July 25, 2022 Video Board Meeting

Transcript

AGENDA

Board of Directors Meeting

Monday, June 20, 2022, at 6:00 p.m.

7404 Yorkshire Drive, Castle Pines, CO 80108

I. Welcome. Call meeting to order. Pledge of Allegiance.

II. Roll call. Determination of quorum. Disclosure of potential conflicts.

III. Consider approving July 25, 2022 board meeting agenda.

IV. Consider approving regular monthly board meeting minutes of June 20, 2022. V. Public comment period. (Three-minute maximum per person).

VI. Parks, Trails & Open Space Manager's report.

VII. Water & Wastewater Operation Manager's report.

VIII. Legal Counsel's report.

A. Status of Lagae lift station and associated recommendations.

B. Status of CPNMD's pickleball court construction in Coyote Ridge Park. C. Recommended action regarding CPNMD’s acting interim district manager and associated employment contract.

D. Process and timeline for board consideration of a new district manager.

IX. Directors' matters.

X. Adjourn.

Describer: The video starts on graphic with a white background and forest green letters which says “Castle Pines North Metro District Board Meeting July 25, 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 Chuck Lowen:

Welcome everybody to the Castle Pines North Board meeting on July 25th. It's now 6:00. I'd like to call the meeting to order and ask all to the, say the Pledge of Allegiance, please.

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 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.

Chuck:

Thank you very much. I'll do a roll call, please, and say here. And no conflicts. If in fact you are here.

Board Member Director Chris Lewis:

Christopher Lewis. Here. No conflicts.

Board Member Director Denise Crew:

Denise Crew. Present. No conflicts.

Board Member Director Jason Blanckaert:

Jason Blanckaert. Present. No conflicts.

Board Member Director Tera Radloff:

Tera Radloff. Present. No conflicts.

Chuck:

And I'm Chuck Lowen. No conflicts. Thank you very much. We have a majority. We can conduct a meeting. Item number three. Would you make a motion to approve the July 25th board meeting agenda, somebody?

Tera:

Mr. President, could we add another item? Oh, nevermind. I move to approve the agenda as presented.

Chuck:

We have a motion to approve the agenda for July 25th. Do I have a second? Second it. We have a second. Let's go through it again.

Board Voting All Speak:

Christopher Lewis. Aye. Denise Crew. Aye. Jason Blanckaert. Aye. Tera Radloff. Aye. It moves it's past.

Chuck:

The regular board meeting minutes of June 20th. We do not have them.

Legal Counsel Kim Seter, Esq.:

Yep. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for that. We'll get them to you for the next board meeting. There was just too many things going on in too many meetings in quick succession, and I didn't get them done.

Chuck:

That's fine. We will carry that over until the August meeting. Is that appropriate? Yes. Public comment period. Do we have no comments? Okay. Very good. Item number six. Parks, trails and open space manager David Anderson. You have the mic.

David Anderson, Parks, Trails, and Open Space Manager, CPNMD:

You have my, you have my report. If you have any comments or questions. I do. Please.

Denise:

One question, David, on number six, you said there's an apparatus that is broken. Could you elaborate? What is that?

David:

I'm trying to, I'm trying to find out the true name of it. It's a kind of a sawhorse type deal, and it has rubber tires on. And they stand on, they stand on it and go up and down.

Denise:

So is it, is it dangerous in the state?

David:

Yeah, the I can't keep the old tires up anymore and it falls over and there's some jagged edges on the bottom side of it. So I've tried it three times to fix it and I'm done with it. I just cordon it off and getting pricing on something new and.

Denise:

And we'll remove and replace it.

David:

Correct and that looking like probably the first of the year by the time we get it back in there.

Denise:

But what about the removal. How quickly can you.

David:

Oh I mean I guess we could get it removed as soon as possible.

Denise:

It just makes sense. Yeah. Its a hazard that's all I’m.

David:

I totally agree. Suggesting. Okay thanks. Jason.

Jason:

Was it due to age or was it vandalism that broke it? Age? Okay.

Chuck:

Any further questions? Yes, Tera.

Tera:

Thank you, Mr. President. So I have a question about the little library. And replacing the little library. Do we have to have any coordination with. I think the Little Free Libraries is a, is a nonprofit organization that has to do with all the little libraries. Do we need to coordinate with them or anyone in replacing that?

David:

We presently we do not have one at the present time. Oh, okay. She, she's suggesting to add one to retreat by Retreat Park.

Tera:

Okay so it's a replace. So I thought maybe we had one and she wanted to replace it. So then I guess, are we then with the Little Free Library?

David:

Yeah her name is Natalie, and she's been in touch with me. And we picked out a little place at Retreat Park that she can install it.

Tera:

Okay I just wasn't sure if we needed to be coordinated with anyone like that or with the Douglas County Library, or if there's any kind of sign code with the city, or just just was checking on the coordination of that, so I got.

David:

I'm not sure of all the rules and regulations.

Tera:

All right. And then I just wanted to say I appreciate you working with Larry. I know like all of the tree stuff and the road stuff and everything that you guys work, you collaborate together. And I just want to say thank you, I appreciate that. You're welcome.

Chuck:

Thanks, David. Anything further? I'm good. Board? Let's move on to Roman numeral seven. Water and wastewater operations manager report. Nathan, you have the floor.

Nathan Travis water and wastewater operations manager CPNMD:

I'll take the same tack that David did. You guys have my report. If there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

Chuck:

Board any questions? Denise.

Denise:

Is this where you're going to go over your meeting with the Aurora water?

Nathan:

I was going to ask the president if that would be the appropriate time or.

Denise:

Give us some highlights right now.

Chuck:

Right now we do this report. Make sure we're through. We'll do this report. Go through this report. Make sure we get through it. And then yes, Nathan will address it as well as I and possibly Chris if he desires. Okay thanks.

Tera:

Thank you. Just a question on replacing the back wash reclaim pumps. Is that part of the tank rebuild? Is that part of that project?

Nathan:

So the back wash reclaim pumps are directly related to that system, but they need to be replaced before we do really anything else over there. So those are we've had those things on order, I think since late November, and we're just now getting all of the parts on site to get all of that up and running. That data will be collected.

Kennedy Jenks, part of their overreaching program with the entire water treatment plan, is reverse engineering the building with all of the work that we've done to incorporate a bunch of missing drawings. So they'll capture those and then include them into their future design. But it'll be separate from that total project.

Tera:

Okay and then I think that this was actually answered in Kennedy Jenks. But let me just ask you on the Lift Station renewal and rehabilitation program, I just wanted to know where we are in all of the stations meeting the state and Cherry Creek Basin Authority standards.

Nathan:

So we're still in the design phase. We'll probably have a substantially complete design by the end of the year, including cost projections and all of that stuff. It's a fairly time consuming process we have done. They have all of the documents that we've got all of the As belts and record drawings for the existing lift stations. Semocor has been going out and doing drawdown testing. So they're collecting some actual field data so that we can size pumps and stations appropriately. All of that information is going back to Kennedy Jenks.

And then they're compiling what will ultimately be kind of like a pick and choose solution kind of pass. So they'll give us a few different options. Pros and cons of each. And then we'll kind of start going through and picking the most cost effective and long term effective way to run the wastewater lift station system. So there's a lot we're looking at basically our entire our entire wastewater pumping system.

So all of the included force mains, we're looking at potentially eliminating lift lift stations, combining them, upgrading them. There's a lot of parts at play. So it's a, it's a pretty lengthy and intensive design process. But we're, we're anticipating to have that substantially complete by the end of the year.

Tera:

Thank you. And then it says you're seeing a decline in the performance of well D6. And you've signed a proposal to pull and inspect the well. Was that part of the 2022 budget?

Nathan:

Yeah so we have, I'd have to go back and look. But we basically plan on doing two full well rehabilitations every year with the work that we did last year were actually way ahead of that game. So we've got plenty of money left over to pull. It's relatively inexpensive. We budget somewhere around $200,000 per well for a rehab to pull and look at it.

I think it was like 23 or $24,000. And so what we're going to do with that is identify where all the components are at on the well, and then we'll use that as a budget forward number for next year to make sure that we have those costs included. So the actual well rehab won't take place until 2023.

Chuck:

On that D6, just for my own edification. What is declining in the performance? The amount of water, the speed of the engine, the sand in the system.

Nathan:

It's, we're looking specifically at that one, the drive that, like the electrical cabinet that feeds the motor, is starting to drive. And I are a higher amperage load draw. So it's pulling more energy than it has in the past, and it's starting to overheat slightly.

And so that has led to a decline in the amount of water that we can produce without running the risk of blowing that drive and overheating it. It's fairly common on those. That one's a little bit older. We've had it on the schedule to get looked at next year anyway. So we're just getting out in front of a little bit with the money we've got left over in the well budget to really have a hard line budget item number for it going into next year.

So it's not, it's not in danger of really immediately failing, but we just want to make sure that we stay on top of it as soon as we saw the little performance drag. Thank you.

Chuck:

Board any further questions? Okay not hearing any. Let's move to item number eight. Legal counsel's report.

Kim:

You also have a copy of my report. And there are three action items in there. I believe they're also listed in the items on the agenda. So we'll start with the Lagae lift station. At the last board I discussed the possibility of commencing suit, and the board requested an estimate of the costs of litigation. These numbers are very, very rough because you never know what's going to happen.

But based on the pushback that we're getting, I think the numbers I put in my report are probably pretty accurate. So tonight, I just request your authorization to go ahead and file suit. If that becomes necessary, I'll do everything I can to prevent that. But we're kind of to that point already.

And Mr. Chairman, do you want to act on that now, or do you want me to go through the whole list of items first?

Chuck:

We can take this one. Does everybody understand?

Tera:

So I'm sorry, there is a fan going and even I could not hear you. So if you could repeat that for me just a little louder, that'd be great.

Kim:

Yes, at the last board meeting, I requested your authorization to file suit on the Lagae lift station. If necessary. The board requested information on what the cost would be to litigate that matter. So I looked at some other cases and came up with the numbers that are in my report. It is very hard to estimate what litigation costs will be.

Sometimes you can win these matters very quickly on a motion. Sometimes you end up going all the way through trial. But that's kind of my best guess. So knowing that if you want to authorize me to go ahead and proceed, I'll do everything I can to avoid that. But I'm not going to waste a bunch more time before filing a suit if you authorize it.

Chuck:

What do you mean, exactly? On pursuing it before spending too much time. What's your next step?

Kim:

Two, three weeks. One more demand letter with a copy of a complaint attached that hasn't been filed yet is usually my last step.

Chuck:

Has there been any face to face conversations? No. With their counsel.

Kim:

Some in writing with their counsel. But they're not. They're not good, not good conversations.

Chuck:

My thought would be to try one more time before you file, board? Agreed. Is that.

Jason:

Sorry, you tried how many times?

Kim:

I've sent three letters and this has gone on, I think, with Jim Worley for about a year and a half. What I could do, though, is go ahead and do what I typically do as a last step, and then the next board meeting, I'll let you know what the result of that is. And we can talk about litigation at that point. Sounds good.

Nathan:

And just to provide a little bit of background. So the year and a half is the time that we've been directly involving Kim. We've been as a district working with this developer to try and get this lift station taken care of for, I think, 4 or 5 years now. So it's been since the moment that station started up.

It's never met its performance matrix. So with us and Kennedy Jenks, we worked at it for a while to try and get them several years without responses. Really the only time that any action has been taken on part of the developers when the station like flat up failed. So the poor performance finally eventually led to a full dual pump system failure.

And it wasn't until we told them that hey, the station went on bypass and the bills are coming to you, that they really actually turned and got into it. And then a year after that process was done, we still weren't getting any responses on our request for payment, which had all been, to our understanding, agreed on upfront. And so that's when we engaged Kim. So he's been in, he's been working on it for a year and a half. The district has been trying to get this resolved for a very long time.

Tera:

The request for payment, there was a you understood there was a verbal agreement before there was a letter request for payment. Is that what I understood? You say or can you clarify that?

Nathan:

Yeah. I don't know how much I should disclose around the communication, but the agreement around bringing this lift station to meet its design criteria, which it never has, was pretty clearly laid out to district staff.

And then it was just never followed through on. So to expedite the process, we had a failing lift station. We brought it. We as a district ordered the pumps to get them here because we needed to get them spect we could get that done a lot faster with the understanding that that invoice, along with a bunch of other associated associated costs that we've had with this station over a number of years, mostly related, mostly related to not just the pumping and piping costs, but also like the.

High level of extra maintenance we've had to do just to keep this thing running. So a lot of those costs were captured. And then that is the total dollar amount. So basically the cost to bring the station to full spec as well as all of the additional maintenance time and costs that we've had over multiple years now, was sent to, sent to the developer following the agreement that we had made with them. And then.

Tera:

So you made a verbal agreement with them. I wasn't in a position to make any kind of an agreement. Just district staff was made through. I do, I also don't know the legal definition between verbal and non-verbal. Most of this was documented in meetings and meeting notes and emails and all of that. So there's a communication chain that follows.

Tera:

So there is a communication chain that is a two way communication coming back from them?

Nathan:

They've basically gone silent for a long time.

Kim:

There is, Director Radloff, of an original agreement to install the lift station and then warrant it until it's accepted by the district. It has still not been accepted by the district. Then when it failed, the district put in these repairs and I believe Jim Worley was contacting the developer. And there's some kind of trail. I don't know if it comes down to the point of having an actual number that they agreed to pay, but there is a there's a dialog that went on.

Chuck:

If I read your notes right, the cost of litigation is going to run between 45 and $55,000. What is the cost? What is the benefit if the developer decides to pay up? What are we looking at? Is there an invoice amount of $200,000, $300,000?

Kim:

I think it's about $256,000, isn't it Nathan? $256. Yeah.

Chuck:

And you're going to try one more time. Yep. And then report to us in August. Correct. Okay. Do we, do we need a motion? We don't need a motion on that. No motion. Got your direction. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments?

Chuck:

Yeah. Mr. President, my only comment was being we've been actually working on this for a long time. And the fact that we're asking to go back another time before filing a suit against a warranty activity, because I knew it was a warranty activity.

I don't know if that's. Well, if the extra time or effort is a waste of time. So I'm okay. Either way. But I'm okay with actually a proven to go file suit now too. So whatever the board wants, I'll go with the rest.

Chuck:

My thought, Director Lewis, is that if Kim states his argument, well, they'll know that a lawsuit is pending and it may allow them to cross the line. If not, then we can file 24 hours later, and you can probably file after you hear him say no before the meeting in August.

Kim:

If you direct me to do that, I will do that.

Chuck:

I would direct you to do that as Director Lewis said, this has been going on for longer than a year. Yep. Thank you.

Chris:

So do we.

Describer:

Chris is speaking off mic and is briefly inaudible.

Kim:

Item B the pickleball court has no change since our interim meeting. Haven't heard back, but I'm still hoping to have that done that first week in August, so.

Describer:

Kim realized his mic was turned off and he turned the mic back on.

Kim:

Oh, okay. I'm still hoping to have that done that first week of August. So we'll just keep pushing on it. The item C after our last meeting, it dawned on me that we have a lot of activity going on in the district that somebody needs to be authorized by the board to take care of. So my recommendation is that you appoint someone as an interim manager, whether that's Nathan or somebody else, but I need somebody that I can talk to for signatures and to make sure that contracts are being implemented.

I don't want to be that person, but we need somebody. I need somebody, and I think you need to authorize some person to, you know, to be in charge, to make sure that my questions are getting answered and that contractors are getting dealt with.

Appropriately until we have a permanent manager.

Chuck:

Thank you, Mr. Senator. I think we've had that discussion at the last work session, and I'd like to make a resolution, I'm sorry, a motion to place Nathan Travis, our current water operations manager, into the interim district manager's position.

Denise:

I enthusiastically second that motion.

Chuck:

We have a motion, a second, discussion?

Tera:

Yes so I understand the need to have somebody in that role. And I.

It is important to keep operations going forward. I think I am looking forward to the next item because I think, as I will restate, we need to look at the process that we followed or will follow, and we need to look at the requirements of the job description. The, I mean, I'm confused because the job description that I saw in this resolution is different from the job description that was posted and is now buried on our website.

I mean, I'm wanting to have a discussion about that role. But I agree that Nathan has stepped up and has taken a lot of responsibility and has kept things going. But I want to have a discussion about, you know, the length and the role and a process for determining a district manager. But for interim, I think he's taken on a lot of responsibility, and we do need one person that can be reporting to the board in that role so.

Chuck:

Okay. Thank you. We can, we can take up much of that issue in the item number D. But we have a motion on the floor to appoint Nathan as our interim district manager. We have a second call a vote.

Board Voting All Speak:

Jason. I agree. Denise. Aye. Chris. Aye. Tera: Aye. And I'm and aye. We have a pass.

Chuck:

So congratulations. Mr. interim district manager.

Nathan:

Thank you. I appreciate it. I'm excited.

Kim:

And I want to thank you to makes me very nervous. I have no one I can say tell me what to do.

Chuck:

Nathan, just on a side note, what Nathan's been doing a lot lately for us in that position, unofficially. And I very much respect Nathan. You stepping in and standing up and dealing with a lot of issues that we have and a lot of little problems and so much appreciated. Thank you, Mr. Seter.

Kim:

Jumping back to the status report before moving on to item D on the agenda, I gave you a list of the deadlines for the intergovernmental agreement with the city to convey the stormwater, equipment and processes.

In that agreement, we had appointed Jim Worley as a Service Integration representative to meet with the city and with me and the city attorney. Obviously Jim's gone. We need to appoint someone else under that contract to take that role on.

Chuck:

Explain the role precisely to me, to us.

Kim:

It's really meeting with the city manager and their stormwater person to coordinate the conveyance and the gathering up of information from here to them. And there's a whole bunch of items here, including gathering up the easements, learning the processes, looking at the costs, the billing, and someone just needs to work with them to coordinate that. I'll coordinate the legal portion with the city attorney, but we need somebody to work with the city itself.

Chuck:

Well, you had appointed Jim Worley, and now we have an interim director in Nathan Travis. Would it be appropriate to put him into that position?

Kim:

That would certainly work.

Tera:

So would that work or do we have a contractor in that? Does it actually have to be a named person or does it say, does it need the district manager or does it need or is it actually supposed to be a name of a particular person?

Kim:

It's just a person appointed by this board to represent Castle Pines North in this process.

Tera:

And so who is doing our stormwater?

Nathan:

From an operations perspective? Is that the question?

Describer:

Tera’s mic has turned off and she is briefly inaudible.

Chuck:

Tera you went off.

Tera:

Who is our logical contact who is doing that today?

Nathan:

Yeah so stormwater falls under David's purview. He's also got a pretty long standing view over the side, over kind of everything that's been done or hasn't been done around that system. I stepped into a meeting, I don't know, a few weeks ago now, just kind of like touch base and see where that was at. So Larry.

Tera:

So David is the stormwater guy?

Nathan:

Under yeah stormwater is under parks and open.

Tera:

So why wouldn't we put David?

David:

Well that was Craig's purview. And I, I don't have the background knowledge that Craig put in what he told the city about the condition of the stormwater or any of that information. I couldn't tell you. And we've dropped all the information that we had to the city stormwater coordinator, and he has that in his possession as we speak.

Tera:

So it sounds like it's probably just someone to be there and advocate on our behalf. And you sound like you're qualified to do that to me.

David:

Yes I can, yes.

Chris:

So as a district manager, the interim district manager and the appropriate person, the head of the group, I think it's up to the head of the, the manager of our district to make that determination.

I don't see the board getting involved with essentially having to make that tactical type decision. So I would suggest that we replace Jim Worley with our interim district manager, and he can decide who he was put in that position.

Chuck:

I have a motion.

Denise:

Can we do that?

Kim:

Yeah so the IGA says that the board will appoint somebody. So if you appoint Nathan and Nathan has David go, that's fine.

Denise:

So all we need to do tonight is make a motion to appoint that to Nathan. Yes so. And then Nathan can make a decision if he chooses to change it?

Kim:

Yeah we're really looking for on both sides is that there is somebody. Right. We know that when we talk to them, they're telling us the straight news and they need the same thing from our side. Okay.

Jason:

Can I say one thing? If we're dumped a lot on Nate tonight, you know, dumping gets on him when David's the one that's been doing this position up until now, it seems to me like it kind of be better on our path to have David continue doing it, rather than burden Nate with another thing to do.

Denise:

Can I, may I? One of the biggest reasons for that I'm sure David could handle it, but he's new. Or you've been here in your position for months. So in the past, yes, Craig handled a lot of that and I'm just assuming knows more about it than you do. And I think you guys should talk. Who's more comfortable? I mean, if you're more comfortable with Nathan doing it makes sense to me. But that's no disrespect to you at all.

David:

No I, I understand. Okay.

Chuck:

I also think that Nathan has been here almost ten years. And with all due respect to David, I don't think it's inappropriate for both of you to work together so that David, you can learn that process as well. But I still think Nathan has the background and the knowledge.

Yeah. Good question Jason. Thank you.

Nathan:

To Chris’s point, along that if left to me, I would appoint David in that position. He is, we've both been with the district for a long time. David has a couple of years on me, and then he's got both an educational and a work experience background that's got a lot more time in stormwater in general, and certainly with our own stormwater systems.

Obviously, I'll provide him with any support that he needs on the back end, but I think just like leveraging his already very strong wealth of knowledge around all of that stuff, just having been in it for so long physically in our storm sewers for so long would be the most logical choice.

Tera:

The board can appoint whoever they want, so it doesn't have to be just because Jim was where we can. It's up to the board to a point.

Chris:

I make a motion to appoint the interim district manager, Nathan Travis, to be the point of contact on the IGA with the city.

Denise:

I'll second that motion.

Chuck:

We have a motion and a second. Further discussion? Call for the vote.

Board Voting All Speak:

Jason. Aye. Denise. Aye. Chris. Aye. Tera. Aye. Motion pass.

Chuck:

Thank you very much. Congratulations again Nathan for some more work. But I feel comfortable that David's right there and the two of you will work closely together. So thank you.

Kim:

The final item that's in the legal status report is the budgeting calendar that you requested during the work session. So that's attached. There are items highlighted in yellow in there that are the things that are really of importance to you. But I gave you the entire calendar so you can see how the entire process works with the state and the county.

And that brings us to item D process and timeline for consideration of District Manager. You have already done the internal posting that is required by law now, so you can move to post outside. You can do it again on the inside however you want to move forward. You can do that. Any advertising you do will have to have a salary range in it. Now, because of some recent legislation and that's it.

Chirs:

So can I. Mr. President, can I ask a question here? Yes. So back to the calendar because based on our conversation with our financial director. I'm not sure where we stand on being able to meet all the requirements and so forth. I think she's still getting up to speed the last time we talked. I just want to make sure that we've had some type of communications with them, and they're okay with this schedule, or at least they know the schedule and they're ready to abide by the schedule.

Kim:

All of the governmental accountants know this schedule very well.

Chris:

Okay thank you.

Tera:

It's not optional. That's a, it's a requirement.

Chuck:

So, Jim, do I understand? You're right. We have to post for the district manager again?

Kim:

You do not have to post again. But if you, if you do and you go out to advertise, you'll have to have that salary range in there. Okay. But you've really complied with what you needed to comply with under the law at this point. Okay.

Chris:

So I was going back through my notes and essentially back in May, we actually started this whole process of the hiring schedule, and we did the job descriptions and we posted internally and we posted externally, and the process pretty much went through the fruition. To me, it seems like we're redoing the whole process again. I don't know if we're looking for a different result this time, but.

My opinion is pretty much we went through the process, we did our due diligence and we posted it. And we've got the response, the responses back from the applications zero outside. We have qualified candidates internally based on their experience and based on the fact that they pretty much have the detailed knowledge of what needs to be done. So I'm okay with the fact that we've run the process and I don't need to redo it again.

Chuck:

Thank you, Director Lewis, any other comments?

Denise:

I'm in agreement with what Director Lewis just said, complete agreement. Comments?

Tera:

Thank you, Mr. President. So I will. I did. I my understanding is that we posted an internally. I don't know whether we had any internal candidates apply, but I don't think that the process we delegated it to the manager to the time. I don't think that process was the due diligence was done take, you know, meeting the legal requirement. I understand from our attorneys review that.

But from an outside or anyone looking in, I think it looks like we did the bare minimum. So we put it on our website. I wouldn't call it posted. I don't think anybody would look for it under new items. And then it keeps getting buried as new items get above it. I think when we posted actual positions that we were looking at hiring, we had them in a more static position, more prominently displayed on there.

But just posting a such, a responsible job in the manner that we did, I don't consider due diligence. I think I've already mentioned that in this interim.

Motion we have a completely, I'm confused. We have a completely different job description as part of that. Then we do of the one that was placed on our website and the one that was placed on our website is called a draft. We have certain minimum requirements in that that is an experience requirement. There are other requirements. So I don't think that the process was.

Was really very well. It wasn't smooth and it wasn't well done. It didn't look very transparent. And again, I will reiterate my a sentiment that I think that our customers expect us to find to do our role as a board, which is to find the best candidate for this. We are entrusted in this community with a lot of assets.

It's not just the water treatment plant, it is all of the infrastructure there, you know, and our role is to really find the best person to do this and to just take one candidate and not look for any others, I think is not doing my role and our role as a board. So I would recommend us.

You know, we also when we named this interim director, we didn't have any how long that was going to be or whatever. But I do think there is a lot of work to be done. It was pretty clear that we are short staffed. And, you know, I think.

We should at least have a competitive process, whether that is an individual. I think what I had heard our board is that we actually thought a contractor might be.

Prudent, since it's a, it's human nature to hang on to your paycheck. And a contractor would look more at this instead as a job and not be dependent on their paycheck. So when we look at inclusion, we've all said that we want to go forward with inclusion. This role is going to go away. I really do think that we should have a competitive process for this.

And if we want to take the, the same approach, we could actually do a request for qualifications if we want to do a contract or if we want to make this competitive process and actually look for candidates. We didn't post this on Monster. We didn't make any announcements, we didn't do any press releases. Like I said, we, we met the very minimal requirement legally in posting this.

But I think because of all the transitions that were taking place, this process was definitely not in what was just not smooth. It was not a smooth process.

Chuck:

Director Radloff, thank you for your opinion. I believe that it was posted effectively, I believe that our best candidate is one within the district itself. And it. I've always been a believer that if you have somebody in your district or even in your own company that is worthy of a promotion, you should certainly consider them.

And I believe Nathan fills that role. I did speak with Jim Worley about other resumes. He said we did not receive any. And so in my estimation, we've met the qualifications for posting. We didn't get any resolution or new references or resumes. I think we have the best person that we can find that knows this district better than anybody, and I'm still in favor of, with all due respect. Respect Tera, I think that I'd like to see if we have a motion for this opportunity. Mr.. Yeah. Mr. Seter.

Kim:

I do want to clarify before you move on, the job description that is attached to the draft in my report was the last copy I had. That may not be the final copy. So because I don't know if I was involved at the end or not. So if there's another copy that should be substituted if you go with this contract.

Jason:

Before we vote, have we decided on a probationary period?

Chuck:

That's a great question, Jason. And I don't think we have, but I think that's important to have. And I would ask Mr. what's typical for probation, period with an individual that's been with the district for ten years.

Kim:

You’re talking about the interim contract or if you.

Chuck:

Yes, the interim contract.

Kim:

The interim contract, you can terminate at any time. So the way I wrote that draft that's attached, it automatically terminates a week or two, depending on the board's determination. A week or two after a new director is employed and brought up to speed, you can also terminate it at will.

Jason:

So I think what we mean is if we promote to the executive, executive directors. Is that this position? District manager. District manager, okay. If we promote them to district manager, is there a probation period that he would that we can instill upon that?

Kim:

Yeah and again, that would be up to you. I think with directors it's usually pretty long because there's a lot of getting up to speed and a lot of things that take a lot of time to come to fruition. I know in my library districts it's six months, but you can make it 30 days, 90 days, whatever you choose.

Denise:

I just want to. We did have an interim. Appointment from CRS. We saw how well that went. We did we, did post this job description and without huge details, I spoke with someone who was moderately interested, wanted to know a little bit more about the, the district manager position. They never applied. So within the water community, definitely it was known that we had a position open.

It was no secret that Jim Worley was leaving, that he was retiring. And I think we discussed that probably starting in January, if I'm not mistaken, is when we, when we knew he was going to retire. So I don't feel like we hid anything. I get it, there's Monster. There's Indeed there's other, other sources and maybe there's recruitment for water boards.

I'm not sure. And not to say that we couldn't do that, but I again feel like we did do what we needed to do. There was no one interested and nobody, in my opinion, is a better candidate or knows everything more than Nathan does. So I still stand by. He is our best candidate. You can interview all you want, but who's going to know more about our system and our operation and etc. other than Nate.

Chuck:

Thank you director.

Chris:

I make a motion to essentially table the process and timeline for board consideration of the new District manager with the intent of a probationary evaluation timeline to be developed. Six months? Okay, let's do that again. So make a motion to table the, the process and timeline for consideration for a new district manager with the intent to determine or decide on a permanent position of the interim district manager within six months.

Chuck:

I have a motion. Hear a second?

Jason:

I'll second it.

Chuck:

Have a motion, second. Further discussion?

Tera:

So I, this is a, this role reports to the entire board. I did not have an opportunity to interview this candidate or see a resume or you know, there are again the job description that we posted has experience requirements that I don't know if this candidate meets or not. I, I we have a huge budgetary responsibility coming up.

We have a lot of I think I'm all about, you know, career paths and advancement. And I believe in the employees that we have and they're wonderful. But I also, again, feel the board's responsibility is greater than, than that. It's a big, huge responsibility. And, you know, having the most qualified candidate and whether, you know, to Director Crew’s point, there were individuals who were interested in applying.

There are absolutely, I made four phone calls on Thursday, and I've got two phone calls back on qualified contracts, on companies that can provide individuals who could, even if we have an interim director that doesn't meet our requirements, supplement some of the areas where they're the experience isn't, isn't demonstrated. But anyway, I did not get a chance to interview this candidate that the board as a body that, that that person will report to, so.

Chuck:

Thank you for your opinion. I think that it's appropriate to look at a candidate if you have somebody we need to talk to. I think I'd be in favor of that. We have six months to work with Nathan to ensure that he is handling the job description, as we have posted, and it should be not a draft, it should be a final copy, but I, I for one would like to move forward so that we are covered and Kim center doesn't have to do his work. So we have a vote. I'd like to call for a vote.

Board Voting All Speak:

Director Jason. Aye. Aye. Chris. Aye. Tera. No. No. And I'm an aye. We have five yeses one no. Congratulations, four yeses one no.

Chuck:

It's my math. So thank you very much. And then as you assume that role and you're in your six month probationary period, which I don't like that word, at least I didn't like it when I was in school. Let's look at some individuals that you would like us to vet.

Tera, I'd be happy to meet with you and an individual, and we'll see if they can meet the standard of where we feel they should be as a group. So thank you very much. Any other matters, Mr. Counsel?

Kim:

Mr. Chairman, there's still a blank I believe in the contract for a salary for the interim.

Chuck:

We were going to start. The proposition was that Jim Worley and Nate agreed to was $125,000 for six months.

Tera:

Mr. President, how could Nate and Jim Worley agree to that if it hadn't been moved by the board?

Chuck:

Jim and I discussed it, and Nathan had already approached me and showed an interest in it. And so we talked about salary. I don't know if that's high or low, but according to what Jim gave me in employers counsel . Is that a. Yes. It was an appropriate salary to agree with. And so I'm all in.

Tera:

Mr. President, that again sounds like a decision that should have been a board decision that was not brought before the board.

Chuck:

We can bring it before the board tonight. It was something that we just discussed about. There was no final decision for anybody other than discussing it with Nathan. And it could be higher. It could be lower. What's your suggestion?

Chris:

So I'd like to make a motion to go with the prior motion of essentially, I'm not going to repeat it, but with the prior motion with the salary, interim salary for the position being $125,000. And at the end of the probationary period, we will evaluate what the appropriate amount is going to be. Do I have a second?

Jason:

I'll second it.

Chuck:

We have a motion. We have a second, discussion?

Tera:

That again, it would be something that I would like to see as what the current salary is. I have no idea. You know, there's no frame of reference for that. So.

Chuck:

The current salary with Jim Worley I think was $150. So we have a second. Any other discussion? Call the vote.

Board Voting All Speak:

Jason. Aye. Denise. Aye. Chris. Aye. Tera. No. I’m an aye, so it passes at $125.

Chuck:

The start date was July 1st, if I understand correctly since he's been in the interim position. I think that's appropriate. That's only, what, two weeks prior? Anything else? counselor?

Kim:

That's it, thank you.

Chuck:

Any other questions for counselor? Okay directors matters.

Tera:

Thank you, Mr. President. So first of all, I would like to thank all of our volunteers who came and helped us on clean up day. I think we're very blessed in this community. We have a lot of people who are invested in our community, and it was really it was a nice morning. Thank goodness it wasn't too hot.

I was dispatched to Daniels Gate Pocket Park up in the north part of the city. And while there wasn't a lot of trash to pick up and I had a conversation, Dave and I have talked about this, so it just kind of, I think demonstrates when I say that I recognize in this current environment that that we're short stopped and it's and it's hard to find people to fill those positions these days.

But when I walked through the playground, the condition of the playground was really, it was really not well cared for. And I ran into a resident who asked me if we were all volunteers, and he and I said yes. And I kind of explained what was going on. And he said that he had organized a group of his friends to come in and clean up the playground and pull all the weeds. Because he thought that our, you know, our community deserved a better condition.

And then when I went through the park the next day, he had in fact done that. So it really is just a matter of one of the things that I would like the directors to consider that if we are not able to maintain the parks in a manner that our residents and ratepayers would like, then perhaps we should move up the discussion on turning the parks over to the city.

So I'd like that to add that to a future agenda. I don't know that we got to hear the Aurora water update, but I think there were a couple of board members who had a discussion with Arora Water on Friday. I would like to hear it update of that and with inclusion. I would like to know if we are still.

I hear us verbalize inclusion. I think this board wants to do inclusion and I feel like we are not moving forward on that. I would like to hear what Aurora says, but I think, you know, Centennial has made it clear that they only want to do a master meter agreement. That's only part of our equation. We have all of this infrastructure that's aging infrastructure, and just providing us water doesn't maintain the rest of the infrastructure that we have.

That hasn't been maintained probably for a long time. But we have you know, that's why I think people are seeing rust in the water or whatever. We need that pipe condition done. We need, we need a lot of diagnostics to figure out what it is, what our condition really is. So I would like us to really start having some inclusion discussions. Since we say that we want to do that.

I do want to always say thank you to our staff. I think we have amazing staff and they're doing amazing things in this current environment that we have the caliber, caliber of people show up and, and, and do our operations and our work for us is I'm very, very grateful. I also had a concern regarding the tone, content and overall professionalism of a response that was going out to a customer that had questions where it pitted the metro district in the city against each other.

This board and the City counsel have committed to working together. As demonstrated by our stormwater IGA and the recent fire mitigation where we financially participated. And then our president and the mayor were out there with the goats. And so I think we need a quick review process to ensure that communications are reflective of the style and tone of this body.

And I suggest that the president also, if he's not available, I'm happy to do it since I have brought it up, review our communications contractor so he understands, review these communications before they go out so that he can understand what the board wants. And that's what I have for directors matters.

Chuck:

Thank you Tera, regarding the intergovernmental authority with the city. Mr. Attorney, we had one presented to us several months ago. Is that something we've continued to review if we tabled it? Do you have a status on that for open space parks and trails?

Kim:

No, that really didn't get anywhere. That's what? That that project didn't get very far at all. There was no agreement upon it, no written agreement. There may have been an oral agreement, but I was not part of that.

Tera:

There is a draft, intergovernmental agreement.

Chuck:

And I thought there was a draft.

Tera:

It was sent over.

Chuck:

I'll dig it up. And I think we should resurrect that. And I think it's appropriate to keep that on the, on the table so that we can move forward with that as well as the inclusion. I think that regarding your comments of the inclusion director Radloff, we are very much moving forward. We are talking to the appropriate.

Utility districts around us that we should be talking to, as opposed to putting everything, all of our eggs in one basket. We had a very good meeting with Aurora, and Nathan was with me as well as Chris. The biggest hurdle we faced, obviously, in Aurora was our geographic location from their water district and the cost of any kind of interconnect. But they were very favorable, very enjoyable to deal with, pleasant, and I appreciated that meeting.

And I would like to make sure we send a letter. Mr. Smith, relative to any other inclusion, we have another date to meet with. Not a date yet, but a offer to meet with the City of Centennial. And hopefully that will happen either latter part of this week or latter part of next week, since I'll be out of town for a couple of days. And they are interested in a.

A meter system. However, they are also open to hear what we think we want and what they can offer regarding inclusion. So we will be talking to them about both with our preference, obviously about inclusion. The third group that we will be meeting with will be with you, Tera and Ron Redd and Nathan and also Kim Seter with Parker.

And I think we have a date. And I don't think I told you the date that's on me. I think I was waiting for a time. It was the second Tuesday of I think it's in September. Don't write anything down because I need to email the you the address what we agreed upon yesterday. But that's been set and I'm looking forward to that as well.

So we are moving forward. We might not be as moving as quickly as some would like, but this is not a simple matter. This is very complicated. It's going to affect the city in hopefully very beneficial ways for a long time so. Mr. President. I'll be doing my best.

Jason:

Who's meeting with Centennial? Denise Crew. Okay.

Chuck:

Myself and Nathan.

Jason:

Okay great. Thank you.

Chuck:

Yeah, thank you. Question on, excuse me. Question for you, David. Regarding Daniel's Ridge, is there a process we need to follow where we're not giving you enough help? What's the issue there to clean it up and make it safe and attractive?

David:

That was on my action items to do. I just haven't got to it yet. We are proceeding right now as to cleaning up. We're remulching the beds and all that stuff so.

Chuck:

Do you have enough personnel, enough guys out there helping you are we understand.

David:

This is all. This is all contract labor. I could definitely, talking with Nathan. We're going to resubmit a job application and see what else we can find out there, because I can definitely use the help.

Chuck:

Thank you. Anything else on Director's Matters? Yeah. Yeah.

Denise:

I just want to piggyback on a couple of things. As far as the. I know we talk a lot about the word inclusion, and we were obviously on a very good path with Parker and at the, in my opinion, ninth hour. They pulled out and.

We had to change directions, which we have done. We're talking to other water providers, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to be in an inclusion. When you look at our core objectives, we're talking about water. Renewable water is important, obviously ensuring that we have good, safe, clean, reliable water. And I take a bit of a fence to rust in the water I've never heard or seen.

We've done countless chemical studies. We've not had bad water, to my knowledge, other than when we did, and that wasn't even bad water. But we had the public scare and did the water. I'm water flush. What? I'm losing my words there on that. As far as.

Ken Smith CPNMD Communications Director:

The water boil advisory, I think, is the term that you might be looking for.

Denise:

The water advisory, thank you. As far as our equipment being older. Yeah, we were formed in the 80s, so of course things are a little older. But I think the maintenance and the upkeep that has been documented and continued on has been pretty stellar.

And when there's a problem, we're on it we fix it. The whole idea of our other core objective maximizing efficiencies and economies of scale. Yes, that includes inclusion. But we also had a nice long discussion with you, Nathan, about other avenues you can take that aren't necessarily inclusion, but possibly being under a bigger water providers umbrella. And that might be a better, smarter way to go.

So I don't think we have to be so set and just narrow minded as far as just inclusion. We have other options. We are exploring them. And as we talk to the other communities, we're gathering more information and will, I think, together make the best decision for our district and for our people.

Chuck:

Thank you, Director Denise. I think that just inclusion hasn't been the only subject we've talked about with these other districts. Obviously the first one's been Aurora, the second one is going to be with Centennial. And they like master metering. We like inclusion. They want to hear both. So I think that's a great opportunity. Parker I think that they want inclusion. But I've got some reservation there because of how we were treated initially. So I can't wait to meet with Ron and some of his party, and Tera will be with us.

I think that's going to be a critically important meeting with the appropriate information coming out that fits what we think about fit. So we also have an opportunity with Castle Rock. Castle Rock is very interested in an inclusion with us. Their proximity geographically is close, but they mentioned to us that they'd like us to date with everybody else first before they came to the table. So they are out there if we decide to go that route. Anything else on directors matters?

Chris:

I do have a couple other things, so I'll reiterate what Director Crew mentioned about the water, and I want to make sure that it's clear that we haven't had any issues with our water. We had the one boil water item. But other than that, our water is stellar. It's outstanding. You can drink it.

I think we're drinking it right now tonight. So no issues there on the parks. I want to make sure that we're just clear on the parks, the parks clean up or it's a community event more than it is to clean up and our community as a whole. I think would do well if more of the residents get involved and.

And help what most of us here do, we're all volunteers, so I think that's a good thing. So I think the community cleanup, which we do a couple of times a year, it's outstanding in bringing the community together. We had like an outstanding turnout. And I want to reiterate what Director Radloff said. Thank you. We had a great turnout and everybody was pleasant.

We did a lot of areas, so that was good. I didn't want to comment on the fire mitigation. You know, we talk about having to turn over or do additional IGA with the city. And so we're clear. Again, the district's intent apart from renewable water that Director Crew talked about is also to reduce government. So we're all in terms of working with reducing the levels in the community, which would be, you know, at some point moving our functions to the city or some other entity.

But I do want to just not leave it out there to say that the city is going to do so much better a job right now, just an effect on the fire. Let's talk fire. We've had Smokey Bear out there for a year and a half, right? What happened with Smokey Bear? Well, Smokey Bear essentially went into who knows.

It's on every month's legal update and it hasn't gone anywhere. The goatS great idea. We're all in. So I just want to make sure that when we say things, we actually say things that are factual and that we are not just saying things for the hell of it. So that's I do want to commend comments on that, and I'm not going to comment on the other stuff unless somebody brings it up.

But I do have one other thing, Mr. President. It's in relation to our study session. So our study session last week, while it was well, it was the first time we did one of those. Now we've done to special sessions in four years. And it's all been in the last couple of months. But I do want to mention that that study session rubbed me the wrong way and it rubbed me the wrong way.

This way, because we've been a pretty professional board for the last four years, three and a half years, I've not I've never seen anybody fight in this board. I've never seen anyone talk over anyone on this board. People have been pretty respectful. And these sessions are really good because it seems like we're all respectful and that's what I like.

We follow Robert's rules or we follow decorum. We don't talk over each other. So if there's one thing I'd like to suggest, Mr. President, is I like to make a motion that we have no more study sessions, and we only have meetings in public so that we can all hear what needs to be said, and the public is aware of that.

So I make a motion that we only have study sessions in public. And that the study session that we agreed upon last time for, I guess, the third Wednesday in the month be canceled and revalued by this board at a different time until we decide that we want to do that again.

Chuck:

We have a motion, hear a second?

Denise:

I'll second that. Can I add to that a little bit?

Chuck:

We have, we have a second. Now we have a discussion and we have a discussion.

Jason:

The study session was public. The only thing we could not do in the study session was vote on things. So it was a public session.

Chuck:

It was public, it was zoomed. The only thing we could not do was make a decision or vote or make a motion.

Denise:

Yes, I can see the importance to some degree of a study session and having open communication. I felt like it went far too long and there was disrespect in talking over one another.

And I get it. We all have opinions. We're all strong, opinionated about certain things, but the tone of the meeting needs to change and the time of the meeting, the length of the meeting, I think, needs to change. That's my two cents.

Tera:

So we have a lot of work to do. And I just want to clarify, you know, I of all the members of the board, I think Chuck and I are probably the only ones who have been through the water plant. I am drinking the water now. I have a lot of confidence in the water plant

Denise:

We've been through. We've all toured the water.

Tera:

Good, good to hear. And I think the peace that is not must be the way that I'm presenting it that's not being conveyed correctly is that our, our entire infrastructure was laid in 1980. The entire infrastructure is aging. When road work is done or when anybody starts to do work, I'm it's an asset that I don't.

I mean, if you can help produce the records for all the maintenance that's been done over the years, I just it's there's not been a lot of insight into the replacements or the, the maintenance that have been done on all of our pipes. I think we need a pipe condition assessment to really know what those, what we really have.

So it's no, it's not trying to lay blame anywhere. It's saying we are responsible for a lot of assets. We are responsible for making sure those assets are maintained. And that's part of making sure that water is coming to our community for the future. That is part of us as a board. So what I, what I hear being communicated back is that I'm not communicating my concerns clearly.

And it's not, you know, it's not four years ago or eight years ago or whatever. I think I don't personally have a great understanding of what the condition of all of our aging infrastructure is, and that is troublesome to me.

Chuck:

Tera, I think that part of your comments are correct. We’re what, 40 years old? We're dealing in water. Water is corrosive. It's interesting. When we met with Aurora and talked about water pipe, water lines, water pumps, lift stations, they have exactly the same problems and just on a larger scale. But I would be remiss if I didn't think that Nathan had a pretty good handle on the process for keeping everything operating. Nathan.

Nathan:

Yeah, I'm happy to speak to all of that a little bit. So for the newer board members and directors, I originally came to Castle Pines North and the collections and distribution system live in years ago now. Yes, so that's the wastewater treatment plant. I'm sorry, the wastewater lift stations, all of the associated sewer piping, all of the distribution mains, fire hydrants, valves, all of that stuff. So I've got a really solid, intimate knowledge on that.

While it's true that prior to eight, ten years ago. Not a lot of maintenance was done in those areas. You're in a little bit of a grace period. So properly installed ductile iron pipe has a design life of around 150 years. So the work that we have been very consistently doing since then is annual maintenance. We touch every single fire hydrant, every single valve.

We did a full system wide pipe conditioning assessment profile I think three years ago. Now there's with that type of data, it's junk in, junk out, right. So GIS systems are something that you constantly augment, something you constantly build. And so we have a really good general idea for all of our pipe pipe conditions.

You know, where they're at, what they're made out of, how the install went. We've got a pretty good solid background on that. There's the specifically the early filings. I think it's also important to keep in mind that our district started being built in 1983, 84. It wasn't singularly built in 1983, 84. So our oldest infrastructure is 40 years old.

And then obviously we're, we've got brand new water lines that are in the ground and haven't even been accepted by the district yet. So we do really have an array of utility lifespans. And so when we built our 100 year capital forecasting plan, all of that was taken into consideration. The design year, the design life, the design build pipe material, all of that stuff was put in. It's in a layer in our GIS database and it runs out. And so as we continue.

Tera:

So can you give me the name of that report again?

Nathan:

This is the,I'd have to go back. It was produced by AIMS. It's the asset information management systems.

Tera:

No but the 150 year whatever plan.

Nathan:

Oh the capital, the capital forecasting plan. Yeah and that's, we've got it readily available. I'd be happy to share with the directors. Parker water was. Heavily involved in at least receiving that report. And that was a big genesis for the reason that a lot of that stuff got put into place when it did was to make sure that we had a really solid idea of our forecasting plan out. I do agree that we that there is a lot of value to be had with more in depth pipe pipe condition assessment ratings for limited areas. Specifically, the first 2 or 3 filings that went in in the area surrounding the treatment plant, we have been forced to assume that all of that pipe is in very, very poor condition, that it's basically past its design life.

What further investigating that might and on all likelihood will prove is that it's not as bad as it seems. It's just that every time that we've had an issue in that area, we've dug it up and found really poor, poor pipe condition. But that also means that you're digging up the areas that are failing the worst. And so while we're not going to show a 150 year design life out of all that ductile iron, it's probably going to show that in higher service density areas, we've got a more immediate need to replace.

And then in longer straightaways, we probably got a little bit more time 30, 40 year range. But the only way to do that is to physically get in and do a full condition assessment evaluation that's really driven by the number of breaks that we have in the area, the cost to make those repairs, it's just a lot higher through there.

And so that would be beneficial there. That same process would probably not really bear any fruit to go across the entire district, where especially we're not having more consistent line break issues. When we have seen the pipe, it's in really good condition, stuff like that.

Chuck:

Thanks, Nathan. We have a motion on the floor and I think it was. You want to read that again?

Chris:

Did we want modify it? Did you want to modify it?

Denise:

I don't even remember what it was. To cancel.

Chris:

So the motion was to cancel the study session based on past experience. Which was pretty much disrespectful during the meeting. And I wanted to make sure that we were in public when we and I understand that it's a public meeting. But I wanted to make sure that we were in public where more public people were here.

So these meetings definitely run better. So my motion was to cancel it. Denise, you I mean, Director Crew, you sounded like you wanted you were okay with keeping it. I know, I know, you second it, but making sure that it was a lot shorter if we kept it. So I'm willing to modify it if you want to.

Tera:

So just some more thought. Things like this 150 year capital forecasting plan. A study session would be something like Nate presenting us this 150 year forecasting plan. So we can study that forecasting plan. Things that we need to make decisions on. Also we have, we're behind in beginning our, you know, budgeting process. And I don't know how your budgeting process went last year, but we might need some study sessions in order to get our budget completed within our legal. Those aren't optional. Those are those are legal obligations that we are responsible for.

Chris:

So we do have, we do have additional sessions on the budget. So that is that's a point. And we do have that. So what. Back to what do we want to do. We want to because I'm still of the opinion if we can't essentially work as a board, a good board, respectfully, then I don't want to have a study session where we're having people talking to each other. Do you want to modify?

Chuck:

You know, while you're thinking about it, Director Crew. We can always go back to what we did in the past, and I can call around and talk to you for an hour or so, each one of you, and get your list of agenda items. And then we can present it in the annual, I mean, in the monthly meetings. As opposed to as a group where we tend to have too many differences for zoom.

So we have some options. We don't have to. We can even modify the study session and, and have just the employees like David and Nathan, address us with certain concerns that they deal with and and deal with those as agenda items. So there's a couple of ways to skin the cat. And I'll do whatever you all feel comfortable with.

Denise:

Then I will second the motion.

Chuck:

So Director Crew, you're going to amend the motion?

Denise:

Second and amend no more study sessions.

Chuck:

No more study sessions. Vote.

Jason:

May I think we need these study sessions? I don't think it hurts. I don't think one meeting should say scrap everything. I'm taking my ball and going home. I think we still need to stick this out and I think that's the appropriate forum to do so.

Board Voting All Speak:

So I vote no. And Crew, you were a yes? Yep. Director Lewis. Yes. Director Radloff. I am also a no.

Tera:

But I also want to be on the record saying in the scenario which director Lewis or director Lowen just described, I want our counsel to reiterate what a legal meeting is. And while. You know, because if you've, if you know that the school district is in trouble right now for doing illegal meetings and doing, doing daisy chaining, while it may not violate the letter of the law, and if you don't know what I mean, perhaps our counsel can explain it to us. But, it certainly to me violates the intent of the law, which is when we are elected officials, elected officials conduct their public business in the public. And, you know, I would not want to be involved in daisy chaining of information because it is important to me to do public business in the public. Counselor.

Kim:

Director Radloff is correct, and we've talked about this before. There's nothing wrong with collecting items for the agenda. But having discussions among board members outside of a public meeting violates the Open meetings law. And even if it's being done by passing information from one to another to another and coming up with some conclusion. And I think you all pretty well understand that it's difficult to implement that, but it's part of your duty to do that.

One other thing, Mr. Chairman. The motion on the table is to, as I heard, the last wording of it, was to have no more special sessions. You can call us any director can call a meeting at any time. So I think what you're really doing is canceling the schedule that you created. And then if something comes up like the forecasting and someone wants to have a study session or a special meeting. That director can call that special meeting.

Chuck:

That's I thought it was to cancel the study sessions, not any verbiage to a special session. I think those are two different things.

Kim:

Yes study session I'm sorry.

Chuck:

And if it's a study session, I think that's what the motion was to cancel further study sessions.

Chris:

Yeah the motion is specifically to cancel the scheduled monthly third Wednesday of the month study session. The special sessions that we do as it reference to the budget or any of the other things that we do special sessions on to make sure that we are briefed. That's not what this is talking about. This is that specific third week Wednesday.

Chuck:

We called for a vote. And as president, I also voted yes to have the study sessions. We had two nos to cancel. So it passes that we will have study sessions. With that being said, counselor.

Jason:

I think that's reverse of the.

Chuck:

Reversed, we are voting for study sessions. So that's.

Chris:

Every, every third Wednesday.

Chuck:

Every third Wednesday we're going to have one and the vote is 3 to 2.

Jason:

Can we make a motion to limit those to 60 or 90 minutes?

Chuck:

That's a whole new discussion. I think that for the next study session, which is on the calendar, we should have a very definitive agenda. What we're going to talk about, stick to it, keep it a 60 minute or 90 minute study session. Whatever the board agrees to specifically for what is on the agenda. And that's what then we’ll transfer to the regular meeting agenda.

And if anything else comes up that you want to talk about, it can be done under director's matters. So counselor, can you maybe guide me on the protocol for a study session so that I know that you've talked to us till you're blue in the face about watching who we talk to, and how many of us talk to whomever.

But that's always a good reminder, especially during study sessions, that we make no decisions. We pass no motions.

Kim:

Yes yeah. And I will remind you, as we do the agendas, we'll come up with a whatever the specific topics are for the study session so that you are getting information to study, not to make decisions on. And then we'll, we'll figure out how to control that through the agenda. And then you'll have to take responsibility for keeping the conversation tight.

Chuck:

Right, and at the study sessions would be Nathan and David. They're part of the team. And Ken everybody. Okay. That's the end of the.

Jason:

One more thing. Pardon. Yes. I'd like to put a motion forward that we do limit the study sessions to 60 minutes.

Tera:

I don't know we need a motion for that. But I think we can agree that that's how we want to operate. I know if we want to, like in these meetings, if we want to just have a common understanding, we don't want to if it gets to be 9:00, we leave or we're done or whatever. I think that's complete. I'm, I'm not. Yeah. 60 minutes is great with me.

Chris:

I second it.

Chuck:

I, okay. We have a motion to keep it to 60 minutes and we have a second discussion. I believe as a board, if we can't agree to a 60 minute or a 90 minute session, then we have other problems. So call for a vote.

Board Voting All Speak:

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Describer:

Chuck is speaking off mic and is briefly inaudible.

Kim:

Yes I did.

Chuck:

Any further discussion tonight. Then I got something I'm good. Thank you. Thank you. We have one more.

Denise:

I promise I'll be quick. To Director Blanckaert and Director Radloff. We don't ever mean to appear flippant like we know everything. That's not the truth at all. But we have been doing this for four years. So when you talk about there's a lot of work you’re right, the budget is huge. It's big. But now this will be my fourth time going through it. And it tends to make a lot more sense as we go along.

So I just recommend if you feel like you need a little more background on things. We have available resources, we have reports, we've done those pipeline reports. And it's not that we can't always be refreshed, but I'm not intimidated, intimidated by the amount of work that we have to do because we've done it before. And I think for the most part, we have a pretty smooth operating machine. Just my thoughts. Thank you.

Tera:

I appreciate that. But I've I would also. Put forward that I have been consuming a lot of information and I'm happy to educate myself. Like I said, I've been through the water plant. I take this job very seriously, I have been. There is a lot of documentation that's not available. I can't go online and find it so.

Denise:

It is available. Everything that you've asked for, it truly is available. It's documented and Nathan is probably your point person to get most of that.

Tera:

Okay well I was, I was requesting that information and I, it was never sent. So I, you know, I don't know if that's part of the records that have been lost or what, but so yeah, I. Okay. I'm, I'm pretty, you know, I'm, I'm, I'm fairly bright. I can, you know, pick up on information if it's available and I can read it.

Chuck:

Thank you. Any other comments, questions? Meeting adjourned. Thank you all for coming. Oh, wait. Our second eliminated our second comment period. However, you sat through the full meeting. Go ahead and we'll keep you to a three minute time frame.

Denise:

The talking face.

Chuck:

Please introduce yourself and what your district is.

Gary Jones Castle Pines Resident:

Gary Jones BristleCone Patio Homes. Really like to make a couple of, a couple of questions and quick observations. I'll try to be fast. I found the discussion on the posting interesting. I'm assuming the district does not have any HR personnel available for that. Is that a correct assumption?

Chuck:

We do not.

Gary:

And so the job was posted, at least on the website was their external posting also? What posting? External.

Tera:

No, just on the website.

Ken:

That Gary. Mr. President, to state for the record clearly again. We posted on the home page of our website and that posting was based on direction from counsel. Counsel also took ownership over handing exterior posting in publications. So we took direction from counsel. They took responsibility for giving us that direction. We complied to the letter and the spirit of the advice and the direction that we were given.

Gary:

I understood. And then the other question is, since this is a very specialized posting, would the normal way of people finding out about it be through professional organizations or other associations that do this kind of work?

Chuck:

That's a good question. I don't know, Nathan. You know the.

Gary:

Nathan you would probably.

Nathan:

Water districts in general are, it's a pretty tight knit community. It's also a very employee starved group of people, especially leaning more on the operations side. So when. Any job really becomes available, there's a lot of conversation that goes back and forth between.

Gary:

So people in the industry would know about it.

Nathan:

Yeah every other director position, Centennial Water and The Village. I found out about both of those vacancies while not actively even looking for those jobs.

Gary:

Okay and that's what I figured.

Chuck:

I think the district managers, I think the municipal districts, district managers is a small community. The Aurora knew about it, Parker knows about it, Centennial knew about it. All the district managers talk to us about or talk to me about it. So it's a quick daisy chain.

Gary:

And that was my assumption because typically that's the way you're on a very specialized job like that. There's a small community, so the people that would be interested would know. Okay, so quick observation. I think I mentioned this two weeks ago and I'll mention it again. The board's real responsibility is fiduciary governance and strategic direction. I will caution you not to get caught up in the weeds of daily operations. As I heard some of the discussion tonight, I don't think that's productive for the board or for us as citizens.

The conversation about better cooperation with the city, myself and a lot of other people have been pushing for that for a long time. Maybe turning over the parks to the city, maybe a good idea, maybe not. I just have to give you my personal opinion. I'm not too trusting of the city based on what's happened over the years. In the nine years I've been here, I've been promised roads and I still haven't got them. So I don't know that they're going to do any better job than anybody else.

But that's just a personal opinion. My last comment is I found the discussion on the study sessions very, very interesting. Based on my observations at the meeting two meetings ago and the body language that I've seen tonight, that doesn't come as any surprise that you would be having that discussion. The contentiousness and the body language I saw tonight is, is just it, my personal opinion, just ridiculous.

And I'm sorry that I have to witness that, and I'm sorry that the board has to deal with that. And I hope you get it straightened out because we need better from you. Thank you.

Chuck:

This meeting is adjourned.

Describer:

The video ends on graphic with a white background and forest green letters which says “Castle Pines North Metro District Livestream. Thanks for watching.