Study/Work Session
April 20, 2026
Transcript
Describer:
Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
Work Session: April 20, 2026 05:30 PM MDT
7404 Yorkshire Drive, Castle Pines, CO 80108
I. Call Work Session to order
A. Roll call & disclosure of potential conflicts
II. Finance Items
A. Review monthly claims for payments made from (DATE), 2026 to (DATE), 2026
CPNMD Board Work Session Claims Packet 04202026 (PDF, opens in new tab)
B. Proposed Transition and Restructuring of the District's Cash Management Process
CPNMD Cash Management Memorandum 04202026 (PDF, opens in new tab)
C. Proposed Additions of a Roth 401k Option and PERA 457 Plan to District's Benefit Offerings
CPNMD PERA Memorandum 04202026 (PDF, opens in new tab)
III. Legal Items
4.20.2026 Legal Status Report - CPNMD 4901-6622-1474 v.1 (PDF, opens in new tab)
A. Review March 16, 2026 Work Session Minutes
3.16.26 CPNMD Work Session Minutes DRAFT (PDF, opens in new tab)
B. Review March 23, 2026 Board Meeting Minutes
3.23.26 DRAFT CPNMD Board Meeting Minutes (PDF, opens in new tab)
C. Amendment to Rules and Regulations
Updated R&R to account for "Combined Service Lines" in sections 2.6.1-2, 3.6.4, and 8.10.1.
CPNMD Rules and Regulations (2026-2) DRAFT 4905-0815-7847 v.4 (PDF, opens in new tab)
D. Water Infrastructure Cooperation Agreement
CPVMD - 2026 Cooperative Agreement - CPNMD Redline 4934-2767-9906 v.1 (PDF, opens in new tab)
E. IGA between City of Castle Pines and CPNMD re Reconstruction of Castle Pines Parkway Westbound and Replacement of Water Line CCP-CPNMD IGA for Castle Pines Pkwy W Reconstruction and Water Line Replacement 4899-0361-7698 v.1 (PDF, opens in new tab)
IV. District Manager Items
A. Discussion: 2026 Watering Schedule, Restrictions, and Penalties
Recommended Water Restrictions (PDF, opens in new tab)
B. Review Lift Station Upgrades Budget Amendment 4
KJ budget request, Amendment 4, i for engineering services on the Lift Station Upgrades project – for Scope B Construction Services. There is some additional scope and budget for project management, design, and bidding .
CPN Lift Station Upgrades Amendment 4_FINAL (PDF, opens in new tab)
C. Review Distribution System Condition Assessment Proposal
2646056 Engineering Proposal Water Distribution System Risk Assessment and CIP (PDF, opens in new tab)
D. Review RRA-ERP- Security Master Plan Proposal
Proposal to update Emergency Response Plan and Risk and Resiliency Assessment (both EPA requirements in 2026) as well as complete a Security Assessment and Roadmap for both cyber and site access control.
CPNMD-RRA-ERP-Security-RRA-ERP Proposal (PDF, opens in new tab)
E. Review Croft Court Emergency Waterline Replacement Proposal
V. Adjourn
Board Member Director Tera Radloff:
So really, just do the roll call and disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
Board Member Director James Mulvey:
Jim. Present. No conflicts.
Tera:
Jana, do you have any conflicts?
Board Member Director Jana Krell:
No.
Tera:
And I'm present. And no conflicts. So let's roll on out with Eric and the finance items.
Financial Director Eric Harris:
Good evening. Board. We have a couple items to review just as a component of the finance section. This evening.
Describer:
On screen.
TO: Board of Directors – Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
FROM: Eric Harris, Elevated Clarity (EC)
DATE: April 20, 2026
RE: Work Session Report – April 2026
Claims Submitted for Review
District Finance is submitting $1,425,616.50 in Payment Claims for review at the work session, consisting of $1,306,323.76 in checks and $119,292.74 in electronic payments.
- All the invoices included in this month’s Payment Claims Presented for Review were reviewed and evaluated for compliance with the Financial Controls Policy/Matrix.
- Notable payment claims include a total of $1,188,658.40 for pay applications related to capital projects:
- Myers & Sons Construction LLC – Filter Beds Rehab: $107,476.00
- T Lowell Construction Inc – Lift Stations Upgrades: $309,770.01
Proposed Changes in Cash Management
Elevated Clarity recommends that the Board authorize a phased restructuring of the District’s cash management framework at the Board Meeting to be held on April 27, 2026. For additional details, refer to the Proposed Changes in Cash Management memo included in the April Work Session packet.
Colorado PERA Roth Option and Colorado PERA 457 Deferred Compensation Plan
Elevated Clarity and District staff request that the Board of Directors authorize the adoption of the Colorado PERA Roth option and the Colorado PERA 457 Deferred Compensation Plan at the Board Meeting to be held on April 27, 2026. For additional details, refer to the Colorado PERA Roth Option and Colorado PERA 457 Deferred Compensation Plan memo included in the April Work Session packet.
Financial Overview
A comprehensive financial report will be provided at the March Board Meeting, which will include an analysis of financial activity through February 28, 2026.
Anticipated Upcoming Schedule (subject to change)
April 27, 2026 – Monthly Board Meeting
May 11, 2026 – Start Date for Audit Testing Procedures
May 18, 2026 – Monthly Board Work Session
May 26, 2026 – Monthly Board Meeting
Eric:
On the first item on page three, you have the work session report, and this is just, a quick overview, review of our claims.
Just a couple notable items. The capital items, as noted, are some of the larger claims that are going up, that are going out the door or have gone out the door. And once again, this these are claims that have been paid with our last payables run. That would have been at the end of March that we are ratifying or considering this evening.
And these have all gone through the appropriate channels of communication.
Describer:
On screen. Check Detail Report
March 13, 2026 - April 15, 2026
19 Highlands Ranch Water 111780455 Water Delivery-February $58,067.16 Check #29625
20 Highlands Ranch Water 111780457 Capacity Readiness Charge-2026 $400,000.00 Check #29625
56 QP Services LLC 722-001 2026 MH Raising $8,295.21 Check #29634
57 QP Services LLC 732-001 LS Cleanings $4,268.36 Check #29634
58 QP Services LLC Pay App 1-000719 SL Rat Acoustic Assessment $43,858.50 Check #29634
59 QP Services LLC Pay App 1-000728 MVM Inspections $4,950.00 Check #29634
Eric:
On page five you see a listing. Just a couple of further items. You'll see those capital items to in the report. And here we have the demand charge for our 2026 capacity charge to Highlands Ranch Water for $400,000. That is item item number 20 on the list.
And then you have some, additional items for services. Due to a lot of the repair work that's being done. And we'll further cover that in next week's board session with some of the forecast items that, you know, we've been talking with Nathan on just some additional repairs overall note that we all know of. But as far as the claims for payment, that's what we have for this evening.
Are there any questions?
Tera:
Any questions? I just have a quick question. And I don't know, Jim. You can nod your head or not? I want to remind me how that charge works with, Highlands Ranch water. Is that just a one time fee? And it's all fee. Do we, earn that back through the water we use, or is that just the privilege of connecting?
District Manager Nathan Travis:
Is it? Yeah. Sorry. It counts as a capacity readiness charge. So it's flip the switch privilege of using the water system availability.
Eric:
For this fiscal year. So that has been in, since the IGA was executed, we have that $400,000 annual charge. And then it goes, per thousand gallons rate that we get for what we flow through the interconnect.
Nathan:
It's $2 and I think 63, $0.67 per thousand. Yeah.
Tera:
Yeah, I remember that charge. I just couldn't remember if it we, you know, if it went back. So that's that good.
Eric:
Of course sometimes we get invoiced in December and sometimes we go ahead and pay it. Sometimes it's in January or the first quarter obviously the first quarter of this year.
So that's just the difference. Whatever we're invoiced. One last thing to note. We are working on our project reporting. This year we're well underway, our capital expenditures. So you'll see that report in next weeks board packet after we do some internal analysis on it, and we can, talk about that. Sounds good.
James:
Okay. And, Eric, was that what you just said? Was that in reference to what we talked about? I think two meetings back about trying to track the capital and making sure that, okay, just making sure we're apples and apples. Thanks.
Eric:
Yeah. So we haven't done it yet this year just because it's been so early on in the process.
We closed out last year, but we're going to, renew that report and keep that up monthly for this year.
James:
Okay, great. Great.
Eric:
If there's no questions, I can move on to item number 2b on the agenda.
Describer:
On screen.
TO: Board of Directors – Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
FROM: Eric Harris, Elevated Clarity (EC)
DATE: April 20, 2026
RE: Proposed Changes in Cash Management – April 2026
Summary
Elevated Clarity recommends that the Board authorize a phased restructuring of the District’s cash management framework, consisting of (a) transitioning the District’s primary operating relationship from UMB Bank to InBank, (b) adding CSAFE as a second local government investment pool and rebalancing invested funds approximately 50/50 between CSAFE and ColoTrust PLUS+, and (c) establishing a target operating-account carrying balance of approximately $850,000, with excess balances swept periodically into a new interest-bearing account with InBank, N.A. (InBank).
Each element of this proposal has been proposed in accordance with the District’s Investment Policy adopted July 28, 2025.
Background
The District currently maintains its operating, lockbox, and merchant-deposit activity at UMB Bank with substantially all reserve and capital funds invested in ColoTrust PLUS+ across several sub-accounts, including the General Fund, Conservation Trust Fund, and Renewable Water Fund. Additionally, the District has several inactive subaccounts which have carried forward throughout the years. As of March 31, 2026, the consolidated cash position was approximately $47.95 million: $0.78 million at UMB and $47.17 million at ColoTrust.
Average monthly disbursements over the trailing twelve months with UMB have ranged from approximately $0.77 million to $2.67 million, with a typical rate of $1.2–$1.5 million per month.
Three factors prompted this review: (i) UMB charges fees in the amount of $1,000 - $2,000 a month in analysis service fees (annualized: approximately $15,600) on a non-interest-bearing operating balance; (ii) the lockbox is processed out-of-state, lengthening receivable posting times; (iii) the District has maintained its current operating account for at least 20+ years with the same account number, and (iv) one hundred percent of the District’s invested funds are currently deposited in a single local government investment pool (ColoTrust).
Eric:
On page seven, if you've had the chance to review it. This this, request stems from conversations Nathan and I have pretty much had since the, about for about the last year.
Originally, this is due to the transition to UMB that has occurred over the last six months. And then we we got initial wins on they were potentially going to, change lockbox providers again. So one of those things well, this is additional change. It’s an out of state lockbox for, our ratepayers to submit funds that in in addition to USPS lengthening their first class mail delivered by 1 to 2 days.
It's just been kind of a challenge just to make sure we get those receipts in the door. So we started initial conversations, or rather, we've been recruited by banks before as a, as a district, but we've had some communication with InBank. And they're, they are selectively trying to.
Describer:
On screen.
Recommendation A: Transition to an Operating Banking Relationship With InBank
InBank is a Colorado-headquartered, FDIC-insured commercial bank and an eligible public depository under the Public Deposit Protection Act (§ 11-10.5-101 et seq., C.R.S.). Deposits will be FDIC-insured up to applicable limits and PDPA-collateralized above those limits.
InBank’s periodic sweep will earn interest on operating balances above the targeted floor, capturing yield currently forgone at UMB; the proposal also creates savings on analysis service fees. Initial analysis of InBank expected costs demonstrates savings of approximately $200/month in fees charged while offering similar or better treasury management services.
InBank’s Colorado-based lockbox is anticipated to reduce receivable float by one to two business days.
Additionally, changing banks will allow District staff to set up a treasury management system appropriately. Functionality and permissions have been limited with the current bank since it has been roll-forwarded through several bank acquisitions (e.g., City-Wide, Centennial, and UMB). These treasury management services include, but are not limited to, positive pay, remote capture and ACH Batch processing.
Eric:
Work with utility providers that have lockbox services, and so they do provide a local lockbox here, localized in Denver. So that's one, advantage that we have potentially with this, with going with this bank. Or this proposal with this bank we have in front of you. Some additional items to consider when we started evaluating, Molly, myself and Nathan. We had this bank account number, or at least I want to say about 20 years.
So that is 20 years of activity of our checking account number being out in the, in the world. And we're transitioning, working towards transitioning to an ATP workbench so we can provide, you know, basically do disbursements through a third party versus issuing ...... So this is all kind of happening behind the scenes if you will. With, the challenge that we've gone through several different banking, platforms since the buyout of Citywide.
Centennial Bank now UMB. We've just had some general challenges with their ...Management software and staff has as well. So we were, looking at, potentially phasing in a new operating checking account over the next six months or so. Nothing immediate. Just for that consideration. We don’t have to turn you know, turn, you know, the light on today, if you will.
We're doing a utility, billing upgrade right at the moment. You know, this is something to phase in by the end of the year. If it takes a period of time to get a lockbox set up. So that's a consideration we wanted to work through, in tonight's proposal. Just bring that forward to the Board. In addition, we are we are recommending just further diversification right now.
The district, as we discussed a few times, holds all their investment funds with one local government investment pool. It is a good time.
To go ahead and diversify this just a little bit more with this, the second provider of holdings, which would be CSAFE in the state of Colorado. So we would like to recommend that. And of course, we can always bring someone in from, from one of their teams to come talk with us. If that's the request of the board.
Overall, what we're what we're looking at with this structure would be basically the district would have four different accounts. A singular operating checking account. A daily sweep account to, you know, essentially money market or treasury funds also held with InBank. And then basically the district's investment funds continue to held at COLOTRUST and continue to, and then also basically 50-50 split between CSAFE and COLOTRUST at that time.
And so that's, that's the proposal we have for, forward right now just for to talk through this evening. Are there any questions as it relates to the memo that we prepared?
Tera:
Any questions? On of the questions that I had. Is it looks like we were getting a lot of fees and that this might actually reduce some of the fees.
Eric:
That's correct. Just a just a few hundred dollars of fees. And of course the fee schedules are pretty lengthy for a lot of these banks. The district does have you know, a rental for a remote capture system.
There's and I can't remember the, the, the, the fee schedule offhand. You know, how much debits and credits you'd hit?
The bank account. So it's anywhere, you know, over $1,000 in fees a month. And we ran it through working with InBank's team, their fee schedule, and they were able to save a few hundred dollars a month on a typical, typical month.
In addition, it's a it's a local bank. And Nathan and I have talked about this, you know, for, for a while, it would be nice for the district to have more local funds on hand. At least, you know, that's, you know, it makes everyone feel good when we had local money stay local. But also, the most important thing is for the ratepayers as it relates to this, is getting that their checks cleared.
Sooner, if that makes sense. We don't want to accidentally bill someone a late fee. Of course, when their payment was in transit.
Tera:
No, I know you've been working on that a while and talking about that a while, and, it's a thoughtful proposal. I like it.
Nathan:
And one of the issues that we've had with the current lockbox, aside from the, you know, the USPS, flow of deliveries. Is it's it's a large facility in, Texas.
It's one of, like, I think 4 around the country. That thing, eats payments on a pretty regular basis. We've had it's been a number of years now. And knock on wood, we, I think we lost like 150 payments all at once because the tray got sucked behind the machine. And so the local lockbox was something that would be a welcome change.
We also get, the probably every billing cycle we get more than one question from residents, wondering why we're mailing checks to Texas and stuff anyway so. I just add that little bit.
Eric:
And on top of all this, you know, the priority is for us to, get the upgraded, billing system, open for basically onboarded right now.
We've actually been working on that quite a bit, you know, just today even going through training and doing testing. And so that's a priority. You know, it takes probably, you know, 60 to 75 days to do all the testing with, any sort of lock box and meter read... You know, data file to make sure it can be brought over from the back into the system. And it’s not.
So this is something, you know, we work in the appropriate communication streams as well with Nathan and, Sigler to make sure, that everything works kind of, you know, as it should and communicate it to the public. But just to start working behind the scenes. So that's the idea behind it.
James:
Eric. Yes. You sound very familiar with this setup, and I'm just, you know, I was wondering if you know how many times you've done something very similar to this.
Eric:
I've done this a handful of times with several clients. It's been a couple of years. I would say, much more familiar with, the AP side of items, if that makes sense. You know, going to a payment system. Each treasury management system, that's kind of the, you know, when I use that phrase, it's the business platform or business solution that any bank would offer.
And there's, there's a few, players on the market. And I haven't exactly, tested in banks platform yet, but they have, they've communicated to me a couple of utility providers that are their customers, and that makes me feel comfortable, with who they're using, if that makes sense. So, it just allows you it's not your typical, you know, personal or business banking account system.
There's just a lot of functionality and security controls behind the scenes. So yes, I am familiar.
James:
Appreciate it. Thank you. Of course.
Tera:
I don't see any further questions.
Eric:
Great. Thank you. And if there's any questions, especially between now and next week. And we can certainly address those in the board meeting next week.
Describer:
On screen.
TO: Board of Directors – Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
FROM: Eric Harris, Elevated Clarity (EC)
DATE: April 20, 2026
RE: Colorado PERA Roth Option and Colorado PERA 457 Deferred Compensation Plan
Summary
Elevated Clarity and District staff request that the Board of Directors approve the adoption of the Colorado PERA Roth option and the Colorado PERA 457 Deferred Compensation Plan and authorize the District Manager to execute the Employer Roth Affiliation Participation Agreement and the 457 Plan Employer Participation Agreement with the Colorado Public Employees’ Retirement Association (PERA).
Background
The District currently offers its employees participation in the Colorado PERA 401(k) Plan, including a 3% employer matching contribution. To strengthen the District’s total compensation package, support employee retirement readiness, and remain competitive with peer Colorado special districts, Elevated Clarity and District Staff recommends expanding the District’s retirement offerings through PERA in two ways:
• Roth Option – Adds an after-tax contribution option to the existing PERA 401(k) Plan (and, if approved, the new 457 Plan), giving employees the flexibility to diversify the tax treatment of their retirement savings at no direct cost to the District.
• Colorado PERA 457 Deferred Compensation Plan – A supplemental, employee-funded governmental 457(b) plan administered by PERA. Participation is entirely voluntary. Contributions are made via payroll deferral. Separate IRS contribution limits apply,
allowing employees to save alongside the existing PERA 401(k) Plan.
Potential Upcoming State Requirement
Staff notes that offering a voluntary retirement savings program such as the Colorado PERA 457 Deferred Compensation Plan may become a requirement for Colorado employers effective January 1, 2027. Adopting the Colorado PERA 457 Deferred Compensation Plan now positions the District to meet this anticipated obligation well in advance of the deadline, avoids a rushed implementation, and allows employees to begin benefiting from the additional savings vehicle immediately.
Fiscal Impact
There is no direct cost to the District for offering the Colorado PERA Roth Option or the Colorado PERA 457 Deferred Compensation Plan. Both programs are administered by PERA and its third-party administrator. The District’s existing 3% employer match on the PERA 401(k) Plan is unchanged, and no employer match is proposed for the 457 Deferred Compensation Plan. Elevated Clarity and District staff time will be required to coordinate payroll setup for Roth contributions and 457 deferrals, and to timely remit contributions to PERA as required by statute.
Action Requested
At the upcoming Board Meeting to be held on April 27, 2026, authorize the adoption of the Colorado PERA Roth Option and the Colorado PERA 457 Deferred Compensation Plan and authorize the District Manager to execute the associated Employer Participation Agreements with PERA on behalf of Castle Pines North Metropolitan District.
Eric:
Moving on to the next item. This was actually an item that, came up in the last two weeks, with Nathan and I. We had to, request some original documents from PERA. And I had, phone call with them, and they brought up the fact that, we do not have two benefits that a lot of, public employers offer to, particular employees.
And these are options, essentially, for, district special, you know, special districts, public entities to allow their employees to, defer some of their earnings into specific retirement plans. And we didn't even have the Roth option available underneath our 401K plan, essentially, upon investigation, the district only had a pretax 401 K option, and then the 3% employer match.
What they, mentioned is, there's an option for you to go ahead and turn on the other facets of the plan. And that would be, the Roth equivalent, which if you or if for everyone at some point, you know, there's a Roth option to defer some earnings on a post tax basis. And then public employees have the option to, do, or contribute to a 457 plan, with PERA. And what that is, that's essentially the limits are about, if not the same as 401K, as a 401K limits.
And the reason why this element of the plan exists, in summary. It's for, you know, employees that enter the workforce pretty early on and may retire, say, 40 to 45, and has the option to draw on those earnings. But also, it gives the it gives the option to any public employee to basically defer more income on a pretax basis.
Another item that was brought up is, currently in the state assembly. I can't remember if it's in the House or the Senate. But, there is a, an a proposed act going through that would require all employers or public employers that are parent enrolled to open up these plans starting January 2027. So we're a little bit ahead of the game assuming that that moves forward.
The representative I spoke to said there's, about there's no one against the bill right now. So they do expect to kind of move forward with that. So really just wanted to bring this forward to the board to see if there's any discussion or if there's, if they would consider this at the next board meeting.
And, once again, there's no cost associated to the employee. This is a this is specifically on the, no cost to the district. Excuse me. This is strictly as relates to employee deferrals.
Jana:
I have a question. I thought you already had PERA, we don't?
Eric:
We we do have PERA. But we have the 401k and then we also, the district contributes the match associated essentially for the replacement payroll taxes.
So there is a defined benefit plan.
Jana (poor audio):
How that would work has already carried the his pension.
Eric:
I'm sorry Jana? This is different, this deferred compensation, correct. Different than his, okay. Okay. Got it.
Eric:
Correct. So if you if you if there was an employee that would have like to do this. You know let's let's just take any employee. If you look at their, their wage statement. They would not contribute to Social Security.
All district employees do not contribute to Social Security. They contribute to PERA. Which would be 9% withholding and remittance as opposed to 6.2% of Social security. The district contributes I think 15.8% somewhere around there, 15.83%. So that's kind of set aside in place of payroll taxes. As of right now, any, any full time employee can contribute to, the 401 K plan as well as the match.
And then this would be on top of that, if that makes sense.
Describer:
On screen. Jana gives the thumbs up.
Eric:
Great. If there's no questions, I'm certainly available, so please reach out this week if you have any questions. but we can add that to the agenda for next week.
Tera:
Paul you're up. Thank you.
Describer:
On screen.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
FROM: Seter, Vander Wall & Mielke, P.C.; Paul Polito, Esq.
DATE: April 17, 2026
RE: Legal Status Report for the April 20, 2026 Board Meeting
MATTER: RULES AND REGULATIONS UPDATE – COMBINED SERVICE LINE PROVISIONS
Status: During a recent review of a commercial water service issue within the District, the District Manager identified a gap in the District's Rules and Regulations concerning combined water service lines, i.e., service lines used for both domestic service and fire protection through a single connection to a water main.
The existing Rules define the Customer/District ownership boundary by reference
to the curb stop or property line, neither of which is typically present on commercial combined services, leading to ambiguity regarding responsibility for repair, maintenance, and replacement. Counsel has prepared a redlined draft of the rules, consisting of: (1) new defined terms for "Combined Service Line" and "Combined
Service Isolation Valve" (section 2.6.1 and 2.6.2); (2) an ownership and maintenance allocation placing responsibility on the Customer for all portions of the Combined Service Line downstream of the first valve on the service line, with the District retaining ownership of the water meter gasket-to-gasket (section 3.6.4); and (3) a continuing access and control requirement governing the domestic isolation valve, including a prohibition on any configuration that could impede flow to the fire protection system (section 8.10.1).
Action: Consider draft rule updates for approval during the April 27, 2026 board meeting
MATTER: CASTLE PINES PARKWAY WESTBOUND ROADWAY AND WATERLINE REPLACEMENT IGA
Status: The City of Castle Pines and CPNMD have completed design of a joint project to reconstruct westbound Castle Pines Parkway from Monarch Boulevard to approximately Forest Park Drive and to replace approximately 4,330 linear feet of 14-inch ductile iron water main, together with the Monarch Waterline Phase 3 work and valve replacements south to Oxford Drive. The City anticipates awarding the construction contract at its April 28, 2026 meeting.
Counsel has prepared an Intergovernmental Agreement between the District and
the City, modeled on the 2024 Monarch Boulevard Phase 1 IGA, establishing the
process by which the water line replacement will be constructed as part of the City's
roadway project and paid for by the District.
Estimated cost share: District – $2,655,385.48 (Schedules A and B in full, plus 50%
of Schedule C); City – $1,150,140.42 (50% of Schedule C); total Project Cost –
$3,805,525.90.
Action: Consider approval of the IGA at the April 27, 2026 board meeting, in advance of the City's April 28, 2026 contract award.
Legal Counsel Paul Polito, Esq.:
All right. Good evening, everyone. So the two matters that require board action at next Monday's meeting are going to be, the amendment to the rules and regulations, which addresses combined service lines and then an intergovernmental agreement with the city of Castle Pines for the Castle Pines Parkway, westbound reconstruction and waterline replacement. Both are on tonight's work session agenda for board review, and I'll go through those in a bit.
The remaining items are for informational purposes only. I would like to flag the Castle Pines Water Infrastructure Cooperative agreement, which is also on tonight's agenda. It's a matter in progress. So I've prepared a red line, and I'll be coordinating that with district staff before, returning it to CPVMD’s Counsel. Otherwise, the service plan amendment, the hidden plan, inclusion, Ridge golf Course, water raw water agreement and parks IGA conveyances remain active, but, don't require any board action at this time.
So I'm happy to take any general questions on the legal status report before we we jump into these items individually.
Okay. So.
James:
I just did a quick one. On the gasket to gasket. Yep. Just take me through ownership from what point to what point? The valve in the street.
Paul:
Right. So in this case. And let me just pull up the PDF of the rules so I can go through this here. So this actually was spurred by an issue, that Nathan had in regards to the essentially there was a, there's a combined service line that was serving a commercial property.
And the way that we typically define these are by, or by the curb stops or on property lines. Which doesn't quite work here. Nathan, would you mind just just going through what exactly happened on the ground and then and then I'll go through the, so what I'm thinking with the language here.
Nathan:
Yeah. So it's really it's an issue that we found the even with the last update, the rules and regs was silent on.
So our service line definition for water lines, that we've clarified a couple times now is the district owns from the from the water main to the outlet side of the curb stops. So there's a valve on the service line. We own the curb stop. That's what we can use to isolate, you know, for any number of reasons, including nonpayment.
The resident on a regular on a standard service line. Then on from that curb stop, onward, with the exception of the water meter. And so that's where that gasket to gasket language comes, and we own the physical meter gasket gasket. The district has a number of combined service lines. The majority of them are, commercial. We do have some residential. Combined service line, meaning that is responsible for both domestic water service and for water for fire protection.
They end up being a little bit different, because you can end up in the example that we had, you know, we had, rather than an inch and a half service that would normally feed the building. We had a six inch line. There was also responsible for carrying fire service into the building. Because we were silent on the or not necessarily completely silent because we weren't clear about the combined service line ownership.
We had a water line break that I notified the board of in front of the daycare over off of Max drive. And the way that the current Reg was written, we ultimately ended up having to repair a water line that we shouldn't have had to repair. And so we needed to clarify that language to make it clear under those circumstances, with combined service lines, what we do and don't, what we do and don't own.
Paul:
And so I clarify, we clarified here that what the customer owns. So it's all portions of that line. And it starts on the downstream side of the combine service, isolation valve, which you had to separately define. And then that continues all the way through all the piping, any sort of fittings, valves, branches, meter yokes, anything that's serving, that service line and those fire protection systems from that point on is the customer's responsibility.
It only excludes the water meter gasket to gasket.
So, Jim, I know that was a lot, but hopefully that answers your question.
James:
No. I'm good. Thank you.
Paul:
Okay, okay. Very good. any, any other general questions about the about the legal status report before I move on?
Okay. I see that the minutes are on the agenda. If if the board has any questions or comments about the minutes before I talk about the rules, I'm happy to address them.
Okay. And if anybody sees anything in the minutes before the meeting next week, feel free to, either flag it at the meeting or send me an email. In the meantime. Okay, so the rules and regulations are on page 31 of the packet.
Describer:
On screen.
CPNMD RULES & REGULATIONS
Adopted: October 19, 2015
Amended: April 27, 2026
So this actually addresses that combined service line that we were just talking about. I'll skip through a lot of the intro I was going to do because Nathan just explained what brought us here.
But the red line in this packet does a few things. So first, it adds two new defined terms in article two where we're defining combined service line, and then we're defining combined service isolation valve. Since that's going to be a key point where that ownership splits, is at that valve. Second, it adds a new section, 3.6.4 that actually allocates the ownership and the maintenance, placing responsibility in the customer for all portions of that combined service line downstream of that first valve.
And then again with the district retaining ownership of the water meter, on that gasket to gasket basis. And then third, it adds a new section 8.10.1. And that just requires continuing access and control of that domestic, of that isolation valve. And then it includes a prohibition on these, any sort of configuration that could impede flow to the fire protection system.
So if the board is comfortable with this approach, this will be up for formal approval at the April 27th meeting. But similar to the minutes, if you flag anything between now and then that you think warrants review and let me know. And and I'm happy to to adjust it. Does anybody have any questions regarding these rule and reg amendments revisions?
Describer:
On screen.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
(Castle Pines North MD; Castle Pines Village MD; The Country Club at Castle Pines)
THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEEMENT FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
(“Agreement”) is entered into by and between CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT (“CPNMD”), CASTLE PINES VILLAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT (“CPVMD”), each a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado, and THE COUNTRY CLUB AT CASTLE PINES, INC., a Colorado nonprofit corporation (“The Country Club”). CPNMD, CPVMD, and The Country Club may be referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, the Parties are authorized to enter into this Agreement pursuant to
C.R.S. §§ 29-1-203 and 7-123-102, and their respective authorizing and governing documents; and
B. WHEREAS, there exists certain water infrastructure within the boundaries of
CPVMD and CPNMD as further described and depicted on Exhibit A (the “Infrastructure”), various portions of which Infrastructure is utilized by and for the benefit of one or more of the Parties;
C. WHEREAS, in order to better serve their respective and shared constituents and
members, to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts, and to take advantage of potential efficiencies, the Parties desire to cooperate on the management and operation of the Infrastructure and desire to enter into this Agreement in order to set forth their mutual understanding regarding the same, all as further set forth herein.
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained
herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto hereby covenant and agree as follows.
Paul:
Okay. Very good. That brings us to the Water Infrastructure Cooperation Agreement. And this is on page 71 of the packet. This is a three party cooperative agreement among the district, CPVMD, the Castle Pines Village Metropolitan District, as well as the country club at Castle Pines. And so this addresses ownership, cost sharing and then operation of some shared water infrastructure, among the three parties.
So specifically, this is the PCWRA pond 6A irrigation line. Pond 6A itself, and then the associated pump station and the ongoing pond 6A lining project, and then the connecting irrigation lines running to Chase Lane and to the ridge. So the red line in your packet, adds a number of protections to the district.
Again, this is shared, to us originally by CPVMD Council. So all the red lines that you that you see are, edits made by me. And it includes a number of things. Just to highlight in what they are; Unilateral termination right. And cure based termination provision, that was missing before, the district would have had no way to to terminate the agreement, if there was a breach.
So I added that, a definition of emergency, that are tied to notice requirements so that if there's ever a situation where an emergency needs to be made to the infrastructure, it can be done without any sort of advanced consultation. With emergency being pretty strictly defined. I added a good faith dispute mechanism on on payments. $50,000 threshold requiring prior written approval of capital work for which the district has a a cost sharing obligation.
So if the district is required to pay for some portion of the infrastructure and somebody else wants to upgrade it, and it's more than 50,000, they have to, they have they must obtain prior written approval from the district for, for that. And then some standard of care, provisions, audit rights, provisions that the district ever wants to, to audit, the financials in another party that can do.
So. Added a tier dispute resolution. And so before going to district court, there are a number of steps to fulfill beforehand, including mediation, and then just a few legal reservations, such as rate setting, whatnot. So I know there's a lot, there's no board action required tonight. And I'll be coordinating this red line with district staff as well before sending it back to, CPVMD's counsel.
But, if the board has any comments, proposed revisions, anything, right now. Happy to to talk through them.
Describer:
On screen. "Redlined Section" or Addition
For purposes of this Agreement, “Emergency” means an unforeseen condition
posing an imminent threat to system integrity, water service continuity, property, or public health or safety that reasonably requires action before advance consultation with the other Parties is practicable. Emergency repairs necessary to address an Emergency may proceed immediately; however, the Party undertaking such repairs shall provide verbal or electronic notice to the other cost-sharing Parties as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any event within twenty-four (24) hours of commencing such repairs, followed by written confirmation within five (5) business days describing the nature of the Emergency, the work undertaken, and the estimated cost. Cost reimbursement for Emergency repairs shall be allocated consistent with the responsibilities provided herein.
James:
I have one the word unforeseen. If you see which section go up a little bit. This is very top of the previous page I think. Definition of emergency. Okay. For purposes is agreement or emergency means an unforeseen condition.
Do we need the word unforeseen?
Paul:
Let me think about that one first a second. No, I suppose not. Actually, we can probably work without a condition posing imminent threat.
James:
I'm just saying. Yeah, I see you getting yourself wrapped around the axle with the word unforeseen.
Paul:
Yeah, I actually, I agree with you there.
Yeah, I don't necessarily actually, you know, thinking about it a little bit, I don't want to necessarily limit it to unforeseen. It could be a foreseeable condition, but if it's still through the waterline breaks, then regardless of whether, you know, you're arguing about whether it is foreseeable or not.
James:
Yeah, exactly. It's definitely foreseeable, but, not anticipated or.
Paul:
Yeah, I, I'm with you there. Okay, I will I will remove unforeseen. I'm in agreement.
James:
Yeah. Just think about it. But yeah I don't see it as unforeseen and any of those things. Yeah.
Eric:
If I may add, this is that, as a component of the district's capital budget for this year, we have a $200,000 capital expense that would run through this agreement.
So just as a reminder with us.
Paul:
Okay, okay. And thanks for that, Eric. Appreciate the reminder.
Deputy District Manager Rene Santini:
I had a question, Paul. It wasn't super clear, but I think the $50,000 is the total cost, not the cost to us. Right.
Paul:
If they. Yeah, just the whatever the project cost is, if they need if they if somebody is proposing to make some repair, and the total cost of that repair is over $50,000, and then that's when it triggers.
Okay. Does that make sense.
Rene:
Yeah. So it's not 50,000 to us meaning whatever it cost share is you know. So is that a big.
Paul:
Oh I see what you're saying. No it would be 50,000 total. Okay.
Rene:
That's what I mean.
Paul:
The, any other questions about, this agreement before I move on?
Okay. Any. Okay. Easy enough. And that brings us to item E under Legal Items, which is the IG with the city of Castle Pines. For that Castle Pines Parkway westbound and water line replacement.
Describer:
On screen.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF CASTLE PINES AND CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
REGARDING RECONSTRUCTION OF CASTLE PINES PARKWAY WESTBOUND
AND REPLACEMENT OF WATER LINE
This INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and
entered into this ___ day of _________________, 2026 (“Effective Date”), by and between the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District, a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (the “District”), and the City of Castle Pines, a Colorado home rule municipality (the “City”). Collectively, the City and District shall be referred to herein as “the Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the City and District, as Colorado governments, are constitutionally and
statutorily empowered pursuant to Colo. Const., Article XIV, § 18 and C.R.S. § 29-1-201, et seq., to cooperate and contract via intergovernmental agreement with one another to provide functions, services or facilities authorized to each cooperating government; and
WHEREAS, the City is planning to reconstruct westbound Castle Pines Parkway from the
intersection of Castle Pines Parkway and Monarch Boulevard west to approximately Forest Park Drive (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the District is planning to replace approximately ______ linear feet of
existing 14-inch ductile iron water main pipe adjacent to westbound Castle Pines Parkway, together with replacement of all potable waterlines at the intersection of Castle Pines Parkway and Monarch Boulevard (“Monarch Waterline Phase 3”) and replacement of valves south of that intersection to Oxford Drive (collectively, the “Water Line Replacement”), which Water Line Replacement is located in approximately the same area as the Project; and
WHEREAS, the City and the District acknowledge that Castle Pines Parkway and
Monarch Boulevard are major thoroughfares that serve both the City and District residents and taxpayers; and
WHEREAS, in order to promote intergovernmental cooperation and efficiency, the City
and District wish to coordinate the City’s Project and the Water Line Replacement under a single construction contract; and
WHEREAS, utilizing one contractor to complete the Project and the Water Line
Replacement will minimize disruption to the community to the greatest extent possible; and
WHEREAS, the City has conducted a competitive bid process in accordance with its
procurement rules; the District has received and reviewed the bid tabulation and, in reliance upon the City’s competitive bid process, consents to the award of the construction contract for the performance of the work described in this Agreement; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained
herein, the sufficiency of which are mutually acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
Paul:
So the city, and I'm sorry if everybody is, is aware of this project, but the city is planning to reconstruct, westbound Castle Pines Parkway from the intersection of, Monarch Boulevard west to approximately Forest Park Drive.
So the project will involve the replacement, the district owned main that's running along that same stretch. Together with the Monarch water line phase three work at the intersection and valve replacement south to Oxford Drive. And so this intergovernmental agreement may look familiar. It's modeled after the Monarch phase one IGA, that was approved a couple years ago.
And this just establishes the process by which this water line replacement, will be constructed, as a part of the city's roadway project, and then paid for by the district. This is all with the idea that the district would have to tear up this road, to replace the main, anyway. So this just helps the efficiencies out a little bit.
The city's replacing the road. The district is, hopping on to that project, and everybody saves a little bit of cost. So, it's three schedules total for the project. Schedule a, which is the monarch water line. Phase three work is $574,000. And that's funded 100% by the district. Schedule B is the Castle Pines Parkway westbound water line replacement.
And that's $931,000, also funded 100% by the district because they're both district projects. And then schedule C is the roadway reconstruction itself. That's valued at, $2.3 million and that's split 50-50, between the district and the city. And then that, you know, obviously represents the roadway removal and the replacement attributable to the waterline work had it been constructed as a standalone project.
Describer:
On screen.
Memorandum of Understanding & Letter of Consent
To: City of Castle Pines: Council & Staff
From: Nathan Travis, District Manager
Date: April 27, 2026
Regarding: MOU between City of Castle Pines and Castle Pines North Metropolitan
District (CPNMD) for the reconstruction of Castle Pines Parkway
Westbound and CPNMD’s water line.
Financial Implications
The costs listed below include a contingency percentage, and as such total costs may be lower than presented below.
CPNMD will be responsible for 100% of costs associated with Phase 3 of the Monarch
Waterline replacement, identified under Schedule A, totaling $574,210.00.
CPNMD will be responsible for 100% of costs associated with items that are solely related to the cost of the Waterline Replacement along westbound Castle Pines Parkway, Schedule B, Totaling $931,035.05.
Based on the proposed water line alignment and the layout of the existing concrete panels in the road, CPNMD will be responsible for 50% of the roadway reconstruction cost to Forest Park Drive. This represents the approximate roadway removal that would be incurred for water line construction if it was a separate project from the roadway construction project. As detailed in Schedule C. The total cost for schedule C is $2,300,280.85. Each entity will be responsible for approximately half of this cost in the amount of $1,150,140.43. Roadway improvements that extend west past forest Park Drive will be paid for in full by the City of Castle Pines, these quantities will be accounted for and allotted by the District and City Project Managers.
The full project including Schedule A, B and C is anticipated to be awarded on April 28th, 2026 to HEI for a total of $3,805,525.90 dollars.
The approximate total Cost Share is as follows:
City of Castle Pines: $1,150,140.42
Castle pines North Metro District: $ 2,655,385.48
Total: 3,805,525.90
CPNMD will be fully-responsible for other miscellaneous items that the normal road
reconstruction project would not have encountered. This could include utility relocations for water line construction, temporary work necessary for water line connections, and other miscellaneous items identified during construction. The City recognizes the advantages for all parties and minimization of impacts to the community.
Paul:
So that brings the district's estimated total to $2.655 million. The city's estimated total here is about $1.15 million. The overall project is about $3.8 million. The city anticipates awarding this construction contract at its April 28th meeting. So I would ask the board to review the agreement. Flag any questions or comments you have and, be prepared to consider the approval, this agreement at the April 27th regular meeting, so that we can get the consent and the funding commitment in place before the city's award on the on the 28th.
So if anybody has any any questions or comments about this agreement, I'm happy to answer them at this time. or I can take a little bit of a deeper dive into the, the terms here. If anybody wants.
Nathan:
A quick note, those dollar amounts do agree do include contingency. So there's, possibility that the actual amounts will come through, a little bit lower than that.
I think we've got, somewhere in the neighborhood of, like, $200,000 total and contingency on the project. And then I included at the back of this in the appendix, you can see the city's bid tab for the bids that they received. And then just a visual overview of who is covering what schedules or what geographic area those schedules are responsible for.
Describer:
On screen. Page 6 of 6
Appendix - Castle Pines Parkway WB Reconstruction - Bid Tabulation - 4-13-2-26
HEI Civil Highlighted
General Schedule Overview Map
Wast Castle Pines Parkway shown in Green which is Schedule C CPP Roadway Reconstruction, and Blue which is Schedule B Waterline Replacement. At the Intersection of Monaro Blvd, going south it is shown in Orange which is Schedule A Monarch Phase 3 Waterline.
James:
I had a question now that you have this map up, was the portion of this was the section that you guys potholed, and we're looking to make a tap into that
neighborhood? Correct. Okay. Could you wiggle your mouse where that is?
Describer:
On screen. General Schedule Overview Map
Nathan wiggles his mouse at the top center of the map along West Castle Pines parkway at the bend in the road going towards the Monarch intersection.
Nathan:
Okay. That would be, right about here.
James:
Okay. And, you indicated there was a lot of, I guess, electro, you know, what we call essentially the grounding or electrochemical corrosion or pitting of those pipes.
Is that true?
Nathan:
Or. Yes, in our study. Yeah. So that's we we attempted to do this tie-in, to facilitate the construction of this project and the existing pipe condition was such that. Yeah, it was so corroded, we just couldn't attach a T to it.
James:
Okay. So, in the process of looking at this, is that issue going to be mitigated by. Yeah.
Okay. Yeah. So that was a long time ago. I was just making sure I had the facts correct.
Nathan:
So the the blue line is the extent that full water line replacement, there are tie-ins at that Sherman point. And then again there's three tie-ins we have to do, two of those across the road that they already repaired last year or replaced last year.
We will bore under those, but all be, new pipes through that section.
James:
Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.
Paul:
Thanks Nathan. Anybody have any any other questions about the agreement or the projects? before we move on?
Okay. Well, that concludes legal for tonight. Thank you. Board.
James:
I have, one request. Yeah, I have my volume up on my PC and my headphones all the way up on my PC, and I could still barely hear. I don't know if there's a setting or something that you can tweak. Or maybe it's just me on my end.
Paul:
Nathan, how's my sound coming through?
James::
You were very, very quiet.
Nathan:
Yeah. You're quieter. Paul I had to turn on my volume for. Yeah.
James:
And I got everything maxed out. I could barely, like, hear you and.
Board Member Director Leah Enquist:
I don't have or. What's that?
I don't have any issues. Okay, there's.
Jana:
I can hear. I can hear Paul just fine.
Rene:
Okay. Okay. I can hear anybody fine.
Leah:
Which is weird. I usually am the one who has issues.
James:
I'll figure it out then.
Describer:
On screen. Douglas County Water Restrictions Summary
District, Watering Days, Time Restrictions, Key Rules, Fines
Highlands Ranch Water, 2 days/week, No 10 AM–6 PM, Strict no-waste enforcement, $50 → $500+
Castle Rock Water, Every 3rd day, Before 8 AM / after 8 PM, Structured drought stages,
Parker Water & Sanitation, 3 days/week, No 10 AM–6 PM, Efficiency + no waste, NO FINES
Pinery Water, 3 days/week, Early morning/evening, Seasonal rotating schedule, NO FINES
Willows Water, 2 days/week, 6 PM–10 AM only, Denver Water rules, NO FINES
Cottonwood Water, Up to 3 days/week, 6 PM–9 AM, Maintenance + no waste, NO FINES
Stonegate Metro District, 3 days/week, Before 10 AM / after 6 PM, No watering Wednesdays, NO FINES
Roxborough Water, 2 days/week, No 10 AM–6 PM, Strict schedule + Aurora rules, $50 → $200 + shutoff
Nathan:
All right, so that jumps into, my section of the meeting for tonight. I wanted to start with our discussion about the, watering restrictions. So what I did initially was just kind of go through and pull together a quick table of what other districts in the area are doing. Because of our source water, we're not as exposed.
But, you know, just doing the right thing, just being a good regional partner. And also, you know, taking the opportunity to codify some of these watering restrictions, I think it's a good time to do it. So thank you, Leah, for making sure that we were going to talk about this tonight. They're all fairly similar. The biggest difference here, the two days per week are largely driven by a, what was originally a Denver water kind of drought plan.
The systems that are dropping into that two days per week are all ones that are either subsequent systems to Denver water or are heavily reliant on surface water. So I think we're probably a better model if we fall into that third day per week. That's also not different than the schedule that we have been recommending for a number of years.
I would just ask that the board make that a requirement rather than a recommendation and following in in line with those. So the what I'm recommending is a three day per week, maximum irrigation schedule, residential watering days, would be assigned, as they always have been. We would be adding commercial watering days, which is something we haven't addressed, to Monday, Wednesday and Friday, restricting those hours between 8 a.m. And 8:00 pm.
This is a little bit of a diversion from what other utilities in the area are doing. Most of them go 10to 10:00 to 6:00. We've always had this eight while we through the past 7 or 8 years, we've had the 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. recommendation. Rene and I separately also met with, other water providers at Core Electric. Last week just to kind of do, an industry meet and greet.
And they did some presentations, and they had specifically recommended from an electrical grid perspective to do that 8:00 pm because I did some outside of their heavy demand areas. So anywhere we can adjust our pumping, there's no real cost savings for us, but it's just good for the grid. And then it's also a better watering practice. We're also recommending that we restrict water waste.
So that means, no overspray or runoff. That would be, applied to both commercial and residential users. With that come to recommendation for a Cycle and Soak method, which is, something I've talked to Sigler about communicating. So the cycle and soak would not be a requirement, but it would be, just informational for residents so that they have, kind of a method to stop that water waste.
And kind of part of this that we can quasi talk about, but we can't get into, any real details is really what that enforcement mechanism would look like. The readily available enforcement mechanisms are pretty similar between Castle Rock and Highlands Ranch. They are set up like this. If that is something that the board would like to move forward with discussing, putting in place, that is a rate tolling fee.
So we would just need to, notice that and then we could talk about it at our, oh it would probably put us into the June board meeting. Right Paul, with the notification requirements. Or I guess if we noticed that this week we could get it in before May.
Paul:
Yeah, yeah, we could go in before May.
Nathan:
So the, the enforcement side has some things that are a little bit trickier for us.
We obviously don't have, you know, staff in place to kind of be monitoring that as we adapt to new meter technologies. That is something that we could automate through those like online meters. We could see when usage is going, there's already some applications with various meter providers and billing providers that would allow us to put that in place.
Or we can, you know, just make it mandatory without really having any fine structure in place. There is some, minor language inside of our existing rules and regulations that would allow us to, you know, terminate water service for not following, you know, schedule. If not, it'd be a little bit murky because it's not as clearly, clearly defined in there.
So yeah. Any questions with the board has?
Leah:
I have a yeah. Yeah. I have a point of view. First of all, this is great. Thank you so much for pulling this together. It makes it a lot easier to talk through and having something to react to. I'm really supportive of, I would say, everything on here.
I feel like it's in line with most every, surrounding water district. And I think it's really prudent, given the area that we live in. And that's this is going to be a continued challenge. Where I'm stuck is around the enforcement piece. And this I'm totally thinking out loud. I'm not opposed to enforcement and fines, but this year doesn't seem to be like the right year to do it.
And so for a couple of reasons. You know, one, we've had our rate increases. There's been a lot of change to this would be like a new thing. And so giving people plenty of time to know that it's coming. And then three kind of that dependency that you mentioned, Nate, which is around like it would be difficult for us to enforce if we don't have the upgraded meters.
And so perhaps like once those are in place, it's something that we could revisit. And if the board did have a threshold for, you know, enforcement and fines. Then I think that's something that, you know, we could we could talk about. Sorry I petered out on that last sentence, but all that to say, I think it's a little premature for enforcement this year, but I would be open to it in, in the future because I don't think this these water shortages and these climate impacts, like they're not going to change long term....
Jana:
That you don't want to do anything with this other than just acknowledge it. If we don't post with my thoughts that we post it, but then we don't have anybody, enforcing it other than maybe a neighbor called in or something. I don't know. Okay. That'll keep the ideas off it. Not Like somebody for the for the metro district driving around between 8 and 8 looking for this type of thing.
But it's just baby out there.
Leah:
I mean, yeah, HOA works like art. I mean, sometimes they have somebody come out every spring and drive around, but usually they don't like they're just reliant upon, you know, people bringing it to the attention. But yeah, thinking through like if this was something that we did want to adopt and communicate, like working with our comm seem to think like, what are some channels where we could land this?
But if, if, if I like if we, if we were to like, enforce it next year and think through fines next year like then I would think the time to let people know would be like as soon as possible.
Jana:
Well, so that's that's why I’m thinking that it's still something that potentially we declare or adopt, but we just we’re not going to have an HOA person driving around.
So but we have it in our back pocket I don't know.
Nathan:
Yeah. For for what it's worth, I think my, my leaning would be to, you know, make the go ahead and wade through board action. Make these, schedule and all of the requirements mandatory. And then I do think it makes sense to get that in place and then talk about, just with more depth, what that fine structure could look like, and then put that in place at some point in the future, even if that's, you know, if it's next year or if we wait until we get the smart meters put in, I think that that makes a lot of sense
Just from like a, like a process standpoint. And then it also just gives us time to talk about our options. One of the things that Castle Rock does, for example, they actually use their fines to, fund to add additional funds to their conservation program. So when people pay fines, there, it gets funneled into their conservation budget.
And I think that, you know, looking at those options with a little bit more depth and time makes a lot of sense. And then in the interim, just getting something in place that is actually mandatory, is prudent.
Jana:
So I love that idea because it reminds me of the way CDPHE had those verified, like, you know what, you ...
But that part 2. I also, I don't care if nobody else agrees we don't want to go the stretch. But I think validate with inflation $50 is not. Because that's the second violation that I, if you had a violation that you did nothing about it, I would propose that the $100 that you get rid of the $50.
Again, you guys could disagree. I just think that this is I would hate it if the bridges is like, oh, well, football throw away and I don't know, Castle Pines, a $100 per.
Tera:
So let me ask you a couple questions. Nate. What is overspray?
Nathan:
Overspray is a, like a sprinkler head that's turned sideways or broken and is putting water on the non irritable surface.
So a sprinkler and spraying onto the sidewalk.
Tera:
And then runoff onto streets, gutters and sidewalks, that kind of concerns me a little bit just because we have very hilly areas. So, and so, Morris park and..
Nathan:
Yeah. And so that's where that cycle and soak method, comes into play specifically for kind of those runoff areas. And so rather than to prevent that, what you do is rather than run a 15 minute irrigation cycle or a ten minute irrigation cycle, you would do three, 2 or 3 minute cycles with a with a gap in between.
And so it allows that water to contact the soil, get pulled in, and then the other cycle heads. So you can still put the same amount of water on the lawn. You're just trying to avoid that. That water waste that gets over the curb line or in the gutter and that's the water waste is, that language is is pretty, standard across all the other utilities that I looked at.
Tera:
And so I like the process that you were describing before, because, you know, the reality is we are doing this to responsibly manage water, which is our mission, and to be a good regional partner. I like the positive communications rather than because we really aren't in a position as these other overbuilt places. So I do like that process and helping people understand and give you time to educate them on stuff like that, because we have a lot of hilly areas here about how to properly, you know, manage your, your lawn and runoff instead of, you know, going straight to the, you know, penalty phase.
I like the process that you described. And then within figure out the penalty phase, but kind of not abruptly rolling this out, bringing them along and then figuring out kind of that process that you, described before. And again, more about responsibly managing because we're we're in the fortunate position that that's what we get. We get to do.
]
We're being very responsible.
Jana:
I think, to add to that. When I think of overspray, my mind doesn’t got to a hilly area where water is washing away. My mind goes to sprinklers, pointing the wrong directions, like when you're driving down the road. And when is spraying and you think ...... of water to be that is a screwdriver at a turn.
Gotcha, gotcha. Like if you ignored that, but you just kept watering, water in the street. And then in Aurora because, so we've made Aurora has made huge changes on this as of 2026. They're even declaring how far away their sprinkler heads have to be from impervious areas so that you don't get that fat spray. So that, so, so I know lots of jurisdictions are making really big changes to try to minimize this overspray issue.
So ...... like it when people say, Oh well it was no fine, I’m not going to do anything about it. That's just well.
Tera:
I don't see a lot of overspray for residential as I'm driving around. I do see a ton of overspray for commercial. And I agree with you that nothing is more annoying than looking at a sprinkler wasting water.
That's not.
Jana:
Correct. And I think of it as a from an HOA perspective of these open areas with the shared area. So that's why I think like an HOA ignored that. That's pretty frustrating. You know, ..... So I'm not trying to be overly harsh. I just saying ignoring a comment like that is a pretty big deal. Yeah.
Leah;
Yeah.
I mean, my HOA, we have our sprinklers on like the hottest part of the day. And it really frustrates me. And so I do think like to me it's more like here, here are the guidelines. And then starting to like educate people on the guidelines like communicate, educate. But then, you know, moving into like the next step when it makes sense, because it's just educating people.
It'll it'll change some behavior. But sometimes you just you have to have those penalties in order to really change behavior. And the last point, I don't know the answer here, but I just thought I would bring it up for consideration. Like I know my HOA. Like if we have a brown spot in our lawn, like one brown spot, like we can get fined.
And so some of those like HOA rules, especially when they come to like water, they're like they're in opposition. And so I don't know what our options are there. Because if you have people who are going to get a bigger HOA, fine. If they don't water their lawn enough so that it's green, that's going to be counter to what we're trying to do.
So just said I throw that out there for consideration.
Nathan:
Paul, could you put together a memo? I know there's some, state statute stuff that directly addresses, some of those issues with HOA and Blue Grass and, you know, water wise landscaping. I think that might be helpful.
Paul:
Yeah. Okay. Yeah. No, I'm happy to do it.
Jana:
Because I need the HOA stuff.
Tera:
Yes, that is a consideration because we have what is it, something like 33 different HOAs or something like that in the city just on in our metro district site. And they all I think are have varying levels of involvement and enforcement so that there's no real consistency through all of that. So maybe, maybe Paul, you'll have some something that addresses that, but trying to get it get through the HOA is in the city of Castle Pines is pretty much a quagmire.
Nathan:
Yeah. My thought there is that if we have that memo, it might even be more of a tool that we would make available directly to residents that are in that position with an HOA. So we could give them, you know, our memo, like, hey, here's what the actual state statute says and supersedes your HOA regulations because there are, growing protections in that area for residents.
Paul:
There absolutely are. Yeah. You know, happy to happy to have the memo ready. I can, I can have it ready by the next board meeting. This is something that I've come across just randomly, throughout different districts at different times. But yeah, Colorado has largely taken this out of his hands, with a series of statutes that that override HOA rules regarding.
And I've seen some regarding turf. And it's a trend that seems to be accelerating here. I know broadly, an HOA in Colorado today cannot lawfully find a homeowner, for a dead lawn during a drought. But I can dig into the specifics there, and I'll have that ready for you.
Leah:
I would love that. I know my HOA is gonna be like, yeah, that they picked that as one of their battles.
And yes, it drives me crazy.
Paul:
If it'll help you do that with your HOA, I am very happy to because I, I share I share a lot of the same feelings about HOA as I actively, look for properties without one.
Leah:
You know, I’m with you Paul. Although Nathan like as we think through, like how to educate, like the city and the neighborhoods and the residents, like potentially that could be something that we think through with our comms firm, like, how do we land that with, our HOA boards specifically so that there's some consistency there and maybe it's more of like a proactive approach versus like reactive. Because I think once
You have a citizen who's like, you guys are fining me if I, you know, water too much and they're fighting me if I don't like we don't want to catch them when they're in that spot. That's a crappy place to be.
Nathan:
Yeah, that's a good point.
Paul:
That is a good point.
Nathan:
You're standing out on their front lawn HOA and us.
One of each with buckets that say fine on them and they can just pick which one. Right.
One thing that I do need to, finish pulling together, and I don't think it'll be, anything too difficult is just a, kind of a a a very simple process for residents to, get exemptions to the watering schedule. Especially, those that are going through water wise, landscaping processes that are going to need to water be on that three day per week.
So there's a couple different things that I'm looking at. I just wasn't quite ready to present that to the board. But I'll, I'll have that for the, board meeting Monday.
Rene:
I had a thought, based on what Leah said about deferring the fines until maybe next year or a subsequent year. Is that until there's something in place where we can. Monitor, you know, or police through smart meters, probably. It like, I, I don't want the watering fines to become a, you know, neighbor, like, weaponized by neighbors that don't like each other.
And they just, you know, so we're fining the same person because this neighbors just, you know, has nothing better to do. And meanwhile, there's probably tons of other people that are also doing it. But we're, you know, hitting the same people over and over because they got bad neighbors. That seems like until we can, you know.
Tera:
A likely scenario.
Rene:
Right? I think that's what will happen. You know, until we can just prove through a smart water meter, you know, or if we had this staff manpower, which I don't think is the route we want to go. Is so that'd be a good reason also to defer.
Nathan:
I agree. All right. Any other comments on that before we move on to a very patient Lisa that has been hanging out.
Rene:
Oh, are we going to talk about,... Nathan, where are we going to talk about increasing the the rebate to match Castle Rock or Parker.
Nathan:
Oh, yeah. We definitely can, so our, But, Rene, we just have to be careful. But we can't go too deep into discussions that involve. Well, I guess it's wouldn't be a rate fee or toll, since it’s a rebate program, so we should.
We we should be. Okay. We didn't really budget to this level, but, one of the things that became apparent in just some kind of recent discussions I've had and then also through researching this, is that our, rebate amounts that we are allowing, especially for sod replacement, are starting to lag fairly significantly behind a lot of our neighbors.
So right now in a residential, we're $0.50 a square foot, with a minimum and maximum. And on commercial and HOA is where a dollar, a square foot, Castle Rock is up at $3 a square foot. Highlands ranch is $2.50. outside of Douglas County. I think Aurora is even a little bit higher than that. We have been struggling to get participation, in pretty much any of our conservation efforts, especially sod replacement.
And so if the board would like, we can look into that or bring a presentation or a proposal forward, just to increase those amounts, maybe adjust some other rebate, dollar amounts. The, really the drive there is to just make it, you know, make it to the point that we're becoming a partner in those costs, to the point that it's like, almost difficult to not move forward.
Especially it's like lawn, replacement costs go up. Thank you for that reminder, Rene.
Tera:
Well, for taking a regional approach. Then we should also look at what the region is doing. We don't want to be.
Leah:
Rene I was, I was going to just ask a super quick clarifying question on that. I was looking into I think it's like enviro turf or something, like it's a different type of grass that uses a lot less water and is better suited to this environment, like is stuff like that included in our lawn replacement program, or do you have to replace it with like xeriscaping?
Nathan:
I'm
That's a great point. I'm glad you brought that up. So there, right now that is not included in our replacement program. It's like Colorado wise. Highlands Ranch actually has a really great approach that I like with that. So if you go from a high use plant material like Kentucky blue grass and move to a dog turf or a Tahoma 31, one of those, they actually have a split structure.
So if you go to a full Colorado scape, water wise landscape, it's $3 a square foot, I think, or $2.50. And then if you go to a Tahoma 31 or a dog or dog, tough garage. There you still get a rebate for that. It's just lower. So you get like $1.50 rebate, which is an approach that I actually really like and would support.
Jana:
Nathan is that that is part of the program?
Nathan:
It 's not currently.
Jana:
Oh it's not. Yeah. But we would consider it?
Leah:
Yeah, I'd be supportive of that. Just selfishly like, I want to take out all my grass, but like replacing it with turf that's better suited. I, I wonder if that would get more people I don't know.
Nathan:
Yeah. it might. It might for sure.
James:
It ends up on the dog tough.
It, doesn't look very good until it gets later in the year.
Nathan:
Yeah. So with all with all of the lower water use ones, they do it well, Dog tough especially, has a an install method that takes it like a full season, season and a half to take root and, like, look like a lawn. Tillman 31, is a is a solid product, but both of them, green late and brown early.
So, I have the Tillman 31 at my house. I really, really like it, but I won't start my lawn won't start to kind of naturally green until, like, that first, second week of June. And then it starts to brown, late August, early September, which is honestly what grass is supposed to do anyway.
But I think leaving that choice and there's, you know, then like we talked about earlier, there's, state legislation that supports those things to. So I think leaving that as an option for a homeowner would be would be great.
Jana:
But Nathan did we ever ..... to the city to Castles Pines planning department. Or things like that, the way that I saw the ..... made the huge change like, .... development could no longer have sod like we were weigh in on these standards? The landscaping and things like that so that we can partner and make things more water wise.
Nathan:
We have had some conversations with the city. I think about, a man a year, maybe two years ago. Michael and the city actually held a, like, water summit for the city. So, we showed up. Castle Rock showed up, Parker showed up and kind of ran through all of our programs through that to council.
Council at the time, at least, was not open, was not very receptive to heavier lands like land use authority in place. They were much more motivated and supportive of, carrot, not stick. So they wanted to see, you know, more incentive based programs for removal than direct land use. And so there's not a lot, unless something drastically changes, there's not really a lot of advantage to our district specifically for land use, since we're effectively built out.
So even if we had those regulations in place, they wouldn't have much of an impact.
Jana:
They made a change in median, like for any of the medians, they could no longer have sod like stuff like that, that, so even built out stuff like that had to change. So just consider that these places where we could partner I to make like general.
Nathan:
Paul for something like that.
We do have some level of land use authority, right?
Paul:
Yeah. I didn't I didn't quite catch all of it. The audio was sort of going in and out, but.
Jana:
It’s my voice Paul thanks!
Nathan:
The the broad stroke is so like Aurora Council rock are starting to put other utilities are starting to put pretty heavy regulations on where, where song can go, like backyard landscaping, those kinds of things.
I don't know to what extent, but I think we have some level of land use authority that we could do something, official.
Jana:
Specifically I brought up medians Paul like the, the any medians that are sod currently more, you know, that we might see a change where it's just rock and xeriscape. The city has that beautiful things along Monarch.
And so to see that extend Castle Pines Parkway, there's probably not even a lot of grass left. But just these are the things that I'm currently seeing in 2026. Pulled out because of the Council for Aurora is just saying like no more grass. And so even though it's costing money to do it. They’re saying we need to be a force to show people to do this.
And so in front of the city hall of Aurora is a huge great lot. Huge sod of grass. They are ripping it out this year. And so so just stuff like that, like the.
Paul:
Yeah. So so the district can't necessarily tell a property owner what to do with it. They can enforce, they can promulgate rules and regulations in order to effectuate its goals.
So its goal is water service, right. You can you can have rebate programs, you know, for for certain grasses or turf or xeriscaping, you can impose drought restrictions, right? Because that's all within, regulating water use. When you start telling people what to do with their, with their property, it's this or the power just doesn't quite extend that far.
As far as you know, is the question what the district can do with its own property, is that part of it?
Nathan:
Oh no. I just didn't know if we had any land use authority for for exactly what you're talking about, telling us, like controlling landscape types for properties inside of district boundaries.
Paul:
Yeah, that's that's just that would be a tough one to support.
Nathan:
That's why I mean, a lot of places, the district, the water providers that are doing that are part of full service cities, right? So they have city councils with, you know, building department and land use authority behind them.
Paul:
And police powers.
Nathan:
But yeah, we can we can definitely, you know, continue those conversations with the city and, encourage them as much as we as we can.
Jana:
So that they could they could kind of be the example, being set.
Tera:
So, yeah. I mean, to your earlier point, we're pretty much built out the where you're seeing these huge strides as Aurora that's not even build out or Sterling Ranch that doesn't even allow, you know, Kentucky bluegrass those, but that are on the the front end where, you know, we live in a more established area.
Nathan:
Yeah. I was happy to see.
And if you guys drive by the city, actually, as part of their renovations here, have removed almost all of the bluegrass that was around this building. And that's all getting re landscaped. So that was good to see.
Okay. Yeah. So I will bring that back next week, including the, requirements if, people need to waive the watering restrictions and then we'll also, Rene and I can go through the rebates and do some comparisons to make some recommendations to increase those as well. We'll bring that to the board meeting on Monday.
Tera:
Lisa, you've been waiting patiently.
Describer:
On screen.
Mr. Nathan Travis, District Manager
Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
7404 Yorkshire Drive Castle Pines, CO 80108
Subject: Budget Amendment No. 4 – Lift Stations Upgrades
Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
KJ Job# 2246035*00
Dear Nathan:
This letter is to request a budget increase amendment for the Lift Station Upgrades project. The current project scope includes engineering services through the Bidding Phase for both Scope A (stations 1, 2, and 5) and Scope B (stations 3, 4, 6, and 7) and Construction Phase Services for Scope A. Design work is complete for both Scope A and Scope B, Scope A is in construction, and Scope B has been awarded to a contractor.
This amendment includes additional project management time, additional design tasks for both Scope A and Scope B, additional bidding tasks for Scope B, and Construction Phase Services for Scope B. The following paragraphs describe out of scope work that has been performed or will need to be performed for project completion:
Phase 1 – Additional Project Management
This item includes 58 hours for additional project management for the additional scope items. This will cover project management through construction of Scope B. Lisa explains.
Lisa Schwien, P.E., Kennedy Jenks:
No worries. okay. So the, I just want to give you guys a little update on scope A for the lift stations. We have all of the gravity line in to eliminate lift station number two, and we have the ten inch force main complete. Tie ins are not done on either of those, but all the pipe is in and tested and ready for tie ins in the future.
And then they also have the overflow vaults in at lift Station one. Those went in right away. I believe they were working on paving Serena today. I, I saw a bunch of photos from Bob. I don't know if they finished that. Do you know Nathan?
Nathan:
I don't know if they finished last. I heard they were going to be ready to open Serena Friday.
Yeah. Depending on how far are they got.
Lisa:
Could be. Could be sooner, but. Yeah. So anyways, that that's going well, we've worked through a bunch of things with the city on that. And as far as the engineering fee for scope A, we're we've used 40%. So we've had our inspector out there and documenting everything, taking lots of photos, working with a contractor in the city.
So I feel like we're at a good a good spot on the scope, a budget for oversight out there on site. So this is an amendment for, a few design, a few additional design services. A little bit more, a little bit more service during bidding phase, but mainly for the scope B construction phase.
So I kind of did the same as the last one, where we already had some phases laid out. I believe it was one through seven. And we added a phase eight for scope B construction, and then we added some budget to a couple of the other ones that, that go with that and go with some of the extra design, items.
And I, we tried to detail everything out for you guys so you can ask questions if you have questions on something, but do you how much do you want me to go through it Nathan?
Nathan:
I think that that's probably a good place to stop. Unless anybody has anything specific. It's a fairly long and dry document. hey.
But very well written by.
Yeah. So this is kind of gets us home on the, engineering side. So we, did award this project. We're haven’t done our first pre-con yet but we’ll be, you know, getting ready to move toward construction relatively soon. So working through some primary, I guess, really, the easements are kind of the only thing that's really.
Hanging in there.
Lisa:
Yeah, that access easement for Lift station six. And I think we also need to record the easement for the overflow vaults there. But, we have all of our CDPHE approvals. We just got the last one today. They really took a hard look at Lift Station three, which is a good thing. They asked for a lot more, information, a lot more calculations from us.
But that's fine because that's that's one of the main lift stations you guys have, and it's super important station, and it's what caused a lot of the problems in the first place so. They spent a lot of time on that one. Finally sent us approval on the design, today. So we're pretty much ready to go on that.
We even got, I think the contracts are signed. I need to get the final signature sent out, but.
Nathan:
So any questions on the budget amendment for the engineering construction services?
Tera:
You, we count on you. No questions?
Lisa:
I feel like it's it's conservative. So if anything will come in under the. That's why I was kind of giving you an update on scope B. So we just have the site work to do all of station one and lift station five. And I think we're doing good on that budget so.
Describer:
On screen.
April 17th, 2026
Mr. Nathan Travis, Manager
Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
7404 Yorkshire Drive Castle Pines, CO 80108
Subject: Water Distribution System Risk Analysis and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Castle Pines North Metropolitan District (District)
K/J Project 2646056*00
Dear Nathan:
Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (KJ) is pleased to provide this proposal for the Water Distribution System Risk Analysis and Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Our scope of services is based on discussions with the District regarding ductile iron pipe (DIP) that were installed without polyethylene wrap and insulated service connections. These unwrapped DIP water lines were generally constructed in the mid-1980s through the late-1990s and have experienced excessive corrosion, which has contributed to District water main breaks over the past ten years.
The District has replaced several unwrapped DIP water lines, including critical transmission mains along Monarch Boulevard and Castle Pines Parkway, as well as smaller distribution mains in residential areas with repeated failures. As part of this project, the District seeks to develop a preventative, comprehensive plan for rehabilitation and replacement of remaining unwrapped DIP water lines over the next 30 years. Nathan explains.
Nathan:
All right. The next one I had on the agenda then is the, distribution condition assessment. This is one we've been talking about for a while. It's kind of the, next iteration of our asset management. And so this is really just focusing on, some defined areas of pipe. I'll go to the map here.
.... Sorry lagging a little bit.
Lisa:
That one is long too.
Nathan:
I'd, man you guys have been thorough.
Lisa: (Chuckling)
Describer:
On screen. Exhibit A - AIMS CPN Waterline Map
A map if the flows of water through the CPNMD water capture and processing system
Nathan:
So this is really to I just really focus on these yellow pipeline. So these are the older pipelines that were put in. This is actually. Oh, no. Yeah. So and really the the whole point of here is to try and capture what the existing condition is in these areas and then, build that into our asset management plan, ultimately producing a ten year and a 30 year capital replacement plan for these areas.
Yeah. So, I don't I don't really have anything else to add to it, at least unless there are any questions.
Lisa:
We did. We did some predesigned looked at some different inspection methods to try to get a handle on, the condition of these pipes, but everything is so expensive. The ecological testing that we, that we looked at ends up I mean, it's detailed in this proposal ends up being very expensive, just doing some open cut potholes to look at the condition of the pipe and doing some thickness testing with a handheld tester, gets really expensive.
Nathan has seen a lot of these pipes when he's fixed water breaks. So especially in cul de sacs where there's a lot of services connected and they're not cathodically separated. The different metals are not separated with an insulator like they should be. The pipes are not wrapped with poly wrap like they should be. So we kind of know what these look like.
And, I'm. We put costs in the proposal to do some of this testing, but I honestly think you should, that we should just come up with a, you know, lay out a plan to get it all replaced over the next however many years. And put the money into the replacement. So that's my recommendation. But we did do some research to try to give you guys an idea of how much it would cost to do this testing.
So those are listed as options in the proposal.
Nathan, part of that yellow monarch line is replaced I thought.
Nathan:
Yeah we can yeah. There's a couple spots in here that need to be yeah.
Lisa:
Yeah ...... fix those, but maybe he didn't get to it yet.
Nathan:
Or it's an old screenshot. Maybe. Yeah. And some of them are scheduled to be replaced. Yeah. And so and really we just want to make sure that we've got, just a little bit more information than what's hanging out inside my.
Head to put a little bit of quantitative data to the qualitative data. And then get a good plan. This is also, a condition assessment. I'm going to largely turn this one over to Rene to work with Kennedy Jenks on, for a couple reasons there. One that's, really in his wheelhouse. Distribution system, modeling, condition assessment or something.
He's got, pretty good experience on. And then, too, it's just a good way to, you know, help continue to grow familiarization with the district. And so, yeah, like Lisa said, those are we've got some options in here. I think the total request was like $75,000. We can probably come in under that if we don't end up exercising the options or, you know, exercising them in a limited fashion.
But, Yeah, other than that,
Lisa:
Yeah. Nathan, just so you know, the testing or the open cut, inspections wouldn't be included in here. Those would be right. Separate contractors. Yeah, but, like, our engineering fee would be cut down a lot if we weren't doing those options. Yeah.
Nathan:
All right. Any other questions on that one?
Eric:
If I can add, we had, for this year's budget, $140,000 related to the condition assessment.
Nathan:
Yep. Thank you for that, Eric.
And then I'm actually going to Lisa, while I've got you, I'm actually going to jump down to item E, and then we can pop back up to D. So there's no document associated with this. We're Lisa is working on kind of putting together the final engineering proposal for this. But one of the water breaks waterline breaks that we had in the past few weeks was on Craft Court.
The condition of that pipe was absolutely abysmal. We ended up having to replace a pretty good section of it, and it was a fairly severe break that caused quite a bit of damage to the roadway and the roadway subsurface. So we are on the hook, already to do quite a bit of asphalt repair, and it really doesn't make sense to do any kind of extensive surface repair when you have a water line in that condition.
So I've asked Kennedy Jenks to pull together a proposal so that we can go and replace that entire line, on what's kind of an emergency basis. Certainly as quickly as the timeline as we can. There is a temporary patch that's in place, for the roadway, so it is drivable. I have talked to the city about it there.
They do support it. They'd also like to see us, you know, replace that waterline before we redo the majority of the cul de sac anyway. We've done we've started some tasks from, design perspective. We've gotten some locates, we've done some survey, but, more full fleshed out proposal I'll bring to the board on Monday.
I just wanted to jump to that one in case there was anything you wanted to add Lisa. Or if the board had any questions?
Lisa:
Yeah, we have the survey, so. And Bob, just going to run out and check the survey against the markings on the ground. Make sure we got everything in the survey. But then I have that proposal ready.
I'll send it to you.
Nathan:
All right.
Describer:
On screen.
17 April 2026
Nathan Travis District Manager
Castle Pines North Metropolitan District (CPNMD)
7404 Yorkshire Drive Castle Pines, CO 80108
Subject: Castle Pines North Metropolitan District (CPNMD) Security Master Plan, Risk
and Resilience Assessment – Update 2026, and the Emergency Response Plan
- Update 2026 KJ 2646058
Purpose
Castle Pines North Metropolitan District (CPNMD) requested Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. (“KJ”) to assess and enhance the organization’s overall cybersecurity and physical security posture across its operational and facility infrastructure. This project will evaluate current systems and provide recommendations to improve several key areas: 1) Physical access control system; 2) Site surveillance solution; 3) Cybersecurity assessment and recommended
mitigation strategies aligned with industry standards (AWWA Cybersecurity Guidance, EPA Guidelines for Water and Wastewater Management, ISA/IEC 62443, NIST CSF). Along with the above-mentioned assessment and strategies for the cyber-security and physical security, KJ will also be updating the Risk and Resilience Assessment (RRA) as well as the Emergency Response Plan (ERP). These documents are scheduled to be updated per the EPA guidelines and the RRA is due by the end of June 2026 and the ERP needs to be completed by December of 2026. These documents are currently required by the EPA to be updated every five years.
Background
CPNMD operates a water treatment plant that relies on industrial control systems and
Operational Technology (OT) infrastructure to manage critical operational processes. In addition to the primary facility, the system includes remote sites consisting of booster pump stations, storage tanks, and wells that are essential to maintaining reliable water collection and distribution systems. The Board of Directors has raised concerns about both cybersecurity and physical security vulnerabilities across these facilities, particularly regarding the protection of OT networks and the monitoring of remote infrastructure. The current physical security environment
relies on independently managed camera systems with locally stored recordings, resulting in the absence of centralized management, unified monitoring, or coordinated incident response capabilities. CPNMD also intends to conduct a cybersecurity assessment of its OT and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) environments to identify vulnerabilities, security gaps, and potential risks that could impact critical operations. The assessment will review key areas such as network architecture, Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) infrastructure, physical access controls, remote connectivity, and cybersecurity practices. Based on the
findings, a prioritized remediation roadmap will be developed to guide improvements and strengthen protection of the OT environment, while aligning cybersecurity practices with EPA guidance, AWIA requirements, and industry standards.
Nathan:
Jumping up to D. And the last item that we've got on the agenda. So this is, kind of a culmination of a few different things. This is the, security proposal, effectively. So, we pulled, site security condition access or, site access from the water treatment plant scope. We also pulled it from our or did we didn't we declined to add it to the water treatment plant scope, and we pulled it from all the lift stations with the idea of putting all of that into, kind of one proposal so that we can take a universal approach.
Almost immediately after we made that decision, we got an evaluation from the EPA to look at our cyber security. And as they also looked at our risk and resiliency assessment and our, emergency response plan. So really just kind of helpful timing. So we took all of that, combine it into one proposal to look at it, to address all of those things.
So first and foremost, the kind of more pressing tasks on here, the EPA has a mandated update to the, ERP and the RRA. Both of those are due this year. I don't remember which one is which. One of them is due at the end of June, the other one viewed, the end of, at the end of December to January 1st, 2027.
So this, Kennedy Jenks did the original one so they'll be able to do that update. We, have one more meeting with the EPA cybersecurity guys to get their final recommendations. So we'll be able to include those in this. And then we'll also look at all the site security, things that we had talked about previously.
So pretty basic to understand, information gathering, general data gathering, updating those two reports, putting together some field investigation, seeing that what we have created, the existing inventory, look for what areas that, we need to increase our protection, data collection, review workshops, kind of going through the workshops related to those two plans that we need to update.
And then the ultimate deliverables will be, as I outlined beforehand. I know I kind of ran through that. It's kind of. So we're also just losing a little bit of, first we move later into kind of a fairly dense meeting. So I'll leave it there for now. If anybody has any questions, you know, certainly feel free to ask.
The total budget on this would be $122,012. This is not something that we had specifically budgeted for this year. So that's something to keep in mind, that, you know, we'll have to Eric and I can work with, look at seeing how that fits and if it would have any impacts that require, budget amendments or anything like that.
But. Any questions?
I get nervous when James is quiet for a meeting. I'm used to all the, like, really solid, helpful one.
Tera:
So I don't see a lot of questions. And I know that we've made a commitment to being done by seven. So, Yeah.
James:
I'll probably have some for you. a little bit later. Yeah. And I'll get this to I'll send this directly to Jason to and touch base with him, cuz I know he's going to have, thoughts.
James:
Yeah. Right. I mean, yeah, you could get me going on this stuff.
Tera:
Oh just geek out. Yeah. No chance to comment.
James:
Yeah. Nobody wants that.
All Speak: (Laughter)
Nathan:
At least not during the normal meeting. We can. We can get together and geek out afterward.
James:
Hey, there you go.
Nathan:
All right, guys, well, that is all I had tonight. Anything else the board would like to bring up?
And other than that, I'll take it to Tera, and she can adjourn us.
Tera:
I'm seeing none. Looks like we're ready to adjourn. Thanks, guys.
Nathan:
Great. All right. Thanks, everybody. We'll see you next week.
All Speak:
Have a great weekend, everyone. Thank you. Good night. Good night.