous 1,475.00 1,500.00 (25.00) Net Investment Income (61,064.46) 58,315.56 77,824.00 (19,508.44) TOTAL REVENUE $120,454.94 $3,009,648.13 $2,847,936.00 $161,712.13 OPERATING EXPENDITURES PERSONNEL Wages $135,610.49 $1,113,326.63 $1,108,330.00 ($4,996.63) Payroll Taxes 10,490.99 80,413.52 88,120.00 7,706.48 CCOERA Retirement 9,093.54 74,668.29 86,120.00 11,451.71 Personnel Insurance 18,959.64 267,593.04 330,275.00 62,681.96 COMMUNICATIONS Communications 3,158.51 21,182.46 16,200.00 (4,982.46) VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT Vehicles & Equipment 7,946.82 68,067.10 98,500.00 30,432.90 INSURANCE Insurance 3,626.69 43,755.06 47,500.00 3,744.94 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 1,288.74 17,114.58 25,500.00 8,385.42 OFFICE EXPENSES Office Expenses 8,509.17 82,225.14 103,250.00 21,024.86 PUBLIC RELATIONS 3,016.32 12,577.56 15,400.00 2,822.44 PROFESSIONAL & CONSULTING Audit Fees 6,800.00 7,000.00 200.00 Consulting 780.00 10,000.00 9,220.00 Consulting - TAC 5,860.00 7,500.00 1,640.00 Engineering Fees (16.00) 1,000.00 1,000.00 Engineering Fees - GIS 4,988.11 28,544.01 30,000.00 1,455.99 Legal Fees 4,497.00 30,370.50 35,000.00 4,629.50 Software Management 6,585.19 50,010.78 45,000.00 (5,010.78) TREASURERS FEES 0.09 22,293.66 22,376.00 82.34 DIRECTORS FEES 500.00 5,600.00 6,000.00 400.00 MISCELLANEOUS 54.38 394.57 2,750.00 2,355.43 SEWER OPERATIONS Sewer Mntc. & Operation (1,968.40) 9,206.39 18,000.00 8,793.61 Sewer Contract Emergencies 15,000.00 15,000.00 Sewer Contract Remedial 7,646.50 14,773.70 25,000.00 10,226.30 Utility Notification - sewer 57.20 2,355.50 4,000.00 1,644.50 WATER OPERATIONS Water Mntc. & Operation 2,967.49 9,327.99 13,000.00 3,672.01 Pump Station Mntc & Oper. (725.74) 16,012.04 22,000.00 5,987.96 Water Contract Emergencies 26,573.83 50,340.62 55,000.00 4,659.38 Water Contract Remedial 71,634.06 69,000.00 (2,634.06) Utility Notification - water 57.20 2,355.51 4,000.00 1,644.49 REPAIR & MAINT - OFFICE/MAINT BLDG. 24,897.74 47,453.26 99,300.00 51,846.74 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $277,815.50 $2,155,035.97 $2,410,121.00 $255,085.03

4 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures - Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to Annual Budget For the Twelve Months Ending December 31, 2016

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 Normandy Estates Cured In Place Rehab 129,981.27 185,955.00 55,973.73

MAINS, PLANT EQUIP WATER W. Portland Dr. Replacement 29,420.00 29,420.00 194,290.00 164,870.00

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT Maintenance Computer Equipment 5,684.00 7,500.00 1,816.00 Pickup 3/4 ton 4WD 62,283.00 33,000.00 (29,283.00) Other Equipment 45,000.00 52,000.00 7,000.00

DISTRICT OFFICE EQUIPMENT Office Computer Equipment 4,450.25 7,500.00 3,049.75 Copier 9,796.00 15,000.00 5,204.00 Other Equipment/Office Furniture 3,935.50 45,000.00 41,064.50

SOFTWARE GIS Software Office Software 1,460.00 (1,460.00) Maintenance Software

PUMP STATION Col. West Pump Station Improvements 379,954.24 856,648.58 544,045.00 (312,603.58)

CONTINGENCY/EMERGENCY RESERVE 238,709.00 238,709.00 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $409,374.24 $1,148,658.60 $1,347,999.00 $199,340.40 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $687,189.74 $3,303,694.57 $3,758,120.00 $454,425.43

REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES ($566,734.80) ($294,046.44) ($910,184.00) $616,137.56

BEGINNING FUNDS AVAILABLE $10,491,672.41 $10,491,672.41 ENDING FUNDS AVAILABLE $10,197,625.97 $9,581,488.41

5 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to CM/YTD Budget For the Twelve Months Ending December 31, 2016

------CURRENT MONTH------YEAR TO DATE------ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE Favor(Unfavor)

REVENUE Taxes $9,508.63 $23,080.12 ($13,571.49) $1,602,819.66 $1,588,662.00 $14,157.66 Contract Maintenance 172,010.77 175,556.75 (3,545.98) 1,315,502.91 1,157,370.00 158,132.91 Sewer Transmission Fees 2,580.00 2,580.00 Tap Fees - Sewer 2,000.00 12,000.00 (10,000.00) Proceeds from sale of property 666.63 (666.63) 26,955.00 8,000.00 18,955.00 Miscellaneous 125.00 (125.00) 1,475.00 1,500.00 (25.00) Net Investment Income (61,064.46) 6,485.37 (67,549.83) 58,315.56 77,824.00 (19,508.44) TOTAL REVENUE $120,454.94 $205,913.87 ($85,458.93) $3,009,648.13 $2,847,936.00 $161,712.13 OPERATING EXPENDITURES PERSONNEL Wages $135,610.49 $92,360.87 ($43,249.62) $1,113,326.63 $1,108,330.00 ($4,996.63) Payroll Taxes 10,490.99 7,898.37 (2,592.62) 80,413.52 88,120.00 7,706.48 CCOERA Retirement 9,093.54 7,176.63 (1,916.91) 74,668.29 86,120.00 11,451.71 Personnel Insurance 18,959.64 27,522.88 8,563.24 267,593.04 330,275.00 62,681.96 COMMUNICATIONS Communications 3,158.51 1,350.00 (1,808.51) 21,182.46 16,200.00 (4,982.46) VEHICLES & EQUIPMENT Vehicles & Equipment 7,946.82 8,208.26 261.44 68,067.10 98,500.00 30,432.90 INSURANCE Insurance 3,626.69 3,958.37 331.68 43,755.06 47,500.00 3,744.94 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 1,288.74 2,125.00 836.26 17,114.58 25,500.00 8,385.42 OFFICE EXPENSES Office Expenses 8,509.17 8,187.61 (321.56) 82,225.14 103,250.00 21,024.86 PUBLIC RELATIONS 3,016.32 208.37 (2,807.95) 12,577.56 15,400.00 2,822.44 PROFESSIONAL & CONSULTING Audit Fees 6,800.00 7,000.00 200.00 Consulting 833.37 833.37 780.00 10,000.00 9,220.00 Consulting - TAC 5,860.00 7,500.00 1,640.00 Engineering Fees (16.00) 83.37 99.37 1,000.00 1,000.00 Engineering Fees - GIS 4,988.11 2,500.00 (2,488.11) 28,544.01 30,000.00 1,455.99 Legal Fees 4,497.00 2,916.63 (1,580.37) 30,370.50 35,000.00 4,629.50 Software Management 6,585.19 1,000.00 (5,585.19) 50,010.78 45,000.00 (5,010.78) TREASURERS FEES 0.09 10.00 9.91 22,293.66 22,376.00 82.34 DIRECTORS FEES 500.00 500.00 5,600.00 6,000.00 400.00 MISCELLANEOUS 54.38 (54.38) 394.57 2,750.00 2,355.43 SEWER OPERATIONS Sewer Mntc. & Operation (1,968.40) 1,500.00 3,468.40 9,206.39 18,000.00 8,793.61 Sewer Contract Emergencies 1,250.00 1,250.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 Sewer Contract Remedial 7,646.50 2,083.37 (5,563.13) 14,773.70 25,000.00 10,226.30 Utility Notification - sewer 57.20 333.37 276.17 2,355.50 4,000.00 1,644.50 WATER OPERATIONS Water Mntc. & Operation 2,967.49 1,083.37 (1,884.12) 9,327.99 13,000.00 3,672.01 Pump Station Mntc & Oper. (725.74) 1,833.26 2,559.00 16,012.04 22,000.00 5,987.96 Water Contract Emergencies 26,573.83 4,583.37 (21,990.46) 50,340.62 55,000.00 4,659.38 Water Contract Remedial 5,750.00 5,750.00 71,634.06 69,000.00 (2,634.06) Utility Notification - water 57.20 333.37 276.17 2,355.51 4,000.00 1,644.49 REPAIR & MAINT - OFFICE/MAINT BLDG 24,897.74 8,275.00 (16,622.74) 47,453.26 99,300.00 51,846.74 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $277,815.50 $193,864.84 ($83,950.66) $2,155,035.97 $2,410,121.00 $255,085.03

6 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actuals Compared to CM/YTD Budget For the Twelve Months Ending December 31, 2016

------CURRENT MONTH------YEAR TO DATE------ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE Favor(Unfavor)

CAPITAL OUTLAY MAINS, PLANT EQUIP SEWER Sewer Rehabilitation $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 Normandy Estates Cured In Place Reh 129,981.27 185,955.00 55,973.73

MAINS, PLANT EQUIP WATER W. Portland Dr. Replacement 29,420.00 100,000.00 70,580.00 29,420.00 194,290.00 164,870.00

MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT Maintenance Computer Equipment 5,684.00 7,500.00 1,816.00 Pickup 3/4 ton 4WD 62,283.00 33,000.00 (29,283.00) Other Equipment 5,000.00 5,000.00 45,000.00 52,000.00 7,000.00

DISTRICT OFFICE EQUIPMENT Office Computer Equipment 4,450.25 7,500.00 3,049.75 Copier 9,796.00 15,000.00 5,204.00 Other Equipment/Office Furniture 16,000.00 16,000.00 3,935.50 45,000.00 41,064.50

SOFTWARE GIS Software Office Software 1,460.00 (1,460.00) Maintenance Software

PUMP STATION Col. West Pump Station Improvements 379,954.24 (379,954.24) 856,648.58 544,045.00 (312,603.58) EMERGENCIES 19,892.38 19,892.38 238,709.00 238,709.00 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $409,374.24 $165,892.38 ($243,481.86) $1,148,658.60 $1,347,999.00 $199,340.40 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $687,189.74 $359,757.22 ($327,432.52) $3,303,694.57 $3,758,120.00 $454,425.43

REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES ($566,734.80) ($153,843.35) ($412,891.45) ($294,046.44) ($910,184.00) $616,137.56

BEGINNING FUNDS AVAILABLE $10,491,672.41 $10,491,672.41 ENDING FUNDS AVAILABLE $10,197,625.97 $9,581,488.41

7 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Cumulative Monthly Revenues 2016 Compared to 2015

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) 2016 Compared to 2015 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 2016 to December 2016

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 December 31, 2016

CURRENT ASSETS Cash - Checking $6,031.22 Cash - ColoTrust PLUS 2,742,620.94 Cash - Trust Account 3,697,566.11 CD's Non Restricted 2,343,865.02 U.S. Treasuries 16,000,000.00 Fair Market Value Adjustment 126,742.59 Deferred Interest 69,392.41 Accrued Interest Receivable 139,384.70 Accounts Receivable 65,623.01 Prepaid Expenses 10,908.56 Total current assets 25,202,134.56

CAPITAL ASSETS Land and easements 64,818.77 Water System 30,803,585.22 Line Capacity - DWB Contract 4,794,487.22 Const. in Process (W) System 25,555.00 Sewer System 32,798,444.56 Const. in Process (S) System 1,333,872.32 Equipment & Tools 34,346.96 Office/Maint Building 2,422,844.50 Office Equipment & Furniture 33,699.29 72,311,653.84 Accumulated Depreciation (31,943,693.04) Total capital assets 40,367,960.80 TOTAL ASSETS $65,570,095.36

UNAUDITED 1 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Statement of Net Assets December 31, 2016

CURRENT LIABILITIES Accounts Payable $224,190.25 Retainage Payable 39,325.38 Hydrant Deposits 1,450.00 Unearned Backcharges (1,204.96) Warranty Escrow 45,517.25 Total current liabilities 309,277.92

NET ASSETS Net Assets - Beginning of year Invested in capital assets 40,474,175.20 Restricted 25,300.00 Unrestricted 26,433,846.40 Change in net assets - current year (1,672,504.16) TOTAL NET ASSETS $65,260,817.44

2 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Statement of Revenue, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets For the Twelve Months Ending December 31, 2016

OPERATING REVENUE Service fee $179,311.70 Total operating revenue $179,311.70 OPERATING EXPENSES Office Administration $468,894.93 Social Security 428.40 Dues & Seminars 2,079.07 Office Supplies 1,735.06 Election 132.36 Public Relations 32,742.93 Legal Notices - Ads 76.24 Bank Charges 1,456.91 Audit 5,250.00 Legal Services 37,027.66 Legal Fees - Backcharges 6,834.50 Consulting 12,500.00 Engineering - Backcharges 4,310.30 Engineering Water 3,167.85 Engineering Sewer 391.41 Engineering - GIS 35,730.03 DWD collection fees 13,653.00 Insurance & Bonds 12,234.60 Directors Fees 5,600.00 Repairs & Maint - Office/Maint Bldg. 54,995.66 Utilities & Telephone 28,612.74 Miscellaneous 96.00 Amortization - W&S Systems 292,759.92 Depreciation 1,549,357.10 Repairs & Maintenance - Water 309,700.28 R&M (W) - Hogback Pump Station 7,409.19 Utilities - Hogback Pump Station 21,005.40 Telemetry - Hogback Pump Station 3,030.01 R&M (W) Contract - Emergencies 95,789.36 R&M (W) Contract - Remedial 59,064.71 Repairs & Maintenance - Sewer 307,954.81 R&M (S) Flow Meters 8,181.97 Utilities - Flow Meters 1,494.71 Telemetry - Flow Meters 11,586.32 R&M (S) Contract - Remedial 4,884.60 Utility Notification 8,483.40 Total operating expenses 3,408,651.43 (LOSS) FROM OPERATIONS (3,229,339.73) NONOPERATING REVENUE Net Investment Income 96,389.12 Sewer Lease/City of Littleton 15,000.00 Office Rent Income 47,453.26 Plan review and inspections 39,808.11 Other Income 9,913.28 Total nonoperating revenue 208,563.77 Loss on disposal of capital assets 14,122.20 Total nonoperating expenses (14,122.20) INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE CONTRIBUTIONS (3,034,898.16) CAPITAL CONTRIBUTIONS Tap Fees 769,321.00 Contributed Capital 593,073.00 Total capital contributions 1,362,394.00 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS (1,672,504.16) NET ASSETS - BEGINNING 66,933,321.60 NET ASSETS - ENDING 65,260,817.44

3 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures - Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actual Compared to Annual Budget For the Twelve Months Ending December 31, 2016

CURRENT YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL VARIANCE MONTH ACTUAL BUDGET Favorable (Unfavorable)

REVENUE Investment Income ($291,406.86) $96,389.12 $265,350.00 ($168,960.88) Service fee $44,275.03 $179,311.70 $178,340.00 $971.70 Sewer Lease/City of Littleton 15,000.00 15,000.00 Office Rent Income 24,897.74 47,453.26 97,800.00 (50,346.74) Plan Review and Inspections 3,465.97 39,808.11 40,000.00 (191.89) Tap Fees - Water 14,000.00 609,000.00 315,000.00 294,000.00 Tap Fees - Sewer 160,321.00 49,500.00 110,821.00 Other Income 9,913.28 4,500.00 5,413.28 TOTAL REVENUE ($204,768.12) $1,157,196.47 $965,490.00 $191,706.47 OPERATING EXPENDITURES GENERAL OFFICE Office Administration $72,118.01 $468,894.93 $456,750.00 ($12,144.93) Dues & Seminars 2,079.07 2,000.00 (79.07) Office Supplies 1,735.06 2,600.00 864.94 Election 132.36 2,500.00 2,367.64 Public Relations 8,010.66 32,742.93 37,500.00 4,757.07 Legal Notices - Ads 76.24 200.00 123.76 Bank Charges 128.19 1,456.91 (1,456.91) Miscellaneous 96.00 1,550.00 1,454.00 PROFESSIONAL & CONSULTING Audit 5,250.00 6,000.00 750.00 Legal Services 7,984.18 37,027.66 35,000.00 (2,027.66) Legal fees - Backcharges 2,720.00 6,834.50 5,000.00 (1,834.50) Other Consulting 1,000.00 1,000.00 Technical Advisory Committee 12,500.00 15,000.00 2,500.00 Engineering - Backcharges 798.00 4,310.30 6,000.00 1,689.70 Engineering Water 773.00 3,167.85 5,000.00 1,832.15 Engineering Sewer 391.41 5,000.00 4,608.59 Engineering - GIS 6,148.67 35,730.03 30,000.00 (5,730.03) DWD COLLECTION FEE 3,413.25 13,653.00 13,653.00 INSURANCE 1,085.13 12,234.60 13,750.00 1,515.40 DIRECTORS FEES 500.00 5,600.00 6,000.00 400.00 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE 38.25 428.40 480.00 51.60 REPAIR & MAINT - OFFICE/MAINT BLDG. 5,258.44 54,995.66 45,000.00 (9,995.66) UTILITIES & TELEPHONE 2,282.21 28,612.74 32,000.00 3,387.26 WATER OPERATING EXPENDITURES Repairs & Maintenance 43,968.97 309,700.28 320,000.00 10,299.72 R&M - Hogback Pump Station 850.25 7,409.19 12,000.00 4,590.81 Utilities - Hogback Pump Station 2,217.44 21,005.40 27,500.00 6,494.60 Telemetry - Hogback Pump Station 120.82 3,030.01 1,850.00 (1,180.01) R&M Contract - Emergencies 24,506.38 95,789.36 130,000.00 34,210.64 R&M Contract - Remedial 59,064.71 100,000.00 40,935.29 SEWER OPERATING EXPENDITURES Repairs & Maintenance 35,043.29 234,255.81 273,000.00 38,744.19 Ken Caryl - Massey Draw Cost Share 73,699.00 (73,699.00) R&M Flow Meters 8,181.97 5,000.00 (3,181.97) Utilities - Flow Meters 149.03 1,494.71 1,750.00 255.29 Telemetry - Flow Meters 1,061.60 11,586.32 6,000.00 (5,586.32) R&M Contract - Emergencies 20,000.00 20,000.00 R&M Contract - Remedial 4,884.60 50,000.00 45,115.40 UTILITY NOTIFICATION 243.10 8,483.40 8,500.00 16.60 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $219,418.87 $1,566,534.41 $1,677,583.00 $111,048.59

4 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures - Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actual Compared to Annual Budget For the Twelve Months Ending December 31, 2016

CURRENT YEAR TO DATE ANNUAL VARIANCE MONTH ACTUAL BUDGET Favorable (Unfavorable)

CAPITAL OUTLAY

WATER PROJECTS S. Dudley Way Replacement $25,555.00 $11,880.00 ($13,675.00) SEWER PROJECTS Sewer Rehabilitation 25,000.00 25,000.00 Dutch Creek Rehabilitation 163,424.06 921,947.85 814,706.00 (107,241.85) Garrison Ct. Replacement 13,816.01 (13,816.01) Cooper Pl. Replacement 55,264.06 (55,264.06) OFFICE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 140,368.90 249,000.00 108,631.10 CONTINGENCY/EMERGENCIES 156,703.00 156,703.00 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $163,424.06 $1,156,951.82 $1,257,289.00 $100,337.18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $382,842.93 $2,723,486.23 $2,934,872.00 $211,385.77 REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES ($587,611.05) ($1,566,289.76) ($1,969,382.00) $403,092.24

BEGINNING FUNDS AVAILABLE $26,459,146.40 $26,459,146.40 ENDING FUNDS AVAILABLE $24,892,856.64 $24,489,764.40

5 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actual Compared to CM/YTD Budget For the Twelve Months Ending December 31, 2016

------CURRENT MONTH------YEAR TO DATE------ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE Favor(Unfavor)

REVENUE Investment Income ($291,406.86) $22,112.50 ($313,519.36) $96,389.12 $265,350.00 ($168,960.88) Service fee $44,275.03 $44,585.00 ($309.97) $179,311.70 $178,340.00 $971.70 Sewer Lease/City of Littleton 15,000.00 15,000.00 Office Rent Income 24,897.74 54,400.00 (29,502.26) 47,453.26 97,800.00 (50,346.74) Plan Review and Inspections 3,465.97 3,333.37 132.60 39,808.11 40,000.00 (191.89) Tap Fees - Water 14,000.00 14,000.00 609,000.00 315,000.00 294,000.00 Tap Fees - Sewer 160,321.00 49,500.00 110,821.00 Other Income 375.00 (375.00) 9,913.28 4,500.00 5,413.28 TOTAL REVENUE ($204,768.12) $124,805.87 ($329,573.99) $1,157,196.47 $965,490.00 $191,706.47 OPERATING EXPENDITURES GENERAL OFFICE Office Administration $72,118.01 $78,750.00 $6,631.99 $468,894.93 $456,750.00 ($12,144.93) Dues & Seminars 166.63 166.63 2,079.07 2,000.00 (79.07) Office Supplies 216.63 216.63 1,735.06 2,600.00 864.94 Election 132.36 2,500.00 2,367.64 Public Relations 8,010.66 3,125.00 (4,885.66) 32,742.93 37,500.00 4,757.07 Legal Notices - Ads 16.63 16.63 76.24 200.00 123.76 Bank Charges 128.19 (128.19) 1,456.91 (1,456.91) Miscellaneous 129.13 129.13 96.00 1,550.00 1,454.00 PROFESSIONAL & CONSULTING Audit 5,250.00 6,000.00 750.00 Legal Services 7,984.18 2,916.63 (5,067.55) 37,027.66 35,000.00 (2,027.66) Legal Fees - Backcharges 2,720.00 416.63 (2,303.37) 6,834.50 5,000.00 (1,834.50) Other Consulting 1,000.00 1,000.00 Technical Advisory Committee 12,500.00 15,000.00 2,500.00 Engineering - Backcharges 798.00 500.00 (298.00) 4,310.30 6,000.00 1,689.70 Engineering Water 773.00 416.63 (356.37) 3,167.85 5,000.00 1,832.15 Engineering Sewer 416.63 416.63 391.41 5,000.00 4,608.59 Engineering - GIS 6,148.67 (6,148.67) 35,730.03 30,000.00 (5,730.03) DWD COLLECTION FEE 3,413.25 3,413.25 13,653.00 13,653.00 INSURANCE 1,085.13 1,145.87 60.74 12,234.60 13,750.00 1,515.40 DIRECTORS FEES 500.00 500.00 5,600.00 6,000.00 400.00 SOCIAL SECURITY/MEDICARE 38.25 40.00 1.75 428.40 480.00 51.60 REPAIR & MAINT - OFFICE BLDG 5,258.44 3,750.00 (1,508.44) 54,995.66 45,000.00 (9,995.66) UTILITIES & TELEPHONE 2,282.21 2,666.63 384.42 28,612.74 32,000.00 3,387.26 WATER OPERATING EXPENDITURES Repairs & Maintenance 43,968.97 53,000.00 9,031.03 309,700.28 320,000.00 10,299.72 R&M - Hogback Pump Station 850.25 1,000.00 149.75 7,409.19 12,000.00 4,590.81 Utilities - Hogback Pump Station 2,217.44 2,291.63 74.19 21,005.40 27,500.00 6,494.60 Telemetry - Hogback Pump Station 120.82 154.13 33.31 3,030.01 1,850.00 (1,180.01) R&M Contract - Emergencies 24,506.38 10,833.37 (13,673.01) 95,789.36 130,000.00 34,210.64 R&M Contract - Remedial 8,333.37 8,333.37 59,064.71 100,000.00 40,935.29 SEWER OPERATING EXPENDITURES Repairs & Maintenance 35,043.29 51,750.00 16,706.71 234,255.81 273,000.00 38,744.19 Ken Caryl - Massey Draw Cost Share 73,699.00 (73,699.00) R&M Flow Meters 8,181.97 5,000.00 (3,181.97) Utilities - Flow Meters 149.03 145.87 (3.16) 1,494.71 1,750.00 255.29 Telemetry - Flow Meters 1,061.60 500.00 (561.60) 11,586.32 6,000.00 (5,586.32) R&M Contract - Emergencies 1,666.63 1,666.63 20,000.00 20,000.00 R&M Contract - Remedial 4,166.63 4,166.63 4,884.60 50,000.00 45,115.40 UTILITY NOTIFICATION 243.10 708.37 465.27 8,483.40 8,500.00 16.60 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES $219,418.87 $233,136.29 $13,717.42 $1,566,534.41 $1,677,583.00 $111,048.59

6 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Revenue and Expenditures Budget & Actual CM/YTD Actual Compared to CM/YTD Budget For the Twelve Months Ending December 31, 2016

------CURRENT MONTH------YEAR TO DATE------ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE Favor(Unfavor)

CAPITAL OUTLAY WATER PROJECTS: S. Dudley Way Replacement $25,555.00 $11,880.00 ($13,675.00)

SEWER PROJECTS: Sewer Rehabilitation 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 25,000.00 Dutch Creek Rehabilitation 163,424.06 (163,424.06) 921,947.85 814,706.00 (107,241.85) Garrison Ct. Replacement 13,816.01 (13,816.01) Cooper Pl. Replacement 55,264.06 (55,264.06) OFFICE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 80,000.00 80,000.00 140,368.90 249,000.00 108,631.10 CONTINGENCY/EMERGENCIES 13,058.62 13,058.62 156,703.00 156,703.00 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY $163,424.06 $118,058.62 ($45,365.44) $1,156,951.82 $1,257,289.00 $100,337.18 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $382,842.93 $351,194.91 ($31,648.02) $2,723,486.23 $2,934,872.00 $211,385.77 REVENUE OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES ($587,611.05) ($226,389.04) ($361,222.01) ($1,566,289.76) ($1,969,382.00) $403,092.24 BEGINNING FUNDS AVAILABLE $26,459,146.40 $26,459,146.40 ENDING FUNDS AVAILABLE $24,892,856.64 $24,489,764.40

7 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Cumulative Revenues and Operating Expenditures Compared to Budget and YTD Capital Outlay January 2016 to December 2016 $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 December 31, 2016

I nvestment Type Amount Per centage

Cash - Checking $233,718.91 2.17%

Certi f i cates of Deposi t $1,243,000.00 11.56%

Colotrust - Prime 0.00 0.00%

Colotrust - Plus 2,851,139.03 26.51%

ColoTrust - Trust Account 439,639.58 4.09%

Treasury Bills 0.00 0.00%

Treasury Notes 999,395.70 9.29%

U.S. Government Instrumentalities 4,986,290.63 46.37%

Total s $10,753,183.85 100.00%

DISTRIBUTION BY INVESTMENT TYPE: Checking 2% Certificates of Deposit 12% ColoTrust 31% U.S. Government Instrumentalities 46% Treasury Notes 9% Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of I nvestment Balances December 2016

**T-Bills Activity**

DATE OF DATE OF FACE BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHA SE MATURITY YIELD AMOUNT 11/30/16 M PURCHA SES MATURITIES 12/31/16

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

* * T r easur y Note Activity* *

DATE OF DATE OF FACE BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHA SE MATURITY YIELD AMOUNT 11/30/16 M PURCHA SES MATURITIES 12/31/16 06/09/14 06/30/17 0.870% $ 1,000,000.00 $ 999,291.63 $ 104.07 $ - $ 999,395.70

$ 1,000,000.00 $ 999,291.63 $ 104.07 $ - $ 999,395.70

* * Agency Activity* *

DATE OF DATE OF FACE BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHA SE MATURITY YIELD AMOUNT 11/30/16 M PURCHA SES MATURITIES 12/31/16

FHLB 07/01/16 12/28/18 1.083% $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,003,410.66 $ (139.67) $ - $ 1,003,270.99 FHLMC 07/02/13 06/11/19 1.928% 500,000.00 493,144.48 230.50 0.00 493,374.98 FHLMC 11/27/13 06/11/19 1.800% 1,000,000.00 989,284.38 360.29 0.00 989,644.66 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 $ 4,985,839.52 $ 451.12 $ - $ 4,986,290.63 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of I nvestment Balances December 2016

* * Cer tificate of Deposit Activity* *

DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHA SE MATURITY YIELD PRI NCI PA L 11/30/16 PURCHA SES MATURITIES 12/31/16

Centenni al Bank 01/07/16 01/07/17 0.6000% 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.00 0.00 249,000.00 Fowl er State Bank 04/03/16 04/03/17 0.8500% 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 Sol era Nati onal Bank 04/19/14 04/19/17 0.9000% 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.00 0.00 249,000.00 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 Flatirons Bank 09/22/16 10/06/18 0.7500% 145,000.00 145,000.00 0.00 0.00 145,000.00

$ 1,243,000.00 $ 1,243,000.00 $ - $ - $ 1,243,000.00 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of I nvestment Balances December 2016

**ColoTrust PRIME**

DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHA SE MATURITY YIELD 11/30/16 PURCHA SES REDEMPTIONS 12/31/16

ColoTrust Prime 11/30/16 12/31/16 0.0500% $ - $ - $ - $ -

$ - $ - $ - $ -

**ColoTrust PLUS**

DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHA SE MATURITY YIELD 11/30/16 PURCHA SES REDEMPTIONS 12/31/16

ColoTrust Plus 11/30/16 12/31/16 0.8800% $ 3,223,892.49 $ 2,246.54 $ 375,000.00 $ 2,851,139.03

$ 3,223,892.49 $ 2,246.54 $ 375,000.00 $ 2,851,139.03

* * ColoTrust - Trust Account* *

DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHA SE MATURITY YIELD 11/30/16 PURCHA SES REDEMPTIONS 12/31/16

ColoTrust Plus - UMB 11/30/16 12/31/16 0.8800% $ 422,956.49 $ 16,683.09 $ - $ 439,639.58

$ 422,956.49 $ 16,683.09 $ - $ 439,639.58 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Schedule of I nvestment Balances Summary by M onth of M aturity at Par Value 12/31/16

Jan-17 $3,539,778.61 Feb-17 0.00 M ar-17 0.00 Apr-17 349,000.00 M ay-17 0.00 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 0.00 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 Beyond 2,500,000.00

Total $10,533,778.61

A verage Y i el d 1.1918%

Estimated Income/Month $10,462 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Distribution by Maturity:

$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 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% Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 2016 Platte Canyon Water & Sanitation District Five Year Investment Balance Comparison

$10,800,000.00

$10,700,000.00 10,753,183.85

$10,600,000.00 10,638,608.41 10,578,981.67 10,577,598.38 $10,500,000.00

$10,400,000.00

$10,300,000.00 Investment Balance

$10,200,000.00 10,198,279.68 $10,100,000.00 10,158,436.63

$10,000,000.00

$9,900,000.00

$9,800,000.00 Dec 2011 Dec 2012 Dec 2013 Dec 2014 Dec 2015 Dec 2016 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedul e of I nvestment Bal ances Investments Held by Type As of December 31, 2016

I nvestment Type Amount Per centage

Cash - Checking $6,031.22 0.02%

Certi f i cates of Deposi t $2,341,537.80 9.42%

Colotrust - Prime 0.00 0.00%

Colotrust - Plus 2,742,620.94 11.03%

ColoTrust - Trust Account 3,697,566.11 14.88%

Treasury Bills 0.00 0.00%

Treasury Notes 6,025,522.25 24.24%

U.S. Government Instrumentalities 10,043,870.16 40.41%

Total s $24,857,148.48 100.00%

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** December 2016

DATE OF DATE OF FACE BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD AMOUNT 11/30/16 PURCHASES MATURITIES 12/31/16

01/01/02 01/02/02 0.000% $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

$ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

* * Treasury Note A cti vi ty* * December 2016

DATE OF DATE OF FACE BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD AMOUNT 11/30/16 PURCHASES MATURITIES 12/31/16 06/13/14 12/31/16 0.677% 2,500,000.00 2,500,402.36 (402.36) 2,500,000.00 0.00 04/16/14 10/31/17 1.066% 1,000,000.00 997,176.87 262.03 0.00 997,438.90 04/06/11 02/15/21 3.463% 5,000,000.00 5,028,661.43 (578.08) 0.00 5,028,083.35

$ 8,500,000.00 $ 8,526,240.66 $ (718.41) $ 2,500,000.00 $ 6,025,522.25

**Agency Activity** December 2016

DATE OF DATE OF FACE BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD AMOUNT 11/30/16 PURCHASES MATURITIES 12/31/16

Federal Farm Credi t Bank 05/02/11 04/06/20 3.530% $ 1,000,000.00 $ 1,050,378.46 $ (1,278.01) $ - $ 1,049,100.45 Federal Home L oan Bank 07/19/16 01/19/21 1.429% 3,000,000.00 2,996,557.75 70.67 0.00 2,996,628.42 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 1,998,107.34 33.95 0.00 1,998,141.29 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 $ 10,045,043.55 ($1,173.39) $0.00 $ 10,043,870.16 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedul e of I nvestment Bal ances

**Certificate of Deposit Activity** December 2016

DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD PRI NCI PA L 11/30/16 PURCHASES MATURITIES 12/31/16

Centenni al Bank 01/05/16 01/05/17 0.6000% 249,000.00 249,000.00 0.00 0.00 249,000.00 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 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 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** December 2016

DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD 11/30/16 PURCHASES REDEMPTIONS 12/31/16

ColoTrust Prime 11/30/16 12/31/16 0.0500% $ - $ - $ - $ -

$ - $ - $ - $ -

**ColoTrust PLUS** December 2016

DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD 11/30/16 PURCHASES REDEMPTIONS 12/31/16

ColoTrust Plus 11/30/16 12/31/16 0.8800% $ 2,960,499.39 $ 2,121.55 $ 220,000.00 $ 2,742,620.94

$ 2,960,499.39 $ 2,121.55 $ 220,000.00 $ 2,742,620.94

* * ColoTrust - Trust Account* * December 2016

DATE OF DATE OF BALANCE AT ADDITIONS/ BALANCE AT PURCHASE MATURITY YIELD 11/30/16 PURCHASES REDEMPTIONS 12/31/16

Col oTrust Pl us UM B 11/30/16 12/31/16 0.8800% $ 1,185,778.14 $ 2,511,787.97 $ - $ 3,697,566.11

$ 1,185,778.14 $ 2,511,787.97 $ - $ 3,697,566.11 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedule of I nvestment Balances Summary by M onth of M aturity at Par Value 12/31/2016

Jan-17 $6,689,187.05 Feb-17 0.00 M ar-17 0.00 Apr-17 0.00 M ay-17 0.00 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 Beyond 14,000,000.00

Total $24,781,724.85

A verage Y i el d 1.7626%

Estimated Income/Month $36,401 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

$40,000,000.00

$35,000,000.00 36,670,885.41 34,917,561.93

$30,000,000.00 31,935,908.37 29,231,919.59 $25,000,000.00 25,961,316.19

$20,000,000.00 Investment Balance

$15,000,000.00

$10,000,000.00

$5,000,000.00

$0.00 Dec 2011 Dec 2012 Dec 2013 Dec 2014 Dec 2015 Dec 2016

Manager’s Information Report Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District January 2017

Personnel Matters (PC and SWM)

Michael Roberts with Human Resources Advisors of Colorado and I have decided to broaden the search for the assistant manager position, so Mr. Roberts has placed an advertisement for the position with several sources. He is receiving and reviewing the applications and conducting preliminary interviews with viable candidates. I have interviewed three candidates to date and will be interviewing two additional candidates the week of January 16. An update on the search for an assistant manager will be provided during the upcoming meeting.

Armando Quintana was recognized in December for exceptional customer service for assisting a Southwest Metropolitan customer in terminating water service that was causing damage to the basement of the customer’s property. Following the service termination, Mr. Quintana continued to provide assistance and advice to the customer until the situation was resolved. The customer contacted Scott Hand to thank the District and Mr. Quintana for helping to avoid additional property damage.

Employee Training and Certifications

2017 Budgets (PC & SWM)

Notice for the public hearing to consider adoption of the budget has been published in the Littleton Independent and the Columbine Courier. The hearing is scheduled for the November 18 Board meeting. The Southwest Metropolitan budget has been amended in accordance with the Board’s discussion and direction to staff during the October meeting. No changes have been made to the Platte Canyon budget.

December 2016: The mill levies for Platte Canyon, Platte Canyon Subdisrtrict No. 1 and Subdistrict No. 2 have been filed with Jefferson and Arapahoe Counties. A zero mill levy has been certified for Southwest Metropolitan to Arapahoe, Jefferson and Douglas Counties. The budgets will be filed with the Colorado Division of Local Government prior to December 31.

January 2017: The budgets have been filed with the Colorado Division of Local Government concluding the budget process for 2017.

1

Insurance (PC & SWM)

Platte Canyon received a Workers’ Compensation Premium Cost Containment Program Certificate which is effective for a three year period beginning October 27, 2016. The certificate enables the District to obtain a five percent premium on its workers’ compensation policy premium.

The Special District Association Property and Liability Insurance Pool policies for Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan have been renewed for 2017 at a cost of $37,104 for Platte Canyon and $9,022 for Southwest Metropolitan. Platte Canyon’s premium fell by 2.34 percent while Southwest Metropolitan’s increased by 7.14 percent as a result of increases in property and no fault liability coverages.

Long Term Financial Plans (PC and SWM)

The Long Term Financial Plans for Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan will be updated in early 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 (PC & SWM)

District staff initiated an extensive customer outreach effort in 2012 when it became obvious that Southwest Metropolitan was going to need additional revenue due to outsized capital project expenditures and historically low interest rates. Alyssa Quinn and Scott Morse developed a letter of introduction, a brochure and a PowerPoint presentation (PPP) to pursue opportunities to explain how each District operates, who they serve and where the revenue comes from to pay for District services. The presentation was given to several homeowner associations and service groups in 2012 and 2013.

In 2014, the outreach program was expanded with an effort to contact various media outlets to disseminate information pertaining to District operations and finances. The effort has been successful in getting articles published in the Your Hub section of the Denver Post along with local publications such as the Littleton Independent, Columbine Courier, and The Villager.

In 2015, Ms. Quinn continued to build on her relationship with local published media outlets, local homeowners associations, and regional service organizations. In addition, Ms. Quinn began a research to determine the benefits and issues involved with pursuing the use of social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) to enhance our efforts to provide pertinent and timely information to our customers. Barrie Brinkley also continued to update each District’s website on at least a weekly basis and to prepare four newsletters each year for each District.

2

January 2016: Alyssa Quinn is in the process of updating the list of homeowner association (HOA) and civic group contacts for Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan. This list is helpful to the operations staff when working on maintenance and repair activities in communities with private roads and common areas controlled by HOAs. It is also used by Ms. Quinn to periodically contact these groups to offer presentations on District activities and functions.

April 2016: District personnel have fielded a number of inquiries about the new Denver Water rate structure. The customers we have worked with have either received no response, or an inadequate response from Denver Water. I have attached some information we provided to one Southwest Metropolitan customer who asked about Denver Water’s statement that an “average” sized residential property can maintain a healthy lawn with 15,000 gallons of water per month, the allowance granted to all residential customers at the tier two rate. We calculated this customers annual water cost under the new and old water rate structure. I have attached this information because it highlights the consequences of the new structure in shifting more of the cost burden from large lot and high consumption customers to smaller lot owners. This is likely to become more controversial as low consumption customers begin to receive bills under the new structure.

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.

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

3

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.

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

4

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.

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.

Chatfield Ave. Water Main Relocation in Conjunction with Jefferson County Road Reconstruction (SWM)

Jefferson County has informed us they are in the process of designing a major reconstruction of Chatfield Ave. between Kendall St. and Marshall St. Southwest Metropolitan owns an eight inch water main in Chatfield that may need to be relocated in conjunction of the project. During discussion of this matter at the January board meeting, the Southwest Metropolitan Board directed staff to proceed with negotiations with the County to relocate the water main under the County’s policy to pay 50% of the project’s cost. We have since learned that the County may be proposing

5

relocation of a portion of the water main due to a conflict with a proposed storm sewer pipe. We have notified the County that we expect them to pay 100% of the cost for any water main relocation necessitated by storm sewer construction. Tony Cocozzella is continuing to discuss options and cost sharing arrangements with County representatives.

March 2016: Tony Cocozzella is continuing to have discussions with Brad Bauer relative to replacing the water main in Chatfield Ave. and, if so, how the costs would be shared between the County and Southwest Metropolitan. It now appears that a portion of the water main will need to be relocated due to a conflict with a proposed storm sewer pipe. It is our position that the county should be responsible for the full cost of this portion of the project since it is not necessitated by road work. We will continue to inform the Board on the status of staff’s negotiations as they move forward.

April 2016: We are continuing to negotiate with Jefferson County for an acceptable cost sharing arrangement that would allow us to replace some, or all of the water main in Chatfield Ave. between Kendall and Marshall. A portion of the pipe may have to be replaced due to a conflict with a proposed storm sewer. We believe this is covered by the County policy on utility replacements necessitated by road work. The only question is whether the County should pay 50% or 100% of the cost. If the storm sewer is an integral part of the road rehabilitation, the County would be required to pay 50%, whereas if the storm sewer is a separate project and financed from other than road funds the County should pay 100%.

Unfortunately, the representative from the Road and Bridge Department we have been working with has determined that the County is not obligated to pay for any of the water main relocation costs. We have requested the help of Tim Flynn to talk to the County attorney to help guide the road and bridge employee to a more reasonable and practical solution. Tony Cocozzella will talk more about this during the meeting.

May 2016: The Road and Bridge Department appears to be coming to the conclusion that the County has an obligation to pay 50% of the cost to relocate the water main that is in conflict with a proposed storm sewer. They remain adamant that they have no responsibility to relocate the second water main segment that will not require relocation due to the road o storm sewer project, but may pose a risk due to future leaks. District staff will provide an update and seek Board direction during the May meeting.

June 2016: As discussed during the May Board meeting, District staff have informed Jefferson County that Southwest Metropolitan will pay 50 percent of the cost ($7,500) to design the relocation of the both segments of the District’s water main in Chatfield Ave. between Platte Canyon Rd. and Marshall St. Subsequent to completion of the design, the District will authorize construction of Segment 1 conditioned on the County’s agreement to pay 50 percent of the cost of construction, and will authorize construction of Segment 2 if an acceptable cost sharing agreement can be reached with the County. The County has initiated design of the water main relocation.

July 2016: We are waiting for the County’s consulting engineer to complete the design for the water main relocation before proceeding with an intergovernmental agreement describing how the costs for the water main relocation will be shared between Southwest Metropolitan and the County.

6

August 2016: Jefferson County’s consulting engineer has completed the design for the relocation of Southwest Metropolitan’s water main, however we have not received a review copy yet. Once we receive the design we will be able to consult with Tim Flynn and the County’s attorney on the preparation of an intergovernmental agreement to specify a cost sharing arrangement as well as construction responsibilities.

September 2016: Tony Cocozzella is coordinating the review of the water main relocation with Kennedy/Jenks Consultants. He has requested, but has not yet received, a proposal for sharing the cost of the water main relocation.

October 2016: Tony Cocozzella has received a cost sharing proposal from Jefferson County and has some questions that he is attempting to resolve before we indicate our acceptance of the proposal. Mr. Cocozzella will be able to offer more information during the October meeting.

November 2016: The cost sharing proposal received from Jefferson County is in line with the proposal we made back in March. Mr. Cocozzella has conveyed his acceptance to Jefferson County road and bridge staff and they will now work with the County to prepare an intergovernmental agreement for Southwest Metropolitan’s consideration.

December 2016: A draft intergovernmental agreement prepared by Jefferson County has been submitted to Tim Flynn for review. It is anticipated that the IGA will be presented to the Southwest Metropolitan Board of Directors for approval in January 2017.

January 2017: Tim Flynn has proposed revisions to an intergovernmental cost sharing agreement prepared by Jefferson County. We are awaiting a response to the proposed revisions from the County’s attorney.

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.

7

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.

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.

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.

8

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.

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.

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

9

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 (Attachment 1). 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.

Vistas at Stony Creek Clubhouse Sewer Main Extension (SWM)

Southwest Metropolitan has become embroiled in a dispute between two homeowner associations over extension of a sewer main to provide sewer service to a proposed clubhouse. Vistas at Stony Creek (Vistas) intends to construct a clubhouse on their property which is adjacent to Advantage at Stony Creek (Advantage) property. The least expensive and best alternative to provide sewer service to the proposed facility calls for installation of a sewer service pipe from the clubhouse to an existing Southwest Metropolitan sewer main located in an easement on Advantage property. This would require Vistas to obtain an easement from Advantage, and Advantage has refused to grant the easement. Since the sewer main is located within an easement granted to Southwest, the main could be extended within the easement into Vistas property. The main would be owned and operated by Southwest once installed. Once the sewer main is extended into Advantage property, Advantage could then purchase a sewer tap permit and connect to the sewer main.

Advantage has submitted plans for extending the sewer main, just as any developer is allowed to do. As a courtesy, the plan was referred to Vistas for comment. They responded with a letter from their attorney claiming that the District does not have the right to install or allow others to install

10 a new sewer main in the easement. We have referred the letter to Tim Flynn for a determination of the District’s rights. After Tim’s review, if we allow Vistas to proceed we intend to require them to execute an agreement in which they would hold the District harmless from any claims for damages and indemnify the District against any legal action that might result from the sewer main installation.

October 2016: The District has responded to the letter received from the attorney for Advantage at Stony Creek Homeowners Association by clarifying and reiterating the District’s rights granted in the sewer easement recorded several years ago. The response also emphasized the fact that the proposed construction of a new sewer main could be avoided if the Advantage would grant a narrow easement to the Vistas to make a single connection to the existing sewer main. Tim Flynn is now preparing an Application and Agreement for Sewer Main Extensions to set forth the rights, obligations, and responsibilities of the Vistas and the District for construction of the sewer main. Pending execution of the agreement, and approval of the sewer main design plans, construction will be allowed to proceed.

December 2016: Tim Flynn is completing the Applications and Agreements for Sewer Main Extensions and Tony Cocozzella is preparing a letter to alert residents of the Advantage HOA of the impending sewer project. Sewer main construction plans have been approved and construction will be allowed to begin once the Applications and Agreements are executed.

January 2017: A notice of the impending sewer construction project has been sent to all property owners in the Advantage at Stony Creek Homeowners Association. There appears to be no interest from either the Advantage or the Vistas communities in resolving their disagreements and allowing a single sanitary sewer service connection to the sewer main located in the Advantage at Stony Creek development. Given the lack of an agreement, the Vistas at Stony Creek Homeowners Association is proceeding with their plan to extend Southwest Metropolitan’s sewer main to their property boundary to provide for a sewer connection at that point.

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

11

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 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

12

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, 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.

13

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 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.

14

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 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.

15

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.

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.

16

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 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.

City of Littleton Sewer Rates (PC and SWM)

Littleton City Council on October 15, 2013 adopted an ordinance increasing sewer service charges for all inside city and outside city customers by 2% effective with the 2014 sewer billing. Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan single family rates will rise e $4.35 from $217.52 to $221.87.

Multi-family rates will increase $3.70 from $184.89 to $188.59. A copy of the City Council Communication describing the rate increase is available upon request.

November 2013: I have requested from Littleton’s finance director a breakdown of the City’s sewer fund revenues and expenditures between inside City and outside City. This information is requested each year to help us determine whether outside City customers are subsidizing inside

17

City customers. Doug Farmen has agreed to supply the requested information prior to year-end.

January 2014: Doug Farman, Littleton finance director, has submitted information showing the breakdown of the City’s sewer fund revenue and expense accounts between inside and outside City customers. I will review the submittal to confirm that outside City customers are not subsidizing inside City customers.

October 2014: Littleton staff have proposed a two percent sewer rate increase for 2015. The rate increase will be imposed equally on both in-city and outside-city customers. City Council indicated during City budget discussions that the rate increase is acceptable, however formal consideration will not occur until later this year.

February 2015: Littleton City Council amended the city ordinance that requires sewer rates to be adopted by ordinance. Rather, future changes to sewer rates will be adopted by resolution. Immediately following the approval of the changes to City Code, the Council adopted a resolution calling for a sewer rate increase of two percent for 2015 for both inside-city and outside-city customers. Now that the rates for 2015 have been set, I will again ask Doug Farman to provide a report on cost allocation between inside and outside city customers.

June 2015: The City of Littleton has submitted the sewer rate comparison information as requested. I am in the process of reviewing the information and will inform the Boards of the result of my analysis in the near future.

September 2015: I have completed a review of the information submitted by Doug Farman relative to inside and outside city sewer revenues, expenditures and rate differentials. There was little subsidization to either customer group in 2013 or 2014, but 2015 may be different. The estimated expenses for 2015 for inside city collection system maintenance and capital improvements show $1 million projected for sewer lining projects. Approximately $600,000 of this amount exceeds inside city revenues and will thus be funded by outside city revenues. I have advised Mark Relph, Littleton Public Works Director that we will monitor these expenses and resist the use of outside city revenue to pay for internal city collection system maintenance and improvements.

November 2015: Littleton City Council on October 13 adopted a 2.0% across the board sanitary sewer rate increase for all inside city and outside city customer classes. The annual charge for Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan single family users will increase from $226.31 to $230.84, a $4.53 increase from 2015.

October 2016: During a meeting conducted on October 11, Littleton City Council held a lengthy discussion on the sewer utility fund, potential large increases in Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant capital expenses, and the need to generate additional revenue for repair of Littleton’s sewer collection system. Treatment plant capital costs required by standards imposed by the recently issued draft discharge permit may result in multi-year sewer rate increases of seven percent beginning in 2018. Following the council meeting, the interim city manager met with me to discuss the connector district’s position on future capital expenditures and whether or not we would support and participate in a comprehensive sewer rate study. I advised the city manager that Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan have promoted a sewer rate study for several years

18 and all connector districts contributed to such a study about six years ago because the city refused to proceed. The study was submitted to the city and was largely ignored. Despite past disagreements I assured the city manager that we will strongly support a rate study as long as we are allowed to participate in its development. Regarding capital expenditures, Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan strongly support the expenditure of funds necessary to maintain the continued reliable, environmentally sound and effective operation of the plant.

I was pleasantly surprised that the city manager reached out to the connector districts to inform us of current and future issues facing the city and the treatment plant, and is willing to contract for a professional sewer rate study with connector district involvement.

November 2016: Littleton City Council will be considering an ordinance calling for the sewer utility billing system to be updated to include the cost of treatment, collection and total cost, and for those costs to be displayed on utility bills. We have been requesting that the City breakout collection system costs which only apply to city residents from treatment costs that apply to all city and collector district users for many years. The City has consistently opposed our requests in the past so I am pleased that the proposal is now being seriously considered.

January 2017: The Littleton City Council adopted Resolution No. 56 approving a budget for the Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plan. The most interesting part of the resolution stated, “The City Council has determined it is in the best interest of all ratepayers to separate the cost of treatment versus the cost to operate, maintain and improve through capital construction the systems necessary to collect and transport the discharge for treatment.” Further, the resolution states, “The utility billing system all be updated at a point in time that is practicable for implementation and shall include the cost of treatment, collection and total cost, and to be displayed on utility bills.” Subsequent to adoption of the budget resolution, City Council approved a two percent increase in sewer rates for 2017 for both inside city and connector district customers. To date there has been no further information regarding plans to proceed with a sewer rate study or a new billing system.

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 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.

19

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.

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.

20

Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sewer Service Fee (Surcharge)

A request to increase Southwest Metropolitan’s water and sewer fee commensurate with the resolution adopted by the Board during the November meeting has been sent to Denver Water. The surcharge agreement between Southwest and Denver Water requires 60 days’ notice prior to implementation of the increased charge. I have requested that the 60 notice period be waived so the charge can be implemented on January 1, 2017. Denver Water is evaluating the request and has indicated they will respond favorably if there is sufficient manpower to accommodate the necessary billing system amendments.

January 2017: Denver Water has waived the requirement for 60 days’ notice prior to implementation of changes in the service fee and will impose the new fee effective January 1, 2017.

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.

Intergovernmental Services

Bow Mar Water and Sanitation District

Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Pretreatment Program

Platte Canyon staff are working with the Tim Flynn for Bow Mar 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.

21

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 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.

April 2016: Bow Mar has received the “final” draft of the Pretreatment Addendum from Littleton– Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant (Plant) pretreatment staff. None of the changes requested by Tim Flynn on behalf of Platte Canyon, Southwest Metropolitan, Bow Mar and Valley were made to the draft Addendum. I have informed Plant staff that the District’s attorney and District staff cannot recommend approval of the Addendum to the Board of Directors until changes are made, or a meeting is convened to discuss the District’s concerns.

December 2016: The version of the Pretreatment Addendum that has been accepted by Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan will be submitted to the Bow Mar Board of Directors for approval at the January board meeting. Since Bow Mar has sewer connectors’ agreements with both Littleton and Englewood, the Board will be asked to execute an Addendum with each city.

January 2017: The Bow Mar Board approved the Addendums (one for Englewood and one for Littleton) and they have been transmitted to the respective cities for approval and signature.

Columbine Water and Sanitation District

Columbine Sewer Construction Standards and Specifications

Columbine does not have its own set of sanitary sewer standards and specifications. When needed, Platte Canyon staff have referenced Platte Canyon standards as being applicable for work done in Columbine. Tony Cocozzella is now preparing standards and specifications for Columbine which will be submitted to the Columbine Board for approval at their next meeting.

April 2016: The standards have been completed and sent to the Board for review and approval.

May 2016: The Columbine Board of Directors will consider adoption of the sewer standards during the next Board meeting scheduled for June 3.

June 2016: During the Board meeting on June 3, the Board requested a brief presentation on the proposed sewer standards. Rich Cassens and Tony Cocozzella will attend the September Board meeting to summarize the standards and respond to questions.

August 2016: the Board will consider adoption of the draft sewer standards during the September 2, 2016 meeting.

September 2016: The September Board of Directors meeting was cancelled so the sewer specifications will not be considered until the next regular meeting on December 2.

22

December 2016: The Board of Directors tabled adoption of the sewer standards during the December 2, 2016 meeting and will now take it up during the next meeting in March 2017.

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 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.

23

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.

Lochmoor Water and Sanitation District

No activity to report

Valley Sanitation District

Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Pretreatment Program

Platte Canyon staff are working with Tim Flynn, the attorney for Valley, to review and comment on a proposed addendum to the District’s Wastewater Connectors Agreement with the City of Englewood. 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.

February 2015: Combined comments prepared by Tim Flynn and I were sent to Englewood Littleton pretreatment staff.

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 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.

April 2016: Valley has received the “final” draft of the Pretreatment Addendum from Littleton– Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant (Plant) pretreatment staff. None of the changes requested by Tim Flynn on behalf of Platte Canyon, Southwest Metropolitan, Bow Mar and Valley were made to the draft Addendum. I have informed Plant staff that the District’s attorney and District staff cannot recommend approval of the Addendum to the Board of Directors until changes are made, or a meeting is convened to discuss the District’s concerns.

December 2016: The version of the Pretreatment Addendum that has been accepted by Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan will be submitted to the Valley Board of Directors for approval at the January board meeting.

January 2017: The Valley Board of Directors approved the Addendum to its sewer connector’s agreement with the City of Englewood on January 11, 2017.

24

Sewer Service Fee and Pipe Condition Assessment

Scott Hand and Scott Morse are conducting an assessment of concrete sewer pipe in the Valley District. Recent sewer video inspections have revealed some deterioration of the concrete pipe that may require rehabilitation within the next few years. While we do not suspect an immediate need to perform system rehabilitation we want to develop a schedule for the Board of Directors to consider. Valley has only a minimal cash reserve and it is likely that some form of revenue enhancement will be necessary to conduct the amount of rehabilitation that we believe will be necessary.

July 2013: Similar to the Columbine Water and Sanitation District, Valley has a considerable amount of 8-inch concrete pipe that is deteriorating due to hydrogen sulfide attack. Valley has over 42,000 feet of such pipe that will likely cost in excess of $1,350,000 to rehabilitate. Unfortunately, Valley has only a small capital reserve and, despite the obvious need to rehabilitate its concrete pipe, would likely find it difficult to obtain approval of a mill levy increase. Platte Canyon staff is reviewing alternative revenue enhancement measures including a possible surcharge to City of Englewood sewer service billings to Valley customers. We are also evaluating the condition of the concrete pipe to prepare a prioritized capital improvement plan.

September 2013: Unfortunately, Valley does not have funds available to rehabilitate its deteriorating concrete sewer pipe. The Board recognizes the importance of moving forward with rehabilitation so it has requested that Platte Canyon assist in researching and implementing one or more forms of revenue enhancement. Platte Canyon staff will research and present alternatives to the Valley Board as time allows.

January 2014: District staff is working with Tim Flynn to prepare a resolution to establish a District owned enterprise that would receive revenue from a surcharge imposed on customers’ sewer bills. The revenue would be used exclusively for capital improvements, including the rehabilitation of concrete pipe owned by the District.

February 2014: A resolution to create an enterprise for the purpose of collecting sewer service charge revenue to be used exclusively for capital projects has been submitted to the Valley Board of Directors. A decision on adoption of the resolution will be made at the Board’s February meeting. If adopted, Platte Canyon staff will work with the City of Englewood to impose a surcharge on Valley customers’ sewer bills. The revenue will be used to rehabilitate the District’s concrete sewer pipe.

March 2014: The Valley District Board adopted a resolution establishing a Wastewater Enterprise to allow the District to develop a revenue source for capital projects that is not subject to TABOR limitations. Platte Canyon staff will now work with the City of Englewood to implement a sewer surcharge to be billed on District customer sewer bills processed by Englewood. The surcharge will provide a reliable, consistent source of revenue to fund rehabilitation of the District’s concrete sewer pipe which is beginning to deteriorate due to age and hydrogen sulfide gas attack. District staff will also assist the Valley District Board in conducting a customer outreach program to inform residents of the planned sewer surcharge.

25

April 2014: I had a preliminary discussion with the Valley Board of Directors relative to imposing a sewer service surcharge on customer sewer bills to generate revenue for sewer rehabilitation projects. Based on this discussion Scott Morse and I will prepare a limited number of billing alternatives to the Board. When a decision is made to proceed with the surcharge we will work with the City of Englewood to bill District residents and remit the revenue to the District. It is unlikely that all of the administrative and contractual matters will be accomplished prior to the 2014 Englewood sewer billing, so we are working to impose the charge in 2015.

May 2014: Platte Canyon staff will propose to the Valley Board of Directors that they proceed with the implementation of a sewer service charge based on a percentage of the amount billed by the City of Englewood for sewer treatment services. The revenue will be used to rehabilitate deteriorating concrete pipe in the District. The total cost for the proposed rehabilitation is $1.3 million. Based on a moderate surcharge of approximately $20 per year per residence, the project will take over 15 years to complete.

June 2014: The Valley Board of Directors has agreed to proceed with all necessary steps to impose a sewer service fee on all District customers. The steps include holding a public hearing to consider a change in fees, charges, and rates as required by state law, and entering into an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Englewood to process the service charge on Valley customer sewer bills. The funds generated by the service charge will be retained by the Valley Sewer Enterprise and used for capital projects including rehabilitation of aging concrete pipe.

July 2014: The Valley Board of Directors has scheduled a public hearing to consider imposition of a sewer surcharge on City of Englewood sewer bills during the Board’s August meeting. At that time, the Board will consider adoption of a surcharge of 10% of the amount charged by Englewood which will be approximately $20 per year for the average residential customer. The funds will be used to rehabilitate aging concrete pipe which is showing signs of corrosion and deteriorating structural integrity.

August 2014: During its meeting on August 13 the Valley Board of Directors approved imposition of a sewer service surcharge on City of Englewood sewer bills at the rate of 10% of the amount of Englewood’s sewer bill. The Valley sewer fee will be approximately $22.00 per residential customer, but will fluctuate because Englewood’s sewer charge is based on water consumption during winter months. The service fee will be imposed on Valley customer sewer bills beginning in 2015. It is expected to generate approximately $60,000 per year and will be used to rehabilitate 42,000 feet of concrete sewer pipe.

September 2014: Scott Morse is working with the City of Englewood to implement the Valley surcharge. Some of Valley’s customers are billed annually by Englewood while other customers who receive water service from Englewood are billed on a bimonthly basis. As a result, the programing and all administrative issues must be completed prior to year-end 2014 to impose the surcharge in 2015.

November 2014: the City of Englewood is on schedule to implement the Valley service fee by January 1, 2015. Barrie Brinkley is producing a newsletter for Valley to explain the recently adopted service fee to District customers.

26

February 2015: The surcharge is being assessed by Englewood on sewer bills which are combined with City of Englewood water bills for those Valley customers that receive water service from the City. Valley customers who receive water service from Denver Water receive an annual sewer bill in the fall which will include the Valley surcharge.

March 2015: Platte Canyon staff are looking into the possibility of applying for a revolving fund loan from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority to conduct the rehabilitation of all of Valley’s concrete sewer pipe within the next two years rather than phase the rehabilitation over several years as currently proposed. A decision whether to pursue a loan will be made by the Board within the next few months.

December 2015: Vanessa Shipley was recently advised that there is no revenue from the surcharge to be emitted to Valley. All revenue received by Englewood from Valley customers is first applied to the total amount owed to the City. When the obligation to the City is fulfilled, the excess or surcharge revenue is remitted to the District. While deferred customer payments delay the receipt of revenue by the City, the City ultimately collects all revenue billed by submittal of unpaid amounts to the county assessor for collection as a property tax assessment. So, Valley will ultimately receive all of the surcharge revenue billed by the City.

February 2016: Following further discussions between Vanessa Shipley and City of Englewood staff, the city has agreed to submit partial payment of surcharge revenue to Valley. The city is undergoing some staff changes and when completed Ms. Shipley and I will seek changes in the way surcharge revenue is processed and distributed to the District.

April 2016: Ashley Dalton is preparing an application to put Valley on the Colorado Clean Water Revolving Fund list for a loan to rehabilitate 42,000 feet of 8-inch concrete pipe that is deteriorating due to age and hydrogen sulfide attack. The District will have to seek voter approval for the loan and establishment of a mill levy to retire the debt. Mr. Dalton will work with Tim Flynn to prepare for a TABOR election as early as November 2016.

May 2016: Mr. Dalton is continuing to pursue various financing options, many of which will require a TABOR election in the fall or spring of 2017. The Board has asked Platte Canyon staff to pursue addition customer outreach to advise customers about the condition of the District’s sewer system and the need for rehabilitation in the immediate future.

July 2016: Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant staff reported a very high concentration of hydrocarbons entering the plant over the July 4 weekend. The problem was traced back to a Valley Sanitation District sewer manhole near the abandoned landfill south of Oxford Ave. and west of the South Platte River which is known to be leaching methane into the sewer main and/or manholes. The hydrocarbon levels spiked for about four hours at a concentration much higher than what has been observed in the past, leading us to believe the problem may have been caused by illegal dumping into Valley’s sewer system. District staff have discussed the situation with treatment plant staff and have agreed to jointly monitor the situation. If another spike is observed we will increase monitoring efforts.

27

In the meantime, Ashley Dalton is continuing to pursue a Clean Water Revolving Fund loan to relocate the portion of the sewer main located within the abandoned landfill. Valley’s Board of Directors has authorized us to assist with preparation for a TABOR election to incur debt and repay the debt with a dedicated mill levy increase.

August 2016: The Valley Board of Directors was pursuing a TABOR election to 1) incur debt and secure repayment with a property tax mill levy and 2) de-bruce the District’s revenue (retain and spend initiative). Given the lengthy and complicated ballot for this November’s election, the Board decided to postpone the election until November 2017. This may delay the District’s ability to receive loan funds from the state, but it provides more time to educate the voters on the need for the loan and additional revenue to repair portions of the District’s sewer system.

November 2016: Vanessa Shipley has requested a number of reporting and billing improvements from the City of Englewood to improve the amount and timeliness of information to the District. Progress has been slow due to staff changes and Englewood’s antiquated billing and reporting process.

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.

28

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 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

29

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.

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.

30

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.

January 2017: See discussion above in the Outfall Sewer Rehabilitation section.

Denver Water Department Matters

Board - Distributor Communication

The December Distributor Forum meeting was cancelled. The January Forum meeting was held on January 17 and included a presentation by Katie Ross from Denver Water on revisions to Denver Water’s Engineering Standards. Chris Piper, Denver Water’s legislative liaison provided a presentation on legislation being considered by the Colorado General Assembly.

A Denver Water CEO/Manager breakfast has been scheduled for February 3, 2017 at the City of Lakewood Cultural Center.

Cost of Service Study for 2016 and 2017 Rates

Denver Water staff have not yet begun work on the 2016 Cost of Service Study. Todd Cristiano has advised me that the cost of service study will be prepared for the existing rate structure and two alternative rate structures. The Board of Water Commissioners will then make a decision on which alternative to implement in 2016.

September 2015: Presentation of the 2016 rate proposal has been delayed until September 23 at which time Denver Water rate staff will present at least two alternatives based on different rate structures. It is anticipated that staff will recommend a rate increase of between 2% and 5%.

October 2015: Submittal of a rate proposal has been delayed again and is now scheduled for October 28. As noted above, it is expected that alternative rate structures will be submitted to the Board for review. The alternatives are supposed to be revenue neutral and they are expected to incorporate a 3.6% overall increase in revenue.

31

November 2015: As noted above, Denver Water staff proposed a rate increase and revised rate structure to the Board of Water Commissioners on October 28. The overall rate increase is 3.8% with some minor differences between various customer classes. It is difficult to determine the impact on individual customers due to the implementation of the new rate structure which consists of a higher service charge, reduced increase in consumption charges and a change in the four tier rate structure to three tiers. Some customers who use less than the average amount of water will experience a decrease in their annual water charges.

December 2015: A rate proposal for 2016 will be presented to the Board of Water Commissioners for approval on December 16. Distributors have not been informed that the proposal will be any different than the one presented to the Board on October 28. That proposal called for a 3.8% revenue increase and the rate structure alternative endorsed by distributors and the Rates and Fees TAC.

January 2016: Denver Water has advised distributors that it has developed and will soon launch a comprehensive customer outreach plan to explain the new rate structure. A Denver Water representative is scheduled to discuss the plan during the January 19 Distributor Forum meeting. February 2016: See discussion regarding ongoing meetings between Denver Water staff and the Rates and Fees TAC under the Rates and Fees TAC section.

August 2016: Denver Water has already decided to delay implementation of any rate increase for 2017 to April 1, 2017 rather than January 1. Work on the 2017 Cost of Service Study will commence at the end of September.

October 2016: Denver Water has notified distributors that there will be a three percent revenue increase from rates in 2017. The actual rate increase for each customer class has yet to be determined. A copy of Denver Water rate staff’s presentation to the Board of Water Commissioners describing the preliminary financial plan for 2017 – 2022 is available upon request.

November 2016: Since Denver Water staff and the TAC have not been able to reach a compromise on the additional amount methodology, but are continuing to work toward an accommodation, the parties have agree to submit a “status quo” proposal to the Board on November 16 along with three other rate proposal alternatives. The goal is to have the Board provide some direction as to what they find acceptable and allow the parties to continue to work on a joint proposal by December 14 when the Board is scheduled to adopt a final rate proposal for 2017.

December 2016: The 2017 rate proposal will be presented to the Board of Water Commissioners on December 14. In addition to a 3.0% revenue increase, the proposal incorporates the unit cost of service multiplier methodology supported by the Rates and Fees TAC. Information on rate proposal is available upon request. A Read and Bill customer’s rates for consumption of 115,000 gallons per year will be only $1.00 higher than a City of Denver customer’s rates.

January 2017: The rate proposal described above was adopted by the Board of Water Commissioners on December 16. A copy of the rate schedule that becomes effective on April

32

1, 2017, and a copy of a Denver Water article pertaining to the rate schedules are attached hereto as Attachment 2.

Moffat Collection System – Gross Reservoir Expansion Project

The purpose of the Moffat Collection System project is to develop 18,000 acre feet of new annual firm yield to the Moffat Treatment Plant and raw water customers upstream of the Moffat Treatment Plant. In October 2003, the U.S. Corps of Engineers (COE) conducted a public consultation to satisfy National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. A project scoping report was issued in December 2003. Dozens of project alternatives have reviewed and it is anticipated that a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) listing three or four final alternatives will be issued in mid-2007. A final EIS is scheduled to be completed by year end 2007. The Scoping Report and additional project information is available at www.denverwater.org/MOFFAT_EIS html.

The Board of Water Commissioners selected the large Gross Reservoir expansion as the preferred Moffat Collection System alternative. The formal announcement and filing of the decision with the Bureau of Reclamation will be made when the draft environmental impact statement is completed. The draft EIS is scheduled for completion in 2009.

In May 2008, Denver Water initiated the process necessary to amend its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for Gross Reservoir. The amendment is needed to proceed with the reservoir expansion project. In July 2008, a Pre-Application Document (PAD) for the FERC Permit was published for review and comment.

Additional information pertaining to the Gross Reservoir Enlargement Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) permit is posted on the Denver Water website at www.denver.org under the “Public Notices” and “Gross Reservoir FERC Amendment” tabs.

August 2009: The Board of Water Commissioners formally selected the Gross Reservoir enlargement of 72,000 acre feet as the preferred alternative for the Moffat Collection System project. The Board directed staff to file a Section 404 permit application for the preferred project alternative. Denver Water staff reports that the draft EIS will be released for public comment by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers this September.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project in November 2009. Public hearings were held in Boulder, Granby, and Denver in early December 2009. Letters from Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan supporting the Moffat Collection System project were submitted to the Corps in March 2010. The DEIS is available for viewing or download at www.denverwater.org/moffat.

The Corps determined that additional studies are needed to fully address possible project impacts. The studies are being directed by the Corps and will be completed in 2011. The primary issues

33

raised in the comments relate to water quality, groundwater, aquatic resources, flow-related impacts, construction concerns, cumulative effects and mitigation of impacts.

July 2011: The Colorado Wildlife Commission approved the Moffat Collection System Project Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan on June 9, 2011. The Plan will now be submitted to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) for approval. When it is approved by CWCB, the Plan will be transmitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as the official state position for mitigation for the Moffat Project.

November 2011: Work is continuing on additional environment impact studies to address issues raised by EPA. The main issue is the potential impact (or lack thereof) on wetlands adjacent to the Fraser River from reduced flows in the river during certain times of year. Studies indicate there will be NO impact yet EPA is requesting that the project permit contain a reopening clause that would reduce or eliminate project yield should there be an impact on the wetlands in future years. This is totally unacceptable to Denver Water.

January 2012: Speaking at the January 17, 2012 meeting of the Distributor Forum, Jim Lochhead expressed increasing frustration with federal agencies involved in the permitting process for the Moffat Collection System project. The time taken to acquire necessary federal permits now exceeds the Two Forks Reservoir permitting process. Further, over $13.0 million has been spent to date. A final Environmental Impact Study is not expected to be release prior to 2013, and there are now calls to reconsider some of the environmental studies because they have “become stale”. Mr. Lochhead indicated that Denver Water is increasing its communication with Colorado’s congressional delegation in an attempt to pressure federal agencies to expedite the completion of the EIS.

July 2012: Governor Hickenlooper recently sent a letter to President Obama in support of the Moffat Collection System Project. The letter urges the President to exercise his authority to coordinate federal agencies to bring about an “expeditious conclusion to the federal permitting processes”. Environmental studies for the Moffat project now exceed the length of time it took to produce a final Environmental Impact Study for Two Forks Reservoir. A copy of the Governor’s letter is available upon request.

November 2012: The Colorado Environmental Coalition (CEC) and other environmental groups have sent a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers opposing Governor Hickenlooper’s request that the Environmental Impact Statement be expedited. The CEC is opposed to “fast-tracking” completion of the EIS because, in their opinion, there are a number of unresolved issues that require more detailed analysis. This claim is made despite the fact that the Moffat EIS has already taken longer than the EIS for Two Forks Reservoir and has been amended a number of times to respond to requests for additional data and analysis.

January 2013: Denver Water negotiated on extensive intergovernmental agreement with Boulder County staff to address mitigation for Gross Reservoir expansion. The agreement was drafted to resolve a host of issues and concerns expressed by County staff and Commissioners relative to the proposed Moffat Collection system project. A large contingent of staunch environmentalists organized opposition and testified against the agreement during the public hearing held to receive

34 comments on the agreement. Despite a very generous mitigation package, and a recommendation from County staff to approve the agreement, the Board of County Commissioners refused to approve it. Denver Water staff has indicated that they will seek direct discussions with County Commissioners, one of which took office after the decision was made to not approve the agreement. Denver Water staff has also reported that it is unlikely that the County can halt the project or impose mitigation measures more extensive than those proposed in the intergovernmental agreement since the project’s Federal Energy Regulatory Commission permit takes precedence over the County’s 1041 regulatory authority. A Boulder Daily Camera article describing the public hearing and the commissioner’s decision together with a Denver Post editorial supporting the Moffat Collection System project is available upon request.

March 2013: The US Army Corps of Engineers issued a press release on March 4, 2013 stating that the Moffat Collection System Project Final EIS will be completed in February 2014. Recall that Governor John Hickenlooper requested that President Obama use his authority to coordinate federal agencies to bring an expeditious conclusion to federal permitting process for the project. Apparently, the Corps has a different interpretation of the work “expeditious”. The EIS has been in process since 2003. Denver Water CEO/Manager Jim Lochhead issued the following statement in response to the Corps’ press release:

“We are pleased to see the state and federal agencies come together to commit to a sound timeline for the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System Project next February.

We’re in the second year of a severe drought. If the Moffat Project were in place today, we would have been able to store more water during the high flow runoff two years ago that we could now use. In a dry year like this one, we would not be diverting additional water under this project.

Moreover, under the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement, we would actually be giving water back to the environment in this dry year. As a result, Denver Water’s Moffat Project would be a win-win for this state: it would make possible our ability to benefit the environment in dry years like this one, and it would bring additional water for our metro area, which we desperately need in this drought.”

The Board of Water Commissioners approved on February 27, 2013 an increase of $1,591,992 in the URS Engineering contract for the EIS. The total cost of the contract is now $9,811,799.

August 2013: A letter to the editor criticizing the Moffat Project appeared in the Denver Post on July 26, 2013. The letter was written by Drew Peternell, director of Trout Unlimited’s Colorado Water Project. Denver Water had recently agreed to work with Trout Unlimited on project mitigation measures and attempt to resolve ongoing concerns. Denver Water staff is upset that the letter appeared without warning and without acknowledgment of Denver’s agreement to work with them.

35

September 2013: I have encouraged Jim Lochhead to convene a meeting of Denver Water distributor elected officials to explain the status of the Moffat project so they can better understand the implications of some of the criticism and proposed mitigation measures being advanced by opposition groups. Seemingly simple solutions such as guaranteed minimum stream flows on the Fraser River would destroy the yield and financial viability of the project, yet the general populace does not understand the impact of such a proposal. Elected water district and municipal officials should have more knowledge regarding these issues so they can better inform their constituents as the project moves forward.

October 2013: Denver Water responded to the above referenced letter to the editor prepared by Drew Peternell with a blog posting on Denver Water’s website. The response was unfortunately not sent to the Denver Post. A copy of the Peternell’s letter and Denver Water’s blog post is available upon request.

February 2014: The release of the Environmental Impact Statement has been delayed by the Corps of Engineers to April 2014. In the meantime, I am continuing to press Denver Water to convene a meeting with distributor representatives and elected representatives to provide information about the project in anticipation of a media campaign by individuals and groups opposed to the project. Recently, Trout Unlimited conducted a silly media blitz involving an individual dressed as a fish holding a sign reading, “will work for water.”

March 2014: Denver Water achieved a significant accomplishment recently by reaching agreement with Trout Unlimited and Grand County on a mitigation plan for the Moffat Collection System Project. Trout Unlimited has been one of the most vocal and aggressive opponents of the project, and Grand County has a large influence on the development and acceptance of the final project mitigation plan. The recent mitigation agreement coupled with the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement, which committed West Slope entities to not oppose the project, greatly increases Denver Water’s chance of success in obtaining a positive Record of Decision and permit for the project later this year. The ACOE is scheduled to release the final EIS in mid-April, and issue a record of decision and permit in late 2014 or early 2015. (Copies of articles relating to the Trout Unlimited, Grand County and Denver Water Agreement together with an Executive Summary of the Agreement are available upon request.

Denver Water engineering staff provided an excellent presentation to the Distributor Forum in February on the status of the Moffat Collection System Project. A significant amount of preliminary engineering work is being done now in anticipation of receiving federal permits for the project. The presentation included a discussion of a number of critical issues that Denver Water is working to resolve in order to receive permits and move forward with design and construction, one of the most important of which is determining the method for raising Gross Reservoir Dam. If roller compacted concrete is used to raise the dam, it will be one of the most extensive roller compacted concrete jobs ever attempted. Staff also touched on the project budget which has increased from $183 million in 2006 to over $300 million today. Finally, an internet link was provided for a San Diego, California project similar to the Gross Dam project. The link is http://www.sdcwa.org/san-vicente-dam-raise.

36

April 2014: Denver Water worked with Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and the Colorado Wildlife Commission to develop an official state position for the Moffat Collection System Project’s Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan. In addition to the Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan, Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water Conservation District Municipal Subdistrict (Subdistrict) submitted Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Plans (Enhancement Plans) to improve existing aquatic habitat in the mainstem of the Colorado River between Windy Gap Reservoir and the Kemp-Breeze State Wildlife Area. The Enhancement Plans identify a combined $6.0 million in funding for initial construction and $1.5 million for adaptive management and/or maintenance for the Upper Colorado River Habitat Project. Denver Water and the Subdistrict have also agreed, when possible, to provide in-kind service (such as labor, equipment, and materials) to help maximize the value of the funds contributed by the parties. [from Denver Water Board Item]

Under the Enhancement Plan, and committed through an Intergovernmental Agreement between CPA and Denver Water, Denver Water will pay $2.0 million for its share of the Upper Colorado River Habitat Project.

May 2014: The final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Moffat project was released by the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) on April 25. A scheduled 45 day comment period will likely be extended due to the length and complexity of the EIS. It is anticipated that the Corps will issue a Record of Decision on the project in 2015. The EIS is available for review or download at http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/ cdm/ref/collection/p16021coll7/id/720. A copy of the Executive Summary is available from District staff upon request. A brief summary of the project prepared by Denver Water together with three recent newspaper articles are available upon request.

June 2014: Denver Water staff provided a briefing on the status of the Moffat Collection System Project during the June Distributor Forum meeting. I have been critical of Denver Water for not providing more information to distributors so they can respond to questions and concerns about the project received from their customers. Denver Water believes that it is better to work individually with groups that oppose the project rather than to publicly promote the project. I do not agree with Denver Water’s position and have encouraged staff to at least provide more information to distributors so they are informed about important project developments and can communicate them to their customers, even if Denver Water chooses not to do so with their own customers.

September 2014: As a clear indication that there are still major hurdles to overcome before the Moffat project is fully permitted and ready to move forward with design and construction, I have attached Boulder County’s letter commenting on the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Among other ridiculous notions, Boulder County seems to be demanding that the project be fully designed and every conceivable impact known, addressed and mitigated before permits are issued. The time and expenditure to comply with these requirements would be tremendous and foolish without some assurance the project will be allowed to proceed. Further, many of the issues outlined in the letter were addressed in a draft mitigation agreement between Boulder County and Denver Water that Boulder County staff had recommended to the Board of County Commissioners about a year ago. The Commissioners refused to approve the agreement and have not pursed serious negotiations since then.

37

July 2015: The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Moffat Collection System Project has once again been delayed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to allow more time to wrap up paperwork. “Denver Water has to obtain a water quality certification from the state and they have to obtain a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,” according to Rena Brand, ACOE project manager. “They also have some other permissions they need to obtain – one is through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service addressing endangered species. And there’s also some cultural resources permissions and documents that need to be written up,” Brand said. The ROD is now expected to be issued sometime this fall.

November 2015: Denver Water staff provided a comprehensive status report on the Moffat and Gross Reservoir expansion project during the October Distributor Forum meeting. Subsequent to the meeting, the Army Corps of Engineers announced another delay in releasing the Record of Decision to sometime in 2016.

April 2016: A Colorado Water Court approved an agreement between Grand County and Denver Water accepting Denver Water’s obligation to release 2,000 acre-feet of water between the Colorado River and tributaries of the Fraser River. The water will come from Denver Water’s Moffat Collection System in the Fraser Valley and Williams Fork Reservoir. The releases are contingent upon the permitting and construction of the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project. Denver Water has also agreed to provide delivery of 375 acre-feet of water to various Grand County water users for municipal purposes and snow making. The Court Decree moves Denver Water one step closer to obtaining approval of the Moffat/Gross Reservoir Expansion Project.

July 2016: The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment issued a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for the Gross Reservoir Enlargement project. All necessary permits from Colorado agencies have now been obtained leading Governor Hickenlooper to formally endorse the project. The Governor has directed all state agencies to work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in its review and issuance of a Section 404 Permit for the project. The Corps is expected to complete its review and issue a record of decision later this year. A copy of the Governor’s letter is available upon request.

January 2017: Following the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver Water filed an application for a necessary permit for the Gross Reservoir Expansion from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. A copy of a notice from Denver Water announcing the filing is attached hereto as Attachment 3.

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 coordinate development of a water festival which would be available to the entire Denver Water

38

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.

February 2014: A copy of Denver Water’s year end fixture rebate and retrofit program report is available upon request. Alyssa Quinn has requested that Denver Water produce a report showing the breakdown of rebates issued to Denver and individual distributor customers.

March 2014: Denver Water has reported that the water conservation rebate program is being done electronically (internet) and paper applications for rebates are no longer being produced. If customers do not have internet access, Denver Water customer service staff will prepare the application based on information supplied by the customer over the telephone.

May 2014: Denver Water has issued its summer watering rules for 2014. There are no mandatory restrictions, but the standard efficiency rules will apply and be enforced. The 2014 rules have been posted to the Districts’ websites, and Denver Water has mailed a copy to all District customers.

July 2014: A copy of an article on Denver Water’s water conservation efforts that recently appeared in a national water conservation journal is available upon request.

August 2014: A copy of the Denver Water Fixture Rebate and Retrofit Program Report for the second quarter of 2014 is available upon request.

September 2014: Denver Water is required to update its State approved Water Conservation Plan in 2014. Distributors, through the leadership of Alyssa Quinn, chair of the Distributor Water Conservation Subcommittee, has been requesting that distributors be fully engaged in the review and revision of the plan. It was, therefore, a surprise to us when Denver Water conservation staff attended a Citizens Advisory Committee meeting and stated that the plan was updated and would be submitted to the Board of Water Commissioners soon for approval. I expressed my disappointment to Jim Lochhead and Jeff Tejral, manager of water conservation. Mr. Tejral stated that there had been miscommunication because Denver Water decided to make only minor changes to the existing conservation plan, but pursue additional revisions and updates in a water conservation operating plan which distributors would be directly and comprehensively involved. Ms. Quinn will now attempt to hold Mr. Tejral to his word and pursue participation in the development of the operations plan.

October 2014: The Water Conservation Operating Plan will be presented to distributors during the October 21 Distributor Forum meeting. The draft plan has also been submitted to the Distributor Water Conservation Subcommittee for review and comment.

39

November 2014: A copy of the Denver Water Fixture Rebate and Retrofit Program Report for the third quarter 2014 is available upon request.

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.

A copy of the fourth quarter 2016 and annual 2016 water conservation rebate report for Denver and distributor entities is attached hereto as Attachment 4.

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

40 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 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.

41

Forests to Faucets Partnership

Since 2010 Denver Water has cooperated with the U.S. Forest Service and the Colorado State Forest Service to implement forest and watershed health projects to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, and restore forests impacted by catastrophic wildfire events. A renewal of the partnership for the period 2017–2021 was approved by the Board of Water Commissioners in December. Denver Water will commit $16.5 million to the program, and the other partners will match Denver Water’s investment for a total value of $33 million. The program proposes treatment of 40,000 acres of critical watershed.

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.

42

Littleton - Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Matters

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

43

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 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.

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

44 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.

Treatment Plan 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 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.

45

Compliance Inspection

On October 23, a compliance inspection of the treatment plant was conducted by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division. The inspection reviewed biosolids disposal, storm water compliance, records review, a review of 2015 sanitary sewer overflows and a plant walkthrough. No compliance issues were identified.

Nutrient Treatment

Littleton/Englewood treatment plant staff have proposed expenditure of $450,000 in 2016 for nutrient treatment that will be necessary to meet upcoming water quality standards. Mark Relph, Littleton public works director, reported during the September supervisory committee meeting that Littleton City Council will not approve the expenditure without a work plan to challenge the nutrient regulation. Staff will work with David Robbins, plant general counsel, to determine the actions that would be necessary to challenge the standard.

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. A Colorado Legislative Report will be sent separately from the manager’s report.

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:

46

• 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.

47

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

48

from downstream states. The draft also included a section on land use and its relation to water 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.”

49

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.

50

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 (Attachment 5).

Colorado River District - Colorado River Development and Curtailment Risk Study

The Colorado River District has obtained funding from the CWCB’s Water Supply Reserve Account and the West Slope river basin accounts to pursue a study of on future Colorado River development and curtailment of risk. The River District cited the need for more technical data and

51

modeling so that the West Slope river basins can better understand and discuss issues surrounding future Colorado River development, the risk to existing water users and implementation of the framework principles included the Colorado Water Plan. The study will address two major questions:

1. What is the likelihood that Lake Powell will drop below elevation 3525 feet under a range of selected water supply and water demand scenarios? 2. Evaluate how often and by how much water users of Colorado River water in Colorado would have to reduce demands/cut consumptive uses to maintain Lake Powell elevation levels above 3525 feet. Provide an indication and evaluation of the “risk” to existing uses at different levels of future demand.

August 2016: The Colorado River District recently released its Colorado River Risk Study report. The report points out that the 2000-2006 drought in the Colorado River Basin was absorbed by water stored in Lake Powell, meaning that no restrictions were placed on water deliveries even though supply was well below water deliveries. The report goes on to say that should a similar drought occur now Lake Powell would be drained and severe water restrictions would have to be placed on water deliveries. Power generation would also be halted resulting in loss of revenue used to manage and operate federal Colorado River Basin reservoirs.

January 2017: Four Western Slope basin roundtables have requested $10,000 each, $40,000 total, from the Colorado Water Conservation Board to proceed with the second phase of the curtailment of risk study. In response to the request, Jim Lochhead has written a letter to the Board arguing that such a study would be best conducted at a statewide or Upper Colorado River Basin level, “with all interested water users represented, rather than by particular sub-regions or individual roundtables.” He also expressed concern that assumptions used in phase one of the study “may be creating biased impressions regarding the amount of the reaming developable water” in the Colorado River Basin, and that phase one may be viewed by some outside the state “as representative of the State of Colorado’s position on remaining developable water.”

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.

52

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 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

53 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 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.

54

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. 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

55

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.

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]

56

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 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.

57

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, 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.

S. 2848 Water Resources and Development Act (WRDA)

This bill authorizes $9.0 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers, including $4.5 billion for the study and construction of new public works and environmental restoration projects. The legislation would:

58

• Establish, for the first time, a Clean Water Trust Fund. The Fund would be initially funded by contributions from a voluntary labeling system. • Require EPA to conduct a study on the potential role of low-income assistance programs to support full cost pricing for water and sewer rates. • Require EPA to update its 1997 affordability guidance. • Codify Integrated Planning into the CWA. • Codify the use of compliance schedules, when used in conjunction with an integrated plan, to achieve water quality standards into the CWA. • Direct EPA to further promote the use of green infrastructure • Authorize $1.8 billion for the CWA’s sewer overflow control grant program to address CSO, SSO and stormwater discharges. This is the first time Congress has ever authorized funds for this program. • Authorize, in the wake of Flint, $300 million in new funding to reduce lead in drinking water. • Authorize $5 million a year for innovative water technology grants, including for water reuse/water recycling, and authorize an additional $48 million for water desalinization programs.

July 2016: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released it score for the 2016 Senate WRDA on June 17, finding that the bill, as written, has no budgetary impact and would not increase the federal deficit. The bill has now been placed on the legislative calendar and Senate leadership is able to call it up for debate and a vote.

September 2016: The full Senate is poised to approve the Water Resources and Development Act the week of September 9. There appears to be sufficient bipartisan support to approve the bill and send it to the House. The House version of WRDA, H.R. 5303, passed out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in May but has not yet been scheduled for a floor vote.

January 2017: Prior to adjournment in December, Congress passed a revised version of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). While the final WRDA package does not include many of the Clean Water Act policy reforms from an earlier Senate version that most water and wastewater utilities strongly supported, it does contain some positive developments for utilities, and will set the stage for further advancements and policy changes in the future. The final bill, known as the Water Infrastructure Improvements for our Nation Act (WIIN), provides important funding for water infrastructure, ecosystem restoration, reuse and desalination. The bill provides $170 million through the Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund program to Flint, Michigan to replace lead water service lines and other programs to reduce lead in drinking water. The bill also includes a “sense of Congress” to initially appropriate $20 million for the WIFIA loan program.

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

59

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 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. 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).

Federal Regulation

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 60

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 . . .”

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

61

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.

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.

62

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 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.

63

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.”

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.

64

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 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.

65

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 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.

66

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 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.

67

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 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

68

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 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.

69

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 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

70

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.”

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. 71

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 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

72

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 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

73

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 2017, 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.

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.

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

74

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.

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

75

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 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

76

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- 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

77

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.

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.

78

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 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.

79

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.

Federal Litigation

Satellite Sewer Systems (Charles River Pollution Control District v. EPA)

EPA’s environmental Appeals Board (EAB) heard oral arguments on December 11, 2014 in a permit appeal over efforts by EPA Region 1 to include satellite collection systems as co-permittees in a federally-issued discharge permit for a regional wastewater treatment facility. The key issue presented in the Charles River Pollution Control District appeal is whether EPA can forcibly include satellite systems as co-permittees in a permit when neither the satellites nor the treatment facility has requested the inclusion of the collection systems.

The EAB judges were reportedly skeptical during the hearing about many of the arguments advanced by EPA Region 1 in defense of the permit. In particular, the judges noted that the satellite systems had not applied for the permit, and thus their inclusion in the permit was a potential violation of EPA’s own permitting regulations. The judges also expressed concern about whether the satellites had received sufficient notice that they would be included in the permit. It is likely a decision in the case will be issued in early 2015.

February 2015: EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) denied a request for review on February 4 of a municipal wastewater discharge permit that included satellite systems as co- permittees along with the utility owning the treatment plant. The ruling comes despite the fact that neither the satellite systems nor the treatment utility had requested, and in fact oppose, the co- permittee provisions. Charles River Pollution Control District is considering whether to appeal the decision of the EAB.

Should the EAB decision stand and be applied in EPA Region 8, Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan could be required to become co-permittees with Littleton Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant on its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Discharge Permit making the Districts subject to all Clean Water Act regulations.

80

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 jur,isdictional 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]

D. Joseph Kurtz v. Kimberley-Clark Corporation and Costco Wholesale Corporation

A class action lawsuit was brought against the Kimberly-Clark Corporation and the Costco Wholesale Corporation in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York on February 21, 2014 on behalf of consumers that have experienced plumbing problems in their home plumbing

81

due to wipes that are labeled flushable. The lawsuit asks for $5 million due to the “deceptive, improper or unlawful conduct in the marketing, manufacturing, distribution, and sale of flushable wipes,” in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New York Deceptive Practices Act General Business Law. The lawsuit also states that the “Defendant’s conducts also constitutes negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, as well as a breach of express warranties.” The extensive press coverage that has occurred in the last year was is referenced in the lawsuit allegation.

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.

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.

82

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.

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

83

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.

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

84

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.

Columbia Riverkeeper v. U.S. EPA

Environmentalists have filed a series of now-consolidated challenges seeking to require eight hydroelectric dams in Oregon and Washington to obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) discharge permits for various releases of grease, oil and thermal pollution which if successful could force thousands of similar dams across the county to obtain discharge permits. The Environmentalists argue that release of oil or other lubricants from turbines, gates and various types of sumps into the rivers requires National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) permits.

85

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

86

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.”

Litigation Involving Clean Water Act Point Sources

Federal courts have rejected separate efforts by environmentalists to define coal-loading facilities and chemically-treated utility poles as "point sources" that require Clean Water Act (CWA) permits -- rulings which could limit the impact of an earlier case regulating pesticide spraying that industry feared could subject other unregulated sources, such as power plants, farms and fertilizer applications, to regulation.

In an April 3 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit dismissed a suit that sought to require discharge permits for utility poles because "the poles are not 'discernible, confined and discrete conveyance[s]'" that channel and control stormwater. And in Alaska, a federal judge March 28 used similar reasoning to reject environmentalists' attempt to sue coal and railroad companies for coal and coal dust deposition from a loading facility under the CWA, saying that the wind -- which deposits coal in surface waters near the challenged facilities -- can never be a "point source" of water pollution.

"The coal carried to the Bay by the wind as airborne dust cannot constitute a point source discharge... wind is the polar opposite of a 'discernible, confined and discrete conveyance,'" District Judge Timothy M. Burgess, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, wrote in his March 28 ruling granting partial summary judgment to industry defendants in Alaska Community Action on Toxics, et al. v. Aurora Energy Services, LLC, et al

General Federal Related Matters

Colorado River Supply

River The Bureau of Reclamation projects that Lake Mead Reservoir will not have enough water to make full deliveries to Nevada and Arizona in 2018. A Bureau report shows the surface level of the lake behind Hoover Dam is expected to remain high enough this year to avoid a shortage declaration in 2017, by a narrow margin of four feet. The shortage in 2018 could trigger cuts in water deliveries that an official said would most affect Arizona farmers. A shortage declaration would cut 11.4 percent of Arizona’s promised 2.8 million acre-feet, and 4.3 percent of Nevada’s allotted 300,000 acre-feet. Even if a shortage is declared, drought stricken California will be able to draw its full 4.4 million acre-foot allocation of Colorado water.

87

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.

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.

88

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 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.

89

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 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

90 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]

Steering Committee on Federal Infrastructure Permitting and Review Process Improvement

President Obama has ordered an interagency task force he created last year to develop measures for “modernizing” environmental review and permitting requirements for water, transportation, energy and other infrastructure projects to significantly curb “aggregate” approval times, an approach that falls short of the fixed deadlines Congress is seeking. The White house issued a memorandum ordering the Steering Committee on Federal Infrastructure Permitting and Review Process Improvement, a panel Obama created last year that includes EPA and other agencies to identify ways to streamline agencies’ permitting and environmental review policies and then develop a plan “for a comprehensive modernization of federal review and permitting for infrastructure projects.” Agencies that will be subject to any new requirements include the departments of Defense, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Transportation, Energy and Homeland Security, as well as EPA, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

91

Development, Planning and Construction Activity

Platte Canyon

No Activity

Southwest Metropolitan

No Activity

Platte Canyon Tap Permit Sales – Attachment 6

Permits issued in December 2016

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 2016

Water Taps Sewer Taps

0 :-inch new water tap permits 2.00 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

92

Southwest Metropolitan Tap Permit Sales – Attachment 6

Permits issued in December 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

0 3-inch water tap permits

Permits issued Year to Date 2016

Water Taps Sewer Taps

35 :-inch new water tap permits 34.00 s.f.e. sewer tap permits

1 1-inch new water tap permits 0.00 s.f.e. renewal sewer tap permits

2 12-inch water tap permits 69.00 s.f.e. equivalent (commercial)

4 2-inch water tap permits

0 3-inch water tap permits

Miscellaneous

January 12, 2017 article titled Colorado River Restoration Secures $8 Million Grant (Attachment 7)

Aspen Journal article titled Doing More With Less Water: Learning by Doing in Grand County (Attachment 8)

S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM Mgr Info Report BOD version 01/18/17.docx 93

, ATTACHMENT 1

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE INCLUSION OF THE OVERLOOK PLATEAU SUBDIVISION, ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO INTO THE SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT AND CALLING FOR AN ELECTION TO BE CONDUCTED WITHIN THE AREA PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION

Dear Property Owner:

THIS IS TO NOTIFY you that on Friday, November 18, 2016, the Board of Directors of the Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District ("District") adopted Resolution 2016-11-6A which initiated a statutory process for including into the District all real property currently located within The Overlook Plateau Subdivision, Arapahoe County, Colorado as is more particularly described on Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter referred to as the "Area Proposed For Inclusion").

The Area Proposed For Inclusion includes certain real property owned by you. For that reason, NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN to you that the Board of Directors of the District will conduct a public hearing on Friday, January 27, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. at the District office located at 8739 W. Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123 to consider whether to adopt a second resolution, Resolution 2016-11-6B, which directs the taking of further steps to include into the District the Area Proposed For Inclusion, including, among other things, the filing of documents with the Jefferson County District Court requesting that the Court enter an Order calling an election to be held within the Area Proposed For Inclusion on the question of whether such Area should be included into the District.

The District is a water and sanitation district organized pursuant to the provisions of what is now known as§ 32-1-101, et. seq., C.R.S. ("The Special District Act"). The District currently imposes no property tax mill levy. There is no limitation on the maximum mill levy that may be imposed in the future by the District on taxable property lying within the District's boundaries, including the Area Proposed For Inclusion, if such Area is included within the District's boundaries. However, the imposition of any mill levy by the District would first need to be approved by the eligible electors of the District at an election called for that purpose. Under Colorado law, the District cannot impose an operating mill levy, nor can it incur general obligation debt, without prior voter approval.

Those persons owning real property within the Area Proposed For Inclusion who wish to be excluded from such Area may file a request for exclusion from the Area Proposed For Inclusion with the Board of Directors of the District no later than ten (10) days prior to the January 27, 2017 hearing. Such request for exclusion shall be in writing and shall be filed with the District Board of Directors at the District office located at 8739

{00540646 .DOC I } ( . ,

W. Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123. Any request for exclusion shall be acted on before the District's Board of Directors takes final action on Resolution 2016- 11-6B, proposing the inclusion of the Area described on Exhibit A.

For additional information, you may contact the District's manager, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, at telephone number (303) 979-2333.

Sincerely yours,

The Board of Directors of SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT

{00540646. DOC I } 2 • • • JI

EXHIBIT A

THE OVERLOOK PLATEAU SUBDIVISION

A TRACT OF LAND, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6rn PRINCIPLE MERIDIAN, CITY OF LITTLETON, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 31 AND CONSIDERING THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 31 TO BEAR SOUTH 89°59' 28" WEST AND BEING MONUMENTED AS FOLLOWS: NORTH EAST CORNER OF SECTION 31, FOUND COOT TYPE 3A MONUMENT IN PVC RANGE BOX, NORTH WEST CORNER OF SECTION 31, FOUND 3 W' ALUMINUM CAP IN DENVER RANGE BOX, THENCE SOUTH 89°59'28" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 31 A DISTANCE OF 2267.54 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 00°00'00" WEST, 54.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST MINERAL AVENUE AS DESCRIBED AND RECORDED IN BOOK 5308, PAGE 392 OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE, SOUTH 25°51 '57'' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 53.29 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 23°58'03" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 13 .57 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, SOUTH 23°58'03" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 418.43 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 02°32'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 300.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°59' 55" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 122.29 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 00°01 ' 12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 148.59 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 89°56'06" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 118.98 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 00°01 '23" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 324.71 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°59'55" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 310.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 24°06'04" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 80.72 FEET TO A NON­ TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID NON-TANGENT CURVE, HA YING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74°56' 17", A RADIUS OF 50 FEET, AND A LENGTH OF 65.40 FEET, WHOSE CHORD BEARS NORTH 23°31 '41 " EAST A DISTANCE OF 60.83 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENCY; THENCE, NORTH 23°48 ' 17'' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 86.60 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 89°58'03" EAST A DISTANCE OF 22.49 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 111748 SQ. FT. OR 2.565 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO.

{00540646.DOC I } ATTACHMENT 2 Patrick Fitzgerald

From: Chesney, Stacy L. Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 11 :04 AM Subject: New Denver Water rates start April 1 (b-roll package included) Attachments: Denver Water Hillcrest concrete placement.jpg

Categories: Red Category

New Denver Water rates start April 1 Most Denver customers will see about a $29 annual increase in 2017

DENVER - Dec. 14, 2016 -At its meeting today, the Denver Board of Water Commissioners adopted rate changes to fund essential repairs and upgrades to Denver Water's system, beginning April 1, 2017. Monthly bills for a majority of Denver residents will increase by about $2.50 or less if they use water the same as they did in 2016.

There are 162 major projects identified in Denver Water's capital plan, ranging from replacing aging pipes and failing underground storage tanks to upgrading water treatment facilities, warehouses and mechanical shops. These projects, in addition to Denver Water's expenses associated with day-to-day operations and unplanned work, like water main breaks, are funded by water rates, bond sales, cash reserves, hydropower sales and fees for new service (called System Development Charges).

"Denver Water is a regional water supplier, serving more than one-quarter of the state's population," said Penfield Tate, president of the Denver Board of Water Commissioners. "We are always going to need to retrofit, repair and replace parts of our system, much of which is more than 100 years old , to deliver a reliable water supply to our customers. We are committed to balancing the perspectives of our ratepayers, some of whom believe our rates are too low, and some who believe we need to help keep rates low."

In 2016, the board adopted a new rate structure that shifts rate revenue from a heavy reliance on water use toward a more stable fixed fee. To continue that shift, the fixed monthly charge - which is tied to meter size - in 2017 is increasing by about $3 for a majority of residential customers. Most Denver Water customers have a 3/4-inch meter and will be charged $11.86 each month. To help offset the fixed monthly charge, the charge per 1,000 gallons for many customers will see a small decrease in 2017.

To keep water affordable, particularly for essential indoor water use, and to continue sending a conservation message, Denver Water's rate structure includes a three-tiered charge for water use (called the volume rate). This structure ensures water used for drinking, cooking and sanitation is charged at the lowest rate, and water used for outdoor watering is charged at a higher price.

Individual water bills will depend on how much water a customer uses and whether the customer lives in Denver or is served by one of 66 suburban distributors under contract with Denver Water.

"Many distributors along with Denver Water are faced with the need to upgrade and replace critical infrastructure and meet increasingly stringent water quality regulations," sa id Patrick Fitzgerald, chairman for the Denver Water Distributors Rates and Fees Technical Advisory Committee. "Distributors recognize and support the need to provide adequate revenue in a reliable and consistent manner, and we support the move to increase the amount of funding generated from the fixed service fee, as well as the modest increase in 2017 water rates."

1 The Denver City Charter requires that suburban customers pay the full cost of service, plus an additional amount. Learn more about how this works: Why Denver water costs more in the 'burbs.

Denver Water operates and maintains more than 3,000 miles of distribution pipe - enough to stretch from Los Angeles to New York - as well as 20 dams, 22 pump stations, 30 underground storage tanks, four treatment plants and more. The water provider's coll ection system covers more than 4,000 square miles and operates facilities in 12 counties in Colorado.

Get more details and watch a video about the upcoming capital projects: Your water bill is going up (slightly) Here's why

Customers will see more information about 2017 rates in their bills and on Denver Water's website over the next few months.

Photo cutline: Crews work to place the concrete floor of one of the new Hillcrest treated water storage tanks on Dec. 10. Denver Water is in the middle of a $100 million project to improve the safety and reliability of its Hillcrest facility by replacing two 15-million-gallon underground water storage tanks with three 15-million­ gallon tanks, and building a new a pump station.

B-roll of capital projects footage and interviews with Bob Mahoney, Denver Water chief engineering officer, and Andrea Song, Moffat Treatment Plant Supervisor: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jprov9prpwpj5us/AAC36uR02LgV-vu50sdv2so7a?dl=O.

Denver Water proudly serves high-quality water and promotes its efficient use to 1.4 million people in the city of Denver and many surrounding suburbs. Established in 1918, the utility is a public agency funded by water rates, new tap fees and the sale of hydropower, not taxes. It is Colorado's oldest and largest water utility. For more information, visit www.denverwater.org, subscribe to our blog and follow us on Twitter and lnstaqram.

Stacy Chesney I Manager of Media Communications Denver Water I Media line: 303-628-6700 I desk: 303-628-6584 [email protected] I http://www.denverwater.org Subscribe to our Q!Q9. and follow us on lnstagram & Twitter.

2 Why are you raising rates? • Denver Water has a large, complex system with a lot of aging infrastructure. Our 5-year capital plan is $1.3 billion - that allows us to upgrade our system and build the new facilities necessary to keep the water system running. • There are 162 major projects identified in Denver Water's capital plan . Everything from replacing aging pipes and failing underground storage tanks to building a new water treatment plant and more. We also have ongoing operations expenses and costs associated with unplanned work, like water main breaks. • Denver Water is funded by water rates, bond sales, cash reserves, hydropower sales and fees for new service (called System Development Charges) .

How much are bills going up? • The increase each customer sees will depend on the type of customer you are and how you use water. Your bill is composed of a fixed monthly charge and charges for how much water you use. o Every customer will see an increase to their monthly fixed charge. To help offset the fixed monthly charge, the charge per 1,000 gallons for many customers will see a small decrease in 2017. o Most residential customers have a 3/4-inch meter, and their fixed charge will increase about $3 (to $11.86/month up from $8 .79). o If you live in the suburbs and get water from one of our distributors, your bill will be higher than Denver residents. That's because the Denver City Charter requires that suburban customers pay the full cost of service, plus an additional amount. • The increase in the monthly fixed charge helps us even out our revenues over the year so we can repair and upgrade our system. This means less reliance on revenues from how much water customers use, which has become increasingly difficult to predict in recent years given the more frequent and extreme weather fluctuations.

Why did the fixed monthly charge increase? The costs to collect, store, treat and deliver water are expenses that have to be paid regardless of the amount of water customers use every year. No matter how much water customers use, we still need to maintain and operate more than 3,000 miles of pipe, 19 reservoirs, 22 pump stations, 30 underground storage tanks, four treatment plants and much more. That makes it difficult to keep up with increasingly common revenue swings. To provide more revenue stability, we've raised the fixed monthly charge, accounting for meter size and the demands larger users have on the system. That means larger, commercial users will be billed at a higher fixed monthly charge. Your meter size is listed on your bill.

You ask me to use less water and then raise my rates. Am I being penalized for conservation? • We always encourage conservation and the efficient use of water because it's the right thing to do and part of our planning strategy to ensure our customers have water in the future. • The reality is rates would be higher without our customers' conservation efforts because we'd have to build more treatment and distribution facilities to keep up with the demand for water. o For example, your conservation efforts are saving Denver Water an estimated $155 million on a new treatment plant and storage facilities because it doesn't have to be as big as we originally estimated. That's $155 million we don't have to recover through rates and charges. Affordability message: While rates are going up, Denver Water is committed to keeping water affordable, particularly for the essential indoor water use that is vital for drinking, cooking and sanitation. In 2017, customers will continue to pay the lowest rate for what they use indoors.

Type of customer, based on 115,000 gallons of 2016 2017 S annual uc;age average average Change

Inside City 79% of customers use 115,000 gallons or less $543 $572 $29/year per year

Read and Bill 58% of customers use 115,000 gallons or less . $555 $573 $18/year per year

Total Service 60% of customers use 115.000 gallons or less $637 $678 $41/year per year

Explain the indoor use charges/tiered structure:

• Because water used indoors is for essentials like cooking, bathing, drinking and flushing toilets, we charge it the lowest rate. • Indoor consumption is calculated by taking your "average winter consumption" - by averaging a customer's monthly water consumption on bills dated January, February and March. • Your average will be recalculated every winter. Each month, all year long, the amount of water you use up to your average winter consumption will be charged at the lowest rate per 1,000 gallons. • Then, customers are allotted an additional 15,000 gallons that is charged at the next highest tier. This is the additional amount it takes to water an average-sized yard efficiently. • Any water use above that will fall into the third, highest-priced tier. • The minimum possible average winter consumption is 5,000 gallons, and the maximum is 15,000 gallons. The 5,000 gallon minimum was set to ensure customers aren't penalized for low water usage during the winter, and will have up to 5,000 gallons of water to use in that first tier with the lowest rate year-round. The minimum does not mean you will be charged for 5,000 gallons if you use less than that amount.

Types of suburban customers:

• There are three types of suburban customers, and the rates differ for each . o Total Service customers pay the highest rates because they receive the same services as Denver customers. That means Denver Water employees work in these outlying areas to operate and maintain the infrastructure, provide customer service and much more. Next yea r, a typical customer who uses 115,000 gallons of water will pay an ave rage of $678. In 2017, that's $106 more than a comparable city-dweller. o Read and Bill customers pay the second-highest rates. They receive Denver water, along with some basic services, like reading meters and sending bills. But we don't provide system maintenance and repairs; that work is handled by the suburban distributor. A Read and Bill customer that uses 115,000 gallons of water can expect to pay about $573 next year, roughly the same as the city equivalent. o And finally, there are Master Meter customers. These are not residential customers, but cities that buy treated water at a wholesale rate. a:: w ~ ~ a:: w >z en aw w ra ~ ~ c w en 0 D..

• Cost of service multiplier review

• Revenue requirement

• 2017 rates and typical bills

• Board vote on cost multiplier methodology/rate resolution and 2017 rates

12/9/2016 [5) DENVER WATER Cost of service multiplier review

• Collaborative review of cost methodologies - Evaluation criteria: equity and fairness, simplicity and understandability, stability and consistency with industry practice and Charter/contract requirements • Adopt regional perspective in cost allocations - Simplify cost allocations - Eliminate specifically assigned costs that shift cost burdens • A 19°/o cost-of-service multiplier with regional cost allocations, consistently applied, meets criteria

12/9/2016 0) DENVER WATER 2017 Revenue requirement and revenue sources

$350 $308 million $308 million

$300

I I Other Sources $20 ~ ev $7 $250 I I __ L.a.. ,.._J Total revenue required V) s200 c I 1------I ~nueat 0 from 2017 rates - rrent E $150 ~ I I s,$264 $272 million

I I ~..___. 3.0% increase $100

$50

$0 Revenue Revenue Requirements Sources

Totals may not equal due to rounding DENVER WATER Rate-funded capital net of SDCs and bond issues [5) 2016 rate structure changes

• Improve revenue stability - Increases fixed revenue and reduces weather related volatility • Tier thresholds reflect modern demands - Indoor/outdoor, nonpeak/peak • Encourages conservation at all consumption levels • Indoor use at lowest rate Revenue Affordability stability

Equity

12/9/2016 iS) DENVER WATER Increasing revenue stability in 2017 through the fixed charge

$300 $272 Fixed Charge $272 Revenue $250 $27 $41

$200

II) 5 $150 ·- ·- E $245 Volume Rate $231 'V). $100 Revenue

$50

$0 I 17 Revenue Requirement with 17 Revenue Requirement with 10% Fixed Charge Revenue 15% Fixed Ch"rge Revenue

• Overall revenue recovery does npt change

12/9/2016 C) DENVER WATER 2017 fixed charges by meter size

Fixed Charges Proposed Meter Size 2016 2017 3/4" $8.79 $11.86 1" 10.13 15.13 11/2" 14.27 25.28 2" 20.02 39.35 3" 36.33 79.29 4" 59.20 135.26 6" 124.71 295.65 8" 216.30 519.87 10" 334.09 808.25 12" 478.22 1,161.14

12/9/2016 i5) DENVER WATER 2017 Proposed Rates

Inside Read& Total Customer Class City Bill Service

Volume Rate,$ per Kgal Single Family Blk 1: 0-AWC $2.55 $2.68 $3.30 Blk 2: AWC-AWC+15 Kgal 4.59 4.82 5.94 Blk 3: Over AWC+15 Kgal 6.12 6.43 7.92

Nonresidential Blkl: 0-AWC $2.71 $3.25 $3.77 Blk 2: AWC- 400% AWC 3.79 4.55 5.28 Bl k 3: Over 400%A WC 4.34 5.20 6.03

Irrigation Winter $1.27 $1.38 $1.74 Summer 5.08 5.52 6.96

12/9/2016 [5) DENVER WATER 2017 proposed rates All Other Classes

Customer Class Rate

Volume Rate,$ per Kgal Wholesale Master Meter $4.10 OCSA Treated 4.48

Raw* Inside City $0.63 Outside City 0.98 OCSA 1.05

Recycled Inside City $0.99 OCSA 1.11 *Raw water customers not assessed a monthly fixed charge

12/9/2016 iS) DENVER WATER Typical single family bill 115,000 gallons annual usage

$800

$700

$600

$500

$400

$300

$200

$100

$0 Inside City Read & Bill Total Service • 2016 Rates $543 $555 $637 • 2017 Rates $572 $573 $678 ...... · ...... -..-~ ...... $Change $29 ! $18 $41 % Change 5% 3% 6%

12/9/2016 0) DENVER WATER Single Family Residential Metro Survey 115,000 gallons per year Arapahoe Colorado Springs Erie Aurora Parker Total Service 2017 Brighton Other utilities bills' Golden Thornton based on 2016 rate Northglenn schedules Total Service 2016 Westminster Greeley Louisville OW In City 2017 Highlands Ranch OW In City 2016 Fort Collins Boulder 502 Arvada 474 Broomfield 465 - Pueblo 370 - -1 I I I I I I $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 27972016 Board action

• Approval of cost multiplier methodology/Board Resolution • Adoption of 2017 rate schedules, effective April 1, 2017

12/9/2016 6) DENVER WATER ATTACHMENT 3

1600 West 12th Ave Denver, CO 80204-3412 j5) DENVER WATER 303.628.6000 denverwoter.org nv~ ......

November 25, 2016

Re: Final Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Hydropower License Amendment Application (FERC Project No. 2035)

Dear Agency/Interested Stakeholder/Property Owner:

Denver Water is currently involved in federal regulatory processes to approve the Moffat Collection System Project - also known as the Gross Reservoir Expansion Project - which is a major component of Denver Water's long-term, multi-pronged approach (including conservation, recycled water and responsible sourcing of new supply) to deliver safe, reliable water to the more than 1.4 million residents in our service area today and many of the projected 7.7 million who will call Colorado home by 2040.

Following on the heels of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's project approval (through issuance of a 401 water quality certification) and Governor Hickenlooper's endorsement earlier this year, Denver Water has filed its final license amendment application with the FERC.

The final license amendment application is the last in a three stage amendment process. The first two stages solicited public comment on the proposed project in 2008-2009 and again from 2009-2016. The FERC will perform an adequacy review of the final application prior to publishing its notice in the Federal Register. If additional information is required, Denver Water will respond by providing it to the FERC and publish that new information on the project website at www.grossreservoir.org.

Once the FERC publishes its notice of the application in the Federal Register, FERC's public comment period on the application will commence. We welcome and strongly encourage public comments, which must be filed with the FERC by means that will be detailed in FERC's Federal Register notice.

The current application can be viewed at www.grossreservoir.org. Paper copies of the application are also available for viewing at the following locations.:

Boulder County: Coal Creek Canyon Denver County: Denver Water: Main Library Improvement Central Library 1600 West 12th Ave 1001 Arapahoe Avenue Association 10 West 14th Avenue Pkwy Denver, CO 80204 Boulder, CO 80302 31528 C0-72 Denver, CO 80204 Golden, CO 80403 Gilpin County: Jefferson County: Jefferson County: Gilpin Co Public Library Golden Library Arvada Library 15131 C0-119 1019 101h Street 7525 West 57th Avenue Black Hawk, CO 80422 Golden, CO 80401 Arvada, CO 80002

Sincerely, /;fr 11!/t<-i -

Jeff Martin, Program Manager Denver Water Fixture Rebate and Retrofit Program Report Quarterly Report for January 1 to December 31, 2016

Rebates by Customer Type - Rebates by Distributor Type - January 1 to December 31, 2016 January 1 to December 31, 2016

• Residential Rebates • Denver Water Inside City Low Income Retrofit Program Master Meter

D WaterSense D Denver Water Read Challenge &Bill

Denver Water Total Commercial Service Rebates

Customer Type Count Percent Distributor Type Count Percent Residential Rebates 11,964 71% Denver Water Inside City 9,744 58% Low Income Retrofit Program 1,396 8% Master Meter 2,858 17% WaterSense Challenge 1,491 9% Denver Water Read & Bill 2,235 13% Commercial Rebates 2,019 12% Denver Water Total Service 2,033 12% 16,870 100% 16,870 100% >..., Program Descriptions: Rebates not matched to a distributor 0 ..., • Residential Rebate Offerinas 2016 Total 16,870 > • Commercial Rebate Offerings (j •Low-income retrofit program: Denver Water provides high-efficiency toilets to income-qualified or 501(c)3 customers. A third party, Mile High :I: s= Youth Corps, installs the fixtures at no cost to the customer. t'!'j '.Z • 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 December 31, 2016 Distributor Rebates Percent Distributor Rebates Percent ALAMEDA W&S DISTRICT 11 0.1% HI-LIN W&S DISTRICT 5 0 .0% ARAPAHOE ESTATES WATER DISTRICT 2 0.0% HILLCREST W&S DISTRICT 2 0.0% BANCROFT-CLOVER W&S DISTRICT 371 2.2% HOLLY HILLS W&S DISTRICT 143 0.8% BEAR CREEK W&S DISTRICT 314 1.9% HOLLY MUTUAL WATER COMPANY 0 0.0% BENNETI BEAR CK FARM W&S DISTRICT 4 0.0% KEN-CARYL W&S DISTRICT 148 0.9% BERKELEY W&S DISTRICT 74 0.4% KING, LLOYD J. 0 0 .0% BONVUE W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% LAKEHURST W&S DISTRICT 108 0.6% BOW-MAR W&S DISTRICT 1 0.0% LAKEWOOD, CITY OF 6 0 .0% CASTLEWOOD W&S DISTRICT 183 1.1% LITILETON, CITY OF 492 2.9% CHARLOU PARK W&S DISTRICT 3 0.0% LOCHMOOR W&S DISTRICT 3 0.0% CHERRY CREEK VALLEY W&S DISTRICT 100 0.6% LORETIO HEIGHTS RE-SUB. WTR. ASSN . 0 0.0% CHERRY CREEK VILLAGE WATER DISTRICT 12 0.1% MANSFIELD HEIGHTS W&S DISTRICT 4 0 .0% CHERRY HILLS HEIGHTS W&S DISTRICT 1 0 .0% MEADOWBROOK WATER DISTRICT 18 0.1% CHERRY HILLS NORTH W&S DISTRICT 129 0.8% NORTH LINCOLN W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE, CITY OF 6 0 .0% NORTH PECOS W&S DISTRICT 1 0.0% CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER 9744 57.8% NORTH WASHINGTON ST. W&S DISTRICT 6 0 .0% COLUMBINE W&S DISTRICT 4 0.0% PANORAMA PARK WATER ASSOCIATION 1 0.0% CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL WATER COMPANY 296 1.8% PLATIE CANYON W&S DISTRICT 229 1.4% COUNTRY HOMES METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 0 0.0% S. SHERIDAN WTR.SWR.&STRM.DRNG.DIST 5 0.0% CRESTVIEW W&S DISTRICT 229 1.4% SHERIDAN, CITY OF 28 0.2% DEVONSHIRE HEIGHTS W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% SOUTH ADAMS COUNTY W&S DISTRICT 9 0.1% EDGEWATER, CITY OF 39 0.2% SOUTH UNIVERSITY PLACE WTR ASSN 1 0.0% FEHLMANN SUBDIVISION WATER ASSOC 0 0.0% SOUTHEAST ENGLEWOOD WATER DISTRICT 671 4.0% GALLERIA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 0 0.0% SOUTHGATE WATER DISTRICT 838 5.0% GLENDALE, CITY OF 132 0.8% SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN W&S DISTRICT 714 4.2% GRANT W&S DISTRICT 57 0 .3% SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN DENVER W&S DIST. 149 0.9% GREEN MOUNTAIN W&S DISTRICT 502 3.0% VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 9 0.1% GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CITY OF 3 0 .0% WHEATRIDGE WATER DISTRICT 36 0 .2% HAVANA W&S DISTRICT 144 0.9% WILLOWBROOK w&s DISTRICT 48 0.3% HIGH VIEW WATER DISTRICT 34 0.2% WILLOWS WATER DISTRICT 801 4.7% 16,870 100.0% Rebates not matched to a distributor: 0 2016 Rebate Total: 16,870

Note: Any difference in rebate totals is due to geo-coding limitations . Denver Water Fixture Rebate and Retrofit Program Report Quarterly Report for October 1 to December 31, 2016

Rebates by Customer Type - Rebates by Distributor Type - October 1 to December 31, 2016 October 1 to December 31, 2016

• Residential Rebates • Denver Water Inside City Dlow Income Retrofit Program Master Meter

D WaterSense D Denver Water Read Challenge & Bill Denver Water Total D Commercial Service Rebates

Customer Type Count Percent Distributor Type Count Percent Residential Rebates 2,280 80% Denver Water Inside City 1,793 63% Low Income Retrofit Program 144 5% Master Meter 403 14% WaterSense Challenge 225 8% Denver Water Read & Bill 282 10% Commercial Rebates 205 7% Denver Water Total Service 376 13% 2,854 100% 2,854 100% Program Descriptions: Rebates not matched to a distributor O • Residential Rebate Offerings 2016 Quarter 4 Total 2,854 • Commercial Rebate Offerings •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 October 1 to December 31, 2016 Distributor Rebates Percent Distributor Rebates Percent ALAMEDA W&S DISTRICT 1 0.0% HI-LIN W&S DISTRICT 2 0 .1% ARAPAHOE ESTATES WATER DISTRICT 0 0 .0% HILLCREST W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% BANCROFT-CLOVER W&S DISTRICT 35 1.2% HOLLY HILLS W&S DISTRICT 2 0.1% BEAR CREEK W&S DISTRICT 8 0.3% HOLLY MUTUAL WATER COMPANY 0 0.0% BENNETI BEAR CK FARM W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% KEN-CARYL W&S DISTRICT 13 0.5% BERKELEY W&S DISTRICT 2 0.1% KING, LLOYD J. 0 0.0% BONVUE W&S DISTRICT 0 0 .0% LAKEHURST W&S DISTRICT 4 0 .1% BOW-MAR W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% LAKEWOOD, CITY OF 1 0.0% CASTLEWOOD W&S DISTRICT 3 0 .1% LITILETON, CITY OF 145 5.1% CHARLOU PARK W&S DISTRICT 0 0 .0% LOCHMOOR W&S DISTRICT 0 0 .0% CHERRY CREEK VALLEY W&S DISTRICT 85 3.0% LORETIO HEIGHTS RE-SUB. WTR. ASSN. 0 0.0% CHERRY CREEK VILLAGE WATER DISTRICT 3 0.1% MANSFIELD HEIGHTS W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% CHERRY HILLS HEIGHTS W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% MEADOWBROOK WATER DISTRICT 3 0.1% CHERRY HILLS NORTH W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% NORTH LINCOLN W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE, CITY OF 1 0 .0% NORTH PECOS W&S DISTRICT 1 0.0% CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER 1793 62.8% NORTH WASHINGTON ST. W&S DISTRICT 1 0.0% COLUMBINE W&S DISTRICT 1 0.0% PANORAMA PARK WATER ASSOCIATION 0 0.0% CONSOLIDATED MUTUAL WATER COMPANY 17 0.6% PLATIE CANYON W&S DISTRICT 31 1.1% COUNTRY HOMES METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 0 0 .0% S. SHERIDAN WTR.SWR.&STRM.DRNG.DIST 2 0.1% CRESTVIEW W&S DISTRICT 10 0.4% SHERIDAN, CITY OF 5 0.2% DEVONSHIRE HEIGHTS W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% SOUTH ADAMS COUNTY W&S DISTRICT 0 0.0% EDGEWATER, CITY OF 0 0.0% SOUTH UNIVERSITY PLACE WTR ASSN 0 0.0% FEHLMANN SUBDIVISION WATER ASSOC 0 0 .0% SOUTHEAST ENGLEWOOD WATER DISTRICT 193 6.8% GALLERIA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 0 0.0% SOUTHGATE WATER DISTRICT 156 5.5% GLENDALE, CITY OF 132 4 .6% SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN W&S DISTRICT 81 2.8% GRANT W&S DISTRICT 13 0.5% SOUTHWEST SUBURBAN DENVER W&S DIST. 7 0.2% GREEN MOUNTAIN W&S DISTRICT 27 0 .9% VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 3 0 .1% GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CITY OF 2 0.1% WHEATRIDGE WATER DISTRICT 8 0 .3% HAVANA W&S DISTRICT 4 0.1% WILLOWBROOK W&S DISTRICT 5 0.2% HIGH VIEW WATER DISTRICT 27 0.9% WILLOWS WATER DISTRICT 27 0.9% 2,854 100.0% Rebates not matched to a distributor: 0 2016 Quarter 4 Rebate Total : 2,854

Note: Any difference in rebate totals is due to geo-coding limitations. . "· {ulo .

ATTACHMENT 5 Colorado's water plan: A year of strong progress

By Guest Columnist Monday, December 12, 2016

By James Eklund and Russ George

One year ago, Gov. Hickenlooper presented Colorado's Water Plan, the result of unprecedented statewide collaboration over 2'h years to ensure sufficient water supplies to keep our cities, farms and environment thriving even as Colorado is expected to add millions of people in coming decades.

Since that time, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and its many partners have started the work of implementing the plan, a process that will unfold over years and be carried forward by all those involved in our water future: ranchers, fanners, cities, water utilities, environmentalists, anglers, developers and many more who care deeply about water's central place in our beautiful state.

Colorado' s ,Warer Plan include a series of actions processes and metrics that put the state and its eight major river basins on a more collaborative path to manage our water in the face of constrained supplies and rising population. These include Griteria to guide new storage projects, goals to more smartly s rnre water between farms and cities without tlie ary-up of agricultural Janas, steps to improve aegraded streamways and methods and benchmar conservation.

The public has been a full participant in the development of Colorado's Water Plan, with more than 30,000 comments helping shape the document. Direction from nine basin roundtables representing local interests within each river basin fonned the backbone of the document. With such deep public involvement to craft the plan, it's important Coloradans stay engaged in the work so many are doing to implement it. Through a website, http://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cowatemlan, and updates like this one we are devoted to sharing progress on the plan. Among our many steps forward:

Storage: CWCB is financially su orting a variety of water storage innovations, inclu ing a study of options in the South Platte Basin, exploring groundwater storage technology and a s illway analysis to identify laces where existing storage could be expanded; water representatives across jurisdictions began work to streamline federal pennitting while maintaining strong environmental protections.

Agriculture: The CWCB and other stakeholders are continuing to explore creative ways to suwort the temporary transfer of agricultural wate that protects farming and meets the water plan goal of sharing 50,000 acre of water by 2050. Workshops and conferences geared toward this end continue and a pilot project in the Arkansas River Basin is in its second year with favorable results. . ,_

Environment and recreation: CWCB is securing ~5 million for work with basin roundtables and other groups to develop watershed restoration and stream management plans to improve waterways ano water quality. The CWCB, in partnership with Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Denver Water and The Greenway Foundation, is funding a large "environmental pool" at Chatfield Reservoir to improve flows and fisheries in the South Platte River through the metro area.

Supply and Demand Planning: The update for the lates Statewide Water Supply Initiative began this year and will refresh Colorado's baselin information on water supplies, data critical to work outlined in the water plan. CWCB and the Interbasin Compact Committee are revising Water Supply Reserve Fund criteria to ensure funding requests for water-related projects meet a standard that aligns with water plan goals and measurable outcomes.

These examples serve as only a sampling of the work launching in 2016 to implement Colorado' s Water Plan. Other activities across the state, including major storage projects that won the state of Colorado' s seal of approval using water plan criteria and a near-tenn funding plan to support storage, education, conservation, reuse and agricultural actions called for in the plan, also signal initial implementation steps.

The CWCB is moving on many fronts to ensure Colorado' s Water Plan unfolds in a way that assures we manage our precious water supplies to preserve the best of Colorado while allowing cities, fanns and our environment to flourish amid continued growth. In the same way the CWCB, General Assembly, water providers, agricultural organizations, environmental groups, local governments, business and the public at large collaborated to build Colorado' s Water Plan, we look forward to our continued work together to put the plan to work.

James Eklund is the director of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Russ George is chairman ofth e 15-member board governing CWCB staff River district chief defends water study

By Dennis Webb Monday, November 28, 2016

GLENWOOD SPRINGS -The head of the Colorado River District is defending an ongoing water study from Front Range concerns about its intent and possible regional bias.

Eric Kuhn, the district's general manager, says while Front Range water interests view the project as a water supply study, that's not the case.

"It was a how-should-we-be-prepared-for-another-drought study," he said Monday in providing an update to the Colorado Basin Roundtable water group.

The first phase of a study undertaken by the four Western Slope river basin roundtables, with the leadership of the river district and Southwestern Water Conservation District, found that another severe drought such as the one in the early 2000s could cause enough of a drop in Lake Powell to jeopardize Glen Canyon Dam's ability to generate electricity. It also could create a risk of Colorado and other Upper Colorado River Basin states being unable to meet their downstream water delivery obligations under a 1922 interstate compact and under guidelines established in 2007. That could result in a cutback in Upper Basin water uses.

The Western Slope is now planning a second phase of the study that would cost about $90,000. The goal is to further quantify the drought risks to water users in the state by looking at use­ reduction scenarios for making up for a deficit of water in Powell.

Four Western Slope roundtables are asking the Colorado Water Conservation Board for $10,000 apiece, or $40,000 total, for the study's second phase, with the river district and Southwest district splitting the difference. But Jim Lochhead, chief executive officer and manager of Denver Water and president of the Front Range Water Council utilities grou , has written a letter arguing that such a study would be best conducted at a statewide or Upper Colorado River Basin level, "with all interested water users represented, rather than by partieular sub regions or individual roundtables."

Some of the proposed involuntary wate -use curtailment alternatives in the.study's second phase "potentially favor limited special interests," Lochhead wrote, stressing the need instead for a state-led discussion that considers all internsts.

He also voiced the council's concern that assumptions used in phase one "may be creating biased impressions regarding the amount of the remaining developable water" in the-Coloraao River Basin, and that phas€-'-one may be viewed by some outside the state "as representative of the State of Colorado's position on remaining developable water."

How much of that water remains to be developed is a sensitive issue for the Western Slope, where most of Colorado's water originates, and for the Front Range, which diverts a substantial amount of Colorado River water and wants to divert more. Kuhn says the study is simply intended to contribute toward developing a collaborative program for avoiding Colorado River compact problems for existing uses and some reasonable amount of new uses on the Western Slope. Collaboration aimed at heading off such curtailments on use due to interstate obligations was identified in the new state water plan as one of seven principles for guiding any discussions of new transmountain diversions out of the river basin.

The CWCB's director, James Eklund, has agreed.to head up meetings aimed at resolving.Front Range concerns about the study and its funding. Kuhn saia he sees the result being that the state has a bigger say in the study's scope of work not that it takes over the study altogether. Page No 1/5/20 17

PLATTE CANYON MONTH END TAP REPORT

DA TEISSUE ADDRESS BLOCK LOT SUB WATER SEWER TYPE BUJLDER STATUS WTRFEE SWRFEE ADMFEE CJ-IECKNO

~ ().00 Wo:T"-t< ....,+cA

f ~10(£).00 Sew-c< 'Y}tA

> ~ >~ ~

=~ ztri ~ O'I Page No.

1/5/20 17 SO UT HW EST M ETROPOLITA N M ONTH END TAI' REPORT

DATElSSUl ADDRESS BLOCK LOT SUB WATER SEWER TYPE STATU~ WT RFEE SWRFEE AD MF EE CHECK NO

TOTAL S

ee amounts

Wo..~tv'f .\-cl '(..oq ,oco

'I+~~\lo0,3~ \ ~~v.)-U' SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER & SANITATION DIST. SOUT llW EST METROPOLITAN WATER & SANITATION DIST. WATER TAP REVENUE REPORT FOR m : CEMBER 20 16 SEWER TAP REVENUE REPORT FOR DECEl\1HER 2016

;:.~ . .. I ,,_,,,"~··I , • .._..,, l ...... 5.1'.E) I

$ )J,""ISO $14,000 6.600 z.200 $ 0 $ 0 "•• $JJ.iSO $ 14 ,000 R""""'"l ' '

SOUT HW EST METROPOLITAN WATER & SANITATIO N DIST. SOUT HWEST METROPOUTAN WATER S1. SANITATION DIST. WATER TAP SALES REPORT FOR DECEl\rnER 2016 SEWER TAP SALES REPORT FOR DECEMBER 20 1fi

1·-•.;... .. ,,;l I ...... s.fr,

o.oo (1.00 o.oo 2.00 fl - ' ATTACHMENT 7

Colorado River Restoration Secures $8 Million Grant I January 12, 2017 (Kremmling)-The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) today announced $7.75 million in funding for an ambitious slate of projects to address the impacts on the Colorado River of trans-mountain diversions of water from the West Slope to the Front Range. Fisheries conservation group Trout Unlimited is the lead partner on the grant application.

The Colorado River Headwaters Project received $7,758,830 from the NRCS's Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) to improve irrigation systems and reverse the decline in water quality and fish habitat in the headwaters of the Colorado River.

TU-C0-20100912-0189Led by an array of partners representing conservation interests, agriculture, local government, water providers, state agencies, and landowners, the Headwaters Project will create a bypass channel to reconnect the Colorado River at Windy Gap Reservoir, make channel and habitat improvements downstream of the bypass near Kremmling, Colorado, and improve irrigation systems as well as soil and water quality.

When fully implemented, the Headwaters Project will directly benefit more than 30 miles of the Colorado River and 4,500 acres of irrigated lands that provide sage grouse habitat and make available up to 11,000 acre-feet of water to improve the river during low-flow conditions.

"This is a huge win for the Colorado River," said Drew Peternell, director of Trout Unlimited's Colorado Water Project. "We're seeing an exciting and ambitious conservation vision for the upper Colorado become reality. With this funding, we'll be able to put the ecosystem pieces of the upper Colorado River back together and restore the river and its trout fishery to health." "The Colorado River Headwaters Project is a great example of how municipal water providers, ranchers, conservation organizations and others can work together to restore an important reach the Colorado River for both the environment and agricultural operations with benefits downstream," said Matt Rice, director of American River's Colorado River Basin Program. "A collaboration like this would have been unheard of 10 years ago. It's a win for everyone in Colorado."

At present, transmountain diversions divert over 60 percent of the upper Colorado River's native flows across the Continental Divide for use in the Front Range and northern Colorado. The resulting low flows in the river have seriously undermined the operations of irrigation systems and the health of the Colorado River in the project area. Low flows make it difficult for irrigators to divert water, especially during drought, and also raise water temperatures and hamper the river's ability to transport sediment, leading to sediment buildup on the riverbed that degrades aquatic habitat.

Local ranchers wanted to address these irrigation problems as well as river health, said Paul Bruchez, a Kremmling-area rancher who organized his neighboring landowners into the Irrigators of Land in Vicinity of Kremmling (ILVK) group, a key project partner. The project will install several innovative instream structures designed to provide adequate water levels for irrigation while also improving critical fish habitat. This will be the first project in the country to demonstrate these stream engineering practices on a significant scale.

"This news is life-changing for the headwaters of the Colorado River and those who rely on it," said Bruchez. "Years ago, water stakeholders in this region were at battle. Now, it is a collaboration that will create resiliency and sustainability for the health of the river and its agricultural producers. Healthy ranches need healthy rivers, and the RCPP funding will help sustain both."

The Windy Gap Reservoir bypass and the Kremmling area river improvements address several pieces of the puzzle in a long-term, regional effort to restore the upper Colorado River. Other pieces include agreements that TU helped negotiate with Denver Water and the Northern Colorado Water District that contained significant river protections as well as an innovative, long-term monitoring and adaptive management process (called "Learning by Doing") that requires stakeholders to work together to ensure the future health of the river. That progress and collaboration is all the more remarkable coming after years of conflict between West Slope interests and conservation groups concerned about the health of the river, and Front Range water providers seeking to divert more water across the Divide.

"What's happening on the upper Colorado shows that water users can work together to ensure river health while meeting diverse uses," said TU's Peternell. "This project is a model of what cooperation and collaboration can achieve in meeting our water challenges in Colorado and the Colorado River Basin."

Other Headwaters Project partners who will provide assistance include the ILVK, Northern Water Conservation District, Denver Water, Colorado River Conservation District, Middle Park Soil Conservation District, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Grand County, and Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Trout Unlimited is the nation's largest coldwater conservation organization, with 147,000 members dedicated to conserving, protecting, and restoring North America's trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds. Colorado Trout Unlimited has more than 10,000 grassroots members across the state.

American Rivers protects wild rivers, restores damaged rivers, and conserves clean water for people and nature. Doing more with less water: Leaming By Doing in Grand County I Aspen Journalism Page 1 of 9

ATTACHMENT 8 Aspen Journalism (http://aspenjournalism.org/2016/10/31/doing-more-with-less-water-learning-by-doing-in-grand- county/)

WATER & RIVERS October 31, 2016 Doing more with less water: Learning By Doing in Grand County

By Allen Best, Aspen Journalism

PHOTO COURTEST OF TROUT UNLIMITED Kirk Kiancke, the president of the Colorado River headwaters chapter of Trout Unlimited, looking out over the Fraser Flats section of the Fraser River in Grand County. Cooperative efforts are underway to try and manage the streams in Grand County even in the face of increased diversions. GRAND COUNTY - A decade ago, Kirk Klancke had hard, cold feelings about Denver Water. A stonemason for 35 years who moved to the Fraser Valley in 1971, he was passionate about the outdoors, particularly fly-fishing, and was outraged by depleted flows of the Fraser River and tributary creeks below a network of transmountain diversions.

Listening to Denver Water's plans to step up diversions from these Colorado River tributaries, Klancke would seethe.

Today, Klancke almost gushes with compliments.

"Denver has been a treat to work with," Klancke said one day in August at his home near Tabernash, located eight miles from the Winter Park ski area.

Denver Water still intends to divert more spring runoff. But what has won Klancke's support is the utility's commitment to an adaptive management program called Learning By Doing.

http://aspenjoumalism.org/2016/l 0/31/doing-more-with-less-water-leaming-by-doing-in-g... 11 /4/2016 Doing more with less water: Learning By Doing in Grand County I Aspen Journalism Page 2of9

Part of the program includes about 30 people conferring weekly to address water issues in the upper Colorado River basin upstream from Kremmling, where up to Bo percent of the water may soon be diverted to the arid side of Colorado along the Front Range.

The conference call is modeled on a similar weekly call used to coordinate water deliveries, including from Ruedi Reservoir, to protect endangered fish in the Colorado River in the Grand Junction area.

During those calls, information is exchanged by water managers, and sufficient deliveries are usually ascertained. And decisions are made by consensus.

So far in the Learning By Doing effort, Denver Water has shown a willingness to juggle its diversions in response to conditions on the once-pristine streams in Grand County.

For example, in late July, Klancke noted warm water and dying fish in Ranch Creek, a tributary of the Fraser River. He told Denver Water about the low flows, but he didn't really expect a response. To his surprise, utility officials offered to rejigger its diversions to make the flows in Ranch Creek last longer.

"It really helped Ranch Creek a lot," says Klancke, the president of the Colorado River headwaters chapter of Trout Unlimited.

Learning By Doing is partly about manipulating diversions in the most environmentally friendly way possible, Klancke says. In the past, that wasn't a concern "because they have just been operated like plumbing."

The program is now gaining some notice in other headwater valleys, including the Roaring Fork, which is also substantially dewatered by transmountain diversions built in the 1930s and 1960s.

Pitkin County Commissioner Rachel Richards, who has focused for years on water issues, says Learning By Doing "clearly is a sound concept, modifying approaches based on science and data feedback. But we're not sure we've seen enough actual implementation to judge whether it's a valid tool."

Photo: Courtesy of Denver Water

http://aspenjournalism.org/2016/10/31 /doing-more-with-less-water-learning-by-doing-in-g... 11 /4/2016 Doing more with less water: Leaming By Doing in Grand County I Aspen Journalism Page 3of9

The Learning by Doing committee recently examined a segment of the Fraser River where a $200,000 channel reconfiguration is to occur next year.

As you go

Learning By Doing is like a river trip without a precise itinerary.

It acknowledges broad impacts to water-dependent ecosystems from Denver Water's existing transmountain diversions and those of others. However, it doesn't presume to know exactly how to lessen the impacts of existing diversions, let alone impacts of new ones.

The Moffat Firming project, which sparked the Learning by Doing effort, is being proposed by Denver Water. The nearby Windy Gap Firming project, on the main stem of the Colorado River below Granby, is a proposal from Northern Water. Both projects are part of Learning By Doing, although Northern is not a signatory to the underlying agreement for the program, the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement.

Both firming, or expansion, projects were conceived many years ago, but they were pushed forward after the 2002 drought. The drought crystalized Denver Water's worries that it couldn't supply enough water to its northern service area.

As such, Denver Water has proposed to divert more water from tributaries of the Colorado River and send it through its existing Moffat Tunnel system to an expanded Gross Reservoir, which is in the mountains southwest of Boulder.

The two big transmountain diversion systems in Grand County managed by Denver Water and Northern Water, plus several smaller ones, have annually removed an average of 67 percent of the water in the Colorado River below Windy Gap, according to the final environmental impact statement on the Windy Gap firming project.

The two proposed expanded diversions would bump that up to a combined So percent. By comparison, about 40 percent of water in the upper Roaring Fork and Fryingpan headwaters goes east, not west. That's significant, but the upper Colorado River has been hit even harder.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the final decision-maker on both the expanded Moffat and Windy Gap diversions, now expects to issue decisions on the proposals in 2017.

http://aspenjoumalism.org/2016/10/31/doing-more-with-less-water-learning-by-doing-in-g... 11 /4/2016 Doing more with less water: Leaming By Doing in Grand County I Aspen Journalism Page 4 of9

Photo: Courtesy Northern Water

Water for a coal-fired power plant near Fort Collins and northern Front Range cities is diverted from Windy Gap, located on the Colorado River near Granby.

--...... =.-__ -...... _ ...... ,__..... _ ...... _ _ -...._ ... ._ -­,,._ ·­...... ,.,_ JIO aJoO,_.. lOI u..o... .,. awa... • ...a-.

- Glll..----OCID --.,,,, "'-"- ---~lllOl.W - ~------llJXIO ~ .... T~ -....,...... T_...... __V• Figure 7. Major Tram·Buin Diversions

This graphic shows the transmountain diversions in Colorado. The Bousted Tunnel, at 53,971 acre-feet, the Twin Lakes Tunnel, at 46,930 acre-feet, and the Busk-Ivanhoe Tunnel, at 4,123 acre­ feet, take a combined average of 105,024 acre-feet a year from the top of the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan River headwaters.

The political landscape

The agreement that yielded Learning By Doing is grounded in political realities.

Denver Water needed Western Slope support to get more water. But to get it, the utility had to acknowledge a moral responsibility to address the impacts of existing diversions. That responsibility is now reflected in a legal agreement.

Denver Water initially submitted models about the effects of its proposed increased diversions. Trout Unlimited and other environmental groups were skeptical.

http://aspenjournalism.org/2016110131 /doing-rnore-with-less-water-learning-by-doing-in-g ... 11 1412016 Doing more with less water: Leaming By Doing in Grand County I Aspen Journalism Page 5of9

"A lot of water has been taken out of these rivers," says Mely Whiting, an attorney for Trout Unlimited. "We were not convinced any model was going to be able to predict what would happen [with increased diversions] or what will happen with climate change."

The message to Denver Water, she says, was "if you want more water, you have to fix problems we already have, and you have to make sure we don't have more problems. That's what we believe Learning By Doing is all about."

Will the Colorado River actually end up being better off after the diversions?

"I think so," Whiting says. "That's the goal. That's what we're shooting for."

But the upper Colorado River basin may never be as pristine as it once was.

"The goal is not to make it natural," says Whiting. Instead, Learning By Doing aims to "make it better."

Other environmental advocates reject this reasoning.

"Grand County got bad legal advice," says Gary Wockner, executive director of Fort Collins-based Save the Colorado. "The river is already drained and depleted, and climate change is just going to make it worse. When you're heading for a cliff in your car, the first thing to do is take your foot off the accelerator."

Water conservation, Wockner contends, "is always cheaper, easier and faster than trying to build a massive new dam, as is buying and sharing water with farmers."

Trout Unlimited sees things differently.

"We have said 'yes, let's conserve,' and we do everything we can to really engage in pushing forward conservation," Whiting said. "But we also need to figure out how to best protect the river with its projects moving forward."

Might the parties that divert water from the Roaring Fork River watershed, which include Colorado Springs, Aurora, and Pueblo, as well as irrigators in the Arkansas River Valley, ever feel a moral obligation to address the impacts of their diversions?

Chris Woodka, a former water reporter and the new issues management coordinator for the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District in Pueblo, was at least willing to consider the question last week.

Southeastern manages the Fry-Ark project, which diverts water from Hunter Creek and a string of tributaries in the upper Fryingpan River basin.

"We're probably not going to suggest anything that would take less water," Woodka says. "But if we are asked to do something, we would certainly look at it. But our primary obligation is to bring supplemental water to the Arkansas basin."

And an important factor for the Roaring Fork watershed to consider may be this: Learning By Doing is the result of a proposal to increase transmountain diversions and is not simply born of a desire to better manage the streams already depleted by them.

http://aspenjournalism.org/2016/10/31 /doing-more-with-less-water-learning-by-doing-in-g... 11/4/2016 ' Doing more with less water: Leaming By Doing in Grand County I Aspen Journalism Page 6of9

Photo: Courtesy Trout Unlimited An angler along the Fraser River in Grand County.

Improving relations

Denver Water, the Western Slope, and environmental groups have long had an adversarial relationship.

And when the utility initiated the federal review process in 2003 for expansion of its transmountain diversions through the Moffat Tunnel, Eric Kuhn, general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District in Glenwood Springs, sent a proposed "global settlement" to Denver Water.

Denver Water rejected the specific proposal, but not the idea and submitted a counter-proposal in what then became an extended negotiation.

Soon, headwaters counties - especially Grand, Summit, and Eagle - came to agree that there had to be a global agreement among the affected counties in response to Denver Water's proposal. Mediated negotiations began in 2007 involving 43 parties, most of them located on the Western Slope.

Ken Neubecker, then an employee of Colorado Trout Unlimited, says Denver was at least partly motivated by practical considerations. It faced a bruising PR battle and, very likely, a courtroom fight, and a potential echo of Two Forks, the giant dam on the South Platte River that was vetoed by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1990.

"The last thing they wanted was another Two Forks, where a federal agency would veto it," says Neubecker, now an American Rivers representative in Garfield County. "If you have all the players on both sides of the divide chipping in and smiling for a picture, it makes it a lot harder politically for the EPA to veto a project."

A key figure representing Grand County in the process was Lurline Underbrink Curran, a county native who became a planner and then the Grand County manager, a position she recently stepped down from.

Working with Denver Water, Curran decided, could yield more benefits than a

http://aspenjournalism.org/2016/10/31/doing-more-with-less-water-learning-by-doing-in-g... 11 1412016 Doing more with less water: Learning By Doing in Grand County I Aspen Journalism Page 7of9

courtroom brawl. But developing trusting relationships took time.

Curran, known for being plain-spoken and direct, credits the directors that Gov. John Hickenlooper appointed to the Denver Water board when he was mayor of Denver. She said they were able to acknowledge an important truth.

They were "willing to step back and go, 'Well, we have had a huge impact and if at all possible we need to improve the area that we take the water from,"' she said.

Denver Water, in turn, shared modeling studies with Grand County after securing a promise that the models wouldn't be used against it legally .

Photo:- Courtesy Denver Water Gross Reservoir in the mountains to the southwest of Boulder. Denver Water hopes to increase the height of the dam by 131 feet, to a new height of 471 feet, to store three times as much water, which it says will help it meet increasing demands and to better weather severe droughts.

'A really big deal'

Grand County also commissioned its own expensive stream management plan that brought science to the argument.

Paula Daukas, environmental planning manager for Denver Water, was impressed by that plan.

"It gives them the science, so they can frame their needs and wants in a scientific way," she said. "That plan became the foundation for Learning By Doing."

Learning By Doing is included in the 2013 Colorado River Water Cooperative Agreement, the result of the long negotiating process with Denver Water.

And Curran says Learning By Doing puts Grand County, with its multiple tasks, on par with Denver Water, an agency with a singular focus.

"That is a really big deal," Curran says.

Denver Water and the Windy Gap sponsors aren't legally required to participate in Learning By Doing until they get all their federal permits.

Nonetheless, in 2011, they joined the state, Grand County and other partners to begin to explore how to do more for rivers with less water.

http://aspenjournalism.org/2016/l 0/31/doing-more-with-less-water-learning-by-doing-in-g... 11 1412016 Doing more with less water: Learning By Doing in Grand County I Aspen Journalism Page 8of9

Diminished flows distress the web of life found in rivers. Macroinvertebrates - bugs - live in the gaps between rocks in rivers. Reduced flow means less velocity, and sediments are not swept from between the rocks. Less room for bugs means fewer of them, and fewer bugs means fewer fish.

Klancke, the avid fly-fisherman, can point to reaches of river in Grand County where President Dwight Eisenhower snagged big trout during summer vacations in the 1950s.

But now he can also point to segments of the Fraser River where summer flows, depleted by diversions, are too shallow for the width of the channel, resulting in water dangerously warm for fish and the bugs they depend upon.

"They heat up in ways they never did before," says Klancke of the tributaries in Grand County. "Seventy degrees is the limit trout can withstand."

One recent response has been to narrow a section of the Fraser River's channel for nine-tenths of a mile and add riffles and pools. The ongoing Fraser Flats project will cost $201,000, with various parties, including a private landowner, chipping in.

Denver Water's portion of the Fraser Flats project is only $so,ooo, part of $2 million earmarked for aquatic habitat improvements under the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement. The agreement says that Denver Water will provide $11 million to Grand County in all.

That agreement also obligates the utility to bypass 1,000 acre-feet that it could divert. The water is to be used for environmental purposes in the Fraser Valley.

After the work is done at Fraser Flats next year, stream temperatures and other indicators will be monitored for several years.

The procedure, explains Denver Water's Daukus, is to see what benefit has occurred, "so that when we go to the next project, we can see what has worked and what won't work."

But Wockner of Save the Colorado thinks Grand County settled for a "terrible deal."

"The two dam and diversion projects would take over a billion dollars of water over to the Front Range," he says, referring to the Moffat and Windy Gap firming projects.

"Grand County settled for about one percent of that in mitigation costs, which is a fleecing of money as well as water."

As for the "channel enhancement" at Fraser Flats, he sees only a narrowed irrigation ditch.

"The Fraser and Colorado rivers need more water, not less," Wockner says.

Still, proponents say Learning By Doing provides a model. They say it requires commitment by people to be stewards of rivers in their backyards. It requires mechanisms for addressing problems. It requires cooperation among diverse partners. And it requires compromise.

http://aspenjournalism.org/2016/10/31/doing-more-with-less-water-learning-by-doing-in-g... 11 /4/2016 Doing more with less water: Leaming By Doing in Grand County I Aspen Journalism Page 9of9

Denver Water's most important change, says Klancke, may be a new focus. Instead of a singular focus on delivering water to customers it may now have a broader focus that includes maintaining the health of the basin of origin, he says.

"That's the culture they're changing," he said. "I won't say it's successful until the scientists say it's healthier than it used to be. But we're headed in the right direction."

Richards, of Pitkin County, is still not sure Learning By Doing has sufficient teeth to compel change.

"It will depend," Richards said, "on whether what is learned actually ends up changing what the water diverters do."

Editor's note: Aspen Journalism and the Aspen Daily News are collaborating on coverage of rivers and water. The Daily News published this story (http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/home/173072) on Sunday, Oct. 30, 2016.

http://aspenjoumalism.org/2016/10/31/doing-more-with-less-water-learning-by-doing-in-g... 1 l /4/2016 Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation Districts

Operation and Maintenance Summary Report December, 2016

Service Interruptions - Water

Platte Canyon

LOCATION: 5948 W. Elmhurst Ave. DATE: December 7, 2016 PROBLEM: Beam Break TYPE: 6” C.I.P. AGE: 1972 OUTAGE: Customers: Twelve Duration: Six Hours COSTS: Permit: $ 175.00 Contractor repair: $4,770.95 Asphalt/Concrete: $ 650.00 District: $1,124.05 Total: $6,720.00

COMMENTS: Installed a 6” X 12.5” repair clamp over the beam break failure.

LOCATION: 6875 S. Wadsworth Ct. DATE: December 16, 2016 PROBLEM: Beam Break TYPE: 6” A.C.P. AGE: 1973 OUTAGE: Customers: Eight Duration: Seven Hours COSTS: Permit: $ 175.00 Contractor repair: $4,486.00 Asphalt/Concrete: $1,867.50 District: $1,212.82 Total: $7,741.32

COMMENTS: Installed a 6” X 15” repair clamp over the beam break failure.

Page 1 of 10 LOCATION: 7304 W. Roxbury Pl. DATE: December 16, 2016 PROBLEM: Beam Break TYPE: 3” C.I.P. (Service) AGE: 1972 OUTAGE: Customers: Ten Duration: Six Hours COSTS: Permit: $ 325.00 Contractor repair: $5,514.34 Asphalt/Concrete: $1,850.00 District: $1,049.16 Total: $7,785.50

COMMENTS: Installed a 3” clamp on the School’s service line. The repair was between the tapping valve and curb stop valve.

Southwest Metropolitan

LOCATION: 8500 W. Bowles Ave. DATE: December 6, 2016 PROBLEM: Electrolysis TYPE: 12” A.C.P. / 4” Fire Line AGE: 1983 OUTAGE: Customers: One Duration: Fourteen Hours COSTS: Permit: $ 175.00 Contractor repair: $12,744.43 Asphalt/Concrete: $ 1,112.00 District: $ 2,174.95 Total: $16,236.38

COMMENTS: Severe corrosion of the fire tapping valve and saddle. Cut in new 12” X 4” Tee and replaced the tapping valve. Coldest day of the year.

LOCATION: W. Bowles Ave. & S. Estes St. DATE: December 7, 2016 PROBLEM: Electrolysis TYPE: 12” Gate Valve AGE: 1983 OUTAGE: Customers: Zero Duration: Six Hours COSTS: Permit: $ 175.00

Page 2 of 10 Contractor repair: $4,089.35 Asphalt/Concrete: $1,200.00 District: $1,205.81 Total: $6,095.16

COMMENTS: The packing started leaking after it was closed for the water break. Exposed valve and replaced all the bolts.

LOCATION: 7326 S. Carr Ct. DATE: December 22, 2016 PROBLEM: Beam Break TYPE: 6” C.I.P. AGE: 1977 OUTAGE: Customers: Eight Duration: Five Hours COSTS: Permit: $ 175.00 Contractor repair: $3,536.30 Asphalt/Concrete: $ 650.00 District: $ 972.74 Total: $5,334.04

COMMENTS: Installed a 6” X 12.5” repair clamp over the beam break failure.

Service Interruptions - Sewer

Platte Canyon

No sewer service interruptions this reporting period.

Southwest Metropolitan No sewer service interruptions this reporting period.

General Operations Information

Platte Canyon - Sewer Notice Letters

Four sewer notice letters were sent to customers warning of a potential problem as a result of root intrusion.

Page 3 of 10

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)

October, 2016 – Water remedial repairs are complete for the remainder of the year. Additional items are budgeted for repair in 2017.

November, 2016 - Water remedial repairs will resume late spring of next year.

December, 2016 – No information this reporting period.

District Facilities Status

Scott J. Morse Pump Station (PC)

Reconstruction Project

October, 2015 - Staff met with Dewberry and several subcontractors to review the project and finalize any questions for the design.

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.

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.

January, 2016 – Dewberry submitted 60% submittal design drawings. Staff is reviewing and commenting as design advances. Denver Water is performing a courtesy design review.

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.

Page 4 of 10 March, 2016 – No information this reporting period.

April, 2016 – Mandatory pre-bid meeting is scheduled for May 18, 2016.

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.

June, 2016 – A preconstruction meeting will be held sometime early or mid-June.

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.

August, 2016 – No activity to report this period.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Fire System Communication Failure 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.

February, 2016 – I’ve had several conversations with Tyco to correct this issue. They assured me a proposal will be presented mid-March.

Page 5 of 10 March, 2016 – I am still working with Tyco resolving the communication error. More information will be provided in next month’s report.

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.

May, 2016 – No information to report this period.

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).

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.

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.

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. October, 2016 – Nothing to report this period.

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.

December, 2016 – We are waiting for the new phone lines to be installed before we can move forward.

Meetings/Training

Maintenance Staff Meeting

Monthly staff and safety meeting was held on Wednesday, December 14, 2016. These staff meetings are held monthly to discuss operational, personnel, and safety matters.

Page 6 of 10 Operator Certification / Training

December, 2016 – No training or certification occurred this period.

General Information

Peakview and Wadsworth Water Main Reconstruction (SWM)

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.

January, 2016 - The planned reconnection at W. Peakview Dr. has been budgeted for 2016 under remedial repairs.

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.

March, 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.

May, 2016 – No information this reporting period.

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.

July, 2016 – I have instructed Armando Quintana to provide information to Ashley Dalton to move forward with an R.F.P.

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.

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.

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.

Page 7 of 10

November, 2016 – Tony is still attempting to obtain the additional proposal.

December, 2016 – No information to report this period.

Parking Lot Rehabilitation (SWM)

February, 2016 – The office parking lot has met its expected life and is in need of concrete and asphalt restoration. Funds were allocated and approved for this project in the 2016 Budget. Some concrete curbing and portions of the driveways will be replaced. The entire lot will be roto-milled two inches and overlaid with new asphalt, then re-striped. Staff has begun developing a scope of work to send to various contractors for bids. Staff expects to complete this project by mid-summer.

March, 2016 – No information this reporting period.

April, 2016 – The assistant manager is preparing a RFP to obtain proposals for this project.

May, 2016 – No information this reporting period.

June, 2016 – No information this reporting period.

July, 2016 – It is anticipated to have proposals sometime in late August.

August, 2016 – Requests for proposals are due September 16, 2016. September, 2016 – Metro Pavers was the sole vendor to bid on this project. A P.O. has been issued and construction is expected to begin mid October.

October, 2016 – Metro Pavers will begin the project late October or early November.

November, 2016 – The project is 98% completed. Metro Pavers will return as weather allows to repair some minor deficiencies to the asphalt. There are a few areas needing to be filled in to prevent puddling.

December, 2016 – Most of the repairs are completed. An area will have to wait until the snow melts off to complete the remaining low spots.

S.C.A.D.A. Communication System Upgrade

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

Page 8 of 10 extinct, it is necessary to have a reliable circuit monitoring the pump stations and sewer flow monitoring sites.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

October, 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.

December, 2016 – No information this reporting period.

Page 9 of 10 Service Contracts

Bow Mar

December, 2016 Completed seven meter readings. Responded to one customer service request. Completed nine utility locate requests.

Columbine

December, 2016 Performed weekly and monthly lift station maintenance. Completed one customer service request. Completed one utility locate requests. Completed 91 feet of hydraulic cleaning. Completed two corrective items.

Lochmoor

December, 2016 Completed one utility locate request.

Valley

December, 2016 Attended monthly board meeting. Completed fourteen utility locate requests. Completed one customer service request. Completed 16,779 feet of television inspections. Completed 3,746 feet of root cutting maintenance. Completed 9,618 feet of hydraulic cleaning. Completed one corrective item.

S:\data\WPDOCS\DOCUMENTS\Word Files\PC-SWM O&M BOARD AGENDA SUMMARY.docx

Page 10 of 10 PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE REPORT DECEMBER, 2016 12/31/2016 (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% 5.00 4.00 80% 1103 Customer Service 14 6.00 21.50 13.00 358% 1104 Utility Location 10 4.00 12.75 1.00 319% 1105 Valve Inspection / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1106 Hydrant Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1116 Hydrant Painting 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1107 Districbution System Flushing / Testing 4 4 100% 1.00 2.50 250% 1108 P.R.V. Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1109 Air-Vac Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1110 Valve & Hydrant Repair 5 0 0% 23.00 0.00 0% 1120 Pressure Monitoring 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1130 Water Break Repair 4 20.00 13.00 1151 Construction Inspection / Tesing (Warranty) 0 10 0% 0.00 6.00 0% 1160 Overlay Operations - Water 0 0 0% 0.00

1201 General Sewer 0% 6.00 0.00 0% 1202 Lift Station 1203 Customer Service 3 6.00 1.50 25% 1204 Utility Location 13 4.00 4.00 1.00 100% 1205 Hydraulic Main Cleaning 1,923 3,344 174% 8.00 12.00 150% 1206 Television Inspections 11,336 11,336 100% 52.00 53.00 102% 1207 Root Cutting / Root Treatment 9,542 10,475 110% 68.00 88.00 129% 1208 Grease Trap Inspections 2 2 100% 1.00 0.75 75% 1209 Manhole Repairs / Inspections 2 5 250% 12.00 8.00 67% 1220 Flow Monitoring 1230 Sewer Stoppage 0.00 1251 Construction Inspection / Testing (Warranty) 0 1 0% 0.00 1.00 0% 1260 Overlay Operatiosn - Sewer 0 0 0.00

4301 Vehicle / Equipment Maintenance 20.00 44.00 220% 4302 Building / Landscape Maintenance 10.00 21.00 210% 4303 Errands / Messenger 10.00 0.75 8% 4304 General Administrative Activities 67.00 57.00 85% 4315 Purchasing / Inventory 4 4 20.00 25.00 125% 4318 Training / Seminar 1 1 10.00 8.00 80% 4320 Staff Meetings 5 5 15.00 21.00 140%

Total Hours 356.00 411.75 28.00

Working Days in the Month 20 Total Working Hours in the Month 1,032

Days Since Last Sewer Main Backup/Spill 820 Record Days for Sewer Backup/Spill 2,779 Days Since Last Safety Incident 74

Location Requests Number of Requests 80 Number of Locations Provided 17 PLATTE CANYON WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE REPORT JANUARY, 2017 1/1/2017

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 4 0 0% 5.00 0.00 0% 1103 Customer Service 0 6.00 0.00 0% 1104 Utility Location 0 4.00 0.00 0% 1105 Valve Inspection / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1106 Hydrant Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1116 Hydrant Painting 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1107 Districbution System Flushing / Testing 4 0 0% 1.00 0.00 0% 1108 P.R.V. Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1109 Air-Vac Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1110 Valve & Hydrant Repair 5 0 0% 23.00 0.00 0% 1120 Pressure Monitoring 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1130 Water Break Repair 0 0.00 1151 Construction Inspection / 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 3,151 0 0% 13.00 0.00 0% 1206 Television Inspections 8,089 0 0% 37.00 0.00 0% 1207 Root Cutting / Root Treatment 8,863 0 0% 63.00 0.00 0% 1208 Grease Trap Inspections 1 0 0% 1.00 0.00 0% 1209 Manhole Repairs / Inspections 0 0 0% 8.00 0.00 0% 1220 Flow Monitoring 1230 Sewer Stoppage 0.00 1251 Construction Inspection / Testing (Warranty) 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 1260 Overlay Operatiosn - Sewer 0 0

4301 Vehicle / Equipment Maintenance 20.00 0.00 0 4302 Building / Landscape Maintenance 10.00 0.00 0 4303 Errands / Messenger 10.00 0.00 0 4304 General Administrative Activities 67.00 0.00 0 4315 Purchasing / Inventory 4 0 20.00 0.00 0 4318 Training / Seminar 1 0 10.00 0.00 0 4320 Staff Meetings 5 0 15.00 0.00 0

Total Hours 337.00 0.00 0.00

Working Days in the Month 20 Total Working Hours in the Month 1,120 Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District DECEMBER, 2016 Scheduled vs. Completed Sewer Maintenance/Hours

Scheduled vs. Completed Sewer Main Footage 12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000 Footage

4,000

2,000

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 100.00

90.00

80.00

70.00

60.00

50.00 Hours

40.00

30.00

20.00

10.00

0.00 Scheduled TVI Hours Completed TVI Hours Scheduled HC Hours Completed HC Hours Scheduled RTC/RT Hours Completed RTC/RT Hours Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District DECEMBER, 2016 Scheduled vs. Completed Water Maintenance/Hours

Scheduled vs. Completed Hydrant/Flushing Maintenance 5

4

4

3

3

Assets 2

2

1

1

0 Scheduled Hydrant Maintenace Completed Hydrant Maintenance Scheduled Hydrant Painting Completed Hydrant Pianting Scheduled Flushing Maintenance Completed Flushing Maintenance

Scheduled vs. Completed Hydrant/Flushing Hours 3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50 Hours

1.00

0.50

0.00 Scheduled Hydrant Hours Completed Hydrant Hours Scheduled Hydrant Painting Hours Completed Hydrant Pianting Hours Scheduled Flushing Hours Completed Flushing Hours Platte Canyon Water and Sanitation District DECEMBER, 2016 Scheduled vs. Completed Water Maintenance/Hours

Scheduled vs. Completed Valve Maintenance 1

1

1

1

1

1 Assets

0

0

0

0

0 Scheduled Valve Maintenance Completed Valve Maintenance Scheduled Air Vac Maintenance Completed Air Vac Maintenance Scheduled PRV Maintenance Completed PRV Maintenance

Scheduled vs. Completed Valve Hours 1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50 Hours

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00 Scheduled Valve Hours Completed Valve Hours Scheduled Air Vac Hours Completed Air Vac Hours Scheduled PRV Hours Completed PRV Hours SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE REPORT DECEMBER, 2016 12/31/2016 (FINAL)

Accomplishments Man-hours Job Code Description Scheduled Completed % Scheduled Completed O.T. % 2101 General Water 1 10.00 24.00 240% 2102 Pump Station 4 4 100% 5.00 11.00 220% 2103 Customer Service 22 10.00 33.00 10.00 330% 2104 Utility Location 55 10.00 25.00 250% 2105 Valve Inspection / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2106 Hydrant Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2116 Hydrant Painting 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2107 Districbution System Flushing / Testing 12 12 100% 3.00 6.00 200% 2108 P.R.V. Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2109 Air-Vac Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2110 Valve & Hydrant Repair 10 4 40% 31.00 13.00 1.50 42% 2120 Pressure Monitoring 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2130 Water Break Repair 2 19.00 12.00 2151 Construction Inspection / 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 2 10.00 1.00 10% 2204 Utility Location 38 10.00 14.00 140% 2205 Hydraulic Main Cleaning 6,242 6,242 100% 27.00 24.00 89% 2206 Television Inspections 7,096 7,096 100% 32.00 45.00 141% 2207 Root Cutting / Root Treatment 532 532 100% 4.00 3.00 75% 2208 Grease Trap Inspections 8 8 100% 4.00 5.00 125% 2209 Manhole Repairs / Inspections 10 10 100% 28.00 5.00 18% 2220 Flow Monitoring 0 2 0% 2.00 3.00 2230 Sewer Stoppage 0 0 0% 0.00 2251 Construction Inspection / Testing (Warranty) 0 2 0% 0.00 2.25 0% 2260 Overlay Operatiosn - Sewer 0 0 0% 0.00

4301 Vehicle / Equipment Maintenance 20.00 44.00 220% 4302 Building / Landscape Maintenance 10.00 21.00 210% 4303 Errands / Messenger 10.00 0.75 8% 4304 General Administrative Activities 67.00 57.00 85% 4315 Purchasing / Inventory 4 4 20.00 25.00 125% 4318 Training / Seminar 1 1 10.00 8.00 80% 4320 Staff Meetings 5 5 15.00 21.00 140%

Total Hours 344.00 410.00 23.50

Working Days in the Month 20 Total Working Hours in the Month 1,032

Days Since Last Sewer Main Backup/Spill 337 Record Days for Sewer Backup/Spill 3,025 Days Since Last Safety Incident 74

Location Requests Number of Requests 170 Number of Locations Provided 93 SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE REPORT JANUARY, 2017 1/1/2017

Accomplishments Man-hours Job Code Description Scheduled Completed % Scheduled Completed O.T. % 2101 General Water 0 10.00 0.00 0% 2102 Pump Station 4 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 / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2106 Hydrant Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2116 Hydrant Painting 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2107 Districbution System Flushing / Testing 12 0 0% 3.00 0.00 0% 2108 P.R.V. Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2109 Air-Vac Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2110 Valve & Hydrant Repair 10 0 0% 31.00 0.00 0% 2120 Pressure Monitoring 0 0 0% 0.00 0.00 0% 2130 Water Break Repair 0 0.00 2151 Construction Inspection / 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 4,099 0 0% 18.00 0.00 0% 2206 Television Inspections 26,360 0 0% 121.00 0.00 0% 2207 Root Cutting / Root Treatment 1,674 0 0% 12.00 0.00 0% 2208 Grease Trap Inspections 8 0 0% 4.00 0.00 0% 2209 Manhole Repairs / Inspections 5 0 0% 18.00 0.00 0% 2220 Flow Monitoring 0 0 0% 8.00 0.00 2230 Sewer Stoppage 0 0.00 2251 Construction Inspection / Testing (Warranty) 627 0 0% 3.00 0.00 0% 2260 Overlay Operatiosn - Sewer 0 0 0% 0.00

4301 Vehicle / Equipment Maintenance 20.00 0.00 0 4302 Building / Landscape Maintenance 10.00 0.00 0 4303 Errands / Messenger 10.00 0.00 0 4304 General Administrative Activities 67.00 0.00 0 4315 Purchasing / Inventory 4 0 20.00 0.00 0 4318 Training / Seminar 1 0 10.00 0.00 0 4320 Staff Meetings 5 0 15.00 0.00 0

Total Hours 431.00 0.00 0.00

Working Days in the Month 20 Total Working Hours in the Month 1,120 Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District DECEMBER, 2016 Scheduled vs. Completed Sewer Maintenance / Hours

Scheduled vs. Completed Sewer Main Footage 8,000

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000 Footage

3,000

2,000

1,000

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 50.00

45.00

40.00

35.00

30.00

25.00 Hours

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

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 DECEMBER, 2016 Scheduled vs. Completed Water Maintenance / Hours

Scheduled vs. Completed Hydrant/Flushing Maintenance 14

12

10

8 Assets 6

4

2

0 Scheduled Hydrant Maintenace Completed Hydrant Maintenance Scheduled Hydrant Painting Completed Hydrant Painting Scheduled Flushing Maintenance Completed Flushing Maintenance

Scheduled vs. Completed Hydrant/Flushing Hours 7.00

6.00

5.00

4.00 Hours 3.00

2.00

1.00

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 DECEMBER, 2016 Scheduled vs. Completed Water Maintenance / Hours

Scheduled vs. Completed Valve Maintenance 1

1

1

1

1

1 Assets

0

0

0

0

0 Scheduled Valve Maintenance Completed Valve Maintenance Scheduled Air Vac Maintenance Completed Air Vac Maintenance Scheduled PRV Maintenance Completed PRV Maintenance

Scheduled vs. Completed Valve Hours 1.00

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50 Hours

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

0.00 Scheduled Valve Hours Completed Valve Hours Scheduled Air Vac Hours Completed Air Vac Hours Scheduled PRV Hours Completed PRV Hours Platte Canyon Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Number of Assets Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Valve Inspection / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 129 129 198 198 162 162 139 132 162 162 165 161 167 167 86 84 2 2 0 0 P.R.V. Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 Air-Vac Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 Hydrant Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 52 106 257 10 10 110 110 52 52 60 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydrant Painting 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 24 35 35 64 64 111 111 28 28 27 25 0 0 0 1 0 0 Districbution System Flushing / Testing 2 2 2 4 19 21 37 41 15 28 2 2 19 23 27 31 15 19 14 18 4 4 4 4

Hours Valve Inspection / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 29 18 45 35 37 18 32 32 37 20 38 38 38 25 20 18 0 0.5 0 0 P.R.V. Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 7 0 0 Air-Vac Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 13 7 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 4.5 0 0 0 0 Hydrant Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 10 24 68 2 2 25 34 12 15 14 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hydrant Painting 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 11 11 13 20 21 36 44 9 9 9 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 Districbution System Flushing / Testing 0.5 0.5 0.5 2 5 6 10 7 3 5 2 1 5 7 7 9 4 4 4 4 1 1.5 1 2.5

Southwest Metro Number of Assets Valve Inspection / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 418 406 422 422 399 396 405 360 451 451 412 381 426 421 406 401 5 5 0 0 P.R.V. Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 18 0 0 Air-Vac Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 38 38 0 0 1 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 0 0 0 0 Hydrant Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 6 233 233 164 255 168 168 307 236 396 396 217 217 0 2 2 2 0 0 Hydrant Painting 0 0 0 0 0 0 97 97 90 90 122 122 140 68 303 303 160 105 81 81 1 3 0 0 Districbution System Flushing / Testing 6 6 6 12 79 85 41 53 45 119 6 6 78 90 109 121 52 64 53 65 12 12 12 12

Hours Valve Inspection / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 96 66 96 87 91 58 93 85 103 62 94 72 97 73 93 85 1 2 0 0 P.R.V. Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 30 0 0 Air-Vac Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 61 27 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 43 0 0 0 0 Hydrant Inspections / Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 2 53 59 37 71 49 51 70 68 91 114 50 66 0 3 0 1 0 0 Hydrant Painting 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 42 24 41 39 43 45 25 87 97 51 42 26 24 0 1 0 0 Districbution System Flushing / Testing 1.6 2 1.6 8 21 26 11 10 12 20 2 2 21 28 29 30 14 15 14 22 3 5.5 3 6 Platte Canyon / Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed Water Valve Maintenance/Hours

Water Valve Maintenance - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon / Southwest Metro Scheduled vs. Completed 500

450

400

350

300

250 Assets 200

150

100

50

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Scheduled PC Valves Completed PC Valves Scheduled SWM Valves Completed SWM Valves

Yearly Water Valve Man Hours - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon / Southwest Metro Scheduled vs. Completed 120

100

80

60 Hours

40

20

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Scheduled PC Valve Hours Completed PC Valve Hours Scheduled SWM Valve Hours Completed SWM Valve Hours Platte Canyon / Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed PRV & Air Vac Maintenance/Hours

Yearly PRV/Air-Vac Maintenance - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon / Southwest Metro Scheduled vs. Completed 45

40

35

30

25

Assets 20

15

10

5

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 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 Air Vac

Yearly PRV/Air-Vac Man Hours - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon / Southwest Metro Scheduled vs. Completed 70

60

50

40 Hours 30

20

10

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Scheduled PC PRV Hours Completed PC PRV Hours Scheduled PC Air Vac Hours Completed PC Air Vac Hours Scheduled SWM PRV Hours Completed SWM PRV Hours Scheduled SWM Air Vac Hours Completed SWM Air Vac Hours Platte Canyon / Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed Hydrant Maintenance/Hours

Yearly Hydrant Maintenance - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon / Southwest Metro Scheduled vs. Completed 450

400

350

300

250

Assests 200

150

100

50

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Scheduled PC Hydrants Completed PC Hydrants Scheduled SWM Hydrants Completed SWM Hydrants

Yearly Hydrant Man Hours - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon / Southwest Metro Scheduled vs. Completed 120

100

80

60 Hours

40

20

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Scheduled PC Hydrant Hours Completed PC Hydrant Hours Scheduled SWM Hydrant Hours Completed SWM Hydrant Hours Platte Canyon / Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed Hydrant Painting Maintenance/Hours

Yearly Hydrant Painting - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon / Southwest Metro Scheduled vs. Completed 350

300

250

200

Assests 150

100

50

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Scheduled PC Hydrant Painting Completed PC Hydrant Painting Scheduled SWM Hydrant Painting Completed SWM Hydrant Painting

Yearly Hydrant Painting Man Hours - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon / Southwest Metro Scheduled vs. Completed 120

100

80

60 Hours

40

20

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Scheduled PC Hydrant Painting Hours Completed PC Hydrant Painting Hours Scheduled SWM Hydrant Painting Hours Completed SWM Hydrant Painting Hours Platte Canyon / Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed Flushing Maintenance/Hours

Flushing Maintenance - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon / Southwest Metro Scheduled vs. Completed 140

120

100

80 Assets 60

40

20

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Scheduled PC Flushing Completed PC Flushing Scheduled SWM Flushing Completed SWM Flushing

Flushing Man Hours - Past 12 Months Platte Canyon / Southwest Metro Scheduled vs. Completed 35

30

25

20 Hours 15

10

5

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Scheduled PC Flushing Hours Completed PC Flushing Hours Scheduled SWM Flushing Hours Completed SWM Flushing Hours Platte Canyon Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Footage Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled CompletedScheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Scheduled Completed Hydraulic Main Cleaning 3,151 3,151 1,868 3,225 2,402 2,402 0 0 5,586 5,586 951 1,190 1,327 1,327 110 110 0 550 1,355 1,355 9,152 9,152 1,923 3,344 Television Inspections 12,018 19,954 2,308 8,708 3,551 3,282 10,941 10,941 10,613 10,613 15,260 15,260 0 0 10,275 10,495 11,772 11,772 5,844 5,844 934 934 11,336 11,336 Root Cutting / Root Treatment 13,778 20,510 13,054 16,003 6,049 7,370 2,860 1,993 4,160 3,508 5,057 6,952 4,345 4,345 1,325 3,307 0 6,697 1,022 3,926 10,861 0 9,542 10,475

Hours Hydraulic Main Cleaning 13 8 8 11 10 8 0 0 24 19 4 5 6 5 1 1 0 2 6 6 39 20 8 12 Television Inspections 55 96 38 148 16 19 50 56 49 43 70 72 0 0 47 52 54 38 27 21 4 6 52 53 Root Cutting / Root Treatment 98 146 74 133 43 61 20 10 30 13 36 27 31 26 9 19 0 29 7 26 77 0 68 88

Southwest Metro Footage Hydraulic Main Cleaning 4,436 4,589 5,925 17,542 1,885 2,212 4,004 4,004 0 311 4,649 5,192 703 703 3,653 6,756 6,720 7,029 5,334 5,334 0 0 6,242 6,242 Television Inspections 23,969 30,525 2,194 3,567 18,135 9,770 23,884 23,884 17,217 18,866 13,511 13,511 20,668 8,440 22,356 27,104 11,099 11,099 27,514 25,439 32,517 20,418 7,096 7,096 Root Cutting / Root Treatment 1,287 1,287 340 0 0 0 100 582 100 1,069 345 2,909 863 863 0 1,085 0 276 2,832 5,562 1,287 0 532 532

Hours Hydraulic Main Cleaning 19 18 25 55 8 9 17 8 0 1 20 20 3 2 16 18 29 24 23 18 0 0 27 24 Television Inspections 110 179 61 33 83 59 109 110 71 94 62 60 94 42 102 137 51 46 126 139 149 105 32 45 Root Cutting / Root Treatment 9 6 2 0 0 0 1 4 1 6 2 14 6 5 0 4 0 1 20 36 9 0 4 3

Monthly Contract Combined Districts Footage Hydraulic Main Cleaning 0 2380 91 682 91 4347 206 10511 Television Inspections 0 1115 10098 4058 8042 0 8801 16779 Root Cutting / Root Treatment 0 2005 3989 902 5076 6350 13137 3746

Annual Footage Hydraulic Main Cleaning 0 540 964 5,187 0 2,677 336 0 0 4,347 206 5,660 Television Inspections 0 15,941 6,141 8,121 0 6,582 6,323 0 0 0 0 5,267 Root Cutting / Root Treatment 536 3,110 0 0 1,196 1,733 0 1,461 0 398 2,637 7,433 Platte Canyon / Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed TVI Maintenance / Hours

TVI Footage - Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed 35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

Footage 15,000

10,000

5,000

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Scheduled PC TVI Footage Completed PC TVI Footage Scheduled SWM TVI Footage Completed SWM TVI Footage

TVI Hours - Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed 200

180

160

140

120

100 Hours 80

60

40

20

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Scheduled PC TVI Hours Completed PC TVI Hours Scheduled SWM TVI Hours Completed SWM TVI Hours Platte Canyon / Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed HC Maintenance/Hours

HC Footage - Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed 20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000 Footage 8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Scheduled PC HC Footage Completed PC HC Footage Scheduled SWM HC Footage Completed SWM HC Footage

Yearly HC Hours Scheduled vs. Completed 60

50

40

30 Hours

20

10

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Scheduled PC HC Hours Completed PC HC Hours Scheduled SWM HC Hours Completed SWM HC Hours Platte Canyon / Southwest Metropolitan Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed RTC & RT Maintenance/Hours

RTC / RT Footage - Past 12 Months Scheduled vs. Completed 25,000

20,000

15,000 Footage 10,000

5,000

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 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 160

140

120

100

80 Hours

60

40

20

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Scheduled PC RTC/RT Hours Completed PC RTC/RT Hours Scheduled SWM RTC/RT Hours Completed SWM RTC/RT Hours Platte Canyon / Southwest Metropolitan / Contract Districts Completed Sewer Maintenance

Completed Sewer Main Footage AUGUST, 2016 Platte Canyon / Southwest Metropolitan / Contract Districts 12,000

10,000

8,000

6,000 Footage

4,000

2,000

0

PC TVI Feet SWM TVI Feet Contract Districts TVI Feet PC HC Feet SWM HC Feet Contract Districts HC Feet PC RTC/RT Feet SWM RTC/RT Feet Contract Districts RTC/RT Feet

Completed TVI Footage Past 12 Months Platte Canyon / Southwest Metropolitan / Contract Districts 35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

Footage 15,000

10,000

5,000

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Completed PC Footage Completed SWM Footage Completed Contract Districts Footage Platte Canyon / Southwest Metropolitan / Contract Districts Completed Sewer Maintenance

Completed HC Footage Past 12 Months Platte Canyon / Southwest Metropolitan / Contract Districts 20,000

18,000

16,000

14,000

12,000

10,000 Footage 8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Completed PC Footage Completed SWM Footage Completed Contract Districts Footage

Completed RTC/RT Footage Past 12 Months Platte Canyon / Southwest Metropolitan / Contract Districts 25,000

20,000

15,000 Footage 10,000

5,000

0 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 Completed PC Footage Completed SWM Footage Completed Contract Districts Footage PLATTE CANYON, SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN, BOW MAR, COLUMBINE, VALLEY & LOCHMOOR PRODUCTIVITY REPORT

Year to Date

320 298

280

240 234 219 209 200

159 Performance 160 141 Standard

120 Feet per man hour Feet per man

80

40

0 ROOT CUT HYDRAULIC CLEANING TV INSPECTION PLATTE CANYON, SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN, BOW MAR, COLUMBINE, VALLEY & LOCHMOOR PRODUCTIVITY REPORT

Year to Date

7 7 6 6

5 5 4

4 4 4 4 4 4 Performance 3 3 Standard 3 3

2 Quantity per man hour Quantity per

1

0 EXERCISE INSPECT PAINT INSPECT SERVICE DISTRIBUTION VALVE VALVE HYDRANT HYDRANT HYDRANT MAIN FLUSHING PLATTE CANYON, SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN, BOW MAR, COLUMBINE, VALLEY & LOCHMOOR PRODUCTIVITY REPORT

December 2016

320

282 280

240 234 219 205 200 Performance 160 147 141 Standard

120 Feet per man hour Feet per man

80

40

0 ROOT CUT HYDRAULIC CLEANING TV INSPECTION PLATTE CANYON, SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN, BOW MAR, COLUMBINE, VALLEY & LOCHMOOR PRODUCTIVITY REPORT

December 2016

4 4

3.5

3

2.5 Performance 2 2 Standard

1.5 Quantity per man hour Quantity per 1

0.5

0 DISTRIBUTION MAIN FLUSHING ------

SCHEDULED TELEVISION INSPECTION FOR DECEMBER 2016

\\'. Ol!l.LVtE.W ,\VE.

~·, ' .... ' ~ f 1 • I tv7

W. ROWLES AVf._

• Platte Canyon TVI • Southwo:st Metro. TVI • BowMarTVI • Columbine TVI Lochmoor TVI Volley TV! 2016 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 12,018 0 0 12,018 20,462 (8,444) 23,816 0 0 23,816 30,525 (6,709) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FEBRUARY 10,752 0 0 10,752 8,708 2,044 8,750 1,193 0 9,943 3,567 6,376 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MARCH 9,951 0 0 9,951 3,282 6,669 18,135 0 0 18,135 9,770 8,365 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,086 0 0 8,086 8,086 0 APRIL 10,941 0 0 10,941 10,941 0 15,519 0 0 15,519 15,519 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MAY 10,613 0 0 10,613 10,613 0 17,217 0 0 17,217 18,866 (1,649) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JUNE 15,260 0 0 15,260 15,260 0 13,511 0 0 13,511 13,511 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JULY 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,448 0 0 20,448 8,440 12,008 8,901 0 0 8,901 8,901 0 0 0 0 0 0 AUGUST 10,275 325 0 10,600 10,600 0 15,265 2,320 0 17,585 31,628 (14,043) 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,058 0 0 4,058 4,058 0 SEPTEMBER 11,772 0 0 11,772 11,772 0 11,099 0 0 11,099 11,099 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,042 0 0 8,042 8,042 0 OCTOBER 5,844 1,233 0 7,077 7,077 0 27,574 0 0 27,574 27,574 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOVEMBER 11,513 0 0 11,513 11,513 0 12,989 0 0 12,989 12,989 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,189 0 2,189 2,189 0 DECEMBER 11,336 0 0 11,336 11,336 0 7,096 0 0 7,096 7,096 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 120,275 1,558 121,833 121,564 191,419 3,513 194,932 190,584 8,901 0 8,901 8,901 20,186 2,189 22,375 22,375

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 550 0096 109000179 00000 00000 FEBRUARY 490 0043 4050039 00000 00000 MARCH 45 0 0 0 19 83 0 0 0 59 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 0 37 40 APRIL 500 0056 71000110 00000 00000 MAY 490 0043 7900094 00 00 00 00 JUNE 70 0 0 72 62 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JULY 0 0 0 0 93 0 0 42 41 0 41 38 0 0 0 0 AUGUST 47 1 0 52 70 11 0 137 0 0 0 0 19 0 19 10 SEPTEMBER 54 0 0 38 51 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 37 0 37 45 OCTOBER 27 6 0 33 126 0 0 139 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NOVEMBER 53 0 0 42 59 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 9 DECEMBER 52 0 0 53 32 0 0 45 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 550 7 0 0 547 875 16 0 0 1,011 41 0 0 41 38 92 10 0 92 104

Page 1 TVANAL2016.123 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 00000035,834 50,987 (15,153) 142% 218.8 185.4 84.76% FEBRUARY 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,941 0 0 15,941 15,941 0 36,636 28,216 8,420 77% 218.8 176.4 80.62% MARCH 000000 00000036,172 21,138 15,034 58% 218.8 179.1 81.89% APRIL 000000 00000026,460 26,460 0 100% 218.8 159.4 72.87% MAY 0 0000 00000027,830 29,479 (1,649) 106% 218.8 215.2 98.37% JUNE 0 0000 00000028,771 28,771 0 100% 218.8 218.0 99.64% JULY 0 0000 00000029,349 17,341 12,008 59% 218.8 216.8 99.09% AUGUST 0 0000 00000032,243 46,286 (14,043) 144% 218.8 232.6 106.33% SEPTEMBER 0 0000 00000030,913 30,913 0 100% 218.8 239.6 109.55% OCTOBER 0 0000 00000034,651 34,651 0 100% 218.8 201.5 92.10% NOVEMBER 0 0 0 0 0 8,135 666 0 8,801 8,801 0 35,492 35,492 0 100% 218.8 226.1 103.34% DECEMBER 0 0 0 0 0 16,779 0 0 16,779 16,779 0 35,211 35,211 0 100% 218.8 168.5 77.02%

TOTAL 0 0 0 0 40,855 666 41,521 41,521 389,562 384,945 4,617 99% 237.5 199.0 83.81%

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 0 275 (275) ERR 19 17 90.46% FEBRUARY 00000 7300078 0 160 (160) ERR 19 10 52.63% MARCH 00000 00000 37 118 (81) 319.22% 23 7 32.07% APRIL 00000 00000 0 166 (166) ERR 22 10 47.16% MAY 00 00 00 00 0 137 (137) ERR 20 9 42.81% JUNE 00 00 00 00 0 132 (132) ERR 22 8 37.50% JULY 00 00 00 00 41 80 (39) 196.61% 21 5 23.81% AUGUST 00 00 00 00 19 199 (180) 1072.73% 22 12 56.53% SEPTEMBER 00 00 00 00 37 129 (92) 350.89% 21 8 38.39% OCTOBER 00 00 00 00 0 172 (172) ERR 21 11 51.19% NOVEMBER 00 00 373 4045 40 157 (117) 390.23% 19 10 51.64% DECEMBER 00 033 7707778 77 209 (132) 272.48% 21 13 62.20%

TOTAL 0 0 0 0 33 187 3 0 117 201 250 1,934 (1,684) 773.89% 250 121 48.35%

Page 2 TVANAL2016.123

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 January - 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: In design Planned Schedule: Bid Date: Notice to Proceed: Construction: Final Completion:

{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 January - 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 $0 $0 0 0

Construction $59,000 $0 $0 0 0

Contingencies $10,170 Total $78,028

Schedule: Design: In-house Bid Date: 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 January - 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 $0 $0 0 0

Construction $107,285 $0 $0 0 0

Contingencies $18,507 Total $141,885

Schedule: Design: In-house Bid Date: Start of Construction: Construction: Final Completion:

{PC 00017289.1 }

Southwest Metro Water and Sanitation CIP 17-2S - 8” Water Main Replacement Located in W. Coal Mine Ave. and S. Newcombe Way. Capital Project Information January - 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 $0 $0

Construction $61,050 0 0 0 0

Contingencies $10,531 Total $80,739

Schedule: Design: In design Planned Schedule: Bid Date: Notice to Proceed: Construction: Final Completion:

{PC 00017289.1 }

Southwest Metro Water and Sanitation Dutch Creek interceptor Sewer Rehabilitation Located along Dutch Creek (just south and parallel to W. Coal Mine Ave.) from S Wadsworth Bl to W. Weaver Dr. and S. Kendall St. CIP 16-1S Capital Project Information December - 2016 Project Purpose: Rehabilitate sewer pipe due to corrosion activity in pipe with potential pipe failure Project Description: Rehabilitate 6,998 feet of 15-inch and 980 feet of 18-inch concrete sewer pipe Project Status: In design

Budget Comparison:

Budget Contract Actual % of cost - % of cost - actual to actual to Budget contract Design $106,266.00 $154,230.00 $109,816.00 103% 71%

Construction $708,440.00 $884,183.50 $459,588.05 65% 52%

Contingencies $122,206.00 Total $936,922.00

Schedule: Design: Complete Bid Date: 5/24/16 Start of Construction: 9/1/16 Construction: Lining complete 10/20 – Working on restoration (landscape and concrete trail) 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 January - 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 $0 $0

Construction $149,100 $0 Contingencies $25,720 Total $197,185

Schedule: Design: Bid Date: 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 January - 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 $0 $0

Construction $291,900 $0 Contingencies $50,353 Total $386,038

Schedule: Design: Bid Date: 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 January - 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: 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 January - 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 $0 $0

Construction $321,597 $0 Contingencies $55,476 Total $17,250

Schedule: Design: Bid Date: Notice to Proceed: Construction: 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 January - 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 $113,370.00 0 91% 66%

Construction $500,000.00 $1,097,880.00 $281,675.00 56% 26% 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 – Began to disassemble the pumps, piping and electrical Status: Demolition inside PS complete. Began reconstruction of electrical conduit to new pumps. Began excavation outside of pump station with the yard pipe replacement Final Completion:

{PC 00017289.1 } Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Supplemental Checklist for the Month of December 2016

Ck. No. Payee Description Amount Net Amount

018589 Anthony Dursey Director fee $92.35 018590 Ken Ensor Director fee $92.35 018591 George E. Hamblin, Jr. Director fee $92.35 018592 Charles Hause Director fee $92.35 018593 Bernard J. Sebastian, Jr. Director fee $92.35 018594 Bristol Botanics Repair and maintenance office $95.00 018595 C&L Water Solutions, Inc. Water contract emergencies $16,863.78 018596 Colorado Litho, Inc. Newsletter $3,226.35 018597 Jefferson County Highways Water contract emergencies $175.00 018598 JRS Janitorial, LLC Repair and maintenance office $757.00 018599 Dana Kepner Co. Repair and maintenance water $44.30 018600 Metro Pavers, Inc. Water contract emergencies $2,721.30 018601 Terracare Associates LLC $615.00 Pump station maintenance 246.00 Repair and maintenance office 369.00 018602 Waste Connections of Colorado Repair and maintenance office $179.48

Total Supplemental Checks as of December 27, 2016 $25,138.96

TOTAL ACH/CHECKS FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER 2016 $234,709.90 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Checklist for the Month of January 2017

Ck. No. Payee Description Amount Net Amount

018603 Tyco Integrated Security LLC $1,885.11 Utilities and telephone 1,312.83 Pump station utilities 572.28 018604 Arrowhead Landscape Services $800.00 Repair and maintenance office 480.00 Pump station maintenance 320.00 018605 CenturyLink Pump station telemetry $95.16 018606 Comcast Business Utilities and telephone $269.80 018607 Comcast Business Utilities and telephone $389.53 018608 CPI/Blfr Littleton LLC Refund of Prepaid developer fees $988.46 018609 Denver Heating & Air Condition Repair and maintenance office $1,884.11 018610 Denver Water $74.83 Pump station utilities 11.79 Utilities and telephone 63.04 018611 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants $1,571.00 Engineering water 773.00 Engineering backcharge 798.00 018612 Market Direct, Inc. Public relations $929.58 018613 Merrick & Company, Inc. Engineering GIS $2,140.37 018614 Metro Pavers, Inc. Water contract emergencies $650.00 018615 PYNERGY Petroleum, LLC Pump station maintenance $507.05 018616 Terracare Associates LLC $1,862.00 Repair and maintenance office 1,257.75 Pump station maintenance 604.25 018617 Utility Notification Center Utility notification $243.10 W00134 Xcel Energy $2,344.89 Pump station utilities 2,195.86 Flow meter utilities 149.03 W00135 Xcel Energy Utilities and telephone $1,515.82

018618 Anthony Dursey Director fee $92.35 018619 Ken Ensor Director fee $92.35 018620 George E. Hamblin, Jr. Director fee $92.35 018621 Charles Hause Director fee $92.35 018622 Bernard J. Sebastian, Jr. Director fee $92.35

TOTAL ACH/CHECKS AS OF JANUARY 20, 2017 $18,612.56 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Supplemental Checklist for the Month of January 2017

Ck. No. Payee Description Amount Net Amount

018623 AlphaGraphics Office supplies $563.70 018624 Arrowhead Landscape Services $1,257.50 Repairs and maintenance office Pump station maintenance 018625 Bristol Botanics Repairs and maintenance office $95.00 018626 C&L Water Solutions, Inc. Water contract emergencies $3,536.30 018627 Collins Cockrel & Cole Legal fees $7,066.68 018628 Dewberry Engineers Inc Dutch Creek Interceptor $2,566.88 018629 Done Plumbine & Heating Repairs and maintenance office $842.00 018630 Insituform Technologies, Inc. Dutch Creek Interceptor $117,841.80 018631 JRS Janitorial, LLC Repairs and maintenance office $692.00 018632 Kone Inc. Repairs and maintenance office $220.32 018633 Metro Pavers, Inc. Water contract emergencies $610.00 018634 Platte Canyon W&S District $77,501.51 Repairs and maintenance water 19,557.13 Repairs and maintenance sewer 16,550.17 Office administration 40,755.50 Pump station telemetry 60.41 Flow meter telemetry 578.30 018635 Special District Assoc. of CO Dues and seminars $1,237.50 018636 HD Supply Waterworks Repairs and maintenance water $2,404.73 018637 Waste Connections of Colorado Repairs and maintenance office $179.48

Total Supplemental Checks as of January 26, 2017 $216,615.40

TOTAL ACH/CHECKS FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY 2017 $235,227.96 Southwest Metropolitan Water & Sanitation District Schedule of Investment Principal Activity Month of: DECEMBER, 2016

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 0.00 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

T-Note 06/13/14 12/31/16 932 2,500,000.00 0.8750% (2,500,000.00) 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00

Average days/Weighted average rate 0 0.8750% 0.0000 0.00 0.0000% Total redemptions $2,500,000.00 ($2,500,000.00)

RENEWALS 0 0 0 0

Total renewals $0.00

Net decrease in investments in December ($2,500,000.00)

NOTE: All redemptions are wired to checking account at Wells Fargo Bank West of Littleton or to the UMB Trust account. RESOLUTION NO. 2017-1-1

SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT

ARAPAHOE, DOUGLAS AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO

______

A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION FOR THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT AND DESIGNATING THE LOCATION FOR POSTING NOTICE OF DISTRICT MEETINGS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS LAW AND SPECIAL DISTRICT ACT ______

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 32-1-903 C.R.S., the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District (“District”) is required to meet regularly at a time and in a place to be designated by the Board; and

WHEREAS, Section 24-6-402(2)(c) C.R.S., requires that the Board annually designate one or more places within the boundaries of the District as the place where notice of Board meetings, together with a meeting agenda, when available, shall be posted at least 24 hours prior to the convening of such meeting for the purpose of complying with the notice provisions of the Colorado Open Meetings Law; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 32-1-903(2) C.R.S., the District is required to post in at least three public places within the limits of the District, and in addition, in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of the Counties of Arapahoe, Douglas, and Jefferson, Colorado notice of the time, place and location of the District’s regular and special Board meetings; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 32-1-903(1), C.R.S., all regular and special meetings of the Board shall be held at locations which are within the boundaries of the District or which are within the boundaries of any county in which the district is located, in whole or in part, or in any county so long as the meeting location does not exceed twenty miles from the District boundaries unless such requirement is waived by the Board pursuant to Section 32-1-903(1)(a), C.R.S.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT OF ARAPAHOE, DOUGLAS AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Regular Meetings. That the Board shall meet regularly during calendar year 2017 on the dates and at the times set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto at the District office located at 8739 West Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123, or at such other location as may from time to time be designated by the Board.

Section 2. Special Meetings. Special meeting may be called by any director by informing the other directors of the date, time and place of such special meeting, and the purpose

{SWM 00038030.2} for which it is called, and by posting notice as provided herein at least 72 hours prior to said meeting.

Section 3. Change of Meeting Dates. That until circumstances change and a future resolution of the Board so designates, the location of all special and regular meetings of the Board shall appear on the agenda of said special and regular meetings.

Section 4. Location for Open Meeting Law Postings. The District office located at 8739 West Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123 is hereby designated as the location for posting notice of District Board of Directors meetings for purposes of complying with the notice provisions of the Open Meetings Law, Section 24-6-401, et seq., C.R.S.

Section 5. Posting Locations for Regular Meetings. Notices of the Board’s regular meetings for 2017 shall be posted in the Clerk and Recorder of the Counties of Arapahoe, Douglas, and Jefferson pursuant to Section 32-1-903, C.R.S. and at the following three locations within the District’s boundaries:

(a) The District office, 8739 West Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123; and (b) Lilly Gulch Recreation Center located at 6147 S. Holland Wy., Littleton, CO 80123; and (c) Ridge Recreation Center located at 6613 S. Ward St., Littleton, CO 80127.

Section 6. Representative Authorized to Post. Any member of the District’s Board of Directors or any designee of the Board is hereby authorized to post notice of the District’s meetings as required by statute.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED on the 27th day of January, 2017.

SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT

By: Anthony M. Dursey, President

Attest:

George E. Hamblin, Jr., Secretary

{SWM 00038030.2} 2 EXHIBIT A

2017

Scheduled Meetings of the Boards of Directors of Platte Canyon and Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation Districts

Friday January 27, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday February 24, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday March 24, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday April 28, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday May 26, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday June 23, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday July 28, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday August 25, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday September 22, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday October 27, 2017 8:30 a.m. Friday November 17, 2017** 8:30 a.m. Friday December 22, 2017 8:30 a.m.

{SWM 00038030.2} 3

Agreement for Professional Services Project C.I.P. 17-2S Relocation of Sewer Main: In W. Coal Mine Ave. and S. Newcombe Way. In the Fairway Vista Filing No. 2 Subdivision.

This agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into this ______day of ______, 2017 by and between SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation of the State of Colorado (hereinafter referred to as “District”) and ENS CONSULTING, LLC., a Colorado Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as ”Consultant”).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the District is in need of professional engineering services for the preparation of construction plans, specifications, and contract documents; surveying, and limited construction administration services charged at an hourly rate (see Exhibit B) for the installation of 111 feet of 8” sewer main and abandonment of 547 feet of 8” sewer main. All located in the Fairway Vista Filing No. 2 Subdivision as depicted on Exhibit A as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”); and

WHEREAS, the Consultant represents that it has the personnel and expertise to perform said professional services for the District; and

WHEREAS, the District has agreed to retain the 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. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSULTANT

Phase I - Design and Bid Services

The Design and Bid services to be provided by the Consultant for the Project consist of the preparation of design construction plans, specifications, and contract documents for: (i) the installation of approximately 111 linear feet of 8-inch PVC sewer pipe located between MH FV-3 south to MH FV2-5.4 in S. Newcombe Way from W. Coal Mine Ave. to 111 feet South; and (ii) the abandonment of the existing 8-inch PVC sewer main in W. Coal Mine Ave. between S. Owens St. and S. Newcombe Way and Manhole FV-2. When complete the Project will re-route wastewater flow west from manhole FV-1 and FV-3 to manhole FV-3 to FV2-5.4.

{00547876.DOCX / 2 } Page -1-

The design will be prepared for the installation of the sewer main and abandonment of the existing sewer main and manhole. The Project shall include plugging the existing manhole FV-1 to the east and manhole FV-3 to the west. The Project specifications shall require a television inspection and inclination review post construction to determine the slope and condition of the pipe. Project specifications shall require the contractor to attend a meeting with the Consultant and a District representative to review the post construction video tapes and inclination report. Design specifications shall also include requirements for by-passing or transporting wastewater while construction is in progress. Specifications shall require that the contractor obtain all necessary county and municipal government permits.

Construction plans will consist of 24-inch by 36-inch drawings prepared at a scale acceptable to the District. Construction plans shall consist of a cover sheet, plan design and profile sheet(s) prepared in accordance with the District and City of Littleton engineering standards, and a detail sheet using standard District detail drawings.

Construction and material standards and specifications shall consist of general specifications, and special specifications (special conditions) as needed, prepared in accordance with District Engineering Standards and Specifications.

The Consultant will provide all surveying and geotechnical services necessary for Project design.

Contract documents will include:

 Notice to Bidders  Instructions to Bidders □ Bid Bond □ Notice of Award □ Performance, Payment and Maintenance Bond □ Contract □ Certificate of Incorporation □ Notice to Proceed □ Advertisement and Final Acceptance Form □ Proposal □ Drawings □ General Specifications and Special Specifications

Upon acceptance of the design plans and specifications by the District, Consultant will prepare and have published a notice of bid in publications designated by the District. Consultant will distribute plans to potential bidders, respond to bidder inquiries, and prepare addenda as necessary for bid coordination. Consultant will coordinate the bid opening at a location designated by the District, prepare a bid tabulation, and prepare all contract documents for award.

The Project schedule and deliverables shall consist of the following:

{00547876.DOCX / 2 } Page -2-

a. Consultant shall submit four sets of preliminary design plans, specifications, and contract documents to the District within four weeks of execution of this Agreement. The contract documents shall require completion of the Project no later than August 1, 2017.

b. The District will review and request amendments to plans and specifications as necessary within 20 days of receipt of preliminary submittal.

c. Consultant will submit four sets of revised plans, specifications and contract documents to the District within two weeks of receipt of District comments.

d. Consultant will respond to bidder inquiries, prepare any necessary addenda, and coordinate the bid opening with District representatives. Consultant will submit bid tabulations and a recommendation for award to the District within 72 hours of bid opening.

Phase II - Construction Observation and Project Management Services

The Construction Observation and Project Management services to be provided by Consultant for the Project consists of the following:

Consultant shall be available to respond to District inquiries and requests for interpretation of design plans, standards, specifications, and other applicable contract documents. The District will conduct construction management and inspection services, but may request guidance or interpretation of plans, standards, and specifications prepared by Consultant. Consultant agrees to respond to said inquiries on a timely basis so as to not unreasonably delay construction. Compensation for these services shall be on a time and material basis in accordance with consultants hourly rates listed in Exhibit B attached hereto.

Said services may include the following:

a. Attendance at the pre-construction meeting with the contractor, sub- contractors, County Representatives and District representatives, at a site designated by the District.

b. Consultant may be called upon to review the video tape of the pre- construction sewer television inspection before authorizing contractor to proceed with sewer lining.

c. Consultant may be called upon to observe video inspection activities post construction and review inclination report of the pipe slope.

d. Consultant may be called upon to provide a recommendation to a designated District representative of acceptance or rejection regarding requests for contract change orders. No change orders will be approved without the written acceptance of the District representative.

{00547876.DOCX / 2 } Page -3-

Consultant agrees that during the performance of construction observation and Project management services, Consultant shall be available to respond to contractor and District inquiries by cellular or digital phone, or pager during all working hours.

2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY DISTRICT

The District shall provide Consultant with full access to all available as-built engineering drawings related to this contract. The District shall also provide representatives to assist Consultant during field investigation activities.

The District will provide necessary rights-of-way for access and construction.

The District will appoint a designated representative to respond to questions and requests for information from Consultant.

The District will submit on a weekly basis daily reports to Consultant during construction.

3. NOTICE TO PROCEED AND DATE OF COMPLETION OF SERVICES

The District will issue a Notice to Proceed with the services specified herein 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 13 (Insurance) of this Agreement. All work required hereunder shall be completed in accordance with the Project schedule and deliverables described as services to be provided by Consultant in Section 1 of this Agreement (“Services”).

4. CONSULTANT RESPONSIBILITY

The District shall not oversee the work of the Consultant or instruct the Consultant 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 his or her 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 care of Consultant’s profession prevailing in Colorado.

5. OWNERSHIP OF WORK PRODUCT

All printed material and electronic documents produced as a result of work performed

{00547876.DOCX / 2 } Page -4-

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’s representative. All such work products shall be turned over to the District upon completion of the Project or at such other time as District may request hereunder provided Consultant has been paid for the material and work District has requested be turned over. The Consultant may retain copies of all documents prepared under this Agreement.

6. COMPENSATION

Phase I - Design and Bid Services

For all Design and Bid Services authorized herein, Consultant will be compensated on an hourly and material basis in accordance with Consultant’s standard hourly rates as specified in Exhibit B attached hereto.

Total compensation for Phase I – Design and Bid Services shall not exceed $5000.00 including all costs associated with reproduction of drawings and specification copies for bidding and construction.

Phase II Compensation for - Construction Observation and Project Administration Services

For all Construction Observation Services, Consultant shall be compensated on an hourly and material basis in accordance with Consultant’s standard hourly rates as specified in Exhibit B attached hereto. Phase II construction services must be authorized by the District’s designated representative prior to being performed.

Costs for publication of Notice to Bid and notice of final acceptance are additional to the bid costs and will be reimbursed to the consultant or may be billed directly to the District. If the District desires that Consultant perform additional design services, the terms under which said services shall be provided and the compensation therefore shall be determined by way of supplemental agreement.

Consultant will provide invoices 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 Phase I and Phase II 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. Payment of each progress billing shall be made by the District within 30 days of verification and approval.

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

{00547876.DOCX / 2 } Page -5-

District approved subconsultants, and Consultant officers and employees) in order to obtain this Agreement.

7. INDEPENDENT STATUS

In providing services, Consultant shall be for all purposes, an independent contractor, and not an employee or agent of the District. The District manager shall be its representative to accept or give any request, approval, notice, or the like, provided for hereunder.

8. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS:

In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Colorado Workers’ Compensation Act and all federal and state tax laws. Consultant certifies that it has complied, and during the term of this Agreement will continue to comply with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Consultant shall provide to the District any certification the District reasonably requests in order to demonstrate Consultant’s compliance with applicable legal requirements.

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 of job applicants while this Agreement is being performed. If the Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subconsultant performing 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 of receiving 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 employing or contracting 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)(e)(III), C.R.S. to

{00547876.DOCX / 2 } Page -6-

the District. Because Consultant will be acting as an independent contractor, the District assumes no responsibility for Consultant’s compliance.

9. NO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OR WORKER’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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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, alleged or actual, (including court costs and attorney’s fees) which may arise out of or that are in any way connected with the work or materials furnished to the District by Consultant, its employees, agents, subconsultants, contractors, or assignees.

13. INSURANCE

Neither the Consultant nor any subconsultant, agent or employee shall commence any work under this Agreement until the following minimum insurance shall have been obtained and District has been named as an additional insured as hereinafter provided.

{00547876.DOCX / 2 } Page -7-

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 subcontractor.

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, $990,000 per occurrence, or a combined single limit of not less than $990,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.

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.

14. COLORADO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT

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.

15. 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

{00547876.DOCX / 2 } Page -8-

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:

Rich Cassens ENS Consulting, LLC 1200 S. Wadsworth Blvd. Suite 100 Lakewood, CO 80232

If to the District:

District Manager Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District 8739 W. Coal Mine Ave. Littleton, CO 80123

16. 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.

17. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Agreement shall become effective on the date referenced above.

THEREFORE, the parties have executed this Agreement. This Agreement must have the signature of an authorized person from Consultant on both original copies.

SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN ENS CONSULTING, LLC WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT

By: ______By: ______Anthony Dursey, President Rich Cassens, Manager

Attest: ______George Hamblin, Secretary

{00547876.DOCX / 2 } Page -9-

{00547876.DOCX / 2 } Page -10-

{00547876.DOCX / 2 } Page -11-

{00547876.DOCX / 2 } Page -12-

Agreement for Professional Services Project C.I.P. 17-1S Rehabilitation of Sewer Mains: In W. Chatfield Ave. between S. Pierce St. and S. Kendall St. Cured in Place Pipe Rehabilitation in the Herrick-Dale Subdivision.

This agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into this ______day of ______, 2017 by and between SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation of the State of Colorado (hereinafter referred to as “District”) and ENS CONSULTING, LLC., a Colorado Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as ”Consultant”).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the District is in need of professional engineering services for the preparation of construction plans, specifications, and contract documents; surveying, and limited construction administration services charged at an hourly rate (see Exhibit B) for the cured-in-place rehabilitation of 2745 linear feet of 8-inch concrete sewer pipe, the reestablishment of 23 service connections and the lining of 15 manholes, all located in the Herrick-Dale Subdivision as depicted on Exhibit A as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”); and

WHEREAS, the Consultant represents that it has the personnel and expertise to perform said professional services for the District; and

WHEREAS, the District has agreed to retain the 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. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSULTANT

Phase I - Design and Bid Services

The Design and Bid services to be provided by the Consultant for the Project consists of the preparation of design construction plans, specifications, and contract documents for the cured-in-place rehabilitation of approximately 2745 linear feet of 8-inch concrete sewer pipe located between MH HD-8 east to MH 70.915 in W. Chatfield Ave. between S. Pierce St. and S. Kendall St. and line 15 Manholes.

The design will be prepared for a cured-in-place method of sewer pipe rehabilitation. The {00547012.DOCX / 2 } Page -1-

Project shall include trimming and finishing pipe at all existing manholes as well as reconnection of any and all service connections to the pipe being rehabilitated. The Project specifications shall require a television inspection prior to construction to determine the condition of the pipe and to detect the number and location of service connections. A post- construction television inspection shall also be conducted. Project specifications shall require the contractor to attend a meeting with the Consultant and a District representative to review the pre and post construction video tapes. Design specifications shall also include requirements for by-passing or transporting wastewater while construction is in progress. Specifications shall require that the contractor obtain all necessary county and municipal government permits.

Construction plans will consist of 24-inch by 36-inch drawings prepared at a scale acceptable to the District. Construction plans shall consist of a cover sheet, plan review sheet(s) prepared in accordance with the District and City of Littleton engineering standards, and a detail sheet using standard District detail drawings.

Construction and material standards and specifications shall consist of general specifications, and special specifications (special conditions) as needed, prepared in accordance with District Engineering Standards and Specifications.

The Consultant will provide all surveying and geotechnical services necessary for Project design.

Contract documents will include:

 Notice to Bidders  Instructions to Bidders  Bid Bond  Notice of Award  Performance, Payment and Maintenance Bond  Contract  Certificate of Incorporation  Notice to Proceed  Advertisement and Final Acceptance Form  Proposal  Drawings  General Specifications and Special Specifications

Upon acceptance of the design plans and specifications by the District, Consultant will prepare and have published a notice of bid in publications designated by the District. Consultant will distribute plans to potential bidders, respond to bidder inquiries, and prepare addenda as necessary for bid coordination. Consultant will coordinate the bid opening at a location designated by the District, prepare a bid tabulation, and prepare all contract documents for award.

The Project schedule and deliverables shall consist of the following:

{00547012.DOCX / 2 } Page -2-

a. Consultant shall submit four sets of preliminary design plans, specifications, and contract documents to the District within four weeks of execution of this Agreement. The contract documents shall require completion of the Project no later than August 1, 2017.

b. The District will review and request amendments to plans and specifications as necessary within 20 days of receipt of preliminary submittal.

c. Consultant will submit four sets of revised plans, specifications and contract documents to the District within two weeks of receipt of District comments.

d. Consultant will respond to bidder inquiries, prepare any necessary addenda, and coordinate the bid opening with District representatives. Consultant will submit bid tabulations and a recommendation for award to the District within 72 hours of bid opening.

Phase II - Construction Observation and Project Management Services

The Construction Observation and Project Management services to be provided by Consultant for the Project consists of the following:

Consultant shall be available to respond to District inquiries and requests for interpretation of design plans, standards, specifications, and other applicable contract documents. The District will conduct construction management and inspection services, but may request guidance or interpretation of plans, standards, and specifications prepared by Consultant. Consultant agrees to respond to said inquiries on a timely basis so as to not unreasonably delay construction. Compensation for these services shall be on a time and material basis in accordance with consultants hourly rates listed in Exhibit B attached hereto.

Said services may include the following:

a. Attendance at the pre-construction meeting with the contractor, sub- contractors, County Representatives and District representatives, at a site designated by the District.

b. Consultant may be called upon to review the video tape of the pre- construction sewer television inspection before authorizing contractor to proceed with sewer lining.

c. Consultant may be called upon to observe cleaning and television inspection activities pre and post lining of the pipe.

d. Consultant may be called upon to provide a recommendation to a designated District representative of acceptance or rejection regarding requests for contract change orders. No change orders will be approved without the

{00547012.DOCX / 2 } Page -3-

written acceptance of the District representative.

Consultant agrees that during the performance of construction observation and Project management services, Consultant shall be available to respond to contractor and District inquiries by cellular or digital phone, or pager during all working hours.

2. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY DISTRICT

The District shall provide Consultant with full access to all available as-built engineering drawings related to this contract. The District shall also provide representatives to assist Consultant during field investigation activities.

The District will provide necessary rights-of-way for access and construction.

The District will appoint a designated representative to respond to questions and requests for information from Consultant.

The District will submit on a weekly basis daily reports to Consultant during construction.

3. NOTICE TO PROCEED AND DATE OF COMPLETION OF SERVICES

The District will issue a Notice to Proceed with the services specified herein 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 13 (Insurance) of this Agreement. All work required hereunder shall be completed in accordance with the Project schedule and deliverables described as services to be provided by Consultant in Section 1 of this Agreement (“Services”).

4. CONSULTANT RESPONSIBILITY

The District shall not oversee the work of the Consultant or instruct the Consultant 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 his or her 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 care of Consultant’s profession prevailing in Colorado.

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’s representative.

{00547012.DOCX / 2 } Page -4-

All such work products shall be turned over to the District upon completion of the Project or at such other time as District may request hereunder provided Consultant has been paid for the material and work District has requested be turned over. The Consultant may retain copies of all documents prepared under this Agreement.

6. COMPENSATION

Phase I - Design and Bid Services

For all Design and Bid Services authorized herein, Consultant will be compensated on an hourly and material basis in accordance with Consultant’s standard hourly rates as specified in Exhibit B attached hereto.

Total compensation for Phase I – Design and Bid Services shall not exceed $5,360.00 including all costs associated with reproduction of drawings and specification copies for bidding and construction.

Phase II Compensation for - Construction Observation and Project Administration Services

For all Construction Observation Services, Consultant shall be compensated on an hourly and material basis in accordance with Consultant’s standard hourly rates as specified in Exhibit B attached hereto. Phase II construction services must be authorized by the District’s designated representative prior to being performed.

Costs for publication of Notice to Bid and notice of final acceptance are additional to the bid costs and will be reimbursed to the consultant or may be billed directly to the District. If the District desires that Consultant perform additional design services, the terms under which said services shall be provided and the compensation therefore shall be determined by way of supplemental agreement.

Consultant will provide invoices 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 Phase I and Phase II 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. Payment of each progress billing shall be made by the District within 30 days of verification and approval.

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.

{00547012.DOCX / 2 } Page -5-

7. INDEPENDENT STATUS

In providing services, Consultant shall be for all purposes, an independent contractor, and not an employee or agent of the District. The District manager shall be its representative to accept or give any request, approval, notice, or the like, provided for hereunder.

8. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS:

In performing this Agreement, Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, including, but not limited to, the Colorado Workers’ Compensation Act and all federal and state tax laws. Consultant certifies that it has complied, and during the term of this Agreement will continue to comply with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Consultant shall provide to the District any certification the District reasonably requests in order to demonstrate Consultant’s compliance with applicable legal requirements.

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 of job applicants while this Agreement is being performed. If the Consultant obtains actual knowledge that a subconsultant performing 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 of receiving 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 employing or contracting 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)(e)(III), C.R.S. to the District. Because Consultant will be acting as an independent contractor, the District assumes no responsibility for Consultant’s compliance.

{00547012.DOCX / 2 } Page -6-

9. NO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE OR WORKER’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.

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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 the work or materials furnished to the District by Consultant, its employees, agents, subconsultants, contractors, or assignees.

13. INSURANCE

Neither the Consultant nor any subconsultant, agent or employee shall commence any work under this Agreement until the following minimum insurance shall have been obtained and District has been named as an additional insured as hereinafter provided.

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 subcontractor.

b. Commercial General Liability Insurance: Consultant and each subconsultant shall carry commercial general liability insure

{00547012.DOCX / 2 } Page -7-

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, $990,000 per occurrence, or a combined single limit of not less than $990,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage.

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.

14. COLORADO GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY ACT

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.

15. 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: Rich Cassens ENS Consulting, LLC 1200 S. Wadsworth Blvd. Suite 100 Lakewood, CO 80232

{00547012.DOCX / 2 } Page -8-

If to the District: District Manager Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District 8739 W. Coal Mine Ave. Littleton, CO 80123

16. 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.

17. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Agreement shall become effective on the date referenced above.

THEREFORE, the parties have executed this Agreement. This Agreement must have the signature of an authorized person from Consultant on both original copies.

SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN ENS CONSULTING, LLC WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT

By: ______By: ______Anthony Dursey, President Rich Cassens, Manager

Attest: ______George Hamblin, Secretary

{00547012.DOCX / 2 } Page -9-

{00547012.DOCX / 2 } Page -10-

{00547012.DOCX / 2 } Page -11-

RESOLUTION NO. 2016-11-6B

SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT

ARAPAHOE, DOUGLAS AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO

THE SECOND OF TWO RESOLUTIONS, OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT, WHICH MAKES A FINAL DETERMINATION TO PROCEED WITH THE PROPOSED INCLUSION OF THE OVERLOOK PLATEAU SUBDIVISION AND DIRECTS THAT ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS BE TAKEN TO OBTAIN AN ORDER FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO DIRECTING THAT THE QUESTION OF THE INCLUSION BE SUBMITTED TO THE ELIGIBLE ELECTORS OF THE AREA PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION.

WHEREAS, inclusion into the Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District ("District") of The Overlook Plateau Subdivision, Arapahoe County, Colorado (the "Area Proposed for Inclusion") was initially considered and proposed by the Board of Directors ("Board") of the District at a public meeting held on Friday, November 18, 2016. At that time, a final determination with respect to the proposed inclusion and, specifically, the consideration of this Resolution 2016-l 1-6B was set for a public hearing to be held on Friday, December 16, 2016 at 8:30 a.m. in the District office located at 8739 W. Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123; and

WHEREAS, public notice of the date, time and location and of the purpose of the hearing, at which the adoption of this Resolution is to be considered was published one time on Thursday, December 1, 2016 in the Douglas County News Press and the Littleton Independent, and one time on Wednesday, November 30, 2016 in the Columbine Courier, newspapers of general circulation within Arapahoe, Jefferson and Douglas Counties, Colorado; and

WHEREAS, on Friday, December 16, 2016, the Board continued the hearing to Friday, January 27, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in the District office located at 8739 W. Coal Mine A venue, Littleton, Colorado 80123 in order to allow for the mailing of notice of the hearing to the prope1iy owners within the Area Proposed for Inclusion; and

WHEREAS, not more than (thirty) 30 days nor less than twenty (20) days prior to the continued hearing on the final adoption of this Resolution, notice of the date, time, location, and purpose of said hearing was mailed to the property owners within the Area Proposed for Inclusion as said owners are listed in the records of the Arapahoe County Assessor's Office; and

{005408 16.DOC I } WHEREAS, pursuant to the Board continuation of the meeting and the mailed notice, and§ 32-1-401(2)(a)(II), C.R.S., a public hearing was held on Friday, January 27, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. in the office of the District, located at 8739 W. Coal Mine Avenue, Littleton, Colorado 80123, at which time this Resolution was considered for final adoption by the District's Board; and

WHEREAS, no municipality, county or person residing or owning property within the District or within the Area Proposed for Inclusion has filed a written objection to the final adoption of the Resolution and no person or entity appeared at said public hearing to express or indicate any objection to the final adoption of this Resolution; and

WHEREAS, the Area Proposed for Inclusion is located within the District's contract service area, as described in the District's distributor's contract with Denver Water and the District's sewer connection agreement with the City of Littleton, Colorado; and

WHEREAS, approval of the inclusion of the Area Proposed for Inclusion into the District must be obtained through an Election of the eligible electors of the Area Proposed for Inclusion, as required by the provisions of§ 32-l-401(2)(e), C.R.S.; and

WHEREAS, inclusion of the Area Proposed for Inclusion into the District is in the best interests of the health, safety, prosperity, security and general welfare of the inhabitants of the Area Proposed for Inclusion, and the District as a whole, and is in the best interests and will facilitate the orderly and uniform administration of District affairs.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT OF ARAPAHOE, DOUGLAS AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. This Resolution 2016-11-6B shall be and is hereby.

Section 2. The District's legal counsel shall fotihwith file a motion and proposed order with the clerk of the Jefferson County District Court, Colorado, under the proceedings in Civil Action No. 61CV15486, encaptioned: In Re the Matter of Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation District, Arapahoe, Douglas and Jefferson Counties, Colorado, requesting that the Court direct that the question of the inclusion of the Area Proposed for Inclusion be submitted to the eligible electors of the Area Proposed for Inclusion, at an Election to be held and conducted by the District, and the results thereof determined, in the manner provided by the Colorado Local Government Election Code, Section 1-13.5-101, C.R.S.

Section 3. If a majority of the votes cast at said Election are in favor of inclusion, the Board of Directors of the Southwest Metropolitan Water and Sanitation

{005408 16.DOC I } 2 District requests that the District Court enter its order formally including into the District the Area Proposed for Inclusion as more particularly described on Exhibit A as attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

ADOPTED on this __ day of ______, 2017.

SOUTHWEST METROPOLITAN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT

By: Anthony M. Dursey, President

Attest:

George E. Hamblin, Jr., Secretary

{005408 16.DOC I } 3 EXHIBIT A

The Overlook Plateau

A TRACT OF LAND, BEING A PORTION OF THE NORTH ONE-HALF OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 68 WEST OF THE 6rn PRINCIPLE MERIDIAN, CITY OF LITTLETON, COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO, BEING MORE PARTTCULARL Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS; COMMENCING AT THE NOR TH EAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 31 AND CONSIDERING THE NOR TH LINE OF SAID SECTION 31 TO BEAR SOUTH 89°59 '28" WEST AND BEING MONUMENTED AS FOLLOWS: NORTH EAST CORNER OF SECTION 31, FOUND CDOT TYPE 3A MONUMENT IN PVC RANGE BOX, NORTH WEST CORNER OF SECTION 31, FOUND 3 '14'' ALUMINUM CAP IN DENVER RANGE BOX, THENCE SOUTH 89°59 '28" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SECTION 31 A DISTANCE OF 2267.54 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 00°00'00" WEST, 54.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF WEST MINERAL AVENUE AS DESCRIBED AND RECORDED IN BOOK 5308, PAGE 392 OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE, SOUTH 25 °51 '57'' EAST, A DISTANCE OF 53.29 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 23°58'03" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 13 .57 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE, SOUTH 23 °58'03" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 418.43 FEET; THENCE, SOUTH 02°32'00" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 300.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°59'55" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 122.29 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 00°01' 12" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 148.59 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 89°56'06" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 118.98 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 00°01 '23" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 324.71 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°59'55" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 310.00 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 24°06'04" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 80.72 FEET TO A NON­ TANGENT CURVE TO THE LEFT; THENCE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID NON-TANGENT CUR VE, HA YING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 74°56' 17", A RADIUS OF 50 FEET, AND A LENGTH OF 65.40 FEET, WHOSE CHORD BEARS NORTH 23 °31 '41" EAST A DISTANCE OF 60.83 FEET, TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENCY; THENCE, NORTH 23 °48'17" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 86.60 FEET; THENCE, NORTH 89°58'03" EAST A DISTANCE OF 22.49 FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 111748 SQ. FT. OR 2.565 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE, STATE OF COLORADO.

{00540816 DOC/}