Work Session
May 19, 2025
Transcript
Describer:
Work Session
Monday, May 19th, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. 7404 Yorkshire Drive, Castle Pines, CO 80108
I. Call Work Session to order.
II. Roll call.
III. Expenditure Requests.
A. Review: Filter Beds Rehabilitation Project – Phase 2 (Final Design) Proposal Amendment. Kennedy Jenks.
B. Review: Monarch Boulevard Water Line Replacement - Phase 3 Proposal for Professional Services. Kennedy Jenks.
IV. Finance Items.
A. Review: Monthly claims for payments made from April 19th, 2025, to May 13th, 2025.
V. Legal Items.
A. Review: 2025 DM Draft Contract
B. Review: Amended and Restated Resolution Delegating Authority to the District Manager and Financial Controls.
VI. Staffing items.
A. Discussion: Succession Planning & Staffing.
B. Review: Staffing Request, Field Services Technician.
VII. Adjourn.
Describer:
The video starts on graphic with a white background and forest green letters which says “Castle Pines North Metro District Work Session May 19, 2025”. The meeting opens on a shot of all board members present.
Board President Jason Blankaert:
Good evening and welcome to the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District. Work session. Today is Monday, May 19th, 2025. Just after 5:30 p.m.,
Board Voting All Speak:
we will call the work session to order and perform a roll call. Jim. Present. No conflicts.
Describer:
Something is dropped, board members were startled, all laugh.
Jason:
Oh. Well, no.
All right. Leah. Present. No conflicts. I think Jana's online present. No conflicts. Perfect. And I am Jason present with no conflicts. We're missing Tera tonight. We will go ahead and close out, roll call and move on to our first item. Expenditure requests. We are going to do a review of Filter Bed Rehabilitation Project phase two final design proposal amendment by Kennedy, Jenks and Julia Lund.
Julia, are you with us?
Julia Lund, PE Principal Deputy Project Manager Kennedy Jenks Consulting:
I am, yes. Hello. Hello. Thank you for joining. You're welcome.
Do you want me to lead off? I have not attended a work session before for a review of the proposal, so let me know what you'd like me to do.
District Manager Nathan Travis:
Yeah. Julie, if you just want to give kind of a quick overview of what the proposal is and then give the opportunity to ask any questions I have, okay.
Julia:
Sounds great. So, is sharing on my screen important or do you have that as a part of your report packet.
Nathan:
It is in the board packet.
Julia:
Okay. Sounds good. So we have already started working with your team on the filter beds rehabilitation project, to support you with getting a CMGC contractor on board. So this proposal is an amendment to our existing project for the design phase.
We also already completed the preliminary design. so this would be specifically for 60% design, 90% design and final design. and what we are covering in this project is really the development of approximately 60 drawings and about 55 technical specifications to support the project. this is again the filter bed rehabilitation project. So we're rehabilitating that filter under drains and the media, as well as some of the appurtenances, like providing new air blowers for air scour of the filters.
Describer:
On screen:
PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
In February 2025, Kennedy Jenks completed a Preliminary Design Report to document the basis of design for the Project. In parallel, Kennedy Jenks has supported the District with the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) procurement process.
Based on the Preliminary Design Report, Kennedy Jenks understands that the following design elements are to be incorporated into the final design of the Filter Beds Rehabilitation Project :
1. New media based on the summary of findings from the pilot study (Green Sand Plus with an Anthracite Cap)
2. Replacement of the existing underdrain system with a new low profile underdrain system that supports the new selected media.
3. Replacement of the existing mechanical surface agitator with an air scour system to increase backwash efficiency.
4. Replacement of air delivery system for the new air scour system and modify ventilation of blower room as needed.
5. Replacement of the backwash collection troughs.
6. Repair of concrete inside each filter as needed.
7. Updates to filter control strategy for incorporation into existing SCADA system.
8. Replacement of grated lower floor access with solid removable system compliant with CDPHE requirements.
9. Installation of corrugated roofing where former skylights were located.
10. Installation of new protective coating on the upper and lower level plant floors, including filter galleries, pump and pipe gallery, hallway towards chemical feed and chemical feed rooms (excluding bathroom and recently coated workshop).
11. Installation of new raw water influent pipe inside of the existing building with a static mixer and dual plumbed chlorine injection point.
Packet Page 2
12. Installation of a new static mixer in the filter water line with dual plumbed chlorine injection point for disinfection ahead of the clear well.
13. Corrosion and structural improvements within the WTP as identified in the preliminary design report.
14. Assessment of addition of sloped floor topping to improve drainage in WTP building and design
of topping (if deemed feasible) around filters and in pipe gallery.
15. Modify air conditioning condensate drain line in the new workshop room to avoid draining over the Rapid Mix Tank.
16. Demolish unused portion of pad in electrical room.
17. Modify piping on pump air relief valves to route to floor trench.
18. Modify plant overflow pipe to lower invert closer to floor.
19. Project will utilize KJ CAD standards, title block, front-end sheets, standard details, and drawing
templates from the Preliminary Design.
Julia:
And we've also included some other miscellaneous items that we identified through a site walk with Nathan, such as, improving the drainage on the floors in certain areas of the water treatment plant, some AC, condensate drain line changes and other miscellaneous items. so we have here again, 60%, our drawing list specifications. Then we'll progress that to 90% after review by the district and the contractor.
and then we'll proceed to final design.
and then for a regarding the schedule, this we've already started working on the 60% design using some of our remaining budget. so this would cover 60, which is going on right now. and then we anticipate the final deliverable in October. wanted to make sure this is aligned with your shut down your water treatment plants shutdown schedule.
Describer:
On screen.
Task 4.2 – 60% Design Drawings
Kennedy Jenks will prepare the 60% design drawings based on the upgrades identified in the Preliminary Design Report. Kennedy Jenks’ anticipated drawing list as shown in Table 1.
Anticipated Drawing List
Headings: Sheet General G-001 to General G-009 then Demolition DM-101 to DM-106, their Titles, and all are Included in the 60% Design Milestone
GENERAL
G-001 COVER, LOCATION AND VICINITY MAPS, DRAWING INDEX
G-002 GENERAL ABBREVIATIONS
G-003 GENERAL NOTES AND LEGEND
G-004 GENERAL EQUIPMENT DESIGNATIONS AND PROCESS IDENTIFICATION CODES
G-005 GENERAL PROCESS SYMBOLS
G-006 PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
G-007 DESIGN CRITERIA
G-008 HYDRAULIC PROFILE
G-009 OVERALL SITE AND KEY PLAN
DEMOLITION
DM-101 BLOWER SYSTEM DEMOLITION
DM-102 PIPE CORROSION DEMOLITION AND REPAIR
DM-103 RAW WATER INTAKE PIPE DEMOLITION
DM-104 FILTERED WATER PIPE DEMOLITION
DM-105 FILTER BED DEMOLITION PLANS AND SECTIONS - I
DM106 FILTER BED DEMOLITION PLANS AND SECTIONS - II
Jason:
Nathan, this is, is this in line with everything we've been expecting so far?
Nathan:
Yeah. So this is directly in line with what we budgeted for this year as part of the total project expenditure. Right. But we were expecting to see.
Jason:
And so we're going to do this and beginning in October once we go back to, Centennial Water.
Nathan:
So the construction, the physical construction will begin in October. this is for largely the, Seemar contract that we have signed with Myers and Sons. So we'll have our kickoff meeting for that. next. I can't read June 2nd. We'll have our kickoff meeting June 2nd. So this will kind of be the progressive design phase, pre procurement leading up to construction, which will begin when we shut down the treatment plant.
Jason:
All right. Does any of the other board have questions?
Board Member James Mulvey:
yeah, I just had, a couple of simple ones. the task 4 deliverables to the task, five deliverables at 60 to 90%. Could you, it's. I'm not sure if the drawings are going to be complete at 90% or the drawings aren't completed until final phase. and I. Is there going to be, you know, I'll call the design review and task five one for those drawings.
Like, do you produce those and show them to us? It seems that way, but I'm just not clear on it.
Julia:
Yes, absolutely. So we'll develop the 60% design drawings, which are most of the drawings. A couple like specific details may be turned in later, but most of the drawings will be developed to a 60% level, which depends on the discipline.
So some of them like process mechanical, will be more final. Others may be at a, you know, more like a 50% level. But we'll submit drawings that are, in development. And then at 90%, we're pretty much done. But we do want feedback from the district and contractors. So 90 to final is really buttoning up any remaining items.
And every time, yes, we'll produce a full set of plans, for review by both the district and the contractor for input.
And that's for the drawings and for the specifications. we have five technical specifications that we're submitting early for an early works package. We want to prepare, procure some of the elements early because of the schedule, the long lead time. and then we're submitting the full spec package at 90%. And then, you know, any tweaks for 100%.
James:
Okay. Thank you. and one final question I had to do is services not included? Gosh, where is it, destructive analysis of concrete walls and then hazardous material assessments. what's the path forward for those two items?
Julia:
So I think what we're planning to do is to work with the contractor under their contract, where they are going to do any testing of both the structural integrity of the concrete as well as any hazardous material.
So that would be done under the CMGC contractors contract, not ours. Sometimes we do those services and we subcontract them out, but because we have a contractor on board already, it's best that they do that themselves.
James:
okay. Thank you.
Jason:
Jana, did you have any questions?
Board Member Jana Krell:
I do not, thank you.
Jason:
Okay. Great hearing no more questions. We will go ahead and clear out. item A review of the filter bed rehab, rehabilitation project phase two, final design. Thank you very much for your input. Julie or Julia? My fault. Excuse me. We'll go ahead.
And now move on to review Monarch Boulevard waterline replacement phase three proposal for professional services by Kinetic Jenks with Lisa. Lisa, are you with us?
Lisa, you might be muted.
Lisa Schwien, P.E., Project Manager, Kennedy Jenks Consulting:
That I was there you go. Turn on my video and not my microphone. Hi, everybody. Thank you for joining. Yes. No problem. so yeah this the next proposal is for a waterline design. replacing those same, main water lines at, you know, this one would be for the, the work would be in Castle Pines Parkway and Monarch mainly.
Describer:
On screen:
A road map of the intersection at Castle Pines Parkway & Monarch Boulevard
Lisa:
And then south in monarch south of Castle Pines Parkway in monarch. to replace some valves that aren't working properly anymore and also install, I think, 2 or 3 new ones. there's an exhibit map attached to the back that kind of shows exactly what's going to be done, but it's basically, trying to, connect that or that new 12 inch waterline we did in Castle Pines Parkway, a few years ago, and the new Monarch Waterline that we worked on last year.
the work in the intersection hasn't been completed yet because the city had already replace of the pavement. But as you guys know, valving needs needs to be replaced. Piping needs to be replaced, because of some issues that have happened lately. So this would be design. we went straight to, I think, a 90% design. That's pretty straightforward.
Describer:
On screen:
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The proposed scope of work for this project is based on our discussions with the District regarding the project. It is our understanding that ESI will be performing the work as an extension of the Monarch Water Line Phase 2 project. The scope is divided into five phases: Project Management, Design, Bidding, and Construction.
5. 90% Construction Plans: Prepare construction plans to include the following sheets: cover, general notes, water line plan sheets, erosion control plan, and details. Plan & profile sheets will not be included.
6. Project Manual: Prepare front-end contract documents and technical specifications.
7. Agency Reviews: Submit 90% plans to the District and the City for review. Coordinate with each agency and provide additional information as needed.
8. Address Review Comments, Prepare Final Drawings: Incorporate comments from agency reviews and internal QA/QC reviews and coordinate final (100% design) plans.
Lisa:
We'll replace the, the pipe, parallel to the old pipe, and then the old pipe will get abandoned in place. so it's pretty straightforward. We're just going to do plan view. one nice thing about waterline is you can make field adjustments with, alignment and grade. So we're going to, just do plan view to make it a little, a little quicker.
And, easier. And then the, the contractor can go out and do potholing and, and, we'll work with him to come up with the final alignment and profile and, get all that pipe replaced and all the valves. so they're working properly. so we went to 90% and then I think we had yeah, we do have bidding in here.
Describer:
On screen.
Construction Phase
11. Pre-construction Meeting: Conduct meeting at the District office. Distribute plans and prepare meeting minutes.
12. Review Shop Drawing Submittals: Review shop drawings submitted by the Contractor (water piping and related material). We estimate a total of four (4) shop drawing submittals, plus 1 re-submittal.
13. Pay Requests, RFIs, and Change Orders: Review Contractor Pay Requests, Review and Respond to Requests for Information (RFI’s) and Change Order requests. We have based the estimated hours for this task on two (2) pay requests, four (4) RFIs, and two (2) change orders.
14. Part-time Construction Observation: Kennedy Jenks will perform part-time observation of the water main replacement. We have included 15 site visits at 4 hours per visit for a Field Specialist. We have also included twelve (12) hours for the project manager or staff engineer to attend construction progress meetings.
15. Punch Walk and Punch List: Conduct an initial walk-through at the completion of construction and prepare a punch list of items to be completed by the contractor. Following completion of the punch list work, conduct a final punch walk to confirm completion and acceptance of the project.
16. Record Drawings: Prepare record drawings based on the Contractor’s redlines and include construction field notes, name of contractor that performed work, and date work was completed.
17. Project Close-out: Prepare acceptance and start of warranty letter following completion of the project.
Lisa:
but this, hoping to tag along on one of the city roadway projects and use their pipeline contractor like, like we've done on monarch, possibly with ESI again, and then also has construction phase services in the proposal. so we'll provide part time construction observation, review shop drawings, pay requests, RFIs change orders, things like that.
produce final record drawings and then, just help close out the project. But, Nathan already kind of went through and with us came up with, you know, some preliminary alignments and, and all of that stuff. So you can see that on the little drawing that's attached. And then we also had in here, the compensation and a proposed schedule, which we weren't really sure if we would do this work, with ESI this year after they're done with the last phase of monarch, or if it would happen possibly next year when the city gets back in to work on Castle Point Parkway.
Describer:
On screen.
A pipeline drawing of the intersection at Castle Pines Parkway & Monarch Boulevard
Lisa:
so that's kind of to be determined.
Do you guys Nathan, do you have anything to add on that one?
Nathan:
Yeah. So the the primary purpose of this is to correct the valving and isolation issues we had that caused the boil order and then also prevented us from being able to immediately isolate the break that we had a couple of months ago.
Jason:
Seems like every time we dig into that area, something is comes up that wasn't supposed to be there or doesn't work properly or something like that.
What kind of mitigation plans are we making?
Nathan:
So the first thing that we need to do is actually let me get the map back up.
Describer:
On screen:
A road map of the intersection at Castle Pines Parkway & Monarch Boulevard. Nathan is moving around the map near the intersection describing what needs to be done.
Nathan:
So one of the key things that we need to do is make sure that this neighborhood right here is properly looped. the issue that we have, and this is going to be corrected in the next month or two, is that this connection as shown right here was actually never made. So we're doing some potholing to try and find out what, if any, portion of this line was actually installed.
this was a preexisting stub. we do think it's there. There are way too many utility conflicts to go dig this up and try and put it here. There's a row of trees and some other stuff. So, that's kind of our first line of defense against the mitigation. and really just limits the number of people that we have to take out of service.
With that in place to, to do this, we should be able to do it without taking anybody out of service. and so the next thing that we're going to do, I have to pardon me for bouncing back and forth here.
Describer:
On screen:
A drawing of the intersection at Castle Pines Parkway & Monarch Boulevard. Nathan is moving around the map near the intersection describing what needs to be done
Lisa:
Yeah. So that connection has to happen before we do the work in the intersection of Monarch and Castle Pines Parkway.
Nathan:
And so we have already installed, two line stops here. So those aren't exactly valves, but they're basically points where we can stick a balloon in the water line. And so that's going to allow us to isolate this in the way that we haven't before. And so we'll also install one more line stop to the south so that we're not relying on the valves that have caused us so much problems.
So those will be the first thing. That line stop will be the first. The second thing that goes in after we loop that neighborhood. And so we really do have a pretty good hold on how to get this thing isolated to allow us to go through and replace these valves and add a couple of additional ones. That's
Jason:
sorry, just one more question.
what was the timeframe are we looking at for this?
Nathan:
We're hoping to get it folded into the contract with ESI. So if we can get design done, come to an agreement with the ESI, get continue, get the same pricing that they're getting on the rest of the water line. We'd like to do it this summer. after that, we would have to either, do a traditional bid process and do it on our own, or wait until next year to fold it into the city comm, the city project for West Monarch.
Lisa:
Castle Pines Parkway (correcting Nathan)
Nathan:
Castle Pines Parkway? Yep. Thank you.
Board Member Leah Enquist:
Two quick clarifying questions for the work. I'm guessing we're gonna have to dig up the new road.
Nathan:
Not the not the new road that was just installed. But we'll have to dig up the intersection of Castle Pines Parkway and Monarch. That was done about four years ago.
Leah:
Oh, okay.
Okay. and then when we finish the rest of monarch, are we replacing water line under that stretch as well? We are. Okay. And when is that supposed to start? June 2nd. Okay. So we would do both of them at the same time. Ideally,
Nathan:
as part of the same project. Yeah. So the idea would be that the contractor, when they're waiting on roads and can't do water line, that we'd like to be able to move them down to the intersection.
Thank you. okay.
James:
Question. you mentioned in abandoning abandoning the existing pipe in place, which means that you'll be by definition, it sounds like you'll be digging up and will be laying the new pipe directly adjacent or over the top of the existing pipe. Is that true or not? True? Adjacent. Yeah. Adjacent. Yeah. Okay. what's the downside of doing that short term and long term?
I could think of something long term. But you know what? Safeguards precautions are in place to allow us to do this successfully and not damage the existing water pipe until we're ready to turn on the new water pipe.
Nathan:
So we're we're well outside of that alignment. And so we're going to be connecting to existing alignments in Castle Pines Parkway and Monarch.
We're 15ft away from the existing water lines. Okay. Not really conflict there. Okay. the long term down, the long term downside, the long term downside is primarily that we're responsible for knowing where these utilities are in perpetuity. So locate request those things come in. We're going to have to locate the abandoned lines because of the way that they were installed with originally installed and with a bunch of new utilities that's been put on top of them, it would cost an insane amount of money to actually get those things out of the ground.
And so we'll just have to be know that they're there and make sure that we locate them.
James:
Okay. My question I appreciate that was a great answer. But also as this pipe is ductile iron and it's old, well, it's 40 years old has last longer is what I'm my understanding is. But as that pipe collapses in the ground and or fails locally or globally, is there any risk to us and the utilities that you just said potentially or above us?
I'm just wondering, you know, if there's any problems that we're potentially creating into the future, you know, by leaving it in place and that removing it and or filling it.
Nathan:
Yeah. Yeah. pipe failures can cause like, that can cause localized to, like depressions in the, in this particular case, the existing line is behind curb. So if we have a pipe fail and it starts to take on soil, we'd probably just have to dig it up and cap the ends of it.
we can look, we haven't done this with the other phases. but we could look at doing, like, a slurry, like a slurry seal or a slurry fill. So you can do your level best to try and pump as much concrete or flow fill or fill into them to kind of prevent that long term. But again, it's it's pretty costly to do that.
James:
Okay. Yeah. I'm not saying to change the past we're doing. I just want to understand what risks there is that we're sort of buying into, by not, you know, either removing it and backfilling or doing something like pumping it full of slurry and letting that harden in place and that kind of thing. So all right,
Lisa:
I, I will say the the failures that you guys are seeing are very, very specific locations where you get like a pinhole.
because maybe the poly wrap wasn't around the pipe correctly, or maybe there's a service tap or something. So they're very like localized failures. where obviously we know there's an issue, but it's not a structural failure of the pipe as a whole. I think overall the pipe structurally sound for a long time to come.
Jason:
Jana, did you have any questions?
Jana:
Oh, yes, I just unmuted. I wanted to, specifically say that this is really standard practice. So abandoning a pipe in place to me, the biggest frustration is what Nathan hit on is that when you, you know, 50 years from now, go to dig up the road. If it's not located, you know, construction stops while you find out what that pipe is.
And so, you know, because this happens all the time, is old pipes abandoned and nobody knows if they are anymore. As long as they're located, it's okay. But, the any failures like, sinkholes, that's really uncommon also. So localized, but also uncommon. So I do want to say this is very standard practice and, not not anything I don't do on a regular basis.
And I wouldn't recommend flow filling it because I don't think that it's necessary for a pipe like this. So.
Lisa:
I will, also with the district's GIS system. So nice now because we can keep all the information in one place, and we actually take those existing pipes and move them to a layer called abandoned. And so they don't leave the system, they stay in the mapping system, and they just show up as a gray color.
so the guys can see that they're there and they can locate them. Mark them.
Jason:
Wonderful. Thank you. Does have any other questions or not seeing any? We will go ahead and close out this review of the Monarch Boulevard waterline replacement. Thank you very much, Lisa. Thanks, guys. Next, we'll move on to, finance items. Our first, agenda item is to review monthly claims for payments made from April 19th, 2025 to May 13th, 2025 with Molly.
Hi, Molly.
Describer:
On screen:
Castle Pines North Metropolitan District Disbursements Summary
For the Period April 19, 2025 - May 13, 2025 PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
CHECKS - 29150 through 29186 Amount
Voucher Checks - April 19, 2025 - May 13, 2025 $675,751.31
One-Time Checks - April 19, 2025 - May 13, 2025 $649.20
TOTAL CHECKS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW $676,400.51
ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS
April 19, 2025 - May 13, 2025 $97,182.09
TOTAL ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW $97,182.09
Total Payments Presented for Review $773,582.60
Molly Janzen, Accountant:
Good evening. starting on page 28 of your packet, the first page, you will see a summary of the checks and the electronic payments. that were made in this time frame, $676,400.51 and checks, electronic payments, $97,182.09 for total payments of $773,582.60. The next page provides the detail around the electronic payments that 97,000 and then the following pages that you have.
You see the individual disbursements that make up that 676,000.
And I won't go into specific items unless the board would, would like me to answer any questions or have any questions for Nathan.
Leah:
I have a quick question. maybe for you, Nathan. I forwarded you a bunch of emails about, like, accounts. Are are those spam or are those for real emails?
Nathan:
Okay, yeah, they are for real emails.
They're for one of the multifamily units that we have, there's, a property management firm that appears to use some like, offshore, kind of like backfill for their payment services. And so we get that kind of batch of confusing emails about once a month.
Leah:
Do you get them as well? I do, yeah.
Nathan:
So I get them Susan gets them okay.
Leah:
For I just noticed that they were to the board and thanks.
Molly:
If no one has any specific questions on the disbursements, I just point out that we also provide in the packet, we layer in the financial control matrix based on your financial controls policy that I know Paul's going to go into some suggestions for, for changing that policy, but we also try to provide context for the disbursements so that you can see that we're considering that policy when we provide the information to you.
Describer:
On screen.
Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
Financial Planning Calendar - 2025 Table
Column Titles include:
Month, Work Session date, Board Meeting date,
Finance Process Overview - Work Session,
Board Meeting Topic,
Board Meeting Budget to Actual Date,
And Financials Statement Date
Starting in
May Work Session May 19, 2025
May Board Meeting May 28th
Finance Process Overview - Work Session
Mill Levies, Assessed Valuation and §§ 29-1-1701 to -1705, C.R.S.
Implications / Qualified Property Tax Revenue Board Meeting Budget to Actual Date Mar 25th
Financials Statement Date March 2025 Financials
June Work Session June 16, 2025
June Board Meeting June 23rd
Finance Process Overview Accounts Payable, Transactions, Payroll Process Budget to Actual Date April 2025
July Work Session July 21, 2025
Finance Process Overview Budget Process - Work Session, Overview of District State Compliance Calendar
July Board Meeting July 28th
Board Meeting Budget to Actual Date May 2025
August Work Session August 18, 2025
Finance Process Overview - Work Session Utility Billing Process
August Board Meeting August 25th
Board Meeting Budget to Actual Date June 2025
Financials Statement DateJune 2025 Financials
September Work Session September 15, 2025
Finance Process Overview - Work Session Rates & Budget Work Session
September Board Meeting September 22nd
Board Meeting Budget to Actual Date July 2025
October Work Session October 20, 2025
Finance Process Overview - Work Session Budget Work Session
October Board Meeting October 27th
Board Meeting Topic 1st Budget Presentation
Board Meeting Budget to Actual Date August 2025 with Budget
November Work Session November 17, 2025
November Board Meeting November 24th
Board Meeting Topic Budget Adoption
Board Meeting Budget to Actual Date September 2025 with Budget
Financials Statement Date September 2025 Financials
December Work Session December 29th
Board Meeting Topic If Needed
Note: Assumes Bill Pay Cycle is on the 25th of Each Month (1x Month) & Budget to Actuals Presented Monthly
Packet Page 48
Molly:
And then finally on page 48, just the financial planning calendar that we we try to keep up to date and provide to you. we will be providing March financials, next week for the board meeting. And included in those march financials will be projections for the year. So this will be the first time that we will be providing the board.
a look at what we think the annual, results will be. Again, it's only first quarter. So those results, those projected results will change as we move throughout the year. But it will give a little bit more, information to the board next week. So we're excited about that. we also have been providing the auditors their the information they need.
So they are, going to be working on the audit over the next few weeks. So it's a busy time that way. Any questions on any of our planning, financial planning?
Jason:
I just have one question. the, GSC construction, on page packet, page 44 at the very top. We're at $142,827 as a percentage. How much of that is, how much does that represent for that project?
Describer:
On screen. Cash Disbursements Journals. This is a grid with lettering to small to describe.
Nathan:
We are at about 98% on that one.
Jason:
Okay. Thank you.
Molly:
and we will be continuing to provide additional reporting, such as capital projects reporting, so that you can get some context around monthly expenditures also as you move throughout the year.
Jason
So great. Jana, did you have any questions? None for me. Very good. The rest of the board, any questions? Hearing none. We'll go ahead and close out. Item number four, the financial items, and we'll move on to item number five, legal items.
Our first, item is to review the 2025 district manager's draft contract with Paul Hi Paul.
Legal Counsel Paul Polito, Esq.:
Good afternoon. Board. if you want to see a version of this contract that has all of the changes on it, that's on packet, page 49. That hurts your eyes a little bit. There's a clean version on page 58. As you're looking through this, the red is essentially all changes that I've made.
Describer:
CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
DISTRICT MANAGER EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This District Manager Employment Agreement (“Agreement”) is effective the 1st day of
May, 2025, by and between Castle Pines North Metropolitan District (“District”) by its Board of Directors (“Board”), and Nathan Travis (“District Manager” or “DM”).
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Board desires to continue Nathan Travis’ employment as district manager
of the District pursuant to §32-1-1001(1)(i), C.R.S.; and
WHEREAS, DM is willing to serve as District manager of the District for the term and
under the conditions set forth herein:
Paul will explain the agreement.
Paul:
the blue are, proposed changes by Mr. Travis. So the at the last meeting we had, the board agreed on, on a couple of changes to the contract, those changes being the inclusion of paragraph 11, which which, goes over the return of district property, and then we amended the scope as well. those were the two changes that the board requested.
and that paragraph 11, clarifies that, if the district manager is terminated for any reason, he shall promptly return all district property. And then it identifies, what that property entails, but not limited to. And then the, the scope is on packet page 56. And this has been amended to actually reflect what the current duties are.
there are also a number of other changes in this contract, as you've noticed, I'm sure. so as I mentioned before, Mr. Travis has some proposed changes that he wants. he would like the board to consider, and I'll, I'll go through them here. Just on high order. number one is a clarification of the of the scope of employment.
Leah:
Hey, Paul. Sorry. I think before you jump into the changes, just, a comment for me. And I emailed Paul and and Kim and Nathan. my understanding was that in our last session where we all reviewed the contract and collectively came up with edits, my understanding was that the purpose of this meeting was to review those edits that we collectively agreed upon.
So having gone through this contract and and seeing some of the changes that Nathan proposed to Paul directly, I think they they change the contract like enough to where I would consider like if some of these hold, renegotiating some of the terms. But just in general, I feel like from a process perspective, like that's not negotiating in good faith.
And so I'm just wondering if it makes sense to consider having some type of process. and this is tied specifically to the district manager contract. I know there's other contracts that, you know, Paul collaborates with Nathan on, but for his actual employment contract, like after we collectively agreed to things and then going directly to the attorney and adding stuff in, after I thought our negotiations were finished.
I just don't think is an ideal practice, but maybe it's just me and I. And am I the only one who had that understanding?
Jason:
I kind of understood. This is we we propose something and Nathan is countering it. Now we're looking at the draft complete because we haven't signed anything yet. So this is still part of the negotiation.
Leah:
Got it.
Okay. And then so when we met in the session, last meeting like that wasn't the counter.
Paul:
it was a counter. Yeah. Okay. You know, but yeah. Like, like you said that it wasn't signed. This is a back and forth. We can we can adjust the process if you like. I'm not sure. Off the top of my head what that would what that would really look like for a, for a board to weigh in on this, it would have to be at a public meeting.
We can do it during an executive session as well. And we can set one up for next meeting if you'd like. But it's hard for me to imagine how we wouldn't accomplish this. not at a board meeting without violating open meetings laws, which is. Which is why it's up for discussion today, because there's really no other way to do it.
you know, there the board could appoint a committee. They could create a committee and then appoint committee members to review the changes and, and come to the next work session. Frankly, I, I don't I wouldn't recommend it. I don't think it's necessary. I think this can be accomplished through board discussion. if if it's a sensitive topic, we can do it at an executive session.
Okay. But this is a this is a typical procedure for for how these things go. that said, again, if you don't like the process, we can appoint a committee or executive session. Something along those lines. But yeah.
Leah:
No. That helps. Thank you. And I'm with you. Like I wouldn't want to add complexity where we don't need it.
I think for me, I just maybe misunderstood the purpose of the last meeting. So. So I was just surprised.
Paul:
I know, and I think it's a fair comment, though, you know, we. Yeah, we've had the changes and we left, but, you know, Mr. Travis looked at those changes. He had a little bit of time to, digest it and think about what other changes he would like to make.
And, and so, you know, it's within the board's purview, you know, to, to make any of those changes that it wants. And that's, you know, that's what's up for discussion today.
With that said, I'll, Sorry, sorry about that.
Jason:
He's asking if you have any more questions for us.
Leah:
No. I'm good, but it looked like you were going to say no. I just going against background check because that was. I know what you're thinking. I could see how that was misinterpreted. But yeah, this is not a done deal at all.
So, you can definitely make your voice heard today. Yeah. And my apologies if there was any confusion on my end.
Leah:
No, it's it's the first time going through it. So my first time. So thank you.
Paul:
And and none of this is intuitive. So it's all made up. so if you look at paragraph one, I don't think this really materially changes the contract itself, but, you know, Mr. Travis, do you want to include some language that that clearly denotes, what his duties are?
And he tied it to, specific things, the agreement itself, the scope of work for the agreement. And section 1.3 of the of the employee handbook. just to tie the the requirements to something tangible. it it clearly notes what his duties are. paragraph one a is, is a similar, edit I don't think it actually changes the substance.
It just sort of, clarifies what the prior agreement was saying. paragraph three are changes that have already been agreed to at the last session,
Leah:
although those are open for negotiation today. Right.
Paul:
Well, I want to say those were approved. Those changes alone were approved at the meeting because we wanted to reflect the salary increase. For May first, you I mean, everything's open to negotiation.
Leah:
Well, so here going back to my earlier point, like we agreed to a comp and a salary. Now I'm seeing additional what I would call benefits that Nathan added into the contract. Had I known I could have potentially impacted comp numbers. Right. So like if Nathan is asking for more and we're going to be giving more, I want to make sure that we have the flexibility to dial back certain things.
Paul:
That's certainly a fair point. my suggestion, my recommendation would be to have that discussion today and, and determine whether these additional changes warrant that. Fair enough. Yep.
Describer:
On screen.
Paragraph 4. Board Project/Expenditure Approval Process. The District Manager shall present all
expenditure requests required to be approved to the Board at a work session to be
addressed at the next regular meeting. Expenditure/contract requests shall include:
Packet Page 69
a. A thorough description of the need and proposed purpose for the expenditure:
b. Alternative means to address the need, or a justification as to why no
alternative means are provided;
c. Alternative proposals and/or pricing options and a discussion of the preferred
option, or a justification as to why no alternative proposals and/or pricing
options are provided; and,
d. A discussion of whether and how proposed project/expenditure fits into the
Board’s long term planning considerations.
Under paragraph four, it explains, certain benefits that the district manager is entitled to.
Leah:
So for. Sorry, I made I made a lot of notes. no feel feel free to interrupt. Perfect 4, 4 a shall be entitled to all benefits generally available to district employees. To me, that seemed to be really broad and ambiguous language.
And I mean, the other thing that I thought through was if Nathan is in a different like, class, I mean, I don't know. I just know, at least for my company, like managers, and individual contributors are of, eligible for different types of benefits. And so I would be worried that if an employee has a certain benefit, it may not automatically be available to Nathan.
And I don't think this piece kind of provides that type of protection. so I would love to see that reworked,
Paul:
more specifically defined as to the exact benefits that he's receiving. Would that, would that, provide more comfort?
Leah:
Yeah. I think before it was like it was referencing benefits that were in the actual handbook, but otherwise, like I would be comfortable spelling out the benefits that he is currently eligible for.
And I don't like leaving that wiggle room for like, future benefits to come. I think if that were to be the case, then I would want to discuss and negotiate those separately.
Paul:
Absolutely. I can I can certainly make that change
Leah:
And the rest of the board. Like if you guys disagree or have concerns with any like, I mean, feel free to to jump in.
Jason:
So, just real quick because it's caught my eye. Since we're on the subject, the handbook was adopted in 2002, 23 years ago. Been a little while. Can we have to take that on and have a look at that and probably revise it a little bit?
Nathan:
Yep. So we, for, 4a the only thing that I changed on this one was that I added that the handbook may, as the handbook may be adopted and amended.
So that's the only change they made. The reason that I made that change is because we're currently working through employers council, to do our handbook update. So we're waiting on, formatting and I'll bring that to the board for approval in June. But it's undergone an HR review and a legal review at this point.
Jason:
Perfect. Could you, provide the old manual to the board?
by next, by next meeting?
Nathan:
yeah. So I'll present, the new manual track changes kind of similar to what we're doing here, along with the old one. It's mostly legalese.
Paul:
Okay. And so, that was paragraph for a for the benefits. I will make that change to, to clearly spell out what the benefits are. 4B is, vehicle stipend of $800, C is, district shall pay, reasonable expenses incurred by the district manager for any sort of registration, travel, lodging, that's associated with, with certain training seminars and conferences.
provided that it's approved in advance, by the board and it's included within the budget. And it does, lay out a list of approved conferences within that paragraph as well. And then 4D regards the, the district's payment of the district manager's memberships and certain professional organizations. and there are again here to a list of, pre-approved groups.
And again, please feel free to stop me at any point as I go through this. paragraph five is is performance reviews. I've got feedback on this one. Yep. Absolutely. yeah. Feel free.
Leah:
so a few things. And I don't know what the right answer is. I do think it's helpful to have something in there around performance reviews.
in terms of the following areas, it's really unusual to have that level of specificity. And I would say two things. One, that I don't think the district manager should dictate to the board how we evaluate him. and two, were this board to change, I would want them to have the flexibility to evaluate Nathan in a way that is meaningful to them.
and, and this is like our first time trying this. Right? So these, these topics like accomplishments, ops like that was just a starting point. I would hate to have to like, revise this if we have to like I want to give us the flexibility to keep it very general instead of like listing out the specific sections. That's, it.
Paul:
Sorry. Yeah. absolutely. I think that's certainly fair. Does it does it change your opinion on it? If this is at a minimum, the following areas that, that the board should address, or do you want more flexibility than just this being a minimum requirement and add are you saying that that's a little too constraining and you just would like a little more general rules?
You know flexibility and this just doesn't need to be included.
Leah
Yeah. Me personally, I think even at at a minimum is probably and again, just trying to think through future iterations of the board. and I would just say something like to like really high level to evaluate the performance of the district manager.
Jason:
Jana, did you have a question?
Jana:
Yeah, I was I was going to say I support that too, because I don't want to lock us in to anything, even at a minimum. Because what if, you know, we we decide we want to evaluate on different criteria.
Paul:
Okay. So I can I can edit paragraph five to, to make it much more general to where it's just more of an annual review requirement and the board can come up with, with whatever criteria it chooses.
Leah:
And then just, another piece of feedback to make it accurate. it says with each review, due on the anniversary of the effective date of this agreement. So as you guys might recall, this year we're a little bit off cycle. and next year, the timelines are all going to be shifted forward. so if we say, like the effective date of this agreement, that would be May, but ideally that would be in what, December or January.
Paul:
And we did discuss that a bit. we didn't want to put the next review date too soon. we wanted we figured, you know, if we give it a year, and, you know, starting from this May date and it'll just be a year in between every time that said that it's whatever the board would like, it can be January 1st.
Jason:
So I am sorry. I have one thing to say about that. so the elections, a new board would sit and if it gets elect, if there was an election, there would be elected in May and sit in June. We would probably want the review to go to the board that sits in May, because they will have had that person's history, versus just give me a few months.
Leah:
Yeah. So I don't know. Yeah. I don't know how
Paul:
in that instance it might make sense to put it that January 1st so that it's not near an election, because if it's in May, it depending on the timing of the meeting itself, we'll no it's the fourth Monday. So it's a it's close enough that, I don't know it.
I don't know when one board would be in another one. I don't know if I don't want to rely on a schedule within a month. If you put on January 1st, you know what board is going to be there. I think it's the cleanest way to do it. and I think it was discussed. It was I don't know if we ever came to a clear, you know, conclusion on the but we can certainly put a January 1st.
Leah:
Yeah. Let me I was going to look at the old timeline and again, like, we haven't. We haven't done like the regular review cycle like this year but I yeah. So I'm just looking at my notes. The goal was to, to approve the district manager contract in the January board meeting. And so that would actually be like towards the end of January.
Paul:
Okay. So. So you think January 31st or maybe tied to the first meeting in January.
Leah:
Well, yeah. Or. Yeah. I don't know if there's a way to like take the date out and tie it to an event. I think we can like the, like the January board meeting, the first regularly scheduled board meeting in January. Yeah, something like that.
Paul:
Yeah, yeah, we can do that. Okay, so I will I'll change that, to January and I'll figure out what kind of makes the most sense.
Leah:
And I would hope that this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone. But that final paragraph around, if the board does not complete the annual performance review, then its performance is deemed satisfactory and he gets a raise.
Guys like that's not a thing like that is not an industry standard thing. and I don't think it is appropriate here. I feel very strongly about this one personally.
Jason:
Jana, do you have any questions?
Jana:
No, no additional questions.
James:
Very similar. And again, this was, you know, I don't know the history of this, but we we have and benefits for see, we have a list of conferences that are sort of enumerated there. I think it's five total. Maybe this copy is a little different. What kind of time is devoted to going to these conferences per year?
Nathan:
So each one of these conferences, is about a week long. My intention with this suggestion wasn't to say that, I would never be able to go to this many. We don't we don't fund enough for me to go all and go to all of them. these are fairly industry standard ones. There's a couple that I can't really avoid going to, and it was more to save the board time on an annual basis.
And allow me a little bit of scheduling freedom to pick the 2 or 3 that I'm going to go to. And I would still be subject to board appropriation, but also not have to bring the same request up every year.
James:
Okay. much the same way of I mean, does this lock us in, pay? Is there anything here that I mean, I understand we have to approve the funding for it in the district bus budget, and that would be a yearly thing.
but is this something that, you know, it should be such as, like an example versus an enumeration of, you know, five different conferences? I don't have any a problem with going to any of them. I'm not even saying that. But just language wise, does it create some sort of conflict or expectation, budgetary and or personnel wise?
Leah:
Well, and to your point, like what if they change the name of the conference of if there's that as well? Sorry.
Paul:
it does create budgetary. It would need to create a budgetary item for it. it does specify here that it is only for, payments expenses included within the budget itself. So it does have to be pre-approved within the budget.
but yes, it would be a budgeted expense. Okay.
Nathan:
And to that, to your point there, I also certainly don't want to. The other side of that coin is I don't want to be locked into a requirement that I go and attend all of these conferences that I can't reasonably get to.
James:
Well, it's even simpler than that.
It again, conference changes names. It goes away, it morphs into a different industry group and or whatever. And then we have some silliness with this contract that didn't need to happen. I mean, to me, I don't have a problem with enumerating that, you know, potential for five contracts or, excuse me, conferences such as, to be approved by, you know, the board.
That's all I'm saying is just, again, very similar to the review process that we just kind of talked about, we're like, it feels like we're locking something in. And I don't think that's the in your intent or anybody's intent. But if we're going to enumerate something, it creates in my mind an expectation of, you know, you're going to this year, there's an expectation that you go to this or it changes names in the future, and then we end up with some silliness.
It's not in the contract, you know. It's just like, that's all I'm saying.
Paul:
I think I understand the statement now. yes. I think that's a great point. We can we can include it so that it's conditional language to where you're not locking into certain expenses. So yeah, I can absolutely make that change
Leah:
And and Jim I would think that would also apply to D as well.
What. Which is Like a memberships. Right. So, so yeah. Where it's maybe like such as versus locking into those memberships.
James:
Yeah. And don't get me wrong, I think those are appropriate and normal. It just it may create a conflict in the future. That's all. Absolutely. I have been a member of multiple industry groups that literally have disappeared and or changed their names every 3 to 5 years.
They, you know, some more new and interesting name they pick.
Paul:
So that's fair enough. The intent here, was, was to include, specified conferences so that we wouldn't have to come to the board at another work session or meeting or whatnot. But certainly fair point. So I'll make those conditional to where it's not tying the district to anything.
Jason:
going back to, going back to least Leah's question about, the, the annual reviews.
I see what she's getting at. you know, I, I see both sides of this. I see where the district manager doesn't want a board, just not to review them, not to give them an answer one way or another. If he's going to get a raise that year, not, how else could we accomplish the same thing with, with maybe giving the board a little bit more time to do the review than 30 days, maybe a 90 day review in 90 days time frame?
Leah:
but but again, like that, that's a in my experience, working with vendors over different time like that is not a typical thing to put in there. Like if they don't get a review, they automatically are deemed satisfactory and get a raise. and and so I mean, we could put in the contract that, you know, the board should complete a review within blah, blah, blah days, but, I wouldn't I don't feel comfortable keeping kind of the satisfactory part.
And, and the salary there or like the automatic increase in salary.
James:
kind of agree. And I think now that we've kind of gone through this process, it was a little bit bumpy this year, admittedly, because there's a lot of other things going on, I think 30 or 60 days for a review process is is reasonable, and we should be able to get that done going forward.
I don't, you know, automatic things.
There's something about that that bothers me as well. and it may not, it may not be fair to you or, you know, you know, or the process to kind of make it automatic. It really shouldn't have something hanging over it. but we should do our very best. People deserve to get reviewed every year. Absolutely. it's it's proper and it's normal.
And I think we can accomplish that on a going forward basis without what we experienced this year. you know, this year, in a word, I think was terrible because we were trying to do too many things at once. And, you know, you hadn't been reviewed in a in a couple of years. And I think, you know, it wasn't fair.
but at the same time, you know, we all we all bear some responsibility to that process. but I think going forward, I think we understand what our duties are as a board. And we understand your expectations. And, and we also have expectations of ourselves to make sure that that happens every year in a timely basis. So I think putting a time period here is fine, but our automatic thing may not be fair to you.
and I personally never seen it, you know, have something like that happen. I mean, unions negotiate contracts for yearly increases, but not something like this. This is just a little strange, if you ask me. Sorry.
Leah:
And as you were talking, Jim, the other thing that I was wondering is like if we have board operating procedures or something, because to your point, like, I'm okay being held accountable to do a review, because it's a standard part of doing business and I support it, and it's, I think it's helpful for the board.
It's helpful for you. So I'm okay being held accountable to that and some type of 30, 60 days, whatever is maybe like an SOP, right? Standard. But but this weird accelerator again like I don't support it.
Paul:
Any other comments from the board regarding the automatic increase? Proposal proposal?
Jana:
I'll just add in that I that I think that, with Jim and Leah on, that we need to hold ourselves accountable to do it. That's part of part of what we need to do as a board, but that I don't support an automatic, satisfactory carte blanche raise.
Paul:
So so it seems we have a consensus of no automatic increase. I'll tie this to a 60 day period. with with no automatic increase involved.
Jason:
Okay. Thank you.
James:
Yeah, yeah. just a final comment there. Just trust us to get it done in a timely basis, and we will. Okay.
Paul:
Okay. paragraph six. regards. termination specifically 6A we had included that additional paragraph in red that you're seeing, there was a request to to slightly edit that, from a condition where the district manager is offered, employment with another entity upon inclusion, to the district manager accepting full time, non temporary employment with the entity.
The reason for the change being if there was a position that was offered to the district manager, that was a much lower position, or maybe it was a temporary position on be filled for a certain amount of time. I personally didn't think that captured the intent, so I agreed with the change. you know, intent being that if, you know, if the district manager position is eliminated because of inclusion or some other means similar to inclusion, this this protects the district manager in that event.
So the district is included and he's offered some much lesser position or a temporary position. that wouldn't fit within this paragraph. He would have to accept full time, non temporary work. That's the reasoning for the change. Are there any questions about that change?
Leah:
one quick one that makes sense. I don't remember how it was written before because it's a new fit, but yes, like the intent wasn't like if you're offered a position, you don't take it like you don't get right severance.
Paul:
and the wording was, is offered. you can see right there in the, on the bottom right that will comment below.
Leah:
Oh yeah. Okay. So that makes sense. I was wondering about the non temporary like because again that seems a little ambiguous. And so right like I feel like I understand the intent. But like if you accept a full time position and then you leave in a week like or can you say that wasn't temp like it was, I don't know.
Paul:
No. At that point he accepted it. He accepted a full time as if there's no time limit on the offer itself, then it's a permanent position.
Leah:
So how does, The way our contract is structured with Nathan, does that make him
Paul:
a permanent? Okay. So. Okay. Yeah. yeah. Temporary employment would, would just very simply be you are employed for this amount of days and then you're not, you know, you you're you're employed with the, with this newly included district for six months while we get up to speed.
And then we don't need you anymore.
Leah:
Because part of the reason I'm asking is from an earlier conversation with Kim Seter, he had said something to the effect that Nathan is not a permanent employee of the district. He is a contract employee of the district. And that your legal firm very consciously constructs, constructs, agreements. That way. And so I'm just again wondering if that is too ambiguous.
Paul:
I don't know what the context of the conversation was. I don't know if he was talking about that. Well, employment or whatnot.
Leah:
He's talking about his contract.
Paul:
Yeah, yeah. we can I can clarify this, to to make it. I'd have to think about it. But, you know, I can clarify it to make clear that, you know.
It is a permanent position in some way. I'd have to think about how to word that, to be fair. Yeah, I don't know also would
Leah:
I mean. I mean, and I've, I've been on multi-year engagements and, and I'm referred to as a contract employee. Right. Because like I have a so again, this is more probably like in the like legal definitions of what those things were.
But just thinking about that conversation with Kim, yeah,
Paul:
I can I can revisit this and, and I'll talk about it with Kim too, just to see what, what the context exactly was there and make sure we're not missing anything. but I'll, I'll, I'll clean this up in some way. I can clarify it.
Nathan:
But we and this is more for Paul.
We do have through our contract with the state's employers council, we have a set number of legal hours, specifically included for employment law. I could also run it directly past them since it's their specialty.
Paul:
By all means, absolutely. Yeah. Thank you for that.
Okay. That brings us to paragraph seven. Which is resignation. and you can see the deleted language on that, comment bubble in the right. this I adds the proposed condition that, if if the district manager does resign, the district is responsible for the payment of salary and benefits, for the eight weeks, if he gives an eight week notice.
Resignation. he still do those eight weeks following his notice. That way the district manager doesn't get penalized for for giving notice.
Leah:
I was gonna I didn't say I didn't understand, like, the deleted language and the revised language. I was like, I can't tell the difference between the two, but eight week notice is a pretty big notice period.
Like, do we have the option? Like if he says, I give eight weeks and we say two is good, like, do we still have to pay the eight weeks
Paul:
if if you only need him to continue working for two weeks, would you be on the hook for the eight weeks? Yes. Yeah.
Leah:
So I would prompt the board to think through like I always write in 30 days, like eight, eight weeks is
Paul:
I will say this is something I've noticed, particularly with district manager contracts.
It's arguably the most important position in the district. on the flip side of things, you know. Termination of the district manager. Well, a lot of these a lot of these seems to have pretty long tails on them is, I guess, what I'm trying to get at. a long notice period seems to work on, on both ends.
So that's when I saw it. I it didn't really give me much pause because I've seen such long notice periods with district managers because they, they run the district. and it's hard to find it's hard to find other position, you know, people to fill that position. that was my understanding of that.
Nathan:
And so this is this is fairly standard.
So this is the same clause that I know that Michael Penny has. It's the same clause that we carry with, West Martin. something else to keep in mind with that process is because I, my position is directly hired by the board. That does tend to lengthen things out a little bit, because either I have to have special meetings or that.
So the eight weeks is is fairly standard.
Leah:
Yeah. I mean, it's if everyone else is fine with eight weeks,
James:
given our timetable and how we meet and notice, I don't really have a problem with that either, you know. Yeah, it's a little unusual, but I think it works in our context.
Jana:
So. I'm fine with it. You board, I have. No, I, I can understand the reason behind it.
Paul:
Okay. that brings us to paragraph nine. we're at. It's that we're already agreed to, during the last work session. There's been no change there. paragraph ten does include that additional, blue language there at the bottom, which specifies that that the reimbursement requirement, the educational reimbursement requirement, doesn't apply to any conferences, training units, or CLE's required to maintain professional licenses or certifications.
And then it does clarify that the certified Public Manager program is considered an approved educational course for that. in the context that provision.
James:
Okay, we get it back up on number nine. only it's a silly thing, but, tobacco products, my understanding is I don't vape or anything, but, many of those are nicotine derived from other sources, but not necessarily tobacco products.
If we want to really split it thin here,
Paul:
I didn't think about that. So I'll change that to nicotine.
Leah:
you know, you already know more about vaping than I do, Jim.
Paul:
Okay. does anybody have any questions on that additional language in paragraph ten,
Leah:
I. So the certified public manager program, are those the the like most recent classes? So when we had talked about that, my initial assumption was that they wouldn't fall under this new clause. So help me understand why they're required.
Nathan:
I had the exact opposite impression, so I just wanted to make sure that, I believe that was capturing the board's intent by including that as an educational course, separating it from my professional, my existing professional licenses and certification.
So if I did complete the, sort of certified public manager program and then left three weeks later, that the district would be do the full amount to send me to that program.
Leah:
Oh, okay. I don't know, maybe it was okay. That was it. I took away the opposite. So maybe just Paul, if you want to review that to make sure that that.
Yeah. Captures that.
Leah:
Yeah. I was just confused by that is considered an approved educational course for the purposes of this provision. So when I saw approved educational course, my assumption was that it was, like it wouldn't be subject to reimbursement.
Jason:
No we included all education under that reimbursement, I was we included all the educational reimbursement under that clause that it has to be with purpose. And, if he leaves within a certain time frame after that, it's reimbursable to us.
Leah:
Right. But like in that blue part, after the red part, it says this reimbursement requirement shall not apply to conferences or training units or continuing education courses required to maintain professional licenses or certifications relevant to their position.
So I see that as an exception sentence. and that makes sense. Like I can I understand the intent of that exception. But but then when it had the following piece after the exception language, I just assumed it was an exception.
Nathan:
So if we just swapped those two, does that make it read more cleanly? So rather than starting with this reimbursement requirement, if we just started with the certified Public manager program is considered an approved educational course, and then that goes directly to the educational reimbursement that defines the district pays costs for approved educational courses, kind of lines them up.
Leah:
Yeah. So when it says like the purposes of this provision, I was like like to me the provision is like multifaceted, right? There's like the first half of the provision saying reimburse the second half of the provision is exception language. And then it references a provision. But which part of the provision. Yeah. Okay.
Paul:
I can definitely see the confusion there. I'll make sure to amend that.
Swapping the two may I may indeed fix that. Okay. I don't know why it's not highlighted here. I may have accepted the change for some reason, but paragraph 11 is the return of district property. And that's, that's a term that the board wanted added. it just specifies that district manager shall promptly return all district property upon termination.
And then, as you can see in the scope of work on packet page 56 that has been amended to reflect the current scope of work within the district manager's job description. If anybody has any any questions on that, please feel free to ask.
Jason:
yeah. Going back to page 54, middle of the page signature page, my name is misspelled.
Nathan off-mic:
That's my fault.
Paul:
Just happy wasn't me.
As a small point, I've noticed that it's also misspelled there, and that that messed with me for a while. When I first started, I.
Nathan off-mic:
That explains A lot. It's only been three years.
Paul:
I don't mean to throw you under the bus on that one.
Nathan off-mic:
So I was actually I actually didn't order. Oh good.
Paul:
So I didn't then. Good. Okay.
Jason:
That Misspelled? Yeah. Blame him.
Nathan off-mic:
How do you feel about legally changing it?
Paul:
Well, unless anybody has any other questions on the district manager contract. that's it for for that contract. I will make those, those changes for the board's review at the next meeting. Okay, great.
Jason:
Any other questions? Not hearing any. We will go ahead and close out that review of the 2025 district manager's draft contract.
Describer:
On screen:
CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AMENDED AND RESTATED RESOLUTION DELEGATING AUTHORITY TO THE DISTRICT MANAGER
AND ADOPTING FINANCIAL CONTROLS
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, The Castle Pines North Metropolitan District (the “District”) is a
quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado, duly organized and
existing pursuant to §§ 32-1-101, et seq., C.R.S.
B. WHEREAS, The Board of Directors of the District (collectively, the “Board”), is
delegated the power to “have the management, control and supervision of all the business and affairs of the special district … all construction, installation, operation, and maintenance of special district improvements” including “entering into contracts and agreements affecting the affairs of the special district” and the power to “appoint, hire, and retain agents, employees, engineers, and attorneys” among other matters listed in § 32-1-1001, C.R.S.
C. WHEREAS, The Board is considering and developing various plans and possibilities to ensure sufficient clean and renewable water and sanitary sewer services will be
provided to its taxpayers in the future at the lowest cost possible.
D. WHEREAS, Pursuant to § 32-1-l00l(l)(m), C.R.S., the Board has the power to adopt, amend, and enforce bylaws and rules and regulations not in conflict with the constitution and laws of this state for carrying on the business, objects, and affairs of the Board and of the District.
Paul:
Which brings us to an amended, resolution adopting financial controls.
As the board may recall, we, the board passed a resolution, about 4 or 5 months ago. Now, that certain financial controls on on expenditures, made by the district manager after discussion with Mr. Harris. Mrs. Janzen, Mr.. Travis, we have identified some areas that that were worthy of clarification, some that, that we felt we wanted to change some of the approval amounts to actually make them a bit lower.
Describer:
On screen.
Paragraph 2. Delegated Authority for Non-Capital Project Contracts and Expenditures.
a. Expenditures below $25,001. The District Manager is authorized to enter into contracts for services and operational supplies, incur expenses, and satisfy obligations that will not exceed, when aggregated, the sum of $25,000.00.
b. Expenditures between $25,001 -- $50,000. The District Manager may enter into contracts or incur expenses that, when aggregated, total between $25,001 to $50,000. The District Manager shall report the transaction(s) at the next regularly scheduled monthly Board Work Session following execution.
c. Expenditures exceeding $50,000. The District Manager must obtain prior approval from the Board for any individual expenditure, contract, consultant contract, proposal, or purchase that may exceed $50,000 in the aggregate.
d. These limitations do not apply to expenditures to:
• address emergency repairs, replacements, and/or processes necessary to maintain clean, safe and efficient water and sewer services, including addressing temporary off-color or otherwise unpalatable water concerns, which shall be reported to the Board within 48 hours.
• purchase materials, labor, equipment, chemicals or items approved as part of a project contract approved by and signed on behalf of the Board.
• satisfy routine and recurring expenses, including but not limited to: utilities (e.g., electricity, natural gas, water, telecommunications, and other essential services); regular maintenance activities required to ensure reliable District water
and wastewater operations (e.g., valve, hydrant, PRV, ARV, generator, and blow-off maintenance; collection system inspection and cleaning; leak detection; and similar preventive and corrective tasks); and payments arising under existing contractual obligations previously approved by the Board (e.g., Plum Creek Wastewater Reclamation Authority (PCWRA) and Highlands Ranch Water agreements, or other intergovernmental
or third-party contracts).
e. Summary. A Summary of this approval matrix is available in Appendix A
Paul:
and we'll explain why. So the, the main well, the two major changes, well, I won't go ahead myself. The one the first major change we made here in paragraph two, this, delegates authority for expenditures related to non-capital projects. So, as you may recall, this is similar to what the board did previously in the prior resolution.
It's split the approval amounts between non-capital projects and capital projects. And with capital projects being being a much higher amount than the non capitals. So nothing here is really different than what it was before for these non-capital project expenditures. With the exception of that notification requirement in 2B before the notification was such that the district manager would be emailing the board within 48 hours, of incurring expenditures between 25,000 and 50,000.
We thought a cleaner, more repeatable way to do it would to be presented at the board at the next work session. so that way the board is considering all of these expenses. it's not anything that the board would have been approving anyway. It was only a notification. So, you know, instead of getting a bunch of different emails throughout the month, you're getting all the notifications at that work session where you can ask questions about them and, and whatnot.
the the second major change for the non-capital projects is under 2D, specifically that third bullet under 2D, we've included some additional, carve outs that, that the limitations do not apply to, Mr. Travis was finding that there were certain routine, recurring expenses that came up that actually may have required some sort of approval, but it was clearly something that the board would not want to approve.
And these are, you know, payments for utilities, regular maintenance activities and whatnot. So we've we've listed, we, you know, provided a lot of examples within that paragraph. Just to inform the board is to is to our intent here. I'll just stop there. If anybody has any questions about this part of the project, please.
Jason:
Yes. Go ahead Jana.
Jana:
Yeah. It's so minuscule, but what, is throwing me off is that it's $25,001. And why is it not just 25,000? Because my intent was always that he could spend 2499999 and 25 was the trigger because. So it's weird that that extra dollars in there, especially when it says the last part of 2A ends with 25,000. So I just feel it's inconsistent with those two numbers.
Paul:
But we can absolutely change that to 25,000. I don't know if there was any real discussion over among the consultants. between 25,000 and 25,001 there. I think that was a judgment call made at some point along this process. So we can we can change that to 25.
Jana:
It's really unimportant. But I'm used to contract languages cutting off at the 25,000 period.
Paul:
So yeah. absolutely. Fair comment. Yeah. okay.
Jana:
And yeah. So and that would carry through 2B as well or any place else, especially if we're rounding the rest of the numbers to be 120,000, 50,000. That one was an outlier to me. So no other questions for me. Right now. Okay.
Nathan:
And real quick, before we get too far along, I did want to call attention to,
Oh, where did it go? I was just looking at it. I had, d the first bullet at the bullet point. So we did leave that 48 hour notification in place specifically for emergency expenditures. just because that's something that I want to communicate to the board. Anyway. So we did keep that in there. It's for non-emergency expenditures that it refers to prior.
Paul:
Thank you for that. And to Eric and Molly and Nathan as well. You know, please, this is all of our projects as I'm going through this. And you have anything to add? please feel free.
Describer:
On screen.
Paragraph 3. Delegated Authority for Capital Projects and Expenditures.
a. Procurement and Change Order Thresholds.
• Projects at or below $120,000. Contracts for a Capital Project with an anticipated value not exceeding One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000) may be awarded by the District Manager without Board approval.
• Projects exceeding $120,000. Contracts for a Capital Project whose anticipated value exceeds One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000) shall be procured through a formal competitive bid process compliant with Title 32, Colorado
Revised Statutes, and shall be subject to Board approval.
• For Change Orders in Projects at or below $500,000. Change Orders for Capital Projects that are expected to be in aggregate greater than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), shall be subject to Board approval. If less than this amount, may be awarded by the District Manager without Board approval.
• For Change Orders in Projects greater than $500,000. Change Orders for Capital Projects that are expected to be in aggregate greater than Ten Percent (10%) of the original project, shall be subject to Board approval. If less than this percentage,
may be awarded by the District Manager without Board approval.
b. Expenditures.
• District Manager is authorized to incur expenses pertaining to a Capital Project less than $120,000, without Board notice.
• Once a Capital Project exceeding $120,000 is approved and any required procurement is completed, the District Manager may execute change orders, approve pay applications, and make all other disbursements within the Board-approved project budget without additional Board approval or notification.
c. Summary. A Summary of this approval matrix is available in Appendix A.
Paul:
paragraph three is really the the major changes that we've made here. So before it was tying expenditure approvals for capital projects to $2 million as, all the consultants were sitting in discussing this, an important point came up. There are bids for projects at over $120,000 that require board approval. Anyway, so if there are these bids going out for projects exceeding 120,000, they require board approval.
it makes sense to tie the expenditure request, to to that, $120,000. it is procured through a formal bid process and it's approved by the board. So we thought that made sense. we did clarify certain, amounts related to change orders. So if a change order for a capital project is greater than $500,000, and it's expected to be in the aggregate of greater than 10% of the project, that's subject to board approval.
If it's less than that, 10%, the district manager may award it for anything that's below 500,000. it's subject, to, to board approval. in the aggregate, if it's greater than 50,000, if it's less than the amount, then the district manager may award it without board approval. So those are those are the major change. We've we've pretty drastically changed the approval amount from 2 million to 120,000.
So we've we've lessened it quite a bit. and did include but you know, we did include that language for the change orders. Does any, any of the board members have questions regarding paragraph three?
Leah:
It's just wanting to make sure because that that is quite a shift down. Like, again, that the goal isn't to bog anybody down in administrative burden.
So just making sure that like that wouldn't you don't foresee that happening.
Nathan:
No. No. Yeah. Coming up you're going to get you're going to get every one of us tonight as well. you know, we don't have so many capital projects that it would be a burden.
Jana:
I want to add in that if we ever did decide that it was burdensome, Nathan, we could add in an amendment that said, for the 120, if you received three bids, then it still doesn't have to have board approval. It would only be if you did not receive three bids, because that's my experience with the council that I have to represent is if I get three bids, I get more flexibility because they trust that that is a good swath of, contractors out there.
But, I mean, I want to leave it like this now, but we could always consider that if that's that, if that's something that's too cumbersome, it sounds good.
Paul:
Just to make sure I'm clear on that. so anything that that gets three bids or less,
Nathan:
I don't want to. I don't want to change anything. Paul. Okay. I want to leave it. I want to leave the bullet as is. But what I was trying to tell Mr. Travis is that, Sometimes, if that does become too cumbersome, we can, give him some flexibility that if he opens three bids and he goes with the low bid and that's considered successful, we could go ahead and say, well, then you have our permission and support to look at that board approval.
Paul:
I see, I see okay. Thank you for that. Yeah. But I don't feel like we need to do that now unless the board is interested in adjustment. But okay.
Paul:
I think it's okay. That makes sense.
Describer:
On screen.
Paragraph 5. Capitalization Policy. The District Manager and Finance Director shall be responsible for maintaining a staff policy on the Capitalization of District assets. This policy shall be established to provide guidelines to ensure adequate stewardship over District resources through control and accountability of capital assets, and to collect and maintain complete and accurate capital assets information required for preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Included is guidance in identifying, capitalizing, depreciating, and accounting for District capital assets.
Paul:
So those were the those were the major changes here. There was a, capitalization policy that was added as well here in paragraph five. if anybody has any questions. Right, I'll probably ask Mrs. Janzen or Mr. Harris about that one.
Leah:
The capitalization per.
Molly:
yes, we we have been working on a capitalization policy for the district.
One of the, items that the auditor's always look at is capital assets. And so in order for us to evaluate, purchases to distinguish between capital and non capital, it's, it's good to have a policy. So that's why we've been developing one. We have it drafted. We've all agreed on it. But we thought it was important to just reference it in here since especially since the policy distinguishes between capital projects and non capital.
Paul:
And that about covers the changes. anybody has any questions about this resolution as a whole. you know please feel free to ask.
Jason:
Hearing no questions, we can go ahead and, close out letter B and close out, item five and move to item six, staffing items with Nathan Travis, first discussing succession planning and staffing.
Describer:
On screen.
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Nathan Travis, District Manager
DATE: 5/19/2025
SUBJECT: Business Justification – Assistant District Manager Position
Overview
To ensure leadership continuity and foster diversified internal skill sets, I propose the creation of an Assistant District Manager position. This strategic role will serve as a key support to the District Manager while helping to strengthen leadership capacity and technical oversight across the organization.
This position would replace the Operations Manager role that was originally budgeted for this year.
Anticipated Annual Budget Impact
Based on the AWWA compensation survey for mid-sized utilities serving populations of
10,000–24,999, the following budget impact is projected:
• Salary: $120,000 – $145,000
• Benefits: $21,000
• Vehicle Stipend: $6,000
• Training, Cell Phone, & Other Costs: $13,000
• Total Annual Cost: $160,000 – $185,000
Need for Diversified Skill Sets
As a special district managing water resources, water treatment, wastewater collection, various infrastructure projects, and community engagement, CPNMD requires leaders with multidisciplinary expertise. The scope of operations—including capital improvement planning, environmental compliance, interagency coordination, and public
communication—demands a diversified leadership team.
Nathan:
Sounds good. you guys have, in the packet, a business justification for, an assistant district manager position? I am not, looking to seek approval, necessarily, even at the next board meeting.
But I put this in as, with the intention of it being kind of a jumping off point to talk about the succession, succession planning. So we had talked about doing an operations manager manager position just following some of the recent discussions I've had with the board and that we've had here. Really making sure that we have a good succession plan in place is incredibly important for all of our sanity.
I thought that a good way to do that would be focusing more on diversifying our skill sets. And so rather than bringing in an operations manager, that just adds more operational knowledge, we could diversify that skill set by moving it to an assistant district manager. and look with some look for somebody with an engineering background. And I think especially with the things that we're looking for in the next five, ten, 15 years, that somebody that's got a good handle and experience in water resources specifically would be helpful for that.
And I think if the board has other ways that they'd like to address the, need for succession planning, I'm of course open to that. But I thought that this would be a good potential suggestion.
Jana:
would it be okay if I, discuss this with the board to Nathan? Yeah. Of course. Okay. Okay. So, Nathan and I kind of brainstormed on this, so, we bounced some ideas back and forth on it off of each other, and, and my thought process and support behind this is based on.
Okay, if we look at, at our team and we look at what holes we want to fill so that the operations manager, though, that was my big desire at first for our team. Those are the skills Nathan has already. So I want to support that. Like, okay, well, if we're looking more for an engineering role, then this might be a better fit to, to, to diversify the team.
So, so that's kind of the background on this is we had just a good brainstorming session about what does what does that look like over in my job. And what do we look at in my team. And so so I want to say I support this and, and thought it was a good call.
Jason:
Thank you. Jana. what kind of timeframe are we looking at here? Nathan?
Nathan:
From an office space perspective, we'd probably be looking at about three months. So the next thing on the agenda is to talk about that field service technician position. So I'd want to get the field service tech person brought on board so that we can get our cross-training taken care of, eliminate the billing assistance that we've got.
And then that gives me the physical office that I need to bring in an assistant district manager. Okay. Somebody else have any questions about the, succession planning and staffing?
Leah:
I just this is really thoughtful. so I appreciate that. I appreciate you brainstorming with a board member. and I'm also supportive of the approach of, kind of diversifying skillsets across the team.
And, and also just wanted to to thank you for, taking the, the succession planning feedback and like, actioning on it really quickly. so, but in terms of what did you say in terms of time frame, like it would, it would be the field technician first. Correct. And then this and then this role, the.
Jason:
Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, Nathan, let's talk about the staffing request for the field services technician.
Describer:
On screen.
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Nathan Travis, District Manager
DATE: 5/19/2025
SUBJECT: Business Justification – Field Services Technician Position
Overview
To increase the level of service we provide to our residents, allow our contract operations firm to focus primarily on the operational needs of the District, and ensure high-quality customer support, I propose the addition of a Field Services Technician position. This role will provide essential support for meter reading, inspections, customer response, and water/wastewater system maintenance. The position will reinforce the District’s operational capacity and enhance responsiveness in both field and office functions. This position has not been previously budgeted but is being proposed in response to increased workload, aging infrastructure, and rising service quality expectations.
Anticipated Annual Budget Impact
Based on current market data for similar roles inmetro districts and utility organizations provided by Mountain States Employers Council and the AWWA Salary Comparison Guide, the following budget impact is projected:
Ongoing Annual Costs:
• Salary: $60,000 – $85,000
• Benefits: $20,000
• Vehicle Fuel, Maintenance, and Insurance: $5,000
• Clothing/Boot Allowance: $500
• Training, Certifications, and Misc. Costs: $4,500
• Total Annual Cost: $90,000 – $115,000
Upfront Capital Costs (One-Time):
• District Vehicle: $50,000
• Tools and Field Equipment: $5,000
• Office Equipment (computer, phone, etc.): $5,000
Packet Page 81
• Total One-Time Capital Investment: $60,000
Note: The District currently spends approximately $135,000 annually on contracted billing support. Cross-training the Field Services Technician in office responsibilities will eliminate this expenditure over the course of 2-3 months.
Nathan:
yep. So this is something we've talked about quite a bit. There isn't anything that's substantively changed here. I did make sure that I kind of brought several meetings worth of information and try to capture that in a business justification.
I do apologize. I did miss one, section requirement, that all included the packet on Monday, and that is the discussion on how we are going to advertise this position. I already know the answer to that, but I'll include it, in, in the, in the packet on Monday. So if you guys have any specific questions or if there's anything you'd like me to look at before I move forward with this position, let me know.
It does include the I would we also need to purchase a vehicle through that and typically we go through historically we've gone through H.M. Brown because we can get a pretty good array of different pricing options. we also tend to look at used vehicles rather than trying purchasing new just because there's not really a lot of value there.
But, I don't know that there's any other specific things that I want to call attention to. So questions,
Leah:
quick questions. So the field services technician, is this not a is this a position that we have today that we just outsource or. No, it's just the total gap.
Nathan:
it is so we we currently have Semocor filling this role.
Okay. So it would be replacing correct. And Semocor's contract for this year reflects the presumed creation of this position. Okay.
Jana:
Great. Janet, do you have any questions?
Jason:
All right. Hearing none. I'm sorry. Okay. hearing no more questions. We can go ahead and close out staffing items. Item number six. And we can move to item number seven and adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Everyone.