February 28, 2022 Video Board Meeting
Transcript
AGENDA
Board of Directors Meeting
Monday, February 28, 2022, at 6:00 p.m.
7404 Yorkshire Drive, Castle Pines, CO 80108
CPNMD residents are welcome to Zoom in or participate in person.
To Zoom in, please sign up before 12:00 noon on the day of the board meeting and follow the step-by-step instructions at cpnmd.org/cpnmd-zoom-meeting-sign-up.
I. Welcome. Call meeting to order. Pledge of Allegiance.
II. Roll call. Determination of quorum. Disclosure of potential conflicts.
III. Consider approving February 28, 2022, board meeting agenda.
IV. Consider approving January 24, 2022, board meeting minutes.
V. Termination of Inclusion with Parker Water & Sanitation District (PWSD)
A. What happened?
B. What we are doing to secure our community's renewable water future wisely and at less cost.
C. What customers can reasonably expect moving forward.
D. Jacobs engineering firm’s condition-assessment report (the basis for CPNMD's May 4, 2021, voter-approved Inclusion with PWSD) versus Hazen engineering August 5, 2021, bid opening on the sale of CPNMD's northern Colorado water rights and first emailed to CPNMD on February 18, 2022.
E. PWSD's eight Inclusion demands based on December 9, 2021, Inclusion update at PWSD board meeting — six months after the voter-approved Inclusion and 25 days before the voter-approved Inclusion date of Monday, January 3, 2022.
PWSD's surprise demand that CPNMD pay an additional $11,032,778 (Hazen) more than the mutually agreed upon voter-approved $34.8 million Inclusion fee (Jacobs). See Unanticipated Items worksheet hand delivered to CPNMD on November 21, 2021. (Finance Director Amanda Castle)
Negotiating consent decree with the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment. (General Counsel Kim Seter)
City of Brighton's water rights lawsuit. (General Counsel Kim Seter)
Separating jointly-owned 1980s-era groundwater rights between CPNMD and its southern neighbor, Castle Pines Metro District, in The Village. (General Counsel Kim Seter)
Renewing water wheeling agreement with Centennial Water & Sanitation District. (District Manager Jim Worley)
Securing Chatfield Reservoir storage-fee waivers. (District Manager Jim Worley)
Recording decades-old water & wastewater infrastructure easements and property rights conveyances CPNMD inherited from previous administrations. (General Counsel Kim Seter).
Rehabbing CPNMD's water wells and water treatment plant. (Distribution & Collections Systems Foreman Nathan Travis)
VI. First public comment period for PWSD Inclusion-specific comments only (three-minute maximum per person).
VII. Open Space Manager's report.
A. CPNMD's damage claim re: northern Monarch Blvd rights-of-way and associated City's utility relocation.
B. Fire mitigation planning/coordinating.
VIII. Distribution & Collections Systems Foreman's report.
A. Odor resolution in Forest Park & Castle Point neighborhoods.
IX. Finance Director's report.
A. Since 2019, CPNMD’s cost to date for Inclusion based on 50/50 cost share with PWSD is $498,889.55.
B. CPNMD’s cost to date for water main replacement, relocation, and upgrades: $639,495.22.
C. CPNMD’s cost to date for water treatment plant upgrades: $1,184,330.77.
D. Consider approving financial report, payables, and claims for payment, including check nos. 26681 to 26744 (January 15, 2022 – February 18, 2022).
General Fund & Debt Service Approve $59,970.33 Ratify $35,507.25 Totals $95,477.58
Enterprise Funds Approve $232,623.69 Ratify $200,405.31 Totals $433,029.00
Electronic Payments (all funds) Approve $0.00 Ratify $84,198.92 Totals $84,198.92
Total Expenditures Approve $0.00 Ratify $0.00 Totals $612,705.50
X. Legal Counsel's report.
A. Demand letter to Castle Valley developer re: Lagae lift station.
XI. District Manager's report.
A. CPNMD's installation of new pickleball courts at Coyote Ridge Park.
B. CPNMD's Notice of Damages Claims re: Monarch Blvd rights-of-way and City's utility relocation.
XII. Directors' matters.
XIII. Second public comment period (three-minute maximum per person).
XIV. Adjourn.
Describer: The video starts on graphic with a white background and forest green letters which says “Castle Pines North Metro District Board Meeting February 28 2022 ”. The meeting opens on a shot of all board members present. There is also a T.V. screen showing the Zoom meeting for people joining the meeting via Zoom.
Board President David McEntire:
Good evening everyone. Welcome to the Castle Pines North Metro District board of Directors meeting of February 28th, year 2022. Before we get started I'd like to ask everyone to join us in saying the Pledge of Allegiance.
Describer:
The board members and the audience rise from their seats and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. When they are done they sit down again.
All Speak:
I Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
David:
Going to call roll and in doing so I'm going to ask my colleagues to affirm their presents. Your silence will indicate that you're not here. Also determine whether or not there are some potential conflicts please disclose when called upon.
Board Member Director Denise Crew:
Director Crew. Present. No conflicts.
Board Member Director Robert Merritt:
Director Merritt. Present. No conflicts.
Board President Chuck Lowen:
Director Lowen. Present. No conflicts.
Board Member Director Chris Lewis:
Director Lewis. Present. No conflicts.
David:
Very good. We, Director McEntire is here. We have a quorum and we'll go on to item three which, and item four which we typically do together. but given the opportunity to separate them if there's need, otherwise looking for a motion to approve the February 28th 2022 board meeting agenda as well as approving the 20th January 24 2022 board meeting minutes. Is there a motion?
Chuck:
I'll make a motion, Mr. President, for approving the February 28th 2022 board meeting agenda and the January 24th 2022 board meeting minutes.
Chris:
I second that.
David:
We have a motion on the floor to approve both the minutes and the agenda for tonight and for last month. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, ask for your vote. When called upon.
Board Voting All Speak:
Director Merritt. Approved. Director Crew. Yea. Director Lowen Approved. Director Lewis. Yea. Director McEntire’s a Yea. Motion carries unanimously.
David:
We're on to item number five. Item number five is a byproduct of recent events. And for those in the audience that are here maybe specifically for that reason. Come on in, and you got it.
Let me just rundown what we've got before us here on the agenda. And if you have not received one coming in please grab one. You'll notice under item five that there are issues associated with what, why, how, where and when of the termination of inclusion with Parker. And you'll notice as, as we read down through here that there are certain issues and subject matter associated with this outline of events if you will. That I'm going to have some help with the professionals we have surrounded ourselves with.
And at that time they will provide some, some additional color on the subject. That being said, when we finish item E number eight then we'll enter into the first public comment period which would be the time where anyone wishing to speak has signed in as there, been any changes Mr. Smith? No changes.
I have a list of those that wish to speak. keeping in mind that the time is three minute time. and given the length of the list that we have we’ll, well.
Take into consideration what we have over the course of the last 3 or 4 years been somewhat of an M.O. of open discussion between the board and the person at the podium. But if it becomes too lengthy and or unsatisfying to the, to the folks that are participating it might be that we again go back to three minutes and four same. And, and withhold any comment until some later date.
All in the spirit of getting through and getting everybody's concerns heard of course is our priority. Not so much what we have to say but to listen to you all. I want to make sure that we have enough time. I will, I would say at this time that at the end of the meeting if there is anyone that has not garnered what they were looking for in the way of information or answers or want some additional conversation. I, as one, am willing to stay here until morning with you. Anyone accepting that we've got water we've got clean glasses and so we're not going to.
Be without substance to take us till morning. But again seriously I'm here. for you all and and could not be happier and more grateful for the participants that we have here this evening.That being said, item five termination of inclusion with Parker Water and Sanitation District. We call PWSD what happened? And please three pages back is the beginning of page four.
And as opposed to reading it we made sure that everybody got a copy along with the agenda. We made sure that was also posted to the website and has been so that everyone for themselves can read for their own what we believed happened. Now I'm under the. I'm told and I'm aware that there is some information out there that is. Does not have this information laced or included into it. I'm understanding that it, there's been some that has been transmitted from folks to folks within the community. I was also made aware that over the weekend that the media has also decided to publish some information about the termination of the inclusion. Unless any of my colleagues or any of staff sitting here council etc. has heard from or talked to any of the four that I've just mentioned, the media, anyone associated with the dissemination of what happened and what specifically the Parker termination.
Has anyone been asked, spoken to, participated in? So please be aware and please note the fact that what you are seeing and reading until this evening and what's been posted online is was, was without any benefit or, or participation on our part. So with that we have described what we believe happened. What we're going to do to secure the community's renewable water future wisely and at less cost. What the customers can reasonably expect moving forward.
We have also online posted the what's called the Jacobs report which you'll hear reference to a few times tonight. That was a report that was used mutually, mutually requisitioned and used as a part of, of the condition assessment by both districts and, and the Hazen report that those being posted on the website on a, as or provided on an as requested basis. How about that? Simply because of the length of the document but not afraid to provide that for anyone that is wishing to have same.
Item. You'll notice that on item D that the second report which was unilaterally requisitioned by PWSD called the Hazen report was a condition, an additional condition assessment report. Which as I point out here on this write up was commissioned on August 5th. Which was right after the bid opening on the sale of the Castle Pines North Metro District's Northern Colorado water rights and first emailed to us last week. Okay so the surprise to all of us. But, but the timing was interesting. Item E PWSD’s eight inclusion demands.
These were based on a December 9th board presentation from Parker at Parker. Which Chuck Lowen, myself, Kim Seter, Jim Worley were all in attendance. And at that meeting which was six months after the voter approved inclusion. Even more importantly 25 days before the voter approved inclusion date of Monday 23rd was to have occurred we were informed without record, opportunity for recourse of a delay. These nine items. The first one was the PWSD surprise demand that we pay an additional $11 million plus dollars. This was monetized by the Hazen report.
More than mutually agreed upon. Not, not, not just we but we the entire community. And everyone that is a part of, of our service district, who approved a $34.8 million inclusion fee. One would have to ask why. What was the purpose of the inclusion fee? Well it served a number of purposes but the lion's share of it was to reinvest in our infrastructure.
That's why the inclusion was based on and as is condition. And that was mutually agreed to initially so that there was some accountability on the funds and the activity within the district. That no one lost sight of or was not responsible for that mutually being agreed upon.
The Hazen report brought up some unanticipated items. Again having been unilaterally commissioned by Parker and delivered to us by virtue of a single page worksheet. Which is also, I believe in your handout. Online. Online. It's a single page Excel worksheet on, on January. Excuse me. On November 21st Jim Worley and I were asked to a meeting at which time this was right before Thanksgiving at which time we were given this worksheet.
It had a $25 million list of, of things that they believed were necessary to be taken care of and addressed. They had to their credit whittled it down to over $11 million.
On their own for whatever reason however they got there many of the things are self-explanatory because they're redundant to the Jacobs report. Other things like well sites at $2 million apiece went away because we secured all the well sites. The emergency generator. The emergency generator was, was mutually decided not to go there etc.. So when you read it, it's, it's, it's not difficult.
But their reductions were all in line with the inclusion agreement. The, the issue was the unilateral requisition of it and the surprise at the 11th and a half hour. So that being said I'm going to pass this on to our financial director Amanda Castle to add a little more color to the subject. Amanda, welcome.
District Finance Director, Amanda Castle:
Thank you. Thank you everybody for your attendance and time this evening.
As the district is keenly aware, and as director McEntire just explained. An exclusion agreement was signed with Parker in early 2021 and subsequently approved by the voters of the district in May of 2021. Based on much negotiation and due diligence from both districts the inclusion agreement explicitly stated that Castle Pines would be responsible for paying an inclusion fee of $34.8 million. From the beginning of negotiations.
Castle Pines North understood that the enterprise funds would be unable to pay off all necessary obligations including paying off the COPs. Which by nature of the debt were always carried in the general fund. As such Castle Pines agreed to sell assets to assist in paying off debt. I do want to say it's really important to understand that the proceeds from the stops were used to fund assets that were held exclusively in the enterprise funds. And strictly benefited the enterprise funds.
The enterprise funds did not have the wherewithal to assume or pay for debt when the COPs were taken on and as such the general fund had to assume that debt allowing the necessary enterprise fund infrastructure. It was not ideal but it was needed to be done. It's also important to note that at no time has the general fund ever had a transfer of funds from the enterprise funds to cover the debt of the COPs.
Having said that, the opposite has been true. As proceeds were transferred to the Enterprise Fund to pay for assets. In late July Parker began to request cash flow information that would demonstrate how much additional cash the enterprise funds would have at year end. Above and beyond the inclusion fee that could be turned over to Parker upon inclusion. To answer their requests we provided several cash flows clearly demonstrating the Enterprise Fund's inability to pay off total debt requiring additional transfers of cash from the general fund. And leaving no cash remaining above and beyond the noted inclusion fee.
After much discussion back and forth district staff and members of the board believed we could add the additional $5.6 million from the additional proceeds on the sale of assets into the enterprise funds. Leaving additional cash for distribution to Parker of $5 million. For a total payment of $39.8 million. In November requests from the district's financial projections became increasingly urgent as Parker pushed for even more cash.
By December it became clear that Parker was adamant about receiving an additional, or additional cash to help close the $11 million funding gap they believed existed. The district board and staff worked tirelessly to provide clear information and even requested an additional meeting with the Parker board. But they denied the request and by January the inclusion delayed. In February our team scheduled a meeting with Parker staff to discuss year end, the year end cash flow. Which demonstrated the district's ability to pay the nearly $39.8 million but no more.
The discussion with Parker happened on February 10th and our team walked away feeling confident that we had made good progress and that Parker staff clearly understood our position and the funds available. Unfortunately that same evening the board voted to terminate the inclusion agreement which came as a total shock. As the finance director I had a responsibility to ensure this agreement was in the best interest of our residents and to ensure that the general fund would remain full upon inclusion.
While we attempted many times to clearly articulate the financial position of the enterprise funds. We continued to get requests that would replace the general fund in a position to fund a very large amount of cash toward inclusion. Which I could not stand behind. As previously stated the general fund has carried the burden of the COPs for many years at a very large benefit to the enterprise funds.
Having the general fund provide additional cash for the inclusion was simply out of the question. The abrupt termination of this agreement really frustrates me for multiple reasons. First and foremost we were not provided with the opportunity to sit down with Parker's board to collaborate on a plan of action. Instead we were continually trying to feed information to staff hoping it would be related to the board.
Secondly, there was no discussion of alternative options that Parker may have had in obtaining additional funds. Per the inclusion agreement Parker could have sought to increase the renewable water component of the inclusion agreement. As explicitly stated on page six of the signed document. If they believed more funds were necessary. While the district would have been unable to fund the large differential Parker was looking for. It was an option they could have explored and built if we all had agreed.
I'm confident in the information Castle Pines North provided. And I stand by the fact that no more than $39.8 million could have been transferred for the inclusion. As the finance director I could not support pulling millions of dollars from the general fund to appease Parker. It would have been irresponsible and would have left the general fund in a difficult situation for years to come.
David:
Thank you Amanda. Yep. Great explanation and update. Item number two is the negotiating consent decree. Again this was one of the eight items that was illustrated by Parker in a PowerPoint that was given to the folks that attended. And again this is available online. But these were the item, eight items that were listed as items of concern. And by the way none of which we weren't concerned with as well.
That wasn't the issue. But we provided an update for everyone's benefit this evening. And so with that the negotiating consent decree with the Colorado Department of Public Works, or Public Works, Public Health and Environment General Counsel Kim Seter, welcome Kim.
Legal Counsel Kim Seter, Esq.:
Thank you Mr. Chairman. With respect to this item Parker Water had requested that the district obtain a consent decree. So that any issues that were prior to the conveying to Parker would not carry forward to Parker.
So any citations from water quality control they didn't want to be responsible for. So what they actually undertook to do was to obtain a consent decree from the Water Quality Control Division. In that process we obtained a letter from the attorney for the Water Quality Control Division agreeing, it was a draft, to this consent decree. A draft was circulated and approved and then water quality control came back and said before we can issue this we need to know what remedial measures are being taken.
That's very typical for water quality control. It was our understanding or at least my understanding that Parker Water was working with our people here at Castle Pines to determine those remedial measures and that's what we are waiting for. In short the Department of Public Health and Environment I believe is poised to issue that consent decree as soon as they have a listing of the remedial measures that are being undertaken. That could happen very quickly once those remedial measures are listed. Mr. Chairman, do you want me to go on to the next two issues?
David:
Sure, if you'll introduce them as well.
Kim:
Okay, number three the City of Brighton water rights lawsuit. You may recall that the Castle Pines district sold water rights via an auction process. And Aurora had bid on them.
Brighton had bid on some of them. Brighton's bid on a single item was higher than Aurora's bid on that single item. A dispute arose over who was the high bidder for all of the water rights. They were awarded contingently by the board to the city of Aurora. Brighton sued the district over that issue. Everyone, including Brighton, worked together to try to get this resolved quickly through the courts.
We managed to get a trial setting for, I believe it's June 27th, June 27th and 28th to get it resolved quickly. So by the end of June that matter will be resolved barring any kind of appeal. However I will inquire of the board tonight whether they want to just terminate that sale and get rid of that trial but that will happen later.
So in short item number three would have been resolved by the end of June. Item number four concerns groundwater rights that were jointly decreed between Castle Pines Metro District and Castle Pines North. Castle Pines, or Parker Water & San. raised a concern that those water rights were jointly owned. And there was no agreement in their belief describing how those water rights were shared.
In other words, could Castle Pines North use them until Castle Pines Metro was ready to use them? There was just no it was never well defined. So they wanted some kind of an agreement as to how those water rights could be used. That agreement was in process and is another agreement that should happen fairly quickly. The water rights are owned 50/50.
So the bottom line is Castle Pines North owns 50%, Castle Pines Metro owns 50%. But at the very least Castle Pines North takes 50. They take 50. But we are trying to get some agreement so that Parker Water could be satisfied on how those water rights would be used. Mr. Chairman, I don't have number five.
David:
Number five is the Renewing Water Wheeling agreement with Centennial Water and Sanitation District. Mr. Worley.
District Manager Jim Worley:
Thank you. As I think a lot of you already know from October 1st through April 30th of each time frame you're drinking water from Centennial Water and Sanitation District. Through an interconnect pipeline we have, with a big old pump station down in Highlands Ranch.
And so we've had that agreement for a number of years and still have that agreement. Parker attempted to negotiate a different agreement with Centennial Water, Service Highlands Ranch, in case you don't know that. They had finally come up to an agreement on a document which in essence, was an emergency water agreement. Centennial was poised to approve that new agreement for the benefit of Parker at their December board meeting.
I think it was December 15th. December 9th is when Parker delayed the action in a formal board meeting. So what Centennial did at that time is table it. They just set it aside, said until we know what's going on with this then we're not going to complete this deal with Parker. So what that does it leaves our agreement in place like it has been for a number of years I think 2010.
And so that's the information on that particular document right there. I think it can be taken care of. Parker was in agreement with whatever they had drafted in this emergency water agreement. They just needed to have it approved. And so that's sitting on hold right now also. I'll go to the next item, six. Securing Chatfield Reservoir storage fee waivers.
Probably 25 years ago a group of us, there's nine, entities that are involved in the reallocation of the Chatfield Reservoir. In essence, what that did is put another 12 or 20. I can't remember the numbers. A bunch more storage and Chatfield and we all had a percentage of that storage. So for a number of years before we got to being able to dig up dirt and do work out there. We spent a lot of money on engineers, lawyers and others to get to the point to where the state would allow us, and especially the Corps of Engineers because they owned Chatfield. Would allow us to expand the capability of water to be stored there.
And that project cost $170 million. We were part of it. But the cost involved in getting to that point to where we could start doing work all of us paid for attorneys, engineers and others. So if someone brand new were to come in and buy some of the storage shares not only would they pay for those storage shares, and I think it's like $8100 per acre, $8300 acre feet, per acre feet. But they also had to pay back us nine, the original nine, for our fair share of those costs we incurred before we got to the point to where we could spend $171 million.
So that's what the issue is. In the event, or when, I'm going to try to be optimistic. When this inclusion was going to go through I reached out to each one of the other eight entities. Us being number nine, said from a letter from Kim basically saying here's the deal. There was nothing in the documentation that says that this fee has to be paid again by us.
They wanted us to pay this fee again to each one of those participants. Well we had already paid that over the years. And so as of today actually four of the, well five of the nine, counting us, have said no problem. This community would have paid twice for that. We paid for it during the years we were working with the engineers and attorneys. And we would have had to pay it again.
So there's still four out there that have not acted yet, not said yes or no on that. So that is, is what this item was. It was up to me to reach out to all of those entities and say we've already paid it. It’s not coming out of Parker's pocket. It's part of the $34.8 million that Amanda referred to. Of which we had already paid.
It was around $815,000. So that's this item there. So there's still four that haven't acted yet officially. Four plus ourselves make five. We all said yeah we don't need to pay it twice. So that's what this item is.
David:
Thanks Jim. In his explanation when he says they, they was, was Parker and Parker in, in for clarity, Parker was concerned that they may be saddled with the fees that were not a part of their original organizational document of the Chatfield Agreement. And while, as Jim indicated it was a part of the math coming up with the inclusion fee. It was also.
It was a part of the math that, that was a part of the inclusion fee. And, and so while it was somewhat of a moving target. It was moving in everyone's favor and, and in consent and until which time the determination took place as Jim reported. We had all but four. It's not that we are not pursuing those as we continue to pursue an inclusion. It’s just a state of affairs. I wanted to make sure everyone know who, knew who they were. Kim, number eight.
Kim:
I wanted to add one thing on item number six that I think is also significant. In securing those waivers from the five of the nine. We also secured the agreement of the attorneys for the state and for the entity. As well as I believe all nine. That if we want to we can have a separate agreement with each of those nine entities substantially reducing that fee.
We just haven't pursued that yet because we're waiting for the other four. So it can be reduced by a lot. Number seven recording decades old water and wastewater infrastructure easements and property rights conveyances. If you think about what we were trying to do in conveying all of the property rights and easements and pipelines of the district to Parker Water & San. imagine all of the sewer lines and water lines running through all of the streets in Castle Pines North. And cutting through the parks cutting through people's backyards.
There are easements or there should be easements for every one of those pieces of pipe. Some of those easements may only be two feet long. Some of them may be blocks long. Some of them may be miles long. Part of what Parker Water required, which was not unreasonable, is that we accumulate all of those easements to convey to them.
A few years ago the district undertook to create a GIS system that coordinates all of those easements and maps of the pipelines and how deep they are in the ground when they've been repaired. All of this information. All of those easements had not been included in the GIS system yet. And when we began looking for the easements we're not sure whether we have them all or don't have them all.
So this item was just a process of gathering those easements, making sure they're recorded and tying them to the particular piece of ground under which a pipe or a lift station or a pump house or something else is located. It's a long tedious process. Whether or not we have those easements we have the pipes in the ground. So by law we have the right to have those there.
But it's going to take time to try to figure out if we're missing any easements. And to accumulate all the ones that we do have, get them into the GIS system. We think we can have that done. Hopefully by the end of July. But again it's a tedious slow process. And just a matter of the detail work.
Robert:
Kim, just for the record, we inherit, that was like 1984. Those easements have come from and we inherited that. That's not something that just sprung up. It's okay we're doing this now. But all those easements were from in history and we inherited all that.
Kim:
Yeah and, and I think they'd probably been maintained by different people throughout the years.
We got, I think 680 from the engineers. We had some in the legal files, there were probably some here at the office. You know they, they get recorded with the county clerk and recorder hopefully. But again trying to get the county clerk and recorder to go through and pull them all for us is also almost impossible particularly during Covid.
So it's a, it is just a matter of processing a lot of detailed work.
David:
Thank you. Kim. And, and just a bit more color for everyone. As it relates to the agreements that were in hand. It was this board's opinion and its legal counsel and staff's opinion that all of these items were considered as possibilities inside of the inclusion agreement. And in fact without itemizing each one of them specifically the unforeseen, if you will.
There were directions on how to handle such things. Notwithstanding Parker and I don't, I don't fault Parker for their due diligence. That was mutually undertaken.
It's beneficial to us as well. But in the spirit of, of.
Working together, again they made this presentation December 9th. We agreed minutes thereafter that it would be best if we prepared an amendment to the inclusion agreement and did so within four days. Four days of the December 9th.
On December 13th I signed the addendum amendment First Amendment. And so did our partners there at Parker. In that amendment is specifically those items as we've just rehearsed accepting the wells. And I'll get to you Nathan. Be advised that in addition to that amendment, that first Amendment, it like every other, like so many other pieces of information that you have heard over the years directly from Parker. Whether it be from staff, Ron Redd specifically, the district manager, et cetera.
Are the statements that draw one's, help draw a conclusion that there's comfort to be had in the process. There's comfort to be had in the effort. There's comfort to be had in all the work that went into it and the content and context for which it was to serve. Including and again for days thereafter and in the abundance of caution, care, tender loving care. We all did this. Item H, the parties have pledged their commitment to work together to resolve the conditions and additional concerns and to complete the inclusion and transfer of water and wastewater responsibilities as quickly as possible. But recognize that additional time is needed, if I may.
How many times have we gone to the used car lot with a used car and went to sell a used car of our own or any property that we hold title to the mortgage that we've had for 30 years. And all we have to do is convey to the title officer the title and don't know where the heck that thing's out.
I've had that thought umpteen different times as it relates to the easements especially and so much of this documentation that we inherited since 19, that began in 1984. And this board and the staff has dealt with the issues all the way back to 1984 and the 1980s. Namely you may recall the Castle Pines Parkway fence issue.
But not to belabor the point and not to to spend any more time on it. I'm going to, I just wanted to remind everybody of the effort that is made and the comprehensive nature by which this inclusion has been contemplated and being embraced by, by both parties and to which time the determination took place. And it was for that reason we're having this meeting to make sure everyone knows what happened from a North metro district point of view. Nathan, last item. The water wells.
Nathan:
Yeah. Thanks David. Yeah, so the.
David:
Let me, let me interrupt you. It says, it says here. Operational issues. It says six of the ten wells as well as a water purification facility are currently not operational. And are in various stages of repair and upgrades. Expected completion January 2022. But supply issue, supply chain issues may delay delivery several items. Again, fair, item of concern. Give us an update will you?
Describer:
Nathan is speaking in person, and is sitting next to Jim.
Nathan:
Yeah, so we've been working on the, both the wells and the treatment plant beginning really late spring early summer.
Of the ten district wells we have we've done substantial work on eight of them. It does look like at this point nothing is going to require a re-drill. There's still always that chance until we get things absolutely up and running. But so far the rehabilitation has been really successful. All of those are on track to be up and running.
Within the next 2 to 3 weeks. So that's really encouraging. And then the water treatment plant has been an ongoing process. A number of issues have been identified. by the Jacobs report following with the Hayes report. And also from a district staff perspective, just operational needs and upgrades. It's a facility that was built in 1984 and there's a lot of things that just need to be brought up to snuff. And those upgrades, we're currently looking at having a functional treatment plant by May 1st as we move off of the Centennial Water agreement
David:
Thank, thank you, Nathan. Have we ever used all ten wells at one time? No. So these wells as we understand it as a board, if I may understand it has always been on a five year rotating basis. Every two every year two wells are taken under the microscope and, and brought up to, to to spec. With not only maintenance which is typical but also upgrades if they're available and desired.
Is that true? Yeah, correct. And, and so did we have any well, how long have you been here? 2012. Has there been any well production issues? In other words, has there ever been a time where the wells that this district had was not able to supply the water that this district needed? The.
Nathan:
Yeah the functioning when the wells are all functioning everything is more, more than sufficient. The additional wells help us cycle different wells on and off to protect water table levels.
David:
Sure. Yeah. Good. And the water plan? Why is it down? Is that, I mean, is that a function of the, of the typical six months on six months of maintenance? Or is it more than that?
Nathan:
So this year's a little bit different in terms of the extent that we've been able to take the water plan offline. So previously Jim had mentioned earlier, we didn't have actual storage capacity inside of Chatfield. And so our surface water rights that we get on a daily basis aren't sufficient to meet our daily wintertime needs. But now that we have the ability to store that water without, throughout the entire summer that gives us a buffer that we can draw against all through, all winter long.
Because of that it means that we have the water rights to stay 100% on Centennial and take the plant down to a level that we haven't been able to before. And so a lot of the much more major upgrades, replacing entire electrical plant, electrical systems, motor control centers were things that we didn't have an easier, an easier real functional path to. And so yeah, just the ability to park that water over the summer and then bank against it has let us really really take that thing 100% off line. Historically even on Centennial we've had to supplement about 20% with our wells.
David:
This the, the work with the wells and the, and the treatment plant started a couple years ago. Fair to say. Yeah. And, and have you ever in your decade long relationship with the district. Have you ever realized or experienced the volume of attention and resources that you have been given? And, and spent and gone through and have available to you to bring these, this infrastructure to a place where we ultimately, and before too terribly long. Will be able to provide public tours and schoolchildren alike. Have you ever had that same experience over the last decade?
Nathan:
No that's, that's certainly new. The, the direction that, you know, the majority of my time previous to the last two years has been, make sure that it works. And the, the new kind of direction feels much more along the lines of like make it right.
And so the ability to really take that stuff, move it forward go to the next level. You know Forest Park is a great example of that. Outside of the wells in the treatment plant. That's a 25 year old issue that I've been given the authority or the ability to do all kinds of stopgap measures to. But never really go full fledged and resolve it. And so that attitude's really been carried across to the wells and the treatment plants and it's been, it's created a lot of work for me. But it's really, it's really exciting for sure.
David:
Very good, thank you. That wraps up an update on the board of directors presentation on December 9th that we had the opportunity to attend there. Parker kind of gives everyone a basis in an understanding and update more importantly of, of how where we're at and how far we've come and how close we are to having tours of the wells and of the water plant and all the rest of the infrastructure. But that being said I'm going to open it up to, I'm going to, I'm going to just ask my colleagues first if there's any comments they would like to make before we open it up to the public.
Describer:
Cuck whispers to David “Can I go?” And David says “Sure.”
Chuck:
Nathan, I've got a kind of a loaded question. I should have preempted you beforehand but I think you can handle it. Today on a scale of 1 to 10 where would you place the condition of our water wells and water treatment plant?
Nathan:
Today I think we're probably.
Chuck:
Ten being, ten being the best.
Nathan;
Ten being the best. Yeah, today I think we're probably close to you know 7 or 8 on the wells. There's, that's going to rapidly change over the next couple of weeks as we finish installing equipment. And we've got one more drive cabinet that we need to spec. It's functioning now. It just needs to get an upgrade. Once that work is completed the wells will be a solid ten.
We're in a similar place with the water treatment plant. You know just as the process moves along. But we're definitely working toward ten on either of them. You know, they’re, they're other facilities. I was, I told Jim that at the end of the day I want these things to, to be like your grandpa's Buick like everything is. It may not be brand new but it's going to be gorgeous and just absolutely run. And. Yeah what? We're going to get it to a ten for sure.
Chuck:
Thanks Nathan. Thanks for the work you're doing. Much appreciated. Yeah.
David:
All right, hearing none other from my colleagues. I'm going to invite our first guests this evening, Miss Laurie Ball. Laurie, welcome.
Laurie Ball, Castle Pines Resident:
I want to thank the board for.
Describer:
Jim is helping Laurie turn the mic on, and he whispers to her off mic inaudibly.
Laurie:
Okay, Hi thank you. My name is Laurie Ball and I live in Royal Hill HOA one. Across the street 15 Breamore Ct. And I want to thank the board for letting you come tonight and make a public comment. And the first, I have four points. At first, the January board meeting the question was asked if everything will be up and running by the time you have switched back off of Centennial Water. In the end of April, Nathan said he thought it would be up by April 1st and you just reported on this. Are you sure you're going to be up and running to go off of Centennial at the end of the month of April?
Nathan:
Right now everything is on track to do that. So we're hoping to get the water treatment plant functioning actually a couple weeks before that to give us a couple of weeks of testing, making sure our chemical dosing processes are all going. Everything that we have today is on schedule for that. So if everything shows up as it's scheduled to be delivered we're good to go.
Laurie:
Okay. Thank you. And then second, I know in January I attended virtually. And the board voted to, to take away to remove the $15 a month sub surcharge towards renewable water from our bills. Now that the inclusions off I would, I hope you guys would revisit that and keep that as part of our bills until you have a renewable water source.
And then third, and this is really a clarification question. Why is our mill levy being reduced by 3.21 mills when we have so many repairs, infrastructure maintenance, maintenance, maintenance issues and stuff to deal with? So to me that money really could come in handy.
Amanda:
Yeah, I'd be happy to address that question if that's okay with the board.
David:
Sure. Go ahead.
Amanda:
Yeah, so the mill levy is to support general operations. So, it's really for administrative needs of the district. The enterprise funds by nature of the funds need to be self-sufficient. So I always think of an enterprise fund like a business where you've got a source of revenue that helps to pay for expenditures. Because of that, enterprise funds can't use property taxes so we can't transfer property taxes to the enterprise fund.
Or it can actually, it can take away that enterprise status which we really need for this type of fund with fees. So those types of improvements are, are primarily funded with fees. The property taxes of the district are used to fund administrative functions like the cost of certain employees, the cost of building, building maintenance, the cost of certain vehicles, copying, printing, that sort of thing. But strictly from an administrative purpose.
The other big use for the property taxes are the parks and open space department. So we don't charge a fee to go to the parks or anything like that. And because of that that's part of our general fund. That's funded with the property taxes.
David:
Thank you Amanda. And your fourth one?
Laurie:
Yeah, thank you. That was a great explanation Amanda.
Then the fourth one is in a post. Mr. McEntire, you put on Nextdoor that there's really two inclusions going on. One was the water and wastewater, you know, with the Parker Water. And the second is the parks and trails would go to the city of Castle Pines. So since Parker Waters inclusion is off the table right now. I was wondering why not go ahead and go ahead and move parks and trails to the city now and get that off your plate? So then that would allow you all to focus on water. So that's my request.
David:
Laurie, Laurie, Laurie, Laurie, Laurie.
Laurie:
Just a thought. I saw it after you posted it.
David:
May I, may, may I just respond quickly to all four? The Centennial Water agreement allows us to pool water, typically six months of the year. It doesn't prohibit us from using it year round with mutual consent.
So even if we were off the April 30th or May 1st date there's already been a substantial amount of work within that relationship to ensure that there would be no disruption of water service. Certainly no wastewater is involved in that regard, but water. But be assured that we're not up against a date where we have to turn something on that's not reliable.
Not new, not a ten. But has, has been a convenience for us over the years for our rehab or rework in our, in our, our re setting, if you will, the infrastructure. The $15 annual renewable water fee. Monthly. Monthly, or what did I say, annual? I'm sorry, the $15 monthly annual. You know what I mean? When, when we were contemplating the 2022 budget we had full expectation that Parker Water was going to include on January 3rd. Within that, the math associated with that. You may recall the 16 page synopsis which reflected about a 30 plus dollar per household savings on a monthly basis.
Part of that savings was the omission of the $15 fee. In light of the fact that we were headed that direction, in light of the fact that we were in the middle of a pandemic, that the inflation was going crazy and still is. We thought best to not dwell on the fact that we were being challenged by Parker in these negotiations. But to, if you will, do a soft landing, if you will.
And so we reduce the $15 and transparently and honestly in light of, of doing that said it was because we believe it had done its work and indeed it had. Unbeknownst to us that work was done in August and September and October that we had to certify in November and to the state December 15th. Okay. So that's how bad happened.
Be assured that not only, well be assured that this year in 2022 the work begins in August for the budgeting for 2023. Unless there is some nuance that I can't share with you today. That's on the table. It's on the table not only at $15 but more or less. That's all a byproduct of a variety of, of professional studies that we have done prior to and the budgeting process prior to us even compiling a budget.
But again the motivation was a soft landing. We thought it was the right direction given the certainty that Parker was going to, and the proximity of time that Parker was going to include our service area in theirs as well as the pandemic and, and, and the inflation and then the three mills. She did a great job.
I meant to jump in there earlier and remind everybody that COPs mean certificate of participation. Those are debt devices. Right. And, and Mills. Much like the old days said I wasn't here but I hear very big time horror stories from it. where those mills were, were way up there much like they are in legacy and other places now.
But yeah those mills go for servicing that debt. The Enterprise Fund is our water and wastewater distribution systems and it's a stand alone. So it's, it's buoyed by rates and fees and and, and, and if it doesn't we're operating in the red and don't want to be there. The state won't let us, we won't let us.
And, and, and so that reduction was a byproduct of, of the fact that we had that kind of residual in the parks trails open space and stormwater area our general fund area not stormwater really but, but parks trails and open space. And we had that residual you know that we have a big project coming up in Coyote Ridge with the park pickleball pavilion.
But given the opportunity to reconcile that over and over and over again for what was levied and what was collected and what we were told it was to be spent for. We saw an opportunity, again given the inflation in the pandemic to give that back. And we had folks like yourself, excuse me that's not fair. We had other folks at the podium, like yourself. That talked about they, they wished, I could quote them if I pulled the paper but they wished that they were notified of the fact that we were going to give three mills back. Because they could have used it for a number of things.
Well no you couldn't. And, and, and while you got some people talking like that without the benefit of hard conversation, which I love talking with you. But you got other people that and in emails from our inclusion partner that says you know what. It was I think December 15th they said, it was because that lady or that guy. I think it was a lady, got up and said that if there was any money left over from the inclusion, you should spend it on roads.
And it went on to say I can read, I can read it verbatim. You remember that? And, and not only that our buddy Mr. Hellman zero in on that as a, as a source of this extra money that they're pursuing that we're not authorized to give even, even mechanically or technically or, or ethically. He went on to say because you guys don't even have it as a part of your, your, your, your service district rules.
Unfortunately, is wrong. We have those obligations well before there was a city. We still have those opportunities but that was never our intent when we decided to reduce it. The three mills, it was simply given the opportunity to give what was, what was given to us by the residents. Because we had the ability to do so.
The inclusion you may have misread where I think, you may have misread what I said. We planned on two inclusions first water and sewer. And immediately thereafter as Jim and I had lunch with Mike Penny and, and our new mayor. Tracy a couple of weeks ago. And in fact that meeting was, they called it and, and we got a chance to bring everybody up to speed.
You know, there's been some leadership change and, and things of that nature and, and it was, it was in December. Well, it was in January, probably right after the first year. Anyway, their update if I may, you know, was that they were getting ready for their retreat. And, and, and they had some challenges and they were kind of wondering what we were doing.
And, and one of the issues. I'm going to tip, I'm going to tip the hat just a little bit by saying that we do have a little announcement later on in the meeting as it relates to a second inclusion. But more importantly they needed help with stormwater administration and the expenses associated with that. Because they don't, they have the responsibility that they've inherited from all this development but they don't have a revenue stream.
And so we began to talk about that and get up to date. But it also gave Jim and I an opportunity to convey in detail as we have with all of you an update on where we're at with Parker. And, and they were so kind and so caring. I mean attentive to every word that we had to say. And I got to tell you I'm sure it surprised them as well that there was a termination. But I hope I've answered all of that and, and stick around for that other announcement, will you.
Laurie:
You have, thank you. And I'm glad to see that you and the city are working together, so. Yes ma’am. I appreciate that as a taxpayer and a resident.
David:
Yes ma'am. We appreciate it as well. Thank you, Laurie. Second would be we. Oh gosh, I'm not sure of the first name but I'm going to the second, the last name Cislo, Cislo.
Describer:
The next public speaker is speaking off mic and it is briefly inaudible.
David:
Would you mind slipping up and, and introducing yourself? I recognize you as a neighbor of mine and a avid walker. I don't know anyone, anyone. This guy could do a triathlon. I'm certain of it. If he had to tomorrow, but, anyway.
Bob Robert, Cislo Castle Pines Resident:
Not my desire, that if you could follow me. Welcome. Yeah. My name is Bob Robert Cislo. So I live in Amber Ridge. Bill, right?
Robert. Robert. Robert. Bob. Okay. based on what I've read because I hadn't seen some of this information previously. And based on what you discussed I was going to just simply withdraw request for any statement.
David:
Okay. And Bob again, welcome anytime. Even yell at me on the street. Just don't let that big dog eat my little dog, right. I don't.
I, I don't have any other that have signed up to speak during this period of time. That being said, I'm going to close the first public comment period for the audience here and I'm going to.
Ken Smith CPNMD Communications Director:
Mr. President. Mr. President point of order. You have some folks that have zoomed in. Yeah, no. Who would like to participate.
David:
Yeah for the.
Ken:
As part of the public comment period. Right, I'm a, I'm closing it for the ones that are in attendance. Here is where I was going with that sir.
And open it up to those online. And I am to deduce Mr. Smith that each one of these want to speak. Is that true? Whether it is or it's not I'm going to call on him. Okay. David Jones. David, are you here this evening? Are you with us? Welcome. from Amber Ridge. David. Another one of our neighbors Bob.
Describer:
An anonymous person is speaking inaudibly off mic and off camera.
David:
Okay. Chris, Chris Ansell. Chris from Forest Park. Chris, are you with us? Not in, not on? Jean. Jean, welcome Jean Given, Kings Crossing. Jean. All right. We have plenty more. Christina Morley, Christina Morley from Esperanza. All right.
Ken:
Connor Morley, are you there?
Christina Morley, Castle Pines Resident:
I did not have public comment.
David:
Was that Mr. Morley?
Christina:
Yes. This is Christina Morley. I did not request to speak. Okay. I'm just in attendance.
David:
Thank you. Thank you. Christine Berens, Berens from The Hamlet. Christine, Welcome.
Christine Berens, Castle Pines Resident:
Yeah, yeah. I didn't intend on speaking.
David:
Okay. Thank you for being here. Sure appreciate your zooming in and listening. Really do. Janet Sims. Janet, are you here or online? I'm sorry.
Ken:
Kris Sims is here.
David:
Janet. Oh, Chris, it's Chris. Yeah. Go ahead, Kris.
Kris Sims, Castle Pines Resident:
Yeah. I'm just here at this point but, you know, I just hope we stay forward focused and not become the victim because it kind of feels like we're. I know you're in a defensive posture right now but I hope you become very forward focused. And we, we move on with the business at order. So, so here's the…
Describer:
The last word is inaudible because he broke up and the audio had an issue on Zoom.
David:
Kris from your, from your mouth to my heart I and, and my colleagues as well. I assure you. We're focused and we just wanted to just make sure that what information had not been disseminated. Best we knew, best we had observed, best that was brought to our attention was fairly distributed or at least included ours as well. And, and thank you for those words of encouragement. I really appreciate that. Joan, Joan Millspaugh. Joan, are you, are you with us this evening? Welcome.
Joan Millspaugh, Castle Pines Resident.
I am here and I’m just here to view the meeting, and I do not wish to speak.
David:
Very good. good to hear your voice as always. Safe travels. And thanks for being here. Charley. Charley Heard. Charley, are you here? Charley, we've had Charley on before. Yeah, yeah. Is, is he signed on?
Ken:
Charley’s on but he has indicated he does not wish to speak.
David:
Very good, All right then I'm going to.
Charley Heard, Castle Pines Resident:
I’m just a listener, thank you.
David:
Okay. Then I'm going to go ahead and with that rundown of those that joined us online again a hearty thank you for joining us online.
For those in attendance. Thank you for being here. We are going to close item number six which was the first public comment period. We will have one at the end of the meeting. It's now 7:00 o’clock. I guess where I'm going with that is we're not going to be a whole lot longer. But we do have some business and don't mind you sticking around at all. You're always welcome. So I'm going to open up item number seven, Open Space Managers.
Ken:
Mr. President, Mr. President I believe Connor Morley is expressing he'd like to say something.
David:
Not Christina but.
Christina:
This is Christina, apologize my.
David:
Oh that's fine, that's fine.
Christina:
My son uses my computer often, and I guess he's programmed himself as me.
David:
That's fine, welcome.
Christina:
So, and I just had, you called on me earlier and I thought twice. I wanted to ask if there is discussion in the community. That or water has expressed interest. Right now.
They're saying the inclusion is off the table. I've heard from several different people that they are interested in pursuing the inclusion, if new leadership is brought on at the Metro District. So I'd like for you to comment on that. And kind of let us know a little bit why there's such acrimony going on and why.
Were the voters, I know that all these problems have come up. And Parker's angry with you, you're angry with Parker, I've read all the documents. I see that. Why, Why weren't those feelings put aside and the wishes of the voters put first?
David:
I appreciate that question. And if I may and my colleagues can certainly chime in as well. answer that. the best I know how please note that from my perspective as a, as a president. I'm not angry. I'm very disillusioned. And the reason I'm disillusioned is, is not only as I described today or this evening the, the, the fact that we had an inclusion agreement that was three years in the making three plus years in the making. But, but a work of art to say the least.
And, and to have gone into a First Amendment out of the abundance of caution. We did. But again it too was laced with commitment on both parties' part to see this inclusion through. And I don't know of anyone that I associate with that is not intent on seeing and inclusion. Excuse me, an inclusion take place. but it was a bit unfair again for the media and for others in, in their individual capacities etc. to convey information that wasn't, let's call it balanced.
And so that's the only reason for this meeting. A portion, a portion of this meeting. And all the posting that's online is so that everybody benefits from it. But, like you, what I did read was the posting on February 11th from Parker. That signaled exactly as you said quote from Ron Redd. We still believe there's an opportunity for inclusion with Castle Pines North Metro District. Even if we're not able to, to complete at this time we still believe that it could benefit both communities.
These are complicated agreements and sometimes it doesn't happen. The first time around. We remain open, revisiting this opportunity in the future. Now we said exactly the same thing reciprocally, reciprocally and have throughout all of our correspondence where we are ready today, today to engage in and those discussions in good faith. And I stand by it. I'm certain my colleagues stand by it.
But please note that again we're, we're disillusioned because of how we were taken by surprise. And while they have their, their reasons bless their hearts respectively. We have ours and ours Is, is to protect and steward that, that we have been honored to serve and the.
The possibilities of that coming with new leadership. I, I'd have to be honest with you. I've heard that from one person. And the only thing that comes to mind Ms. Morley, the only thing that comes to mind is, is the content in a personal letter that I sent to their president. And, and that personal letter was, was sent to them in December or in December or January. And it was a personal invitation for their board to convene with our board as we did in the early days.
And we were buying, hosting dinner. And, and it was a single reason. And I stated it very clear that I had come across information that indicated to me that our staffs, plural, were stuck. And, and so, to answer your question well as you heard from Amanda those requests were denied. And, and while their president did acknowledge receipt of my, and so did Ron, of my letter. They, they, they respectfully declined the offer and, and so that'd be a good question for them there.
What was, what was told to me is that their board does not engage in negotiations. While we both did in the very beginning, they don't now. But staffs, if they're talking about the leadership in staffs they didn't use any names. If they're talking about board members they didn't say, what I said was I know for certain by virtue of the correspondence that by and through our point Jim Worley conveyed to this board from Parker and they had to be receiving some of the same frustration back that they were stuck.
They didn't have the tools. They didn't have what they needed to consummate this. And I reached out and for that reason were disillusioned. I hope that that shed some light on the subject. Thank you. So I. Go ahead Chris.
Chris:
I do want to add a couple things here too. So just so we're clear this board is just acting on behalf of this community and we have, I have nothing personal. So nobody here is angry. Nobody here is, has anything against Parker. We do think that we're still on track to work through the list. We have a list of items that generally, we need to fix.
And there was only one item that caused us to really have conversations and to not push back but essentially have a more code more direct conversations with Parker. And that was the additional funds that were going to come out of the, the general fund which just not part of the water fund. That's how that enterprise fund is as our director of finance mentioned.
So no issues there. We are still going to pursue. We're going to work through all the items. And then we're going to pursue the inclusion whether it's with Parker, who is our number one choice. We had a whole list when we started this back 3 or 4 years ago. Parker is our number one choice. I'm going to say that out so everyone knows and I'm sure they're listening. But we're not going to do anything that's not within our fiduciary duty to this community.
And we will always put the community first. And if the community don't think that's true, that's fine. This is a voluntary position. I got a lot of stuff that I can do I, I can, I will resign, I can resign, all the whole board can resign. We don't care. We care about you. So this is what we're going to do.
We're going to keep working on all the issues. We're going to keep looking at Parker and we're going to work it out with them. And we're going to look for additional partners too because that's what we should do in your interest. Right. So we're not upset. We're a little bit disillusioned. I was disappointed when I saw the email. I was like what?
Okay, wasn't surprised because we definitely sent a couple notices to them. So I just wanted to be clear about that and make sure you know that this board has you know we put a lot of sweat and blood into this. And specifically David, he put a lot of effort into getting this to close and we're almost there. You know if you look at what Ron Redd said and then what the lawyer's letter said they're two different things.
And guess which one we're going to focus on more. We're going to focus on the one that says hey there's an opportunity here still. Because Parker is still the number one choice as far as we're concerned. Well we're definitely going to start back in December looking at the other partners that we can and do an inclusion with. So thank you.
David:
And one note. All of these items have concerns. Every single one of them were mentioned in some form, fashion or another in the inclusion agreement and in the amendment which means they were all incorporated in the fee. We're talking $40 million, huge amount of money, right? We're spending that money. We are spending that you heard Nathan. He's never been ,he has never experienced anything like it.
But the accountability that we have and, and the, and the progress and the benefit from doing so is, is just mind boggling. And I, I'm not joking when I say we're close to conducting private tours or public tours, right. But just know that when we get back to the negotiating table with anybody that fee is going to have to be reduced.
As a bucket only has so much. You heard Amanda call it $40 million. She said 39 eight or whatever the number was. It only has that amount of money unless everybody wants to kick in more. This board negotiated a fee that was reasonable and, and covered everything I have demonstrated to Parker in that, in that finance meeting. Means by which every shortfall that they brought up was covered.
Okay. Things that are not even contemplated to being fixed until 2051 according to the science of the GIS folks that we had a relationship with. So when we get back to the negotiating table the preference is with Parker they know more about us than anybody else. And, and vice versa the number is going to be adjusted. And it's not.
It's not a subject item or matter that they're not familiar with because we've already had those. They gave us credit way back in the day when we said we wanted to participate with the city on Councilman Parkway. So that money for that pipeline and that pipeline not the road work but the pipeline right is coming off of that fee.
Well and the roadway as well the whole package million three coming off of that same thing with the water treatment plant we negotiated way up front years ago, years ago. You guys wanted as is. You can have it as is but we want to begin to fix this. Tough because we had a couple issues i.e. a boil order and one where the water pressure was, was reduced by some fuzes and. Doesn't matter. The fact is we wanted to start making that right so that no one suffered. And they agreed, that's what kind of partners they are, okay.
Don't misunderstand any of what we've said about being angry. We were disillusioned by the termination and I just wanted to make sure that moving forward we knew that the dollar amount was somewhat of a moving target. Unless these are, all of us collectively decide that we're willing to pay more. Okay, anybody else? Chris, thank you for those comments. Robert.
Robert:
I just want to erase the word angry out there. It's obviously just a disappointment in our hearts. It's been four years now and maybe everybody knows how, how much has gone into this in four years. And, and two right at the finish line, eight things seemed okay. That's all negotiable. It's all just a little process. Those eight things didn't seem like a big deal.
So it's not anger. We're steadfast looking at the future now and even more opportunities are coming up and available. So we're steadfast in going forward. It's not. It was an anger. We need to race. That it's, it was just disappointment and obvious. When you have four years of hard work into this. So that was my comment.
David:
Thank you., sir.
Denise:
I want to add on to that keep in mind too with the eight points that we've been working through and are continuing to work through. That makes us more favorable for anybody in the future. Sure. We're going to have bullet proof engineers reports next time around.
Yeah. So it's things we need to do anyway that we're either in the process, or now we're in the process. And they're just checked off a list. We're going to be more attractive as a potential partner in the future no matter what.
David:
But don't get me started, so.
Robert:
And David has spearheaded this whole thing, the intellect. I cannot praise him, anybody. There's, there's nobody out there that has the engineering.
David:
Okay. Thank you. Let's go, let's, let's open up, Open Space Manager's Report. We have Craig Miller with us this evening. Craig you have the floor sir, welcome.
Describer:
Craig is joining the meeting via Zoom.
Craig Miller, Supervisor, Parks, Trails, and Open Space, CPNMD:
Thank you Mr. President. you all have my, my report for February. Does anybody have any questions? No.
As you may know there on item number three I am retiring on March 18th. I'm working with David Anderson parks and space former who will be promoted to the Parks and open space manager to get him up to speed so that you can take things over. He is more well versed in Castle Pines North parks and open space operations of anybody. He knows this community like the back of his hand.
So I think he's kind of a well deserved promotion. He should do an excellent job for you in the future.
David:
Thank you. Thank you. Craig. And while we second that motion.
Keep your calendar open. We kind of want to make a fuss over your upcoming retirement and, and, but thanks for the report. I just have one question. It's like a broken record, right? The same one from the, your report of December 2021 where we were talking about the cost participation of 70% or $130,000 from the city relating to the damage along Castle Pines Parkway.
Have we secured that in, in, in, in hard print somewhere? Do we have that to rely on? And from the city.
Craig:
You're discussing the, the damage done from the road construction? No. On Castle Pines Parkway. Yeah. Or Monarch.
David:
No, Castle Pines Parkway.
Craig:
Yeah, Larry with the Public Works Firm in Castle City, Castle Pines. And Jim and I have sat down and discussed this at length. I don't believe we have any written agreement as of right now other than the commitment from the road contractor to contribute their mitigation funds. Which they had put into their contract. Which, talking to David Henderson today sounds like it's only about $50,000.
So we do not have any commitment from the city or the contractor to put any more money in towards that. We are prepared to pay for the, the repairs. However, the city has basically noted that they want their landscape contractor CoCal to install $50,000 worth of landscaping and irrigation repairs and then we're supposed to do the rest. My issue with this is continuity.
I have a contractor who is giving us a bid to repair the landscaping alone for about $86,000. He's the one who originally installed it. If we have one contractor installing part of it and installing the other part there's going to be a lack of continuity. So this is something that needs to be discussed.
David:
Thank you Ken. Craig.
Craig:
That would be Craig.
David:
Yeah. What we want to do, Jim, please get a meeting with, with Larry ASAP and, and Craig and, and let's get something memorialized. So that we know what we've got to deal with. If that were done by the end of next week. And I know if Larry's around he'll accommodate that, no problem. And we want to take good use of Craig's time. So that's right up at the top of the list please. Thank you, Craig. Anybody else?
Craig:
Yeah. We do. We have a great relationship with Larry so that shouldn't be a problem. Yeah.
If I may add another thing regarding fire mitigation I have concerns residents about open space. I've got an email here from Einar Jensen who is the fire safety officer with South Metro Fire. There's an interesting communication between him and a resident of the city of Castle Pines inquiring about embers from grass fires and how big of a danger they are.
If I could quote from his email he says embers from any fire, grass, brush, trees, structures are capable of starting new fires. If they land in receptive fuels such as piles of dead leaves, piles of dead needles, junipers and similarly flammable plants. Cushions welcome mats, et cetera. Again I suggest that homeowners stop looking out there and open space areas for sources of embers and start looking at their own yards and homes to make some ember resistant.
Wildfire safety and mitigation begins at home with homeowner responsibility. Even if Castle Pines eliminate all of its open space embers from wildfires in areas outside of the Castle Pines such as east of I-25 or North of the the city of Castle Pines can ignite fires mitigation is most effective when it starts at home. So basically what he's saying and he's been saying this all along the communications I've been having with them over the last few months after the Marshall fires is that the biggest danger for wildfires here in Castle Pines are the pines, spruce, junipers and things like that that residents have planted close to their homes. And close to our open space.
So this is the real issue. It's not so much you know mowing open space grass to a 3 or 4 inch height cause it will completely go on and completely dry. That is more likely to catch fire than open space grasses that are left tall. In the wintertime if you mow. The other issue that you have is that you lose all the soil moisture that we accumulate from the limited snowfall that we've actually had so far this, this winter. And the ground dries up very quickly again making it more of a fire hazard. So Einar is basically stating that it begins at home. That's where fire mitigation starts.
David:
Great point. I got the memo. Have checked the flash drive for pictures and videos. There's a number of things that we all need to make sure we have. My understanding is those fires move awfully fast.
Craig:
They do well, especially when they're, they're fueled by hurricane force winds. Yeah. Which was the case with the Marshall fire.
David:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you, Craig and, and we did note that and I think Jim is going to pick up on a little bit of conversation on the right-of-way. I got a real nice email from Tom Clark today. I'll share with you tomorrow on that right away and, and entryways into Esperanto etc. but. Perfect. Thank you again. Anybody else have a comment, question for Craig?
Chris:
I don't have a question. I just have a comment. And I would like to thank Craig in front of everyone for all your service to the district. We certainly appreciate it. I know the residents certainly appreciated and benefited from all that you have done. And I wish you well in all that you do. And your well-deserved retirement.
Craig:
Thank you, It’s been 52 years I've spent in the green industry. Believe it or not I started when I was 15. And I've been dedicated to landscape, maintenance, tree care. I was a city forester, water conservation specialist. It's been a great career. And the last eight of it I've spent here at the district it's been a pleasure to serve.
Denise:
Craig I just want to say thank you also. And you have, you've taught me more than I thought I could ever know about trees and shrubs and wildfires. And you've been delightful. And thank you for your service and your expertise. We appreciate it.
Craig:
Thank you so much. I really do appreciate that.
David:
Thanks Craig. Have a good evening. You too. Gonna close item, seven. Open up item eight which is our distribution collection, systems foreman report. Nathan Travis. Nathan, you're up my friend.
Nathan:
All right. Looks like the only thing listed on the agenda is the odor resolution in Forest Park. So I'll touch on that briefly. And then see if you guys have any questions about the work going on with the water treatment plant.
Forest Park odor mitigation is going really well so far. I just had an opportunity to speak with the, with Scott Boyd. He's the owner of the company that installed it for us. The ozone has been up and pretty consistently running now for a little bit over 4 to 6 weeks. Somewhere in there. He started last week taking actual off-gassing measurements to be able to scientifically track how well this is doing rather than just continuing, continuing with the sniff test.
So we're looking specifically at those odor causing gases, how quickly they're being reduced how fast that, that process is going. We're going to continue to track that. It's just part of our ongoing maintenance. So as we, you know, move forward with that program we'll keep doing that. And but so far the, the, the initial readings that he's been getting we're already seeing 40%, 50%, 60% reductions depending on how far down the hill you go.
And so that's, that's fantastic news. We expect that to only get better. We also have the ability to dose ozone at a higher rate if we need to. Certainly some adjustment, adjustments to be made there if necessary. I, I briefly touched on the water treatment plant in wells earlier but wanted to check in and see if there are any specific questions from the directors that I could answer.
David:
You guys have seen the pictures to just wait a minute. Supply chain issues will, we've got some equipment on pallets that are just, blow you away. Thank you. I don't have any further questions. Anyone else?
Robert:
We just have an ongoing commitment, communication with those residents. What's the last we've heard from them? Are they? Forrest Park. Yes. Forest park? Yep. \
Nathan:
Yeah. I haven't had any negative comments. So there's been, I've got 3 or 4 residents that I've had a working relationship with and I've just asked them to directly call me anytime they smell it anytime it's really prevalent. And I haven't heard anything from a couple, for a couple months now. Once I get the kind of final report from all of the, all of that whole project pulled together and I've got some good long data. I certainly want to reach out to the two individual HOAsthat are directly impacted down there to get that information out and see if there's any outstanding concerns.
Robert:
And thanks again for attacking that and so many different angles. Appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah Absolutely.
David:
Hearing none more, close item eight, open up item nine. Finance Directors Report. Ms. Amanda Castle, you have the floor.
Amanda:
Thank you. I appreciate it. So the first three items are really just some outline of some costs that the district has incurred. The total cost of the inclusion to date, which really represents time spent by consultants time for items specific to the inclusion.
In total over the course of the last three plus years the district has spent right at about $500,000 which equates to a solid at least 2500 hours worth of time if not more. just looking at some of those average billable amounts and the amount of time that's been put in there. So quite a ,quite a bit of work going into that which we're all very well aware of.
A couple of other items, items B and C outline costs associated with repairs and replacements. As discussed tonight. Item B is the cost for the water main replacement relocation upgrades. To date that totals about $640,000 and then costs associated with the water treatment plant upgrades to date or just under $1.2 million. So we can see that the district is in fact using those resources as Nathan previously, previously explained to help bring those assets up to par. Which is good to see.
And getting us as Denise said to a point where we're going to be very desired on the market which is good. Great, great things to see. Beyond that I did prepare a limited financial report for the district. Really just a couple of highlights this month. Property taxes in the month of January came in just slightly low compared to previous years.
Having said that, I never stress too much. Property taxes are extremely dependent on when taxpayers pay. In particularly in the first month. It ebbs and flows simply because property taxes aren't due. The first tranche of taxes aren't due until the end of Q1. So it makes a lot of sense that we would see a little bit of order flow there.
We'll continue to watch those but we should have 100% collection by the end of the year. And I have no concerns there. Beyond that the district did see specific ownership tax which continued to trend higher than anticipated which is good to see. Based off of today's economy and where I believe we're going I'm not sure that we'll continue to see that trend through the year.
So we'll continue to monitor it. It's really based off of sales of vehicles and that sort of thing. So we'll just continue to monitor those taxes but hopefully we'll, we'll see strong trends as long as we possibly can. Beyond that, water usage in the month of January surprisingly was the highest it has been in any January over the course of ten years.
Just looking at those water usage rates. So not you know I know that we've had a pretty dry year thus far. That could be really lending to that usage. I'm not sure what's going on there but, it's, we'll continue to monitor that and see what we anticipate. Right now that is kind of shifting projection. So I don't ever update projected water service revenues until later in the year.
So we'll just continue to monitor that trend. Beyond that, keeping super busy. We have the district's annual audit. So we started preliminary field work in January. We'll have final field work in the month of April. We at Pinnacle also hired some additional staff. So I'm training a new team at Castle Pines which is great. For those of you that maybe don't know I love training people so I'm looking forward to it.
Plus I think it's an exciting opportunity to introduce some new staff to the district to ensure that we have a great support system for the district. When we were going through Covid and had some turnover as most places did we really scaled back a little bit. And I've been representing the district with very limited staff. So being able to have that full team of people to support finance is really exciting.
I'm excited for it. So that's the nerd in me. Beyond that we did make the debt service, or I'm sorry. The district's annual budget requirements were made, met as well as compliance requirements. So in the month of January the district has to file their annual budget. That's been done. And we had to ensure that all 1099s were appropriately set.
I know that Nancy worked on payroll requirements to ensure those were done as well. So lots of things going on in our world. Happy to answer any questions if you have them. If not when you're ready I can make a motion to approve the finance report and all relative cash transactions as noted.
David:
Thank you Amanda.
And for anyone that is doing the math in the margin the, the budget for the water main replacement this section is just under $1.5 million and the, both the Hazen report as well as the Jacobs report items that were listed and monetized comes in at just about $2.4 million for, for amendment purposes and projections.
Amanda, please note that our numbers here at the district are a little bit more current. And, and we're running at about a 16.74% efficiency or savings on those numbers. On the parkway, that is actual. Because they're just waiting for the last payment as soon as a bunch of list items are done. So there would be no surprises there.
And so far so good on the water treatment plant as well. And lastly as it relates to projections Jim was going to report in his report. That to date or as of February 23rd which is when it's today the 28th. Five days ago we had 168.28 acre feet of water stored in Chatfield. And, and so that means we've got two months left, right. Our average six month average is 289ft. and so we, we're coming in a little bit under but nothing wrong with that. While we're able to pay the bills, right? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else before she makes that motion? Go ahead.
Amanda:
One final item that I wanted to note to you beforehand is I am working and will work with the staff and the board to complete a budget amendment. With the pause and inclusion right now it's important that we amend the budget to appropriately include all actions within the enterprise funds. We had originally anticipated two budgets.
Just knowing that you know we need to move forward with any possible scenario. So we have one in our back pocket. Jim and I will work with the staff to revisit those numbers and ensure that we have accurate timely numbers to bring forward for the board's consideration at the March meeting. So I did just want to make that note as well.
Okay, with that we simply need a motion to approve the finance report. Payables and claims for payment including check numbers 26681-26744 from January 15th through February 18th 2022. That includes general fund and debt service checks of $59,970.33. An enterprise fund checks of $232,623.69 for approval. General and debt service fund checks of $35,507.25. Enterprise fund checks of $200,405.31. And electronic payments of $84,198.92 for ratification.
For total expenditures to approve and ratify of $612,705.50.
David:
So moved. Is there a second? Second. We have a motion on the floor. I won't reiterate every element of it made by myself. And, and dictated by Amanda Castle our finance director, seconded by Denise Crew. Any additional comments, questions or concerns before we take a vote on the motion? Hearing none asked for a vote. Please let me know your pleasure when called upon.
Board Voting All Speak:
Director Crew. Aye. Director Merritt. Aye. Director Lowen. Aye. Director Lewis. Aye. Director McEntire is an aye. The item number nine passes unanimously.
David:
Again, great work Amanda Castle. Appreciate the memorandum associated with the finance directors position on, on where we stand on the inclusion. We will keep that and take that to heart as we move forward. I know that we are keeping good thoughts. So thank you again. Absolutely. Going to close.
Amanda:
Thank you. I appreciate it.
David:
Going to close item number nine and open up legal counsel report item ten. Council, are you ready? I am. You got the floor, sir.
Kim:
You have a copy of my report in your packet. There are two issues I wanted to bring up.
The first is the demand letter to, from the Lagae Ranch lift station. That demand letter has been drafted and I will be sending it over to Jim tomorrow to confirm the facts that are in it. Indicating that will be cutting off further connections to the system until that's paid.
David:
Counsel, and Jim can, can if you didn't already modify that letter I think it's appropriate given how far in arrears and how much we're speaking about. That, that, that account be brought current not just up through that billing but brought current. Please guys. Yep. Okay. Thank you.
Kim:
Absolutely. The second issue is we still have the Brighton lawsuit going on over the water sales. I wanted to confirm whether or not you want to just terminate the water sale. In light of the fact that there won't be a Parker Water closing that we know of. At the time we extended the first Parker closing we also extended the water sale to close.
When Parker Water & San. closes. We can terminate that. Now that may or may not end the litigation. It's not our litigation. So it's not up to us, but it should. And if that's your choice we'll go. I'll go ahead and do that termination letter and then we'll see if we get any push back.
David:
I take it our co-litigants are in favor of that action?
Kim:
Don't know as far as I, as far as I know they're okay with it.
David:
But I would, I would I, I'm okay with it as well. Exercising the instructions when all else fails. As my daddy told me. But certainly check with our co-litigants and let us know if that is going to change. If something changes. Is everybody okay with that?
Denise:
I have a question on that. If we were to want to make sure I understand this if we were to terminate it. But if we continued with the Parker inclusion would that be retroactive? Can you go back or.
Kim:
That's where the question will come up. And I'll have to have that conversation with counsel.
Denise:
And if we do terminate it and it ends and all goes away. Which is fine if and when we decide to sell water rights again. That's not that overly difficult to do. I mean. Right. I know you have set up an auction, but.
Kim:
Yeah, we'll go through the same process we did this last time.
Denise:
Okay, yeah. Then I'm good with terminating.
Amanda:
May I add something to this conversation? So from a financing standpoint I can support any. The only thing I would like to note is that if the district wanted to still look at the potential to pay off the COPs. It does require sale of that asset in order to do that. So if I had just my finance hat on, I would be thinking two things.
First if you hold off on the sale and move forward at a later time. Water rights are extremely valuable in what I would assume would only increase in their value as time goes on. Having said that you are paying interest on the COPs of roughly, oh my, goodness I think $700,000 per annum right now. So that is something to consider.
We could look at a cost benefit analysis of that but I just wanted to put that out there as part of this decision.
David:
And while my colleagues and I have spoken about that, the cost benefit analysis is always welcome. We know and understand that those COPs with every opportunity have been renegotiated to the lowest interest rates possible.
If we're in a position where we want to use the cash on hand for all of the things that we talked about. That are of a concern of both districts and that we are underway. It's highly likely that we won't look at paying them off completely. We were, that was part of the disillusion.
And I'm, I appreciate you bringing that up. It runs at about $246,000 every quarter. Is our debt service. And, but with interest rates rising and, and borrowing getting more difficult. We'll, we'll see that next cost benefit analysis. And, and be prepared to address it prior to the end of next month. We, we had talked about possibly making that payment or payment on April 1st. So as soon as you're able to deliver that that'd be great. Thanks for bringing that up. Absolutely.
Kim:
That's everything for me. Unless there's any questions.
Chris:
So I guess I'm not clear. What did we decide to do here? We're not going to. You're going to have a conversation with Parker.
Kim:
Yeah. And then I will report back to you on whether there's going to be an issue.
Chris:
I'm sorry, okay. With Aurora. With Aurora? Yeah co-litigants. Oh, correct myself with Aurora.
David:
Kim the, the of course the board was in receipt of some correspondence of late. From your office relating to some, some source of some information that you were sent. Can you, can you give us a reading on that please?
Kim:
Yeah. I was forwarded a copy of a text message that had been sent out that purported to be a portion of the letter from Parker Water and Sanitation District to me.
But the language had been changed in the letter. So I contacted the person who, who may have sent it out. I'm not sure, the text message had the, the image of the letter and then the name of a person. But you couldn't tell if it was connected to that image or not. And got some pushback.
I would like to spend some time to try to find out where that language came from. Because again it's not in the correspondence that was sent to me by Parker Water and Sanitation District. And it's significant because it's talking about possible pollution caused by Castle Pines North that did not take place. And could affect our permitting co-litigants. So with your, your okay, I'm just going to pursue where that message came from and see if we can figure out who changed the language in the letter. Because again, it's not what's in the letter that I received.
David:
And it's showed up, it's showed its ugly self again in, in, in the Castle Pines connection article. And, and so.
Kim:
I learned back this afternoon.
David:
Yeah. Yeah. Back, back an hour ago. I when, before we got into an update, talked about how important it was that we just give everybody a fair shot at knowing the facts. Again no one has received any calls or had any communication with anyone from anywhere, anyhow, anyway that would have reported these or sent them with emojis or anything. Nothing. Okay, by all means it's my opinion and my colleagues will weigh in each one of them as well. For you to pursue the source of that information with as much vigor as you can muster.
Kim:
Okay I will do so.
Denise::
That's exactly what I wanted to say. And you have 100% my back in I'm sure everyone else's. Thank you.
Chuck:
Kim, in pursuing that action if in fact you are successful in finding the author what can be done legally about that?
Kim:
That's a good question. And I will investigate that. It really depends on how that change came about and, and why you know it's going to be a question of why that, why that's being distributed with changed language.
And then you know, there are, there's potential for some criminal liability. There's potential for some damage to the district if water quality control or somebody gets involved. You know, to investigate that language it could be costly, so.
Chris:
So you said it's also in the connection in the public domain. Yeah. Okay. So at a minimum I would say we probably need to make sure that the correct information is out there. So that there is no you know, we at least set the record clear. And, and the community knows that what was the allegation in that text or whatever?
The part that was incorrect is not correct because I think it was alluding to information that could raise a lot of concerns from the community. So that's a, we should we at least make sure that that information in the public domain is correct.
Kim:
I think that's correct. Chris and I will talk with Jim tomorrow about getting, will get some kind of a, a note to the newspaper telling them that their quote is not what we have, not what we were given.
Chuck:
And maybe an editor’s.
Describer:
The sound gets cut out briefly and is inaudible.
Chuck:
I had a moment, you know what I'm saying?
Kim:
Yes, I do.
Chuck:
An editor's retraction in writing. Oh. Correct. Okay.
David:
And we talked about that. The only. Last part of disillusion, right. We. What was.
December 9th we had the board meeting and nine items or eight items. And we prepared an amendment to the inclusion agreement that had all the all, all the concerns we've all agreed to. And we all said we're going to, we're going to do this. Four days later, just four days, took us four days. And this is well before the termination.
All the dates that we laid out et cetera. But, but in your report we've got the preparation of a second amendment. Which is redundant to the first. What were we going to do a second amendment?
Kim:
There was a Second Amendment being considered at least by me. Once the discussions started about the additional funds. And I started to draft something because whatever was agreed to would have to be memorialized in the Second Amendment. I never sent a draft round to anybody because everything was terminated before that was done.
David:
Thank you for taking that up. You're welcome. You know, and for the ones that are still with us Amanda made reference to a meeting that we had with Parker the afternoon prior to that termination. And we came away jubilant that they finally got it, right.
Well what we did was, was what we had been doing often with them and in whatever form, form, format whatever. We began this three years ago because my colleagues and I were not, let me repeat, not going to sign an inclusion agreement that financially we could not perform. Weren't going to do it.
So we knew back then what we had to work with. And of course that was part of the negotiations and why we ended up at least from our perspective, one of the reasons we ended up with what we ended up. But it, a little cash flow, just a little simple cash flow of, of all the money that the enterprise fund has and, and where it comes from and where it goes and, and, and it ends up on December 31st of this year. December 31st they got this where at the end of the day we weren't going to be able to. Given all the money that we were spending on infrastructure improvements.
We weren't going to be able to meet that by $889,662 but with one exception. It was the folks over at Aurora who, whose bid culminated in there being a premium to and for the citizens of this community. And it was a premium of $5.6 million. And that, I call it that because the initial expectation in the negotiation was that first that asset would bring 12 six.
Secondly, the risk of it bringing 12 six were CPNMDs only. If it did, if it didn't, now what are you going to do kind of thing, right. Because our partner wasn't offering anything other than what's called a renewable water component. Which would have allowed for a, an additional fee on a per month basis per house to make up that difference.
So we were just tickled pink that we were in a position to cover that million dollar shortfall on December 31st 2021. Again, the point of all of this is making evident of the fact that we had the money to close.
Five ways from Sunday. If that's the way that old saying goes. I mean I can't tell you how many ways we made sure that there was no misunderstanding. And that they were part and parcel to the decision to wait for the decision of the courts to get that final check. But thank you for teeing up that second amendment.
We were close. That $11 million we got to the table. And we, we, we, we offered at the time we believed that we might net about $5 million given legal expenses right wrong or indifferent. So we offered the $5 million believing that we had the authority to do that. And as good stewards to make sure that inclusion happened we offered the $5 million.
It was a darn good meeting. And, and, and the district managers both of them, heads were doing this.
Describer:
David nods his head yes.
David:
I can, I can tell you. I don't know, it's a little disillusioning. Thanks for that reminder Kim. Thank you. Chuck.
Chuck:
Kim if we terminate the sales agreement with Aurora which I guess we have the right to do right now. Is there any legal recourse that we could face from Aurora?
Kim:
Chuck that, that's what I want to hear from them. And I'll report back to you if there is any concern on either Brighton Aurora's side. There could certainly, there's potential for them making a claim. Whether it has any color or not I can't say at the moment or tell you what it might be. All right. Well I I just I don't think we should approve or disapprove the terminating that contract until we.
David:
We did with that condition.
Chuck:
Right here that condition. Yep. Agreed. Okay, thank you.
Describer:
The audio has been cut out and is inaudible. Me too.
Describer:
The audio has been cut out and is inaudible.
David:
Thank you Counsel. Appreciate you handling the yucky stuff and the fun stuff. Golly, hate that.
So I'm going to close legal counsel's report. Send your invoice in and, and stand in line. District Manager's Report Mr. Worley your second to the last, well third to the last. So, without belaboring the point you have the floor sir.
District Manager Jim Worley:
Any questions? Did I do that one quick enough? That pretty good? Yeah. I asked Kim to make sure he sends me his bill so I can really look at it closely.
Wanted you to know. The couple items that we have on the agenda I'll address. This was kind of exciting, especially for us younger people. And that's the sport of pickleball. We've been working with design concepts in creating, taking the skate park that hopefully some of your kids aren't using. And replacing that with some pickleball courts which we're looking forward to.
That's, that's a pretty popular sport I understand. So we've been working with design Concepts David and I for quite a while. I think it's going to go to bed pretty soon. Yeah. Which is absolutely exciting. This we, we refer to this as phase one because there's other things we'd like to do up at the coyote rate. But we're looking forward to getting some good bids on that and moving forward. And as we sit here tonight work on something positive. Yeah. So we'll keep you posted on that. The second one is. Oh go ahead.
Chris:
I'm sorry, I thought the last time we met we were going through an approval process to, to get that done and or filing whether it's a permit or.
Jim:
Going through the city's review. And all of that is, is pretty much completed at this point. Yeah. Yes. You bet that, that was what was going on last time we talked about this. So now we're ready.
David:
We, listen to this, right. We, all the entitlements are in place. Permits are pending, one issue. A missing easement. Oh yeah.
Jim:
And it's with us and, and Excel, I mean.
David:
And Excel says. Excel, yeah. And Excel says we don't want it. Yeah. We don't want it, It's yours.
Jim:
It's a ten foot.
David:
And the assessor says prove it. That's right, and so.
Chuck:
The attorneys writing this down.
David:
He got a message from me.
Chuck:
Just another gullible.
David:
Land, land use attorney, okay ASAP, right. We're going out to bid as Jim said because construction documents are in place. And we're ready to roll knowing that if we had to cut that easement out of the stormwater section of the pickleball pavilion. And that cutting is typically safer than adding with subcontractors. And, and when it comes to submitting numbers. So yeah just, just an easement is al. Jim, you have the floor.
Jim:
Oh I'll get it back. Go ahead. Thank you. The second item is a while back, visualize the intersection in Monarch at the top of the hill to where there's on each side of the road. It looks terrible to be honest with you.
And the reality of it is that we had done, Craig particularly had done, two soil tests. To see how bad the soil is and it is terrible. The city also did a soils test too and both of them came back and said there's so much salt in there. You need to get rid of all of that. If you're going to try to get anything to grow and then replace it with clean soil.
And so we sent a letter, off the top of my head, I can’t remember when we did that. A while back to the city saying you're the one that's allowing this type of salt. I'll call it, going on the area. And we can't do anything about making this area look good because you, you, it's ruined the soil. So they took it to heart.
I believe they actually did. And so Larry Nimmo we've talked about Larry a few times. He came back to me and he said Jim, one of the things that we're thinking about doing to help with that. Is they're going to do some road work on Monarch at some point. They'd like to do a I'll call it a concrete apron from the outside of the curb going into the landscaping. I'll call that, to where that could take some of this stuff that gets thrown up there when the snow flies and the plows come through.
David:
And bring it back.
Jim:
Yeah. And bring it back to where the water was tramped back down into the, the curve where it's supposed to go. Great idea I think, I think it’d work out very good. But once Larry got into it he realized that there are some utilities that are within that area that we'd have to really tear up. No we. No what?
No we. Oh, that they'd have to tear up a lot today. So that's where it is right now. I think Excel has one of them. Might be some other, some fiber options that have to be moved physically out of that area so that once we're in, ready to move forward. We can dig all that bad soil up, get rid of it, replace it, maybe do the apron which is the right of the city to do that.
And so that’s just a delay in that time frame. We were hoping to have this work done last fall. Be honest with you. We kind of made a commitment to a couple of neighbors. And so once we got into it we realized that that wasn't going to happen on a timing standpoint. And so we keep pushing that forward.
I stay in contact with Larry on a pretty regular basis. And I'm pushing his peanut when it comes to, to getting these relocated so that we can get in there and seriously do some work together. So.
Chuck:
Jim, clarify the location again. Monarch and.
David:
Our phase one is from Esperanza, their first entrance of Esperanza or the Daniel's Gate. Going North. Augmentation area all the way.
Second. Highlands Ranch. Yeah not the first hill. Correct. Second one right before you go out of the community. I got one all the way to. Yeah. All right. On both sides of the street.
Jim:
Yeah both sides of the road. It looks terrible. And it has for a while. So we hope to be able to do something when they get those utilities moved.
David:
Yeah. And, and Larry was at an impasse so to speak.
Jim:
He was, he was.
David:
That being a surprise that in their agreements it prohibited a cap.
Well I've run into that before, go figure. Everybody likes water lines and streets but no one likes conduit under four inches of concrete, right? It would confuse the issue with facts. It he, he alluded to the fact that they may redesign that and relook at it.
We were looking at some tree wells and things of that nature to even soften that going forward. But he's not put it on the back burner. The city has not put it on the back burner that I've been made aware of. And we appreciate that you know. Yeah. Okay.
Jim:
I'll address any other questions you may have. Thank you.
David:
I just want to thank you Jim. And thank you for Kennedy Jenks who is our district engineering firm. I just want to let everybody know that.
All these errors and omissions that we're talking about are not just going in one ear and out the other. And I make levity with it because I can't come up with another better way of handling it. Other than making sure that we don't make the same mistake twice, right? So I just want to assure everyone that's listening that as it relates to the things like Castle Pines Parkway waterline replacement, the roads, the water treatment plant upgrade and maintenance, our lift station upgrades. Even to the extent of the new service lines going into any and all of the new service areas are all being third party inspected. Third party reported, third party memorialized and.
Third party approved. Before which time the district accepts these things before they pay any money whatsoever for them. Have you heard about the, the lift station issue, you heard about the, the intersection issue. This is a byproduct of this kind of redundancy associated with the, the work that we're doing. Not only to make sure that it meets specifications in writing but in execution.
And, and really appreciate that. They're looking over our shoulder, testing our every move and making sure that, that what we're doing is, is not making mistakes for somebody else down the road. Appreciate that, Jim. Okay going to move to we're going to close the report from our district manager item number. I’ll get there. Just a moment please.
Item 11 as I'm being told. And open that up to item number 12 district, or director's matters. I'm going to find that dang thing. Director's matters, I'm going to open it up for director's matters. And I apologize for, for taking the mic. But we don't have any items there. But I was telling Laurie that she was kind of ruining, somewhat of the surprise early on when she was talking about this second inclusion.
My colleagues and I have been in receipt of some work that has recently.
Gotten underway. And this is a byproduct of it started as I mentioned earlier from a meeting between Jim Worley, myself, Craig or Tracy Engerman and, and our city manager over there. Yeah, Michael Penny. And in that meeting we were talking about the inclusion. And we said at that time our First Amendment says when everybody's ready we'll give a 40 day, 45 day single, signal. Getting punchy here. A 45 day signal and then we'll close.
That's what the First Amendment said. Well we, we told them what our plans were for working on the inclusion with the city for the parks, the trails, the open space and the stormwater business. And we said no later than Dave 46. So the, the day after our closing with the, with water and, and wastewater we were going to start with the city.
Reflecting on that conversation I had the opportunity to have a discussion with the mayor. And, and acknowledging, just clearing up what, what we thought we heard and, and or didn't. And, and again it had everything to do with the stormwater responsibility that the city has. All of a sudden. Inherited, awarded however we want to get it. From the canyons and from Castle Valley.
These are areas where the developer is conveying this property to the city. And the city is going to take care of it. But they have to take care of it in a way that is conformance to federal and state manners. Rules, regulations, ordinances, et cetera. And they don't have a revenue source. They went out as a story is told and had a number of studies done. But each one of the studies came back with, if you can imagine.
It could be this much, if you have this many residents, or it could be this much as it has that many residents. What the district levies is, is fees residents as everyone knows is $5 a month per home for stormwater. And that's what we utilized to manage that responsibility. And, and we confirmed in that conversation that if they had that as a model. And, and.
Those economies and efficiencies that it would be a great benefit to the city. And were incredibly gracious and grateful for having the conversation. We went from a conversation of an MOU to an IGA. They went to City Council, looked at it. I think, Chris was it this last time, this last meeting. And, and came away with, with a, an approval to send a draft IGA to the district.
We have it. It's just a matter of whether or not my colleagues and I want to. And we're only talking days. Almost hours but days old. In order for us to keep that or build some momentum in that regard. What I'm looking for is, is your consent and your approval recommendations to keep moving forward on working on that draft with the city for the stormwater responsibilities. Within the district to at some mutually approved time move over to the city. Helping them with all the things that I mentioned and relieving the district of, not something that they need relieved from doing to focus on anything else, if I may. But would help the city more so than anything else.
And, and it’s our M.O. and, and.
So, did I articulate that fairly well Chris? Yes sir. Okay, good. Thank you very much. And thanks for your work over there. And thanks for giving us that opportunity to work with you on that. That's, that's great. Tracy and Mike and you guys are really making some make, making a difference. Appreciate it. Conversation, comments, questions, concerns. I don't have any definitive or, or, or you know, specifics as much as.
Chuck:
I've got a question.
David:
Oh, as I was saying.
Chuck:
You don't look this way anymore.
David:
As I, as I. You don’t look at me, you know. Okay. Come on.
Chuck:
This, this question is for Kim. Kim, as we consider modifying or restructuring the Metro District for items like this. Does it require a notice to the city constituents or a vote before. If we decide to do this do we have to go to the constituents for a vote of approval or not?
Kim:
No, there's a number of different ways to do it. We could amend your service plan. We could just do an intergovernmental agreement with the city. You're allowed to enter into contracts together to provide services that both of you have the authority to provide.
And that's even encouraged in the statutes in the state constitution. So it can be done pretty easily. And, and no vote required.
Describer:
David whispers to Chuck off mic and it is inaudible at the beginning, but then he speaks louder at the end of the sentence he says to Chuck.
David:
That's a good question though. Great question Chuck. Thanks.
Describer:
Chris turns his mic on and off and back on again.
David:
Are you having a hard time? Just press it until the, the light goes red. Go ahead.
Chris:
It's my old age. I'm sorry. You're making fun of the old people at the table? But so, I got a question. So this is a new service that the city is picking up from Castle Valley and also from.
David:
They're responsible for it. Yes. Okay. Yeah.
Chris:
And, and they don't have revenue to do it?
David:
They have not established a fee. Yeah. Okay. Going through all the due diligence in preparation, this is, you know, a fairly new nuance for them. They wanted to do all the due diligence of course. And, and, and again there is, Tracy was sharing with me, the numbers could vary.
But what we, you know, one of the things that we talked about is. We didn't want to create another rip in the fabric. That was a, you know, like Parker supplying water on one side of our city and, and the district over here. And it created that rip in the city fabric and, and, and people were mad over here for this reason and mad over there. And so I applauded what they have done and what they were considering because they're areas that they had to service were much smaller than ours by hundreds of acres, hundreds.
And so their numbers could have easily come in and, and all of those people in those areas been it. Who knows $13, $15, $20 bucks. You know, it is what it is but, it is and our city is one. And, and, and we're I just want to continue the conversation, flush out any of the skeletons, make sure that it's, it's, it's, it's as good as I'm making it out to be. On the surface from the city's perspective and, and, and certainly from ours at this juncture we should continue to look at it, is all I'm asking for tonight.
Chris:
Okay. So my only, my main concern, not only concern, my main concern is we have an established cost that we’re, that our community pays for it, right. Sounds like, sounds like the new area is that, that we're getting into, or the cities getting and taking responsibility for. Is still being flushed out.But we're in the process of turning over what we do. At a very efficient cost to a group that's still trying to work it through.
So I'm okay with, with us having conversations and fleshing it out. I would say the conversations should be also more along the line as, hey we have an established process. It works well for, umpteenth years. You know maybe it's beneficial for us to share that with, with the city on how they can maybe use that. And where their, the responsibilities they're about to, to take on. And, but I'm just a little hesitant of saying I'm turning over that portion to the city. Now let me also say that clearly, that our.
Our desire is the reduction of organizations within the legal governmental organizations within Castle Pines. So our desire is essentially once we are finished with inclusion of the water portion and storm, sewer is to pursue inclusion with the city. But at the same time I want to make sure that we're doing, being transparent with the community and that we're doing it the most cost effective way for the community.
So I'm okay with having conversations. I'm not okay with turning over and establishing a cost effective process to someone else. That's just picking it up. That's all.
David:
Hear you, hear you loud and clear. We're, we're ways from that. The goal, I'm not surprised by yours or anyone else's opinions in that regard. If it could be $5 that’d be worst case, if it’s $499. It's better, you know. And, and again that's just how we roll. And when given the opportunity we're not looking for, for favor or fanfare.
It’s just if there's the opportunities there and the economy's inefficiencies are, was front and center. And that's what's going to dominate the conversation I think when it comes to coming up with that figure. The other stuff's mechanics. But if you're alright with continuing the conversation again, just a, I don't know that we need a motion to continue the conversation with Council seeing. No, just a concurrence on everyone's part for the minutes. Would be, would be great, Robert.
Robert:
Just one question. Can we look forward to economies of scale benefit? Yep. Is that okay? Perfect.
Chuck:
One other question, what all is involved in turning over stormwater? Are there any capital accounts, any funds involved, other.
David:
It's all in the, in the draft IGA. Okay.
Yeah. The whole nine yards. Chuck and, and I think Chris, I’m not going to put you on the spot but I might, always have. You know, if we can improve on it again they don't want to overtax. Given the opportunity to exercise and benefit from the economy's inefficiencies. They hold the master's 4x4 permit. And while we have always been a sub holder in full compliance I can go on and on and on and on.
Great deal larger. But yeah, this is all about really setting the groundwork for, as you said, Chris the, the, the next go round. If we, and I think we're all kind of focused on that to lay that pathway, lay that groundwork, rebuild that trust and that confidence. You know, establish the mechanics and the know how and the experience associated with doing that. That's, that's, that's a big picture. But starting small. Well, well, well looking to the future, anybody else?
Board Voting All Speak:
Moving forward Director Lewis, aye or a nay? Aye, on continuing the conversations. Director Lowen. Aye. Director Crew. Aye. Director Merritt. Aye. And McEntire is a yea as well.
David:
Thanks guys. Appreciate it. Jim. Any questions on next steps? No sir. Very good. Kim you're in tow. Thank you. And, and we have the, the you're right up in the, in, in your report on that matter. So thank you.
Describer:
David and Chuck are speaking off mic, and it is briefly inaudible.
David:
Going to close item number 12 and open up for the second public comment period. Item number 13. Well I don't have any new sign ups. Are there any of the old that spoke that would like to speak again? Hearing none, I'm going to close the second public comment period. Thank everyone so sincerely online and in, in attendance and in the audience for coming out tonight and participating. Mucho appreciate you. With that, look for, I’mma close that, as I said, item 13. Open up item 14. Is there a motion to approve item 14?
Robert:
Motion to adjourn.
David:
Got a motion to adjourn. Is there a second?
Chris:
Second it. Second.
Board Voting All Speak:
All in favor in unison say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Hearing None, motion carries unanimously.
David:
Meeting over. Thank you again. And, and by the way again, my offer stands. Anyone with a desire or comment, question, concern. I'll hang out here for anybody that wants to take me off on it. If not privately on the phone via email. We all have our contact information out there and available again, thank you.