Board Meeting
April 28, 2025
Transcript
Describer:
Here is the agenda for this event:
Board Meeting Agenda
Monday, April 28th, 2025, 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.Public comment period. (Three-minute maximum per person).
IV.Consent Agenda: The items listed below are a group of items to be acted on with a single motion, second and vote by the Board to expedite the handling of limited routine matters. The Board has previously received information on these matters and/or discussed them at a prior study session. Any board member may move an item from the consent agenda to the meeting agenda at this time.
A.Consider approving the March 19th, 2025, Work Session Minutes.
B.Consider approving the March 24th, 2025, Board Meeting Minutes.
C.Ratify claims for payment including check numbers 29110 – 29110 and electronic payments issued from March 15th, 2025 to March 14th, 2025 totaling $111,969.46
Proposed Motion: I move to approve the items as presented in the consent agenda dated April 28th, 2025.
V.Consider: approving April 28th, 2025, board meeting agenda.
VI.Well Failure Discussion. Nathan Anderson, Layne.
VII.Communications Update. Nathan Travis, District Manager.
VIII.2024 Budget Amendment Presentation. Eric Harris, Finance Director.
IX.Conduct Public Hearing Regarding 2024 Budget Amendment.
A.Open Public Comment
B.Public Comment
C.Close Public Comment.
X.Consider 2024 Budget Amendment.
Proposed Motion: I move to amend the 2024 Budget and appropriate
expenditures and fund balances as presented by the Finance Director
XI. Finance Director's report. Eric Harris, Finance Director
A. Finance Report Overview.
B. Consider: Conditional Approval NSA Mineral Rights Evaluation.
XII. Legal Counsel's report.
A. Discuss & Consider: Resolution opposing HB25-1334.
XIII. Consider: Filter Rehab Pre-construction Services Proposal from “Meyers and
Sons”
Proposed Motion: I move the Board of Directors adopt the recommendation of
the Proposal Review Committee to accept the Proposal of Myers & Sons
Construction, LLC submitted April 10, 2025 for Pre-construction Services under the
Construction Management/General Contractor RFP advertised by the District and
authorize Manager Nathan Travis to sign and issue the Notice of Award
XIV. District Manager’s Report.
A. Update: Pine Ridge Subdivision groundwater.
B. Update: Lift Station Renovation Project.
C. Discussion: Website ADA compliance, hosted PDF files.
D. Update: Jam Ranch inclusion request.
XV. Executive Session, District Manager Contract.
The Board may upon motion and a 2/3 vote, enter into executive session for the sole
purpose of conducting contract negotiations and to instruct negotiators as allowed by
Sections 402(3)(a) and 402(4)(e)(1), Colorado Revised Statutes.
Proposed motion: I move to enter executive session to conduct contract negotiations
pursuant to sections 402(3)(a) and 402(4)(e)(1), Colorado Revised Statutes.
XVI. Consider: Approval of District Manager Employment Contract.
XVII. Director’s Matters.
XVIII. Adjourn.
Describer:
The video starts on graphic with a white background and forest green letters which says “Castle Pines North Metro District Board Meeting April 28, 2025”. The meeting opens on a shot of all board members present.
Board President Jason: Blackaert:
Okay. Good evening and welcome to the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District Board meeting. Today is Monday, April 28th at 2025 at 6 p.m.. We will call the meeting to order and begin with the Pledge of Allegiance.
Describer:
The board members and the audience rise from their seats and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, as the camera pans from left to right from the board to management staff to the audience and back to the board. When they are done, they sit down again.
All Speak:
You 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.
Describer:
From the left on screen seated is Board Members James (Jim) Mulvey, Tera Radloff, Jason: Blackaert in the center, to his right on screen is Jana Krell and Lean Enquist.
Jason:
All right. Great. We will move to roll. Call. We'll be. Get down here, Jim. So, Present. No conflicts. Terror present. No conflicts. Jenna. Present. No conflicts. Will present. No conflicts. And I am Jason:. Present with no conflicts. We will go ahead and open up the public comment period for public comment is designed to share your thoughts and concern with the district, but it's not an interactive discussion.
If you'd like to give public comment, I see that a couple of people signed up at the back. Thank you. We will now begin with Steve. Good evening Steve.
Describer:
Steve Dawes a frequent attendee, rises and comes to podium facing the board to the right of audience seating and to the left side of the board, near staff seating which is adjacent 90 degrees to the board and to the audience.
Steve Dawes, Castle Pines Resident:
Off-Camera. Thanks.
Steve:
Steve Dawes. 5703 Jasper point circle. I see it as the district manager's employment agreement is up for consideration. One of some things that the board may wish to consider in this employment agreement is one, a specific clause that delineates that the employment is our will, meaning that the district and Mr. Travis can terminate the contract at will.
Now, I see there's a provision in paragraph two that says that the will and pleasure of the board, but that really doesn't thoroughly cover and that will employment provision in my view. Obviously, because it's a contract for an indefinite term, the board has has to have language to get around the table limitation on multi-year up fiscal obligations.
And I see that in paragraph two, it says that is for an indefinite term, subject to the board's annual appropriation of all amounts due. But I know that a lot of agreements are a little more detailed than that. They say something like, nothing in this agreement shall create a multiple for fiscal year financial obligation as contemplated and as prohibited by article 20 section.
Excuse me. Article ten, section 20 of the Colorado Constitution would recommend that as well. Paragraph three you've got the compensation for services beginning January 1st, 2023. That appears to be a typo for 2025.
Some of these agreements, similar to this, have provisions that state that the employee or the district manager in this case, is not in, entitled to secure outside employment except upon express approval of the board. I think it's a provision it should be recommended. And another one I've seen in other, agreements, are that upon termination of employment, either by the district or the employee, all district property must be returned in, satisfactory condition.
The district manager's job. Job description. The exhibit A contains provisions about trails, open space, parks and stormwater facility that obviously that needs to be amended. I see some heads agreeing with that, nodding. So, those are my primary considerations. There's obviously lots of little tweaking that you can do with these agreements, but I would recommend to your attention those specific provisions.
Jason:
Great. Thank you very much. Next on the list we have, Nathan Anderson. Nathan,
Board Member Leah Enquist:
Sorry, just before moving on. Thank you. Steve. Paul, I'm assuming you caught those. And when we go into executive session, perhaps we can chat through those if needed.
Legal Counsel Paul Polito, Esq.:
Definitely.
Leah:
Okay.
Describer:
Off-Camera. Nathan Anderson was having trouble turning on the mic at the podium. Nathan Travis jumped up to assist him.
Jason:
Thanks.
Nathan Anderson, Account Manager of Layne Anderson:
Oh. That's important. That's great. Nathan Anderson here. Layne Christiansen company or water well drilling and maintenance contractor. we drilled a lot of your production wells in the 80s, 90s. and we've been predominantly working on your, well, maintenance for the last few decades. I've worked with the district since 2015, and we've had quite a few, well, failures.
And I'm just, in the last couple of years, I'm just hoping to provide context for what's going on there. So in 20 2023, a two failed. It was a shaft seal failure. We did a step test and we recommended reducing the flow rate from 600 to 450 gpm. Less than a year later, we had the same failure.
We pulled the pump. We did a deviation survey to make sure that there was nothing downhole that could be causing these shaft seal failures. Since then, there have been several similar failures. A3, A1, LDA1, the last few of them happened within the same couple weeks. And we, I believe we did our due diligence on a to making sure that there was no downhole or, well, issues, sanding deviation, anything that could be causing these things to fail with and within under two years.
And, we believe it's more than likely a controls issue. I've been working with Kennedy-Jenks and Semacore and providing all of our installation reports, information on our equipment that we've installed in the last few years and, working with them to try to figure out the issues. But, from our current opinion, it seems like, above ground or controls type issue.
And I'm happy to wait and answer any other questions with you guys or anything like that. anything further? Nathan, I don't know.
Board Member Jana Krell:
I might have some more questions for you. at another, like when we can dive into this a little bit more. But thank you for giving us a high level on that. Thank you.
Nathan Anderson:
Okay. Thank you guys. Anybody else have any questions? All right. Nathan. Thank you.
Leah:
Are so are we doing the deep dive on this later?
Jana:
I thought I was under yeah...
District Manager Nathan Travis:
So I think we Jason: we inadvertently, skipped the top part of the agenda.
Leah:
I know, but it's it's like number seven or something.
Nathan:
Yeah. So we still we wrapped the public comment period.
00:07:26:33 - 00:07:57:13
Nathan:
But we still need to do the consent agenda. meeting agenda.
Jason:
Sorry, Nathan. He was on the public comment agenda. That's why he spoke so.
Nathan:
Oh. Did he.
Jason:
Yeah.
Nathan:
Sorry about that.
Jason:
That's All right, so we are closing out the public comment period. And we're going to move on to item number four, the consent agenda. So.
Board Member Tera Radloff:
So I'm going to go ahead and move to approve the items on the consent agenda instead of but I do have some changes to the minutes, but I don't want to pull them out.
Tera:
So on the first one, I believe that the work session on March 19th, we have Director Krell as absent, but towards the bottom there are things that are attributed to Director Krell that should be Director Enquist. Then, on the March 24th minutes, under public comment period. and Mr. Dawes it's about 123456 lines down. He said the absence of, not an assigned contract, but a signed contract.
And I can give that to you, Paul. I've marked it on here. I think we're also missing, the corrections to the February 20th 24th, 25 minutes. So if we could bring those back next month. That was part of the motion that was made. Then on down to the bottom of page two with Communication Director's Report.
It was not, the district's election was not canceled due to having fewer candidates than available seats. It was because there were not more candidates for director than offices to be filled. So I want to make sure that that is captured correctly. otherwise, I think it'd be confusing. So I have a motion. That's the end of my motion.
Jason:
Thanks, Tera. Leah, did you mention you had some changes to that? You you observed.
Leah:
Tera got'em.
Jason:
Okay. All right.
Leah:
I was going to second the motion with, Tara's suggestions.
Board Voting All Speak:
All right. Very good. Having a second? We'll go to vote. Jim, stand. Approve. Jenna. Approve. Leah. Approve. Tara. Approve. I approve as well.
Describer:
Director Tera Radloff rises and takes her corrections to Legal Counsel Paul Polito, Off-Camera.
Jason:
So we will move on with item number five. Consider approving the April 28th, 2025 board board meeting agenda.
Tera:
Approve as presented. I'll second.
Board Voting All Speak:
All right. Having second. We'll go to vote Jim I Tara I Jenna approve. Well you approve I approve as well. That motion passes.
Jason:
All right. Now we're on to item number six, the well failure discussion. So, Nathan, could you join us again? Thank you.
Describer:
Camera cuts to Nathan Anderson at the podium.
Nathan Anderson:
Yeah. Sorry for jumping the gun. There, guys.
Jason:
So that was our fault.
Nathan Anderson:
So I think I gave you the overview of what, in our opinion, is going on. we we fought with a two for a couple of years, and we did a step test, lowered the flow rate, and, did a deviation survey, all things to confirm that there was no downhole issues going on.
Nathan Anderson:
Every time we pulled the pump, we would, inspect the pumping equipment, make sure there was no excess sanding anything downhole that could be causing the shaft failures. And then this year, we've had quite a few shaft failures, a couple within, you know, a couple weeks of each other and I think it all points to, above ground issues, control issues. Maybe some type of, setting or the way that the folks on site start this thing up.
Nathan Anderson:
and I'm here for discussion. Questions from from the board.
Leah:
My high level questions. please, can you remind me how new are some of these wells? Number one. And then number two, are any of them under warranty, or are we kind of incurring all these costs?
Nathan Anderson:
The wells are 20 plus years old. The, well, equipment, have been anywhere from a year and a half to two years old, which is very young as far as submersible well equipment goes, we try to get at least seven years out of them.
Nathan Anderson:
We've pulled some of your submersible pumps in the past that have been over 13 years old. So for a well submersible pump to fail within one and a half years is odd. Especially with the same issues. we haven't run into seal shaft failures very often, and that's why we thought maybe it was a sanding issue, something downhole that could be causing the seal shaft to snap off instantly.
Describer:
A map of the locations of the wells is shown on screen, then back to Nathan Anderson.
Nathan Anderson:
and that's why we went through the process with A-2. But, after meetings with Kennedy-Jenks and Semacore, it seems like it's more than likely a controls issue or something on the electrical supply side that that could be it's more than likely causing the issues.
Leah:
In a follow up question, what makes you think it's on the control side?
Leah:
Is there evidence pointing to that, or is it more ruling other things out?
Nathan Anderson:
Ruling other things out to start with? So the step test in the sand test at A2, and then we're seeing the same failures with the other wells. Same failure modes, not very common in our world. Also, you know, lower pump life.
Nathan Anderson:
so we when there was only one well in question, we dug into it and did the step test in the sand tests. And now there's a few and it's, it's more than a not an anomaly.
Jana:
Off Camera. Nathan, how many wells do we have? Six. Six. Thank you. Six?
Nathan:
Off Camera. 1111 1666. Well, six well sites So six well site.
Jana:
Well, wait. So hold on. Six Well sites saves 11 what?
Nathan:
11 Wells.
Jana:
11. Wells.
Nathan:
Yeah. So there are multiple sites where we have two wells on two different aquifers.
Jana:
So then do we have this controller 11 times like do we have 11 controllers or or one controller?
Nathan:
Yeah. Each individual well has a drive in and so like an electrical drive and then associated control
Jana:
Okay. So then we have an opportunity for this to continue to fail.
Nathan:
So we've done. So we do Semacore with principal went with Principal Electric kind of following Layne's diagnosis and Kennedy Jenk agreement and did an evaluation on the electrical equipment, what we found is on three of them, one well, that hasn't shown this issue yet
Nathan:
They have soft starts that were replaced about 15 years ago. Instead of drives. Those were done due to nearby resident complaints. So they're all the same, same soft start equipment. And they have a bypass contactor inside of them that has failed. and I don't I can't remember failed open or closed, but basically the it's constantly sending one leg of power down to the wellhead.
Nathan:
it's also creating some dirty power issues that would cause like a, well, to kind of shimmy when it starts or kind of stutter.
Jana:
But that's only three of the four that are done.
Nathan:
So that's three. That's that was on three of the four of them. That's a relatively easy fix. The other thing that we the other thing that we realized with the wells, especially since this was happening through a Wells startup project, was that there was programing inside of the wells that prevented them from starting too quickly.
Nathan:
So there was something that said, hey, when it starts, it can't start for another 15 minutes. For a lot of reasons, you just want to make sure that they've got individual time between the starts. Unfortunately, that programing did not prevent operators or people on site from doing that while they were in hand. So that was only working in a remote fashion.
Nathan:
So if the well was called remotely, it would wait 15 minutes. If we did it locally, we can circumvent it, and that's a relatively easy hardware fix. We just need to put in a manual timer.
Jana:
And it looks like, based on your notes, we have a plan forward for all four repair.
Nathan:
Yep.
Jana:
Okay. Thank you. (To Nathan Anderson)
Nathan Anderson:
Thank you. Off-Camera Walking away.
Nathan:
we'll come back. Calling Nathan Anderson back.
Board Member James Mulvey:
Okay. So we we have a path forward. Are you guys going to do sort of, pipe cleaner? Like, you're going to do this to one? Well, and watch it for a while, or are we just going to move forward and,
Nathan Anderson:
so first step is A2 or mobilizing later this week or early next week.
we already have the replacement equipment ordered. It's on its way and we can install it and get that well up and running. And then the other four wells are, the plan is to pull the pumping equipment. Video, log the well to make sure there's nothing visually downhole that's going on. But since we have the same failure mode as all the other ones, replace the broken equipment and reinstall and, we had a site visit with K.J. and Semacore a couple weeks ago, and we've been working with them to make sure that, that issues are corrected before we perform start up.
Everybody will provide buy off as we start this new equipment up and make sure that, everyone's on the same page and this doesn't happen again.
Jim:
Okay. So A2 is sort of the initial one that you're going to do this two and what's the time period before we started implementing this in additional wells.
Nathan Anderson:
Three weeks. and depending on your guy's schedule, but where our lead time is three weeks for, our rig.
Jim:
Okay. And do you think that's enough to kind of verify this is working properly?
Nathan Anderson:
The initial step for the other wells is to pull the equipment, inspect it visually, make sure that the issue is what we think it is. The pumps are, 15, 1700 foot below the ground. Once we evaluate, will video log the well, make sure everything looks good, and then, give an updated proposal to fix the seal or whatever.
broken within the pumping equipment and reinstall. So I will provide finalized pricing once we get, the the other wells pulled and inspected and videoed, that the reason we believe it's the same failure. We can check the pumping equipment by checking the electrical, making sure there's no grounds, shortages, things like that downhole. All of them may be fine, but they show no load when we turn the pump on.
So something within the pumping equipment is broken and likely that seal shaft. And it doesn't send water up, it just turns the motor on and it spins a broken shaft. And we've seen that failure on A2, A3, A1, LDA one.
Jim:
Okay. And just for clarification, for people here that don't know what a mega check is,
Nathan Anderson:
so the pumping equipment is a submersible, so it sits below the water table.
several hundred foot. And we will send, we will MEG test it to make sure that there's no breaks in the cable or anything that would cause the electrical supply to short out, since it's sitting below the the water level. So if we meg it and, the motor makes good, it basically means that the cable and all the splices are in good condition.
And then if we run it but it pulls no load, so it has, it doesn't provide the amperage or the work to lift any water up or turn anything. It shows that, that it's just spinning a motor with no work actually being done. So the motors all seem like they're in good condition. The pumping equipment is, relatively new.
but we're getting the same failure mode for all these pumps.
Jim:
Okay. Is a TDR test like revealing in this case? I don't know if you know that term or you use that technique, to get...
Nathan Anderson:
TDR. Yeah. Time Domain reflectometry. It's almost like the thing they do with, looking for cracks in the pipes.
Jim:
That movie we watched, same idea where you basically send a signal down and see when it every time it bounces back. That would be a splice or break in the cable or what have you, and will tell you the distance from where you put the signal in to where it reflected back, because it goes at almost a speed of light.
Jim:
So you can okay, do the time and look at that.
Nathan Anderson:
I'm not familiar with that. Our standard mode is just MEG test. And generally if it makes good once we pull it will confirm that the cable and the motor and everything is in good working condition. Okay. we haven't really done, anything beyond that and other projects, but I would be happy to, you know, talk with you guys.
Jim:
Okay? And, all that's going to get recorded someplace, you know, part of a diagnostic log so we can refer back to it if something happens in the future.
Nathan Anderson:
Yes. Okay. so every time we install, pumping equipment, we do an installation report. We do a startup with the team here. And then we record the flow rate and the MEGs it pulls and everything like that.
And we've worked for the district for a few decades exclusively. And we have all your data for any startup in the past.
Jim:
Okay. So and do we have, the values for the motor itself? It depends before you drop it down.
Nathan Anderson:
Yes. okay. It depends on the horsepower and the aquifer that you're pumping out of. So, for example, the Arapahoe aquifer, that's your big producer.
It's deeper. It's 1700 foot. It costs a lot of money to put a pumping, submersible pump 1700 foot in the ground. and pull it back out. Some of the smaller wells would be much less. I think you're a two is 450 horsepower. Most of your other wells are going to be much lower than that. So it it depends on the pumping conditions and the static water level.
And and each well is pretty specific. And we we designed every pump replacement based on actual pumping conditions. Any information that the district has as far as water level, pumping water level things like that. So, if you guys want additional information on that stuff, we I'd be happy to provide it. But we we have definitely the reason I bring up a two so much.
It popped up a couple of years ago and we worked on it for a long time, and we reviewed all of our pumping information, pump designs, things like that. And we still hit the same failure mode shaft seal. And it seems like either the motor is turning on at the wrong time, or it didn't wait long enough to start up or something on the electrical supply side is causing these things to fail.
Okay. we we also had, we checked on our manufacturers a two and a three had different manufacturers, because we thought maybe it was a bad shaft seal supplier, something like that. They were different manufacturers of the shaft and the shaft seal and the motor. And they both had the same failure mode within the same kind of timeframe.
Jim:
Appreciate it. Do you guys do Fishbone when you do failure analysis or not? And if you don't know what that term is, we're not going to waste time on it here. Okay?
Nathan Anderson:
You can go for what? What's a fisherman?
Jim:
Okay. If you visualize a fish. Okay. With all its little bones and we write down everything, it possibly could be.
Okay. And that's a bone on the fish. And then as you work down all those bones, you cross them off. All right? It's a, it's a normal failure analysis tool where okay, you you essentially list every single thing it could ever possibly be. How ridiculous. Doesn't matter. And you go through it methodically and you cross off each one of those bones until the answer is the only one that you haven't crossed off.
Nathan Anderson:
Yeah, I, I feel like we, we went through that process with A2 and we, we can definitely go through a similar process without pumping tests and things like that on these other wells. The video log will identify a lot if there's any downhole failures, something obvious, but since it's the same failure mode, we went through the step test.
We lowered the flow rate to reduce the, I guess load on the equipment from A2. We did a deviation survey because we thought maybe it's failing because the the well is curved in a certain area and we could adjust the pump setting. All those things came back fine. So we did try to wrack our brains. Think of any other reason why this could be happening.
And then a couple months later, we had a lot more failures. Same seemingly the same issue. And where we've quoted the additional work and, you know, I'd be happy to send you the installation reports, things like that for me A2. But it's it's been a long road since 2023, and we generally don't have the same pumping equipment fail, you know, one and a half years and then one year later, that's just something odd is going on.
And I think we did our due diligence to make sure it's not any installation problem, any problems caused by downhole conditions, things like that.
Jim:
Okay. Thank you.
Jason:
Does anybody else have any questions for Nathan? Okay. Thank you very much, Nathan. This is important topic for us. So we appreciate your feedback.
Nathan Anderson:
Off Camera. Yeah. Thanks, guys.
Jason:
All right. We'll go ahead and close out item number six and move on to item number seven, the communications update.
Nathan.
Nathan:
Good evening guys. I don't know where my bookmarks went, so give me a moment here to scroll down. so because I'm in the agenda, not the packet. All right, so, we have been, working pretty fast and furious with similar communications. they are still pretty deep in the onboarding process. So talking about bringing them to this meeting just didn't really make a lot of sense.
They don't have a lot of data to track or anything like that. so they had asked that I can just kind of give a quick update on the things that they are working, working through. so first and foremost, kind of their first task order is working through the stakeholder interviews. this has been going really, really well so far.
Describer:
The Communications Board Report appears on screen. Here is what it says:
From: Nathan J. Travis
To: CPNMD Board of Directors
Date: 3/24/25
Re: Communications Board Report
Sigler is in the process of on-boarding, and after discussion we agree that the best approach will be to have Sigler report to the board on a quarterly basis, beginning with the May board meeting. With the board’s blessing, I would like to move forward with this approach. This will allow Sigler to focus on gaining momentum and is an effective cost-saving measure for the District.
Bryn has compiled a list of tasks that are currently underway:
1. Stakeholder interviews are nearly complete, this will be used to inform the communications plan for the District.
2. A draft communications calendar for the year is in the works, and is being updated with information from the stakeholder interviews.
3. Website and social media audit.
4. Monthly Castle Pines Connection ads, focusing on conservation for the month of May.
5. Monthly billing insert, again with a focus on conservation.
6. Ongoing social media posts, to be drafted in advance.
7. Earned media stories in the Castle Pines Connection, for May- Top five ways to reduce outdoor watering and promoting the watering schedule. Chuck plans to pitch this idea to the Connection soon.
8. This years Water Quality Report- We would like to include a “message from the board” with this years report, a draft will be presented at the May work session.
9. Launch a quarterly eNewsletter- Next month.
Bryn and I are set to meet to discuss how best to promote our ongoing and upcoming capital projects, as well as brainstorm content for the CCR letter intro.
Nathan:
Last I checked with them, they had already spoken with eight, stakeholders, and we added an additional three to our list. Just from suggestions from the people that they had spoken to previously. Some of the primary contact that their information that they're getting back is, honestly a lot of positive, a lot of positive feedback that district communications have improved drastically over the past year or two.
A lot of, a lot of compliments to the board for the work that you guys have done for transparency and the way that you guys have shown up. It was it's it's really, kind of heartening to hear some of the feedback that we initially got and gotten. One big point, that has come through in terms of the way that the community wants to be engaged with us.
Everybody keeps coming back to Nextdoor as being like a primary modality, in terms of how they get communications. And so we're we're going to increase our efforts with the Nextdoor app. We've had some issues that we were finally able to resolve. We couldn't get access to that account. For whatever reason. It wasn't sending a pass, a password reset email.
There's also a old district account from years and years ago that shows up as the primary search when you look for us on Nextdoor. So we're also actively working with them to get that removed. so they are, working on a draft communications calendar. So they want to outline our communications, basically for the entire year, and then also start front-loading our social media posts.
I want to have about 6 or 7 of those ready to go. So they're going through that, the other thing that they're working on and this will feed into, another agenda item is just kind of doing a website and social media audit for the Ada compliance that's coming up. Specifically, what they're looking at is color gradients.
And we may have some issues in that area because we tend to be varying shades of green. so they're going to look at those to make sure that we've got the right colors in place to meet the ADA compliance requirements. they are also looking, to, kind of get some more positive press out there. So they're, pitching some ideas to Castle Pines connection for some feel good stories about work that's been going on at the district, or some are watering tips.
Describer:
We are back on screen with the zoom call monitor centered, Nathan to the immediate right opposite Jana and Leah.
Nathan:
I think it's the next one that they were looking at in the more kind of immediate area. We're also getting ready to start preparing the water quality report. We do have the information, most of the information that we need from the state. We do have one question, that we've reached out multiple times. Our rep at the state has been on vacation, so we're trying to go around them and get a question answered about a, failure to notify that we have on our, have on our list of required communications for the consumer confidence report.
Next month, they want to launch a quarterly e-newsletter. With that, And we're going to we're going to likely be kind of stepping down on the email communications and move more to just that kind of quarterly outreach. And then we'll do some additional communication with a with the emails and, you know, emergencies or if anything comes up in that area.
And then we're also trying to figure out how to close a gap inside of our Doppler notification tool, which has been fantastic, the one where we can text residents, this last series of events, with the main break, Castle Pines Parkway and Monarch, the Doppler notification tool wasn't as helpful because those are like lots of multifamily.
There's townhomes, tell me townhomes or four units to a building. And so we only have contact information for the HOA. And so we're going to be looking at doing some targeted targeted mailers specifically to those neighborhoods to give residents an opportunity to give us their preferred email and cell phone contact list so that we can add them to that Doppler tool.
Describer:
The Communications report is back on screen.
Nathan:
So they are working through that. Brian and I are going to meet, I think, I think later this week, to talk about, ongoing capital projects, and then brainstorm content for the consumer confidence report. One thing that we would really like to do with the CCR this year is include a message from the board of directors that just kind of like outlines things that we've done, things that we're looking for.
So Sigler and I are going to brainstorm kind of what that looks like, and then put together a draft for the board to review at the next study session so you guys can get your in your thoughts and, input there before we do the final version and drop the CCR out to the public. As long as the board is good with it, we'll start having them report quarterly.
Describer:
Nathan Travis is back on screen alone.
Nathan:
and then that quarter to the board quarterly, that would start in May. And then we're going to we shifted off of kind of the traditional quarters by a month, simply because we don't typically have a meeting in January. So their last report would drop in to the board would happen in November.
Any other questions?
Tera:
Yeah, just a quick question. When you were talking about the website audit and I think it might be in your manager's report, but you I don't know if you were looking for permission or something from us to, to look like we needed to call out some of the PDFs, get rid of some of the PDFs or something as part of that audit.
Is that something that you will ask us later or,
Nathan:
yeah, that's all that's under the agenda later or we can discuss it now.
Tera:
Whatever you guys prefer, whatever, whatever. It's on the agenda. I didn't know if I don't, I remember seeing it. I just don't remember where.
Jana:
Yeah, I have a comment, not a question. I think these changes are great.
I feel like they really encompass some of the things the board was saying, were saying previously. So nice work.
Nathan:
Thank you.
Leah:
I was going to say the same thing. I would say their approach and their proposals, I would argue in my experience, is pretty textbook. so I'm really encouraged to see that, and I would be supportive of a quarterly update.
Nathan:
Right. Thank you.
Jason:
Great. Any other questions about the communications report? All right. Thanks, Nathan. That was good stuff. Let's move on now to item number eight, the 2024 budget amendment presentation by Eric Good evening Eric.
Financial Director Eric Harris:
Good evening. Board. tonight, you have in front of you a proposal to amend the district's 2024 budget for its general fund.
Eric:
And its conservation trust fund. So one of the questions, you know why why do this? You know, that's an obvious question. Why are we going back and looking at 2024 and amending our budget? Well, you know, after Molly and I reviewed, the district's financials for 2024 and talked to, district council, it was in our it was in the opinion that we need to establish appropriations for our general fund, and we had excess revenues in our conservation trust fund.
Describer:
The RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
2024 BUDGET AMENDMENT appears on screen.
It continues:
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of Castle Pines North Metropolitan District adopted the budget and appropriated funds for the 2024 fiscal year as follows:
2024 General Fund $0
2024 Conservation Trust Fund $50,200
WHEREAS, the District’s consultants have determined that certain non-business-type
Revenues and Expenditures are more appropriately assigned to the General Fund, including property
taxes, other tax revenue, lease revenues and related fund transfers as well as an appropriation of a
TABOR Reserve;
WHEREAS, the District also requires an increase to its Conservation Trust Fund (CTF) to
account for higher than anticipated receipts related to State of Colorado CTF proceeds and expenses
related to an Inter-governmental Agreement with the City of Castle Pines; and
WHEREAS, the expenditure of such funds is a contingency which could not have been reasonably foreseen at the time of adoption of the budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District hereby adopts a supplemental budget and appropriation for the 2024 fiscal year as follows:
2024 General Fund $2,121,690
2024 Conservation Trust Fund $97,945
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such sums are hereby appropriated from the revenues of the District to the proper funds for the purposes stated.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025.
DISTRICT: CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado
Eric:
So, so essentially, maybe just a little bit of gap on how it was, I guess prepared this last year. so when doing this, when you're drafting a budget, you have to make the proper fund determination. And so the general fund is specifically to support the overarching general government, operations, if you will. that includes property tax revenue, you know, other tax revenue, things that are not specific to the water operations.
That's the way to think about it. And then in the same thing for the Conservation Trust Fund, we were we were obligated with our program requirements, with the state to segregate those funds out right now. But as you may recall, we are required to fund those every dollar that's received goes over to the city as well.
So for our general fund, what we did was, we moved essentially dollar for dollar, you know, out of our water and wastewater funds that was budgeted. We're moving those revenues over to a general fund, moving certain revenues that are not applicable to the water operations. You know, your, mineral lease revenue, telecom revenue from the leases.
And then also your IGA or your shared IGA expenses you have with the city. And because those are applicable to your governmental assets, which are your parks and open space, you know, this building, some others as well, which ultimately those assets are going over to the city. So we're creating that as well. And also we are appropriating a Tabor reserve, which is a 3% revenue, that we have to take it restricted in our fund balance and maintaining that on our balance sheet for year end of 2024.
And the same thing for the Conservation Trust Fund, I believe we had $50,000 of expenditures budgeted. Well, in reality, if you look at your financials, you will see we have closer to $100,000 and, of revenue. So we have to send those revenues over to the city. And so dollar for dollar that comes down to a zero fund balance.
So ultimately this is just a cleanup. Save the difference associated with the Conservation Trust Fund. so that is what's applicable for 2024. We are currently still reviewing several agreements and several things. So we're taking a look at the existing 2025 budget. We going to bring forward a budget amendment for that at a future date for you? yes. Are there any questions from the board?
Tera:
Yeah. So one of the items that, and I also think this is mentioned in the attorney's report, but you mentioned the, when you're talking about the things that go to the city, those cell phone lease revenues, and I think those actually go to the city. So I see you call them out. Are we is that just incorrect the way that they were accounted for?
Eric:
They're correct because they are still in there right now. It's going to follow the fund balance, which we have. Those have not been sent over yet. We're going to be accruing them or we're maintaining that balance on our books, and we will send those moneys over. And we've been in, communication with Mike Farina over at the city as well to talk through that.
Tera:
And then I know we're not there yet, but I just wanted to, because I don't see in the resolution it's stating the correction for the general fund of, 2,000,001 21,690 and then the correction for the Conservation Trust Fund. But in your notes, you say that, it's amended with the Tabor Fund Reserve. Correct. And does that need to be part of that?
that formal resolution, the budget amendment, does that need to be called out?
Eric:
So within here? And I may bring Paul up for this here in a moment. those are your expenditure line items. And then you'll see, I believe it's this, which is at the second, whereas, up there, Paul. no, the first, whereas where it says, including property transfer as well as an appropriation for a Tabor reserve, so you don't have to call out a dollar amount or a percentage associated with it.
It is simply you know, I want to make this very simplistic. We take 3% of revenues and we keep that. I see that, thanks. You're welcome.
Jason:
So great. Any other questions from the board. Okay. So hearing none we'll go ahead and close that out. And then we'll open up public comments for the hearing regarding the 2024 budget amendment.
To have anybody that would like to speak on that. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and close out the public comment. And we'll go on to item number ten online. Oh, sorry. Is it. Yeah. Same. Anybody online okay. All right. Thank you. Thanks, Jim. so now we'll consider the 2024 budget amendment.
Board Voting All Speak:
I'll propose the motion. I moved to amend the 2024 budget in a and appropriate expenditures and fund balances, as presented by the finance director. I'll second having a second. We'll go to vote. Jim. Approved. Tera. Approve. Jana. Approve. Leah. Approve. I approve as well. So the motion carries, and we'll go ahead and close out. Item number ten.
Jason:
Moving on now to the finance director's report with Eric.
Eric:
Again, thank you for, approving that board. just by way of a brief introduction, earlier this year, you've contracted with our organization called H2 advisors. We recently sent notice to Nathan. We're moving. We're assigning this contract work over to a company which is ourselves called Elevated clarity is simply streamlining our back office operations.
So nothing would change from the perspective of communication with myself or. Or Molly. you'll see a different email domain. but just want to make you aware. And district council and the district manager were aware of that. so in summary, today, within your packet, you have a financial report and some associated reporting. this is what's going to be considered more or less our standard reporting.
Describer:
The Financial Report appears on screen. Here is what is shown on the first page:
TO: Board of Directors – Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
FROM: Eric Harris, Elevated Clarity (EC)
DATE: April 28, 2025
RE: Financial Report – April 2025 Board of Directors Meeting
General Fund Activity
As of February 2025, the District recognized $417,830 in property tax revenues received from Douglas County and $12,905 in specific ownership tax revenues. This represents 42.27% of the budgeted property taxes from the District’s mill levy year-to-date. This is a higher percentage than compared to-date in 2024 (36.21%). The large amount of revenue recognized in February is primarily due to property owners making their first payment due on property taxes, which was due on February 28th.
EC has conducted a review of the 2024 budget and expenditures with district staff and consultants and
recommends that the Board of Directors approve the following amendment at the April 2025 Board of Directors’Meeting.
2024 General Fund
Original $0
Amended: $2,121,690 with a TABOR Fund Reserve of $76,952
The General Fund amended budget is necessary due to certain non-business-type revenues and expenditures
shifting from the Water and Wastewater Funds to the General Fund to appropriately account for the activity. Revenue line items shifted include Property taxes and related revenues, cell phone lease revenues, oil royalty revenues, and reimbursements from the City of Castle Pines related to the second amendment of the IGA with the City to transfer recreation properties. Expenditure line items shifted include county treasurer collection fees, the costs associated with the second amendment of the IGA with the City of Castle Pines and transfers out to the Water and Wastewater Fund. The amended budget also includes retaining funds to establish the required TABOR Reserve.
Additionally, it is necessary to increase 2024 appropriations in the District’s Conservation Trust Fund to account for higher than anticipated receipts related to Conservation Trust Fund proceeds and related expenditures associated with the IGA with the City of Castle Pines.
2024 Conservation Trust Fund
Original $50,200
Amended: $97,945
Describer:
Back on Eric and Paul on screen.
Eric:
That would be within, your budget to actual reporting. This is for February 28th, 2025. nothing really sticks out right now outside of the budget variances I reported, last, last month. We're still quite early on within the irrigation and, use, use, for the district. I do want to thank the board for, being, amicable to changing to presenting financials that are one month in arrears.
It actually does allow us to capture more true actual data, for example, or pay application data that comes in, about 30 days after the fact for the district. so it allows us to rely on that data versus accruing certain estimates that we have based upon our budget as well. So, and once again, going to the monthly bill pay process has been very useful for reporting.
so, let me get to, where we're at right now is, we're preparing, and, and looking at our projections for the year for this next month, what you will see is a, quarter ending financial statement in addition to the budget to actual. So that will be our reporting cycle. In addition, we are on track to submit, our audit work papers, about a week and a half, two weeks in advance, to the auditors in preparation for our audit at the end of May.
Describer:
On screen is the Enterprise Fund Activity Billed water usage chart in the month of February 2025 was 18,852,000 gallons, a 11.58% increase from water usage in February 2024.
Water services revenues (volumetric charges) for February 2025 were $118,817. Wastewater services revenues (volumetric charges) for the same period were $143,216. Wastewater service charges are assessed and set based upon the winter usage for individual account holders. The following table summarizes year-to-date accounts receivable and utility revenues activity: Summarized:
From the end of January 2024 the balance was $585,017, Revenues were $515,917, Costs were $535,603, the Ending balance was $569,331 to the end of February 2025, ending balance was $599,878, Revenues were $540,292, Costs were $572,523 and the ending balance was $612,648. Overall revenues and costs were equal with a slight positive of about $27,631 added to the ending balance for this time frame.
The District’s Water and Wastewater Funds had the following expense variances:
Chatfield Reservoir Mitigation Annual Assessments – ($61,966)
Well Control Vault Rehab – ($229,569)
Additionally, the District did not originally budget for oil royalty revenues or cell phone lease revenues in 2025; however, the District has already received and will continue to receive these revenues in 2025. EC will include annual budget projections for these revenues as well as all other revenues and expenditures on a quarterly basis for the Board’s consideration at a future meeting of the Board of Directors.
Eric:
so we're targeting right now, May 15th, to get that done. We still have a lot of a lot of work over the next couple of weeks to get through. but we're we're expecting that to, progress by that time frame. let's see, like I mentioned earlier, we will be looking at, preparing a budget amendment to you for the 2025 budget and, and what that means is doing the exact same thing we did for the general fund for 2024 just a few moments ago.
Describer:
Eric back on screen.
Eric:
We will be moving certain expenditures as it relates to, the city IGA and other subsequent amendments to make sure those dollars and cents belong in the proper fund. And we have the proper appropriation set forth for that as well. Paul and I are going to have several meetings over the next couple weeks just to make sure we get that all taken care of.
And so we have a good understanding to make sure everything's all the issues are closed out. And so, in addition to that, we'll be looking at projecting capital projections for the year based upon several presentations, one of them being tonight, regarding the filter bed and presentation, one more small update. I don't know if you mentioned, but, saw this on the district's website, but there was an error in the district's vendor billing system that occurred, earlier this morning as a result to, payments.
And so it's double or triple payments if someone potentially tried to pay right now and that this is a software issue with the merchant processor, that's currently being remediated, I don't have too much more of an update than, than that. Nathan and Susan have been working on this throughout the day as well. we do fully expect that to be remediated in the next 24 to 48 hours.
But they have been addressing certain calls, several calls here at the district's offices for that as well. and like I said, we look forward to kind of bring forward an updated projections for you this next month as well. other than that, are there any questions?
Jim:
I had one on the balances that we were just talking about. Well, we talked about it last meeting. I don't know if we can slide back up to, you talk about the investment income and things like that. and I kind of Ashley to kind of inquire about this because I was, you know, traveling last meeting. But, can you describe, you know, essentially the that money and, you know, the where that came from as far as you know, it just seems like an awful large number to me.
Describer:
On screen: Additionally, the District has some substantial positive revenue variances attributable to higher than anticipated investment earnings, late fees, mineral lease and telecommunication lease revenues.The Cash and Investment Activity is on screen, James is referencing a $48,967,681 number which is distributed over 3 banks Citywide, 1st Bank and the primary balance of $48M is in Colotrust.
Jim:
and I and I'm kind of questioning, like, you know, is that appropriate or are we holding on to too much, or is that really supposed to I mean, is it, you know, if you can just describe a little bit, the genesis of those numbers and where those that money's came from?
Eric:
Certainly. So I'll take I'll step back one moment and then I'll, I'll step into the genesis, if you don't mind.
the overall cash balance for the district needs to tie to the district's objectives. And mainly this is where we take our cash balance into our rate case and we determine what, if any, the future capital plans are and including the cost of replacements to make sure we're not only Levy. assessing fees correctly in the form of usage fees and or and impact fees, but that we can adequately recover and replace all the capital for the age of our system.
So that's that's the purpose behind this. I will, being familiar with this district for about the last ten years, upon like kind of a recent, couple of year hiatus from this last from the last board, the district did, take on about $50 per SFE per tap, for the legay filing. One. I believe that is correct.
So that there's a large component of those funds that came on. I don't have that dollar amount offhand. I do recall, I think around 2021, there was about 30 to $35 million that the district had in its accounts collectively. since that time frame, the district has sold its, perfected water rights. paid down CWC, debt, paid off its refunding cops.
and with all that loss, with the increase of those proceeds, have a reflection of this cash balance that the district has in its account. Now to answer whether or not and also funded and paid for the Parkside as well, with the city now the state, what we're doing is, this summer is doing a full blown rates analysis to see if, the cap, the existing capital plan meets the needs for this cash balance as well.
right now, this is all enterprise money saved a little bit that we just talked about with the general fund and that lease revenue that we're holding on to. but it is, within the Water and Wastewater Enterprise Fund. So once you get the district's financial statements, you'll be able to segregate out. This is the water, cash.
This is the wastewater cash applicable. so that would be the genesis from a 30,000ft level. for what? This cash balances or where this originated from? I will say the district is getting anywhere in the neighborhood to 100 to 1. no, that's not correct. I'd have to state, but sizable amount of investment revenue right now.
And so. Yes. Well, and for this amount, we could achieve an extra 100 to $200,000 per calendar year if we were able to move to that other fund that I spoke about last week. Yes.
Jim:
Thanks. Appreciate that.
Eric:
You're welcome. Thank you.
Tera:
And, Eric, I just wanted to say thank you for these statements. I especially think, the way that this is laid out with the, the statements of revenue and expenditures with the budgets are very, not only very clear, but very transparent, which I know is something that's really important to the board and and how that will, take and tied to the chart of accounts and to the budget, which is
when you do your budget amendment, I'm sure it will look, very, very similar. But cleaning up everything. And again, I think the clearer and the more transparent we can be, is better for us and for the people we serve. So I wanted to say thank you very much.
Eric:
You're most welcome. And we're also looking at, this is it's a sizable project.
this is we're looking at several different things. As I mentioned in our report, you know, cleaning up. Why do we have so many utility accounts that we track, you know, why do we have all the detailed level presented for you as well? Can we use supplemental schedules? How are we using our general ledger, which is a product of what happened and built over the last 30 years within the district.
So, we've had several meetings with several consultants to help, you know, think about, strategize on what that looks like. and we look forward to kind of bringing an action plan at some point in the future to you. Thank you, thank you.
Jason:
Did anybody else have any questions for Eric regarding this? All right, I guess so.
Jason:
Thank you again, Eric, for all that hard work. item B to consider conditional approval of NSC mineral Rights evaluation.
Describer:
On screen is a letter from Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. petroleum consultants. Here is the first sentence of the letter:
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. ("NSAI) is pleased to have the opportunity of providing to Castle Pines North Metropolitan District (the "District") consulting, petroleum engineering, geological, geophysical, petrophysical, estimation, and evaluation services as the District has requested or may request in the future (including any related draft, preliminary, or final reports or other work product, the "Services").
This letter was not included with the board packet. For all other information presented here see the board packet for this meeting.
Eric:
Yes. So as you as we presented this agreement last week in the district's work session, this is, to assess the value associated with the district's mineral rights to come up with essentially, you know, looking at a value.
And this is just a study that needs to occur. we pulled this out of the consent agenda. It has two items of note. one, it does have an indemnification clause within it, and it does have reference to a settlement of, a court of jurisdiction somewhere in the state of Texas. so I, I don't have a revised agreement for you.
I will get a revised agreement. I guess my question for you is tonight. Would you like to approve this? agreement, subject to those qualifications? And if I cannot get those, revisions, would the district still consider approving that and knowing what your powers are or what the district's powers are under state statute? and, Paul, if you would like to add any sort of, you know, add anything for indemnification that would be helpful.
Paul:
Yeah. The the indemnification clause gives me a little bit of heartburn. Practically. The way it works out is special districts can't indemnify private parties and they typically these these sorts of provisions typically have no effect. That being said, we've gone back and forth now over the last few meetings over the importance of indemnification provisions, and it is better to be clear, rather than paying somebody to litigate an issue that you don't have to, in that respect, I would recommend that the board not approve it unless the contractor agrees to the removal of the indemnification provision.
The Dallas County, it gives me less heartburn. Director Radloff, if you did bring it up at the last session, and I think it was a good comment, after thinking about it a little bit more, I don't see why we would give up some provision like that. When, I don't think we have to, that said, I wouldn't hinge the agreement on whether they agree or not agree to it to the Dallas County provision.
Tera:
Yeah, I agree with you. I mean, I just was more curious about it. It's it's not usual for most of the contracts that I've seen, but, yeah, I wouldn't hold it up for that. But if the indemnity case, I can't even pronounce that word clauses, is something that you would recommend that we not even.
Are you recommending that we don't even conditionally approve it or.
Paul:
I would recommend that you conditionally approve it with with the removal of that provision, I wouldn't recommend that you approve it with that provision still being included in in any circumstance.
Jim:
Oh, yeah. Yeah.
If we conditionally approve, we'll hear back in what kind of time frame from this contractor.
Paul:
I could probably hear back in the next couple days from them, and, well, they take typically about two weeks to pull around a new agreement. So I would expect within two weeks.
Jim:
Thank you.
Tera:
Sorry. I did have one more thing. as I, I think you mentioned maybe in our study session, are there not that many firms that do this?
Is that part of our challenge?
Paul:
From my knowledge base, there's not that many firms. I don't know. I don't know how to go out and research one of these firms to complete this type of work, if that makes sense. certainly none that are within the state of Colorado.
Board Voting All Speak:
Okay. Anybody else have any questions? So, I'll make a motion to approve this NSA mineral rights evaluation with the indemnity clause removed to hear second, second. we'll go to vote. Jim. approve. Tara. Hi, Jenna. Approve. Leah. Approve. I approve as well.
Paul:
Wonderful. Thank you. I'll bring that back if there's any issue with that. With the vendor. Thank you.
Jason:
Wonderful. Thank you. All right, let's move on now to the Legal Council's reports. Good evening. Paul.
Paul:
Good evening. Board. And you do have my written report before I get into the House. Bill, I was planning on discussing today. Does anybody have any questions about the legal counsel's report?
Tera:
Okay. I have one small thing, and I don't I think that's it's been approved. It's probably an approved agreement, but under the, the parks, open space and every the conveyance of the property conveyances, So we don't have exclusive use of the common area, even though, this is where we hold our monthly meeting. So I didn't know if we needed to be thinking about doing something like that because I don't I mean, I think the city have the same, you know, a situation with the library where they basically depend on that space to hold their meetings with the library.
And I understand and, you know, we have exclusive rights to the, administrative office spaces, which makes sense, but it just seems like there might be something a little more definitive to exclusive rights to this, this room for our meetings, but that that contract may have already sailed.
Paul:
Are you thinking of carving out certain provisions, just, you know, for, you know, whatever time the board is meeting here, work sessions just
Tera:
for their regularly scheduled board meetings or something.
I mean, I think they've been accommodating, but I do think that we've had a conflict in the past, and it seems like if there's a conflict or maybe that's the language of that, if there's a conflict that it that we get priority to conduct our business. Just something like that. I mean, I understand again the non exclusivity, however, where it doesn't make sense to me to have us move our meetings around only when we've been here and so maybe it's like resolving a conflict.
We get we get priority I don't know. Yeah. Just just something it's certainly a fair point. our city or I mean, our district manager had a thought on that.
Nathan:
yeah. No. So I, I agree, I think that some sort of provision, probably around, like, priority scheduling would be helpful. the space is still used, albeit not as much as it once was for various community events.
And I know that's important to the city. And I'm sure our board to, leave that amenity available. Michael and I have had some discussions about kind of a more of a longer term plan for the space and renovations. I'll have more information for the board, probably at our next board meeting. but I think that that'll also kind of way into that priority scheduling.
Describer:
On screen is a resolution which was not included with the packet. Here is are the first lines of text for it:
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
OPPOSING COLORADO HOUSE BILL 25-1334
WHEREAS, the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District ("District) is a metropolitan district duly organized and existing pursuant to the Special District Act, C.R.S. § 32-1-101 et seq., serving the residents within its boundaries through the provision of essential public services including water, sanitation, and other critical infrastructure;
WHEREAS, the Colorado General Assembly introduced House Bill 25-1334 ("HB25-
1334) to modify the Special District Act, clarifying that metropolitan districts and water and sanitation districts cannot exercise dominant eminent domain authority to acquire state-owned or home rule city, town, city and county, or county property;
WHEREAS, eminent domain is a critical tool for metropolitan districts to ensure timely and efficient delivery of essential public services and infrastructure improvements to communities;
Paul:
Okay. And absolutely happy to address that. now, I'd like to discuss a resolution that you all have within your packets that opposes a House bill that's titled House Bill 25 2025 dash 1334. Now, this is a bill that is, within the legislature that proposes changes to the Special District Act, specifically, it restricts metropolitan districts and water and sanitation districts from exercising eminent domain and what's called dominant eminent domain authority to acquire property that's both owned by the state and by home rule entities such as cities, cities and counties, towns.
so first, and I'm sorry, I'm sure you all know this already, but to the extent anybody doesn't, eminent domain is the power of a government or or its authorized agencies to typically take private property for public use. the government is, obligated to compensate, any party for that use, under the United States Constitution.
Describer:
Paul is back on screen.
Paul:
So that's eminent domain, dominant eminent domain specifically allows, certain governmental entities, such as metropolitan districts, priority over other public entities in acquiring property necessary for whatever it wants to use the property for. Home rule is the authority that grants certain local governments to self-govern independently on certain matters. Typically you see it zoning, taxation, certain local services.
So okay. And so that's what eminent domain and that's what home rule means. So within the bill itself, again it seeks to limit the powers of special districts, to exercise eminent domain over again, both the state and other municipalities or towns, cities. I think one thing that's important to note, and that is reference within the bill itself as it stands now, under the law, special districts don't have the power to exercise eminent domain over the state.
you can't exercise it over state property. So as far as, exercising over state property goes, that's just a clarification. But, special districts do have the power under existing law to exercise dominant eminent domain over, home rule cities, towns, seasoned counties. And so this bill would affect special districts the extent that you wouldn't be able to do that anymore.
there are certain reasons to oppose this bill. number one, you know, I think is and maybe this is common sense, you know, project delays increase costs if you remove eminent domain powers. the district would probably face certain delays. You're looking at increased negotiation or litigation costs with whoever, with whatever entity you would be exercising that eminent domain over.
Now, you have to negotiate an agreement instead of just exercising that power of eminent domain. and, you know, ultimately, it could undermine essential services if you have a new construction project, maybe that's an increased negotiation time. you know, there there could be arguments, for it as well. home rule cities and counties, you know, they are home rule for a reason.
They have they have chosen to exercise their own power over certain services. proponents of this bill, you know, think that that should also apply, you know, that that they should have the power, you know, to, to regulate their own services and not be regulated by some by another special district. All things to consider. ultimately, this weakens the effectiveness of metropolitan districts or water and sand districts to exercise its powers, to assert its eminent domain power and, you know, acquire new land if it needs to.
So that is the reasoning for the opposition. The resolution opposing it. it does a couple things. The resolution of formally opposes the bill, and it authorizes and directs its staff and representatives, Representatives to communicate, the resolution.
Tera:
So was it just about acquiring land or is it also about access? So if we had some kind of project and we needed the access, the land, the that belonged somewhere else, is it because you had said about acquiring land, but is it also about accessing just access? Yeah. Like easements.
Paul:
No, this is it's just to well, you can acquire an easement, you can assert eminent domain to acquire an easement. so in, in to that extent somewhat. But if you're looking at just an access issue and you're not trying to assert an interest over land and you're looking for something, well, yeah. No, just simply that, then no, that wouldn't apply.
But again, it's a little gray. If you're looking for an easement for eventual access somewhere, it would impact that.
Jason:
When was the last time. Sorry, when was the last time we've used it?
Paul:
I asked Nathan that question when this came up, and I think it's it's actually been a little while. Right. It's been probably years ago. Was the last year you remember?
Nathan:
yeah, we have, and to my knowledge, used eminent domain in my time here. So since 2011, I don't know that we've had had a case to use it.
Paul:
So practically, it's not something that this district has really seen much.
Leah:
I have a really basic question to validate my understanding. Assuming this legislature passes, I'm guessing we don't have the option to opt out of it.
Is this more of a like we're saying we don't like this. Please don't pass it.
Paul:
That's exactly right. if if it is passed, it is the law, and the district would have to follow it. So this this puts a little bit of pressure on the legislature. Maybe not. Maybe pressure's the wrong word, but it gives them an alternative view.
Maybe something to to think about and talk about.
Leah:
Are we aware? Are other districts doing the same?
Paul:
I don't know, you don't know. I can I can ask and get that answer.
Leah:
So my question is that a common thing to kind of like partner together. And for now.
Paul:
Yeah. it's somewhat common. this there's a, there's a tab for Bill, under consideration right now that I had mentioned a couple of meetings ago that that, you know, is gaining a lot of attention and a number of districts did band together and form, a group to oppose it, to formally lobby and oppose it.
so it does happen. This hasn't quite risen to the level of that from what I've seen.
Jim:
Can you maybe just back up a little bit and, and explain why they think this is necessary to push through is a bill. I mean, it's it's opinion based. So I, you know, but, you know, why they're moving forward with this.
Like, has there been abuse of this by metros that you know of or.
Paul:
I don't know what the the background is for this? The only thing I can tell you is what I've read on the face of the bill, what they're what they're saying it's for I, I don't know if that's there's all sorts of reasons for passing a bill, but at least on its face, it's to clarify what they think the existing law already is.
as far as the as far as the state exercise domain over state owned property, and the legislature or at least the sponsoring legislator here, doesn't believe that special districts should have this power over home rule cities. I can give you a deeper analysis in an email, but I don't know anything more than that at this point.
Jim:
Okay. Appreciate it. Thank you. Absolutely.
Leah:
I mean, is it only limited for home rule cities.
Paul:
They only limited it to to home rule? cities, cities and counties and towns, for some reason. Yeah. Which Castle Pines is.
Jim:
Yeah. It was on charter commission. So.
Jason:
Even though we don't use this very often, I, would be. Leaning towards opposing this.
I don't know how the rest of the board feels.
Jana:
We'd oppose a wait. So double negative opposing this. This resolution means that we don't support the bill. Okay, so I'll give my experience with eminent domain working for the government. I've never done it for 15 years. Same thing, but it's always there. If we can't get to a safe negotiation, if we experience a property owner who has price gouging or unfair, requirements from the, you know, the the city that I work for, they're always happy to pay and get, you know, the appropriate easements.
But it's when they're saying, well, I want $1 million for that. And we think we can't. This is what this, this parcel should cost. and so anyway, it's kind of just there if we're being taken advantage of as a metro district is what I my experiences.
Jim:
I mean, just comment again kind of where you're going. That's why I was asking the question is has it been abused? And it doesn't sound like I mean, Castle Pines is essentially built out, except if we look to annex additional properties. So in our facilities are essentially sized for what we need in the town. I, I could foresee potentially having to dig something up or reroute something and maybe it comes into play there, but that would be very limited.
so I would, I think, oppose this bill as well. from the standpoint, I don't see a problem that needs to get fixed. at least if it was, overused in a, you know, a lot of places. And then I would see potentially a need for them to take this action, but it doesn't feel that way.
And and again, you have to do research, but it doesn't sound like, at least from your perspective, that this is the case.
Paul:
And that's right. And and to add to that, I think that there's value in a water and sanitation district or a metropolitan district that furnishes water and sanitation services to have the power of dominant eminent domain.
Paul:
I don't know, I mean, arguably there's no more essential service than water. it's important special districts should have that power. I think they were granted that power for a reason.
Jana:
And I think knowing that we haven't used it means we're being fair. We're, you know, we're getting appraisals when we need easements and compensating people appropriately. So even more justification.
Paul:
Absolutely. And and there there's a process in the courts if, if the government doesn't, fairly compensate an individual for exercising his powers of eminent domain, there are countless condemnation cases for that.
So, you know, even even for government abuses, there's there's a defense.
Jason:
So I think the board, if I'm understanding, is in agreement for you to go ahead in the draft a resolution opposing this House bill.
Paul:
Well, today I'm I'm only asking for your approval to, to approve the resolution that is under consideration. and then I would, a combination mean Nathan would communicate that to the to the General Assembly.
it is it is within your it's within their packet. Right. We've resisted. So I think it's a separate, handout. Yep.
So, the request today would be to approve the resolution.
Board Voting All Speak:
I'll make a motion to approve the resolution. as drafted before us. Second, have a second. We'll go to vote. Jim. Approve. Tara. Approve. Jana. Leah. Approve. I approve as well. The motion carries. Okay. Thanks, everyone. And that's it from Legal. Thank you Paul. All right. Item number 13.
Jason:
Consider the filter rehab Preconstruction services proposal from Myers and Sons. Nathan is, Myers and Sons available?
Nathan:
My Apologies So, Myers and sons is not with us tonight. I going to give a brief overview. and then for any additional questions, we do have, two people with Kennedy Jenks here to answer any questions. so we did receive two, separate proposals for the pre-construction services for the filter rehab project.
one of them was from, Glacier Construction and the one that the committee ultimately selected, is Myers and Sons. let me get to I apologize.
Leah:
And Nathan, who's on the committee? Oh, Good question. So the committee was, myself. Jana, a representative from Kennedy Jenks, Greg with Craig Sacra. And why am I drawing a blank?
Describer:
This is a full color presentation with many graphs, tables and not much text that can be copied and shown here. Here is a quick Summary. Myers & Son's pre-construction services quote total is $115,140. Glacier CMGC's service quote is $99,902.
Nathan:
Oh, just the three. Yep. Just the three? Yeah, just the three. Yeah. So the three of us did their. Did the review of the proposals. ultimately they were they were relatively close in comparison. Myers and Sons actually did have a, slightly higher total cost for their similar pre-construction services. with Glacier, there were a few issues that all of us kind of identified that didn't make us entirely comfortable.
One, they hadn't exactly met the requirements in the pre-bid documents like we had outlined. They weren't, they didn't give us exactly the project comps that we were looking for, specifically projects over $6 million. They didn't outline those very, very well. and then a couple of the line items in here. Bear with me. they had to do with the,
Oh, over here on the side. So Glacier had outside of, like, the overhead and profit the material and the click, equipment markup. They also had a self performance. Here. Let me zoom in a little bit here. I apologize. They also had a self performance, markup as well as material mark or material and labor mark up there were a little bit difficult to compare head to head when I called the glacier to confirm, that they did indeed have this kind of like it, the self performance, whatever it was.
listed for 11%. They were it applied to the entire project. And so one of the thoughts that we had was with these kind of two odd markups was like, well, maybe this one applies to this portion of the contract, and this one applies to this portion of the contract. And it was in aggregate. So it was basically a 22% overhead markup that they were going to see across the entire contract.
the the main difference in the price point wasn't really that heavy between the two. Myers and Sons, is it? 115 140 Glacier. was around like 111, I think, somewhere in there. Keep looking over for Kennedy Jenks again. The head nods. Oh, perfect. Thank you. He's got it. So Glacier construction came in at $99,902.
Myers and sons was the 115 140, but it was really that the profit margin on the future services that drove us to this one, along with Glacier not meeting the RFP requirements.
Tera:
So Glacier put on a 22% markup and was lower. No. Yeah.
Nathan:
So the 22% markup would have been in addition would have been basically on the costs outside of these services.
So the yeah, the next cost once we start going to construction and building phase.
I was curious about that because haven't we done haven't we selected, done work with and selected Glacier in the past. We have. Yeah. So Glacier built lift Station nine, which wasn't one of our contracts that was done by the developer. and then they've done two separate capital projects that the treatment plan, those were outside of Cmmc contracts.
So, so very, very different in terms of the approach. Those were typical design, bid design, bid build contracts.
Tera:
So it really had more to do with that. They had not met the requirements. And your perspective in many ways.
Jana:
Yeah, absolutely. I think so. From reviewing them, the Myers proposal had more relevant project experience. So that's the the key point.
So maybe Glacier has done work with us, but relevant to what we're looking for. Myers met a better it was a better proposal. And I think all three people on the committee came to that independently, too. both could do the work. and I would feel comfortable with both of them doing the work. But the whole point of the RFP process is to score them based on what they're presenting.
And Myers presented more of what we were looking for.
Nathan:
Yeah, I do have the, I didn't want to trap you guys in scrolling. but. So these are the numbers on the glacier proposal that I was talking about. So it was this 11% profit and 11% overhead. That was along with the 15% self performance fee. so these are the two fees that were in aggregate, 21 to 22%, which the other contract did not have or proposal rather.
Jason:
All right. And anybody else have any questions on it?
Jim:
Just to clarify, you talked about nonconformity and then we talked about some of these additional fees or built in sort of profit. But I'd be interested in what was it then if it is a non conformance because that word was used and I just didn't know what was identified as a non conformance.
Nathan:
The the biggest one was that they didn't submit enough, enough projects that had the markers that we were looking for. So capital C, MDC contracts that were in excess of $6 million, they didn't submit those comparables.
Jim:
Perfect. Thanks.
Jason:
Okay. Any other questions? All right. do you want to make the motion?
Tera:
I move, that the board of directors adopt the recommendation of the proposal review committee to accept the proposal of Myers and Sons Construction, LLC, submitted April 10th, 2025, for pre-construction services under the construction management. General Contractor RFP advertised by the district. And authorize Manager Travis to sign and issue the notice of award.
Board Voting All Speak:
I'll second. Okay, great. Having a second. We'll go to vote. Jim. approve. Tara. Hi, Jenna. Approval. You approve? I approve as well.
Jason:
So the motion carries and we will close up item 13 and move on to item number 14. The district manager report Nathan.
Nathan:
How's it going? before I dive in, were there any specific questions the board had about my report that aren't listed on the agenda?
Leah:
All right. No specific questions I would ask, if possible, to just kind of summarize and keep it high level. And then if there are additional questions, we can go into more detail.
Describer:
On screen: Pine Ridge Subdivision Groundwater
Last fall, residents in this neighborhood notified us that several home homeowners were reporting unusual sump-pump activity. After several weeks of researching, and initial indications showing that there were no system leaks, our leak detection contractor did find a leak on an irrigation service line. The leak was repaired, and an insurance claim was paid to cover some homeowner costs, and engineering fees the HOA incurred. CPNMD has been notified by the HOA that two of the homes have seen similar sump pump activity start again.
In response, I sent the same leak detection contractor QP Services) that found the previous leak to the area to kick off our annual system-wide leak detection program, and no leaks were found.
As a cautionary measure, I had them re-check the area a second time 4/18 & 4/21 and confirmed that there were no detectable leaks in the area. This included checking water meters for flow, and no leaks were found on area service lines either. I also had our operations staff test the water coming out of the sump pumps, they didn't find any chlorine.
However, given the recent history in the area, we are getting a third survey done by another company.
American Leak Detection has been scheduled to be on site 4/28/25 at 10:00am to do one more survey to triple-check the results from QP Services.
In the meantime, I have offered to set a meeting with all relevant stakeholders but have yet to receive a response from the HOA to set a meeting. I have informed Sigler Communications of the issue, and they are working on some draft communication to the residents of the HOA, pending the results of the upcoming leak survey.
Nathan:
Absolutely. so the first thing that I wanted to talk about is the Pine Ridge Pine, Pine Ridge subdivision. Groundwater. This is a neighborhood that you guys might remember.
We're seeing increased usage and there are increased flow from there. Sump pumps. after a lot of research, we were able to find a leak, a few weeks ago, that water came back when I started into two of the homes that started. See that same sump pump running? my report is already a little bit outdated as of today.
We were able to find a leak with a third with a third party. So we've got ourselves the company that we've used, previously. And then one came out. So we did identify the leak. We're going to look to repair it tomorrow or Wednesday. And so we'll be moving forward on that front. There is a lot has been a lot of back and forth and communication with the Pine Ridge neighborhood, their attorney, and we're hopeful that we're going to be able to resolve the issue, to make sure that we try and regain some of that goodwill.
I've also engaged Sigler Communications to draft a response to the residents and kind of keep those communication channels open.
Any questions about Pine Ridge Subdivision? Groundwater?
Jason:
I think we're good. Thank you.
Describer:
On screen. Lift Station Rehab program: Plan set A – Lift Stations 1, 2, and 5 has been advertised for bids and bids will be opened on June 17. Plan set B – Lift Stations 3, 4, and 7 is at 90% design level. Site applications for Lift Stations 3, 4, and 7 are in review with CDPHE. We are hopeful that we will have final approvals for plan set B next month.
Nathan:
So for the lift station renovation project, we are I do have a substantial update in there. We are, getting ready to receive bids for the plan A set. So, the bid has been advertised, and we have a bid opening scheduled for June 17th for the plan set B or phase B?
we're just in a holding position with the state, waiting for them to get back to us and, give us our site application approval so that we can get that one moving. So that'll that project is on its way.
Jana:
Okay. Wait. I want to dive into this one. So this is the lift station rehab program plans at a.
That's the one that it's going out to bid or it is.
Nathan:
It's been it's already been posted. And the bid opening is scheduled for June 17th.
Jana:
Okay. And then plan B will go out. I'm just making sure I follow this. That's going to go out after.
Nathan:
Correct. So open. Yep. And so we're that's the one that we're still waiting for CDP approval.
So once we get that will release the bid documents and schedule an opening.
Jana:
Oh okay. I'm following. Thank you. Nathan. Sorry, sorry. I was still..
Leah:
I'm slow to know what one thing that would be helpful is if, like, the updates were in the same order as the agenda. because I feel like I'm kind of scrolling up and down.
So which section are you talking about right now?
Nathan:
Item B.
Leah:
Yeah, because I don't have a item B. I also don't have page numbers on your previous. I do not necessarily. So anyways, it's just really hard to follow your, your updates. I don't have page numbers, I don't have item numbers. And I can't find a heading that tracks to the update that you're giving.
So which one is it?
Nathan:
Lift station rehab program. It's under the capital tools. I can make sure it's under Capital project. Yeah I can, I can I can index those differently.
Leah:
Thank you.
Describer:
Board Members speaking off-mic trying to explain to each other where the manager is on the agenda packet.
Nathan:
Okay? yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, website Ada compliance. This is also this will be on page 84, under this heading. So this is where we need to probably make more of a decision as a board. So along with the work that, Sigler is doing, with their audit, we have a huge number of PDFs that are currently hosted on our website.
Those need to be posted in an accessible format. Unfortunately, the cost to have an outside contractor come through and do that work is nearing right around $11 a page. especially when, like our individual board packets are 99 pages long, there's really just not it's I don't see the board may feel differently adjusted for justification to spend that kind of money going back on like 30 years of information on PDFs.
The way that most districts are handling this is they're just pulling the vast majority of those PDFs off and just leaving. What's requirement required to be amended, which would effectively leave us with, you know, required financial statements, audit statements, board meeting agendas and minutes. The best way that I can handle, that I can see handling things like the board packet, which we've been posting for the better part of a year now, or I think maybe even over a year would just be add a line on our website that says that those are available if somebody reaches out to us.
overall, it really is unfortunate that just because we were districts all over the state have worked really hard to get all of this information up, and a bill that is.
Leah:
Yep. So I think I would I would be supportive of that. my question for Paul would be like if we pulled them off the website and we hosted him somewhere like, I'm assuming we would have to host them somewhere else to be legally compliant, right?
Paul:
Yes, because they would have to be available upon request from somebody who does have a disability.
Leah:
Yeah. I think, it's a short bullet, right. It at a time. And that works for me.
Tera:
Is there any way that we can make I know because again, I'm. It hits a balance. We'd like to be transparent. So is there any quick and easy way to make on a weekly basis for our not a weekly, but a monthly basis for that particular meeting to be able to access it? I mean, I don't know, what does the city do?
Without it being in a PDF form?
Nathan:
Yeah. I'm not entirely sure what the city is doing with it. I have had some conversations with them around it, and I don't necessarily feel comfortable disclosing some of those approaches. in terms of the agenda and the, minutes, those are relatively easy and quick to go through.
There's an application you can do inside of Adobe that allows that to happen, not so much with pages that have complex graphics board packets and and the rest of them.
Jana:
I have a quick question to add to this, because I just thought about what about manuals? Like when I go to C-Dot's website and I download their huge spec book, how is that supposed to how are they supposed to handle that?
Or, I mean, any manual, you know, stormwater drainage, things like that, that I go to the website and I get the new current copy.
Nathan:
I don't know what the state's doing. A lot of districts are pulling those back. So one of the things we would pull off of our website is our rules and regulations, design specs. Those are all things you're going to we're pulling all those things off color because they're huge documents that would cost.
Jana:
Are you going to add to that Paul.
Paul:
Yeah. districts across the board are pulling all of these sorts of documents. And like Nathan mentioned, it is unfortunate. but it's a yeah, it is the most cost effective way to deal with having all of these documents. We're being required to be in an accessible format on the website.
Jana:
and, well, the only other experience I have is, open records request, you know, like we're referring to, but that's usually for, like, tedious paperwork that's not going to go to the internet anyway. It's not for spec books. So that's kind of crazy. Okay.
Paul:
Yeah. So many districts are going barebones with their with their website now
Jana:
and then what about, when we bid stuff, you know, that's going on Rocky Mountain ebid.
Is that how we bid or stuff.
Nathan:
We do bidnet. I'm not entirely sure what the impact will be on the site.
Paul:
It shouldn't be any impact to the district. The district isn't hosting that. Right?
Jana:
Okay. So okay, so we don't have to think ahead of Will because that's PDFs too. And how are we going to get our bids out there if we can't do PDFs.
Paul:
You're not you're not hosting that can't. That's not within your control.
Jana:
Great okay. So we're is still big the same way. Okay.
Tera:
I agree with what Leah said. I mean, I, I can't responsibly say we would spend $11 per page of for all of the PDFs that we have. I think we just follow suit with what's been done by the other districts, because that's just not a good spend of our residents. Money.
Jim:
I mean, is there I mean, are you available upon request in that convert it? I mean, is there a way we can kind of find a middle ground here that if it's not available document and we indicate we're not going to convert it and it's not compliant, is that allowable or is that not possible?
Paul:
No. that's not that specifically is not allowable.
The the line here is that if a document is is in active use, meaning the district uses that document, it's in its current operations in some way. So rules and regulations is a good example, right. that has to be accessible. So even if it's available upon request and documents in active use would still have to be in an accessible format.
If they're not an active use then they wouldn't be. Does does that answer your question?
Jim:
Yeah, I think so. So we we can still store those someplace. And you know, it's just historical data that we're not interested in converting. But somebody might have a request. You know, it's not in active use, but it's a historical data. We just keep it and they can request it.
Paul:
That's exactly right. Thank you.
Nathan:
And we we could convert a document that came up in a direct request if we're just doing it kind of in and out as near as needed basis as well.
Eric:
If I may add to this, I have some I have a lot of familiarity on this topic as well. even though it may cost $11 per page, sometimes they're easy fixes, but then again, all the vendors that are currently doing the services for special districts are backed up considerably, so we can't even be held to an accountable time frame to get any documentation out to the website.
a lot of districts have posted a notice on their website saying we are doing the best that we can to abide by this, and I believe the date the state even shifted the deadline back. Is that correct call?
Paul:
I thought it was still July 1st. Is July 1st okay? It is July 1st. Excuse me. All verify that.
Eric:
Okay. Thank you.
Describer:
On screen. JAM Ranch Inclusion
Jam Ranch has indicated that they would still like to pursue inclusion for Wastewater services only, a
meeting has been set for April 28th to discuss this. Due to the renewable water requirement set by
CPNMD, they have indicated their intention to form their own metro district for water services. The
meeting will be attended by legal counsel, district engineering, JAM ranch representatives and myself.
Nathan:
All right. Thanks, guys. I will, get Sigler, and I'm moving in that direction. All right, so the last thing I have that on the agenda tonight is the Jam Ranch inclusion. So, they have come back to the district after some back and forth and ultimately decided that because of our renewable water regulation or requirement that they do not want to include for water service, they do still have an interest in including for sanitary sewer service only.
There's a few different ways that we could approach that. that meeting is scheduled for. It actually got moved. So, my report, it says a 28th. That meeting's actually scheduled for tomorrow. Now, to kind of talk through some of the availability and the options that they might have. I would kind of like to get a feel from the board's thoughts.
historically, we haven't ever allowed a partial inclusion. there are also some other hiccups with that. You know, they're they're planning on still building the, subdivision on nonrenewable groundwater, just doing it by forming their own metropolitan district, which we would all which we will be opposed when they start to go putting in, apply for their well permits.
Pretty much anybody that's around them is going to oppose those applications. So it is a little bit of a sticky process. I don't need any answers now, but just something for you guys kind of think. Consider if you have any additional questions. reach out to me and I'll have an updated a more comprehensive update after we meet with them and kind of see what they're looking for.
Jason:
I thought we didn't even have access to this land without going through the ranch next to it.
Nathan:
Correct? Yeah. And so that would all be things that the developer would have to figure out how to figure out how to do.
Leah:
I think you kind of indirectly stated it, but would love to hear your recommendation for the board.
Nathan:
Yeah, yeah. So my recommendation here would be that we ultimately don't, do inclusion. We still are legally required to allow them to go through the process if they wish to do so. I don't really see an advantage to a neighboring district popping up under renewable groundwater supplies, and then us moving to support them with one hand and saying, yeah, yeah, you can include for sanitary services.
And then on the other hand, objecting to their, well, application permits.
Tera:
Why would we want to handle your waste?
Jason:
Okay. Any other questions for Nathan?
Jim:
Just in round numbers. If they had to build their own wastewater facility. What kind of acreage, Square foot, you know, does that involve? And, what kind of money do you think that is? Just based on kind of what we've gone through in the past couple of years, just doing upgrades and cleanups.
Nathan:
For a wastewater treatment plant.
They're probably depending on the ultimate size in their build out. They're probably looking at about like 10 to $20 million in an absolute minimum. There are some package plant options available. The bigger hurdle there isn't necessarily the construction costs. It's getting a wastewater discharge permit approved at the state. That process is very, very, very backed up from the state perspective, ten, ten plus years in some cases to even get those approved.
Jana:
Who are they adjacent to? Forgive me, I don't know.
Nathan:
So this is at the, south of the roundabout at Happy Canyon. And, LeGay, there's a Vickers property to the south of that roundabout, and then they would be the next property further south of that.
Jana:
So who would it make more sense for them to pursue inclusion with the village?
Yeah. And the village has also the village has already turned them down.
Okay.
That was like the first question when they came to present is I mean they're literally hundreds of yards from that facility, you know. So it's from
Tera:
from the village and from the pipeline that already goes down Happy Canyon to the Plum Creek wastewater treatment plant.
Yes. Correct. Yeah. Correct.
Leah:
So and why did the village turn them down? Do we know the same reasons that we didn't look at them?
Nathan:
They don't want to expand their, obligation to to provide nonrenewable water. All right.
Jason:
Any other questions for Nathan? Okay. Hearing none. We'll go ahead and close out. Item number 14.
Paul:
I would like to add, just very quickly, I had previously mentioned that the tap fee bill that was under consideration with the legislature, that may change these sorts of conversations going forward.
If districts are required to provide service in the event that they do have capacity, we may be having a different conversation at some point down the line. Or maybe the other district is having a different conversation with them some point down the line, but I just wanted everybody to be aware of that. And if that bill ultimately does pass, so I'll give an update to the board.
Leah:
Sorry, Paul, to validate, are you saying a bill may pass that would force us to include with them if we have the capacity?
Paul:
That's right.
Leah:
So then why would we set a renewable water requirement if we can't.
Paul:
Well, that's that's an argument that you don't have capacity. I mean, this is still a bill in the legislature. It's being it's being modified.
Who knows what the practical effect of this will be. it's better to have it, you know, if you do need that renewable water requirement. and we also, we propose that before this bill is even being considered,
Jason:
All right. Great. having item number 14 closed out, we'll open item number 15, and I move to enter executive session to conduct a contract negotiation pursuant to sections 402, parentheses three, parentheses eight and 402 parentheses four parentheses E parentheses one of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Do I hear a second? Second having a second. We'll go to vote.
Board Voting All Speak:
Jim. Approved. Tara. Hi, Jenna. Hi, Leah. Approve? I approve as well. We'll now move into executive session.
Describer:
On screen: The CPNMD Executive Session Slide.
Paul:
Okay. We have exited the executive session and, everything within the executive session was within the bounds of sections 403 A and 441 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.
Jason:
Okay. Thank you.
Tera:
So we are entering back into our regular meeting.
Jason:
Correct. And I'm going to open up with item number 16. Consider approving the district manager's employment contract.
Tera:
So I will make a motion to I move to approve that. We approve the district manager manager employment contract as presented with $155,000 salary.
Jim:
I second okay, having a second.
Board Voting All Speak:
We'll go to vote. Leah. I vote no. And, my rationale I shared with Nathan. So, Nathan, I would be supportive of a salary increase, assuming that we see changes, in the behaviors that we talked about. Jenna. Nay. Jim. Approve. Sarah I and I approve as well. The motion passes. We will go ahead and close out item number 16 and move on to item number 17.
Jason:
Director's matters. Do any of the directors have anything to talk about?
Leah:
I do have something that I would like the board to consider along with Nathan. perhaps in an upcoming study session or a board meeting. in industry, it's very, very typical to have a succession plan, for executives. And so I would love the board, in collaboration with Nathan, to talk through what a succession plan would look like, if he were to be incapacitated or leave the district or terminated.
I think any time a district has a single point of failure, that's not a good thing. and again, I would love that to be in collaboration with Nathan and thinking through, like, what could have our options be if something were to happen?
Jason:
Yeah, I'm in favor of that as well. Do we have one existing already? Oh, no. Okay.
Jim:
Yeah. I am also in favor of that. And that was a an issue I brought up during charter commission with Michael Penny. and I didn't really get a satisfactory answer, so. Yeah, that's that's something I think that is worth talking about now or in the future, probably now would may not be fair to do it right now, but it's it's something that, you know, we should probably socialize.
Jana:
I think it's something for future for sure. Yeah.
Tera:
Because I'm in favor of it. But I would like to see it in, like, I don't have any idea. Priorities. What what priorities are and where that would fit into that. So yes, I think it's a great idea. It would have to I would like to see it in context of priorities.
Jason:
That's great. Does anybody else have any ideas? Okay. Hearing none, we will adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Thank you everyone.