Board Meeting

April 27, 2026

Transcript

Describer:

Regular Board Meeting- April 27 2026

Apr 27, 2026 06:00 PM MDT

7404 Yorkshire Drive, Castle Pines, CO 80108

Remote Meeting (opens in new tab)

I. Call meeting to order

A. Pledge of Allegiance

. Roll call & disclosure of potential conflicts

II. Public comment period (three minute maximum per person)

Public comment is designed to share your thoughts and concerns with the district, but it is not an interactive discussion.

If you would like to participate, please sign up at the back of the room or if you are attending virtually, type your name and address in the chat feature to be placed in the queue.

III. Consent Agenda

This is a group of items to be acted on with a single motion, second and vote by the Board to expedite the handling of limited routine matters. The Board has previously received information on these matters and/or discussed them at a prior study session. Any board member may move an item from the consent agenda to the meeting agenda at this time.

Proposed Motion: I move to approve the items as presented in the consent agenda.

A. Approve March 23, 2026 Regular Board Meeting Minutes

3.23.26 DRAFT CPNMD Board Meeting Minutes (PDF, opens in new tab)

B. Approve March 16, 2026 Work Session Minutes

3.16.26 CPNMD Work Session Minutes DRAFT (PDF, opens in new tab)

C. Ratify claims for payment including check numbers 29608 – 29651 and electronic payments issued from March 12, 2026 to April 15, 2026 totaling $1,425,616.50

D. Approve: 2026 Cooperative Agreement for Water Infrastructure

Approve in substantially the form presented, subject to non-substantive changes, and authorize the District Manager to execute the same on behalf of the District.

CPVMD - 2026 Cooperative Agreement - CPNMD Redline 4934-2767-9906 v.1 (PDF, opens in new tab)

E. Approve: Clarification to CPNMD Rules and Regulations regarding "combined service lines" CPNMD Rules and Regulations (2026-2) DRAFT 4905-0815-7847 v.4 (PDF, opens in new tab)

F. Approve: Water Distribution System Risk Analysis Proposal

2646056 Engineering Proposal Water Distribution System Risk Assessment and CIP (PDF, opens in new tab)

G. Approve: Updated Benefits Offering (Colorado PERA ROTH Option and PERA 457 Plan), Employer Roth Affiliation Participation Agreement, and Employer PERA 457 Affiliation Participation Agreement Roth Adoption Agreement #923 Castle Pines North Metropolitan District (PDF, opens in new tab)

457 Plan Employer Participation Agreement 923 Castle Pines North Metro District (PDF, opens in new tab)

H. Approve: Proposal for CPNMD Security Master Plan, Risk and Resilience Assessment Update, and Emergency Response Plan Update

CPNMD-RRA-ERP-Security-RRA-ERP Proposal (PDF, opens in new tab)

I. Approve: Croft Court Waterline Replacement Engineering Proposal

CPN Croft Ct Water Line Repl Proposal_R1 (PDF, opens in new tab)

IV. Finance Report

The Finance Director will present an overview of the District’s financial condition, including budget performance, revenue and expenditure activity, cash balances, and other financial matters for the Board’s review.

CPNMD 04.27.2026 Finance Board Packet (PDF, opens in new tab)

A. Review District Finance Report

B. Consider Approval of opening a New District Operating Checking Account and Assignment of Signers

Recommended Motion: I move to adopt the resolution approving the opening of a new District operating checking account and authorizing the assignment of designated signers, as presented.

Draft Resolution re Authorization re InBank Account Access and Official Custodians 4.23.2026 4925-7263-8628 v.1 (PDF, opens in new tab)

C. Consider Approval of opening a CSAFE LGIP Account and Assignment of Signers

Recommended Motion: I move to adopt the resolution approving the opening of a CSAFE LGIP account and authorizing the assignment of designated signers, as presented.

Draft CSAFE Resolution 4.23.2026 4897-1120-5796 v.1 (PDF, opens in new tab)

V. Legal Counsel Status Report

Legal Counsel will provide an update on legal matters affecting the District, including but not limited to: contracts, compliance issues, ongoing or potential litigation, and other legal considerations for the Board’s information and guidance.

4.27.2026 Legal Status Report - CPNMD (1) (PDF, opens in new tab)

A. Memorandum re Colorado Statutory Restrictions on HOA Regulation of Water-Wise Landscaping and Lawn Maintenance

CPNMD Memo HOA Landscaping Restrictions 4923-6497-4245 v.1 (PDF, opens in new tab)

B. Resolution Adopting Water Use Restrictions and Amending the District's Water Conservation Rebate Program

Recommended Motion: I move to adopt the Resolution Adopting Water Use Restrictions and amending the District’s Water Conservation Rebate Program, as presented

Resolution Adopting Water Use Restrictions and Amending Rebate Program 2026-4- 4904-6384-3749 v.1 (PDF, opens in new tab)

C. Approve: IGA by and Between The City of Castle Pines and Castle Pines North Metropolitan District Regarding Reconstruction of Castle Pines Parkway Westbound and Replacement of Waterline

Recommended Motion: I move to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement between the District and the City for the Water Line Replacement Project, including the amended language requiring District review and approval of pay applications for Water Line Replacement components, and to authorize the District Manager to execute the agreement and any minor, non-substantive revisions necessary to finalize the document

CCP-CPNMD IGA for Castle Pines Pkwy W Reconstruction and Water Line Replacement 4899-0361-7698 v.1 (PDF, opens in new tab)

VI. District Manager Report

The District Manager will present a report to the Board regarding district operations, project status, administrative activities, and other matters pertinent to the District

District Manager Board Report 4_27_26 (PDF, opens in new tab)

A. Update: Douglas County Water Commission

B. Update: Regional water supply study

C. Update: Interconnect Pump Station surge system modifications

D. South Tank Rehab Capital Project

Staff requests that the Board designate Vice President Jana Krell as the Board representative to participate in the proposal evaluation

VII. Operations & Engineering Report

These reports are included in the monthly Board Packet, this agenda item serves as an opportunity for the board to ask any questions they have regarding the reports.

Engineering Board Report Memo Apr 2026 (PDF, opens in new tab)

Operations Report, March 2026 (PDF, opens in new tab)

VIII. Director's Matters

Board members may raise and discuss items of interest, concerns, or announcements that are not otherwise included on the agenda.

IX. Adjourn

Board President Jason Blankaert:

Okay. We'll, Go ahead and begin. good evening and welcome to the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District regular board meeting on April 27, 2026. We're a little bit, late today.

It's about 6:11 instead of 6 pm. But we'll call this meeting to order, and we'll begin with the Pledge of Allegiance. So I Pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Alright. Thank you. We'll, move on now to roll call and, disclosure of potential conflicts.

Board Member Director James Mulvey:

It's, Jim Present. No conflicts.

Board Member Director Leah Enquist:

Leah. Present. No conflicts.

Board Member Director Jana Krell:

Jana Present. No conflicts.

Board Member Director Tera Radloff:

And Tera. Present. No conflicts. And I thought we were going to take out the Pledge of Allegiance while we were doing online meetings just because of the, latency and the the awkwardness.

Jason:

If it's on the agenda, I just read it.

District Manager Nathan Travis:

We were I.

That's an oversight on my part. I'll get it.

Jason:

Okay. And I'm Jason Blankaert. I'm here. Present. No conflicts. We'll go ahead and close out item number one, and we'll move on to item number two, which is the public comment, period. public comment. It's designed to share your thoughts with and concerns with the districts, but is not an interactive decision.

Discussion if you'd like to participate. And I guess I'm just directing that at Steve today. Steve, do you have anything you'd like to share with us? I do. Go for it.

Steve Dawes, Castle Pines Resident:

Good. Thank you board. Steve Dawes 5703 Jasper Point Circle in the Daniel's Gate neighborhood. I'm looking at the agenda and I had just two points.

One, I see that the proposal is to change banking to include an entity called InBank. I don't have an objection to it. I just like to know who they are and, why it was selected. Were other banks considered and, are we able to negotiate any, of the fees? I've done it myself for business accounts before, and I wonder if Eric could address that.

The other issue I want to talk about is the proposed water regulations. It says in the whereas clause is that the district facing an immediate shortage in its water supply. And I guess I'd like to know why that is. In addition, the water regulations appear to, be proposed to be mandatory, and I think that they need to be first published to the citizens for comment.

Before adopting anything. That seems to me that these regulations have a number of due process issues. Not the least of which is what's the appeal for any penalties? W hat are the reasonable application procedures and criteria that the district manager is allowed to provide? How do you define waste water? What happens if water is blown into the stream, which we get wind all the time.

I have a neighbor who has, fairly significant slope on her property. And, you know, she really can't keep water from running off because of that. In addition, she has an elevated garden, very difficult to water her lawn without water getting in the street. So, my view of it is that you should, have voluntary water restrictions for the interim. Publish it to the, citizens. Put together Committee of 1 or 2 board members and some citizens to review the comments and come up with, comprehensive, and regulations with more due process, than exist in the current proposal.

That's it. Thank you.

Jason:

Thank you. Steve.

Okay. We will, have those questions answered throughout the meeting. I know they were discussed, study session last week. But, we'll go ahead and close out the, public comment period, and, we'll open up item number three, which is the consent agenda. The consent agenda is a group of items that to be acted on with a single motion second, and a vote by the board to expedite the handling of limited routine matters.

The board has previously received information on these matters. And or discussed them at a prior study session. Any board member may move an item from the consent agenda to the meeting agenda at any time.

Do I hear any?

Tera:

Yes. I move to approve the items on consent agenda as presented.

Jason:

Thank you Tera.

Jim:

I'll go ahead. Second that. Okay then. I'll second.

Board Voting All Speak:

Thanks, Jim. We'll move on to a vote. Jim.Approve. Tera. Approve. Jana. Approve. Leah. Approve. I approve as well. The motion passes.

Jason:

And with that, we'll go ahead and close out. Item number three, the consent agenda.

And we'll move on to item number four, the finance report. I don't see Eric on our list today, but I see that we have Molly. Molly would you be able to offer any information that, Steve brought up with, with the bank that we're looking at and what other things were considered?

Molly Janzen, Accountant:

Yes. I know Eric, and, has been more involved in that, process for looking at another bank.

The district's had the same checking account for a number of years. So, we did agree that it was it was worthwhile to pursue a different avenue right now. We could table the decision on that bank until he's had an opportunity to come, before the board and the community to give a little bit more information on that.

I do know that in the analysis of that bank, it was determined that the fees would be significantly lower than the current bank that we have. So I think that was part of the decision making. Nathan, I don't know if you can weigh in on that a little bit.

Nathan:

Yeah. I don't really have much else to add.

Tera:

Yeah, I'll jump in. So, Steve, I remember a couple of the items that were presented to us last week on study session regarding InBank because I had not I was not familiar with them either. I know one of the things is that, it's a Colorado bank.

So it's got local presidents and one of the items that, it had to do with the lock boxes. Nate, I don't know if you want to speak to that, but, in order to be able to process those payments more quickly, there is a significant, lag time because currently, those that our lock boxes are in Texas, I believe.

So I know that, in addition to negotiating and saving on fees, that this would, significantly reduce the amount of time before those lockbox payments are processed.

Nathan:

Thank you. Tera, I think she said it perfect. I don't have anything to add.

Jason:

Okay, Molly, if you'd like to continue.

Describer:

On screen.

TO: Board of Directors – Castle Pines North Metropolitan District FROM: Eric Harris, Elevated Clarity (EC)

DATE: April 27, 2026

RE: Financial Report – April 2026 Board of Directors Meeting

General Fund Activity

Actual revenues as of February 28, 2026, were $673,734. As of February 2026, the District recognized $396,964 in property tax revenues received from Douglas County and $11,442 in specific ownership tax revenues. This represents 40.90% of the budgeted property taxes from the District’s mill levy year-to-date. The District receives the majority of annual property taxes February through June of each year. Indirect cost revenue amounts received to date in the General Fund from the Water and Wastewater Funds totals $229,579, $176,839 from the Water Fund and $52,740 from the Wastewater Fund.

Total actual expenditures as of February 28, 2026, were $459,093, The current net result is a positive change in funds available of $214,641.

For most categories of revenues and expenditures, the actual amounts align well with the amounts budgeted. Two categories of expenditures that are trending over the amounts budgeted are Property and Liability Insurance and Software Support. The amount anticipated in the 2026 budget for Property and Liability Insurance was reduced to compensate for the parcels that were transferred to the City of Castle Pines. We will be conducting a review of the insured properties in the 2026 policy which may result in a decrease to the 2026 cost. Software support includes the financial software in 2026; this was recorded in 2025 in Accounting and Payroll so was not anticipated in the amount budgeted for Software Support.

We will begin projecting annual costs and providing further analysis with the first quarter financials that will be presented at next month’s board meeting.

Enterprise Fund Activity

Billed water usage in the month of February 2026 was 20,709,000 gallons, a 7.35% increase from water usage in February 2025.

Molly:

Sure. So, provided in your packet starting, looks like page 106. We do have the monthly, memo, providing information on our assessment of the financials. At this point in time. So this month we are reflecting on the February financials. So we do, take time to close out, prior month.

It takes time to get those invoices in, to reflect the services that were provided or the goods that were received in prior months. And so that's why you see a delay in what we are reflecting here. I'm not going to go into a lot of detail this month on the monthly financials just because it's only February.

So March, our first quarter financials, which will be presented next month. We will actually be doing projections for the whole year. So we will look at the activity from January through March, analyze that activity based on what we expected to see, and then provide projections. So that's when it becomes, I think more, important to look at at that point.

It's a little too early in the year, obviously, if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer those. But I wasn't going to go into a lot of activity. A couple of things I would point out in the memo is on page 108, where we give the cash balances for the district. You will see that we have brought our cash balances down, and that is to be expected.

Describer:

On screen.

3/31/2025

CITYWIDE/UMB $935,698

COLOTRUST $48,715,129

1ST BANK $0

TOTAL $49,650,827

2/28/2026

CITYWIDE/UMB $718,648

COLOTRUST $47,110,528

1ST BANK $0

TOTAL $47,829,176

Molly:

So 03/31/2025, $49 million. We're $47 million. So that is planned. It's to be expected. It's it's, we have capital projects and project progress right now. So I just wanted to point out that's nothing to be alarmed about. That's that's good. That means we're doing what we said we were going to do. And then the other thing is just to focus in on some of the projects we have going on right now.

Describer:

On screen.

Current Projects

Currently, EC is formalizing and documenting the District’s closing schedule related to its financial processes as well as working with District staff and contractors on implementing the following process changes and projects:

-Assist with the implementation of CUSI (billing system) UB4. CUSI has converted rates and account information to the new platform. Staff and contractor training is occurring this week. We are now expecting to go live with the system in June 2026.

-Coordinate with Blackbaud Advisory consultants on improvements to the district’s general ledger and setup in the financial system. This includes updates to report groupings and the chart of account structure as well as exploring utilization of additional features within the financial system to achieve efficiencies.

-Streamline and enhance monthly financial reporting.

-Begin preparation for the 2025 annual audit, anticipated to begin the week of May 11, 2026. Preparation will include documenting and removing from the District’s balance sheet any assets transferred from the District to the City of Castle Pines in 2025.

-Begin updates to organizing electronic records for the District.

-Recommend that the Board authorize a phased restructuring of the District’s cash management framework and implement changes accordingly.

-Recommend that the Board authorize the adoption of the Colorado PERA Roth option and Colorado

PERA 457 Deferred Compensation Plan and implement changes accordingly.

-Evaluate reserve levels and types of reserves to develop, recommend, and ultimately adopt a reserves policy.

Molly:

So on page one of 109 of your packet, current projects, we've been working on the implementation of UB4, which is the new version of the utility billing system. We've had some training recently. I think we're all feeling like we're going to be ready to go live soon. With that new system, obviously a lot of details to work through, but that's going well.

Also during this year, we've been able to access some of the features in the current accounting system that haven't been used before. So, accounts receivable, a new chart of accounts, things like that that are helping us with our financial reporting. And we can we expect that continue throughout the year. The progress for the audit is going well, we the audit is expected to begin May 11th.

So the next board meeting, we should have a little bit more of an update about that. We don't expect any problems. I've been in contact with, the city, to, to coordinate so that our records reflect what their records will as far as the transfer of assets from the district to the city. And so we're, we're working together to make sure that our mutual audits are, in line with each other so that it won't present any problems for either one of us.

So, we're working on that. Then the other things are just organizing electronic records. We've been working on that. And then the two proposals in your, board meeting tonight regarding the cash management framework, changing, banking accounts and creating CSAFE investment account, and then also, authorizing the adoption of the, PERA Roth option and the 457 compensation plan just to allow more opportunities for district employees at no cost to the district.

And then finally, we're not there quite yet, but we will be looking at the reserve levels that the district has and the various funds, that it holds and providing some kind of recommendation to the board around what those reserves should be. And what that will allow is that decisions made on future budgets, it will be kind of a guide of are we spending too much or are we not spending enough, you know, just something to kind of gauge where we're at.

So that will be forthcoming later in the year. But I think those are the only things I wanted to point out in the memo. Again, the the financials are there, for your information. Wasn't going into a lot of detail tonight about those, but I'm I'm welcome to any questions you might have.

Jason:

Thank you. Molly. Anybody have any questions?

Jim.

James:

I'll save it for later when Nathan gets to it.

Jason:

Okay. All right. So hearing no questions, we will, go ahead. And, is that the whole report, Molly?

Molly:

Yeah, I was just looking, I think the only other thing to mention was that we did include the project to-date reporting, that has been missing for a couple of months.

Just kind of caught that up to date. And this one tried to capture current information, so it may not. It won't match the February financials exactly, because it was a coordinated effort between Eric and our engineers to get the up to date information that you see in that report. So we will continue to provide that every month.

Jason:

All right. Very good. So I see a couple motions on the agenda. Nathan. But, I think we're not going to talk about opening a new checking account today. We're going to wait for more information and, do we need the motion for CSAFE?

Describer:

On screen.

CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGARDING THE COLORADO SURPLUS ASSET FUND TRUST (CSAFE)

WHEREAS, the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District (“District”) is a metropolitan district duly organized and existing pursuant to the Special District Act, C.R.S. § 32-1-101 et seq., serving the residents within its boundaries through the provision of essential public services including water, sanitation, and other critical infrastructure;

WHEREAS, the District desires to pool its funds with other local government entities by becoming a participant in the Colorado Surplus Asset Fund Trust (“CSAFE”) and therefore passes the following resolution:

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. Section 24-75-601 and 701, et seq., as amended and C.R.S. 24-75-702, et seq. as amended, any local government entity (including cities, towns, school districts, special districts, counties or political subdivisions of the state) is authorized to pool any moneys in its treasury, which are currently surplus funds and not immediately required to be disbursed, with similar moneys from other local government entities, in order for these entities to take advantage of short-term investments and maximize net interest earnings. CSAFE is formed as a common law trust under the laws of the state of Colorado.

WHEREAS, the governing body of the District desires to participate in CSAFE formed in accordance with the aforesaid statutes, in order to pool its surplus funds with other local government entities, it has passed, by majority vote the following resolution:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District as follows:

Legal Counsel Paul Polito, Esq.:

You would need a motion for the to adopt the CSAFE resolution. Okay.

Molly:

And and I can I add just a little bit more about that

Really what we're trying to do here is diversify. The, the historical, historically, the investments have been held with COLOTRUST. So, CSAFE is another, local government investment pool, very safe. And what we're trying to do is just, diversify, and not have all the district's money in one entity. So, that is why you see the proposal here for that investment pool.

Jason:

So we'll be keeping some money where it is right now?

Molly

Correct. Yeah. The goal is to have about 50/50, in so 50% in COLOTRUST and 50% and CSAFE.

Jason:

Okay. Does the board have any questions about CSAFE.

Okay. Not hearing none. I will go ahead and recommend use the recommended motion.

Tera:

I couldn't get unmuted fast enough. Sorry, I do have some questions about the sea safe. Great. oh. Crap. Sorry, I'm having to toggle between the two.

Describer:

On screen.

CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGARDING THE COLORADO SURPLUS ASSET FUND TRUST (CSAFE)

2. The District should implement proper security procedures to safeguard their account. CSAFE does not guarantee the prevention of fraud or theft from another participant account.

Tera:

Districts should implement proper security procedures to safeguard their accounts. CSAFE does not guarantee prevention of fraud or theft from a from another participant account.

Do we know how we're going to do that?

It's on page 127. Number two.

Jason:

Paul did you draft this document?

Paul:

I did, this was modeled, after, resolution that, that Eric had provided. I don't know the reasoning behind it. I know that Eric had I think this was the model ... resolution.

Nathan:

So I it sounds like maybe we should table this one too, until, if nothing else, until we've got Eric to kind of know why we addressed these, and we can answer get those questions answered.

Tera:

And so what was the why were we not doing the in bank one, the one before this?

Jason:

We were waiting for more information from Eric on in Bank and what other options he looked at.

Molly:

Yeah, I think I think the question from Mr. Dawes was related to, and correct me if I'm wrong, but just more.

Have we looked at other banks? Why this bank? You know, just some of those questions so.

Jason:

I agree. That's the way I interpreted it as well.

Tera:

Right? I just thought we had answered that more study session. But that's, that's that's cool.

Jason:

Okay, okay. Well, since we're tabling those two, motions, we'll go ahead and, close out the finance report.

Unless anybody has any other questions? Okay. We'll move on now to item number five, the legal counsel status report. Good evening Paul.

Describer:

On screen.

TO: Castle Pines North Metropolitan District

FROM: Seter, Vander Wall & Mielke, P.C.; Paul Polito, Esq. DATE: April 26, 2026

RE: Legal Status Report for the April 27, 2026 Board Meeting

MATTER: Status:

RULES AND REGULATIONS UPDATE – COMBINED SERVICE LINE PROVISIONS

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.

Paul:

Good evening everyone. So I'll start off with the legal status report for jumping to the individual items today. Not too much of a change, from last meeting. I'm sorry. I'm just pulling this up right now.

The only change that I did include in here, was the water restriction. An amended water conservation rebate program. When I get to the resolution, I'm happy to have the back and forth and talk about, Steve's questions. They're good ones. Do you want to say that, the resolution was properly noticed, and there's no, there's no procedural issues, but, happy to talk about all that.

Does anybody have any questions on the general legal status report before we move on?

Leah:

I, I have a specific question about, what you put together around, like the HOA piece. If now's not the best time for that. I can hold it.

Paul:

We were we're right about to jump into that. So nobody has any questions on this. I'm happy to get into it.

Leah:

So firstly, thank you. Was really helpful having it all together in one place.

Assuming that we do adopt, some restrictions, which would likely not be enforced right away. And this, this might be for, for Nate. Like, is this something that we would want to like, proactively communicate to our HOA? I would think so, yes, or, to our residents somehow. Or is this more of, like, a reactive thing?

Nathan:

No, I think that especially I guess I hadn't put as much thought to communicating it to residents, but I did want to get it directly in front of HOAs, school districts, large irrigators.

Yeah, I think that that's a good product measure.

Leah:

Awesome. And I definitely think like outreach to HOA is is is really important. But I would also think through like outreach to residents too. And something like this might be too dense, but just informing people, of what I guess their rights are, for lack of a better term, in case they do encounter issues with their HOA.

I guess it's more just something to think about. I would defer to our our comms folks for, suggestions on how to do that. Can do.

Paul:

I would agree with you there. We, and agree that this is probably or most definitely too dense. It do that, but I think even just highlighting the prohibition on fines during mandatory water restrictions, is I'm guessing, you know, with what you're probably keying into here and what's going to be most appropriate for the district.

So some sort of proactive communication to the residents that, you know, Colorado law prevents an HOA from fining a homeowner for failing to water in accordance, you know, the HOA is watering requirements when it's forced to do so. Under some, you know, municipal or water providers restriction, something to that effect. Awesome.

Leah:

Yeah. I mean, it was news to me.

So I would imagine, you know, there's a lot of other residents who don't have that awareness as well. Again, thanks for pulling it together.

Paul:

Oh, happy to, and I'm glad you found it useful. I learned to a little bit myself as I was, drafting this, so, Yeah, it's good for everyone. I'm happy to go through this.

It is a lot. And I think the the key takeaways here, are, first of all, what I just said that if the district enacts any sort of water restrictions, an HOA can't come in and find a resident for failing to water in accordance with whatever the HOA requirement is, when they're watering the maximum amount that's required.

Under the water restrictions. So I think that's the most important on point, provision that it that addresses what the board may or may not do today. Otherwise there's other sort of protections and restrictions that, that the state legislature has, has enacted really over the last five years. It's this has been a pretty hot topic, and there's a lot of new laws coming out, and I wouldn't be surprised if new laws continue to come out on this, and this sort of stuff.

But you as, as homeowners certainly have a lot of protections, available to you. If anybody wants me to dig into this, I'm happy to do it. Otherwise, we can move on.

Tera:

Okay, so, Paul, just a question. I know that on the rules and regulations update. Was the draft rule updates for approval in our consent agenda, or.

I see that your action says considered draft rule updates during this meeting.

Paul:

Those were those were the updates regarding that combined service line that we had discussed, during the work session last week, and those were on the consent agenda. That being said, I'm happy to talk about it ......

Tera:

No.. I think we will reserve the time to talk about your proposed, policy.

Paul:

Fair enough, fair enough. Well, if if everybody's, satisfied with the memorandum, no questions. Happy to move off the point and on to this resolution. Okay. That brings us to, five 5B.

Describer:

On screen.

CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-4-__

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT ADOPTING WATER USE RESTRICTIONS AND AMENDING THE DISTRICT’S WATER CONSERVATION REBATE PROGRAM

WHEREAS, the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District (the "District") is a quasi- municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado, organized pursuant to the Special District Act, C.R.S. § 32-1-101, et seq.; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to its Service Plan and the Special District Act, the District is authorized to own, operate, and maintain a water system and to provide water service to customers within and outside its boundaries; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-1001 and the District’s Rules and Regulations (the "Rules and Regulations"), the District is authorized to adopt rules, regulations, and restrictions governing water service and water use, including the imposition of water use restrictions and conservation measures; and

WHEREAS, the State of Colorado continues to experience periodic drought conditions, and the Board recognizes the importance of responsible water use and conservation to ensure the long-term sustainability of the District’s water supply; and

WHEREAS, Section 12.2 of the Rules and Regulations authorizes the Board, upon a determination that the District is facing an immediate shortage in its supply of water which threatens the health, safety and welfare of the property owners, inhabitants of, and visitors to, the District, and requires immediate action, to institute orders regulating or curtailing uses of water by those served by the District, including restrictions on irrigation use; and

WHEREAS, based upon current drought and water supply conditions, the Board hereby determines that the District is facing an immediate shortage in its supply of water within the meaning of Section 12.2 of the Rules and Regulations, which threatens the health, safety and welfare of the property owners, inhabitants of, and visitors to, the District, and which requires immediate action by the Board; and

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the adoption of water use restrictions, including limitations on outdoor watering hours, a tiered watering day schedule based on customer type and service address, and the prohibition of water waste, together with limited exemptions for specific activities, is necessary and in the best interests of the District and its customers; and

WHEREAS, the District also administers a water conservation rebate program designed to incentivize water-efficient practices, fixtures, and landscaping, including rebates for sod removal and turf replacement, smart irrigation controllers, high-efficiency toilets, rotator sprinkler nozzles, rain sensors, and water-efficient showerheads; and

WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed updates to the water conservation rebate program, including adjustments to the per-square-foot rebate rates for sod removal conversions, modifications to the smart controller rebate, the addition of a Rachio Smart Controller discount program, and clarifications to the residential high-efficiency toilet rebate; and

WHEREAS, the Board intends to continue the District’s existing water conservation programs, including the rotator sprinkler nozzle, rain sensor, and water-efficient showerhead rebates, as well as the District’s free sprinkler evaluation program, commonly known as the "Slow the Flow" program; and

WHEREAS, the Board finds that the adoption of the water use restrictions and the amendments to the water conservation rebate program set forth herein is in the best interests of the District, its customers, and the long-term stewardship of the District’s water resources.

5. New Plant and Sod Installation Exemption. Customers installing new sod or new plantings may apply for a twenty-one (21) day temporary exemption allowing daily watering, subject to the following conditions: (a) watering remains prohibited after 8:00 a.m. and before 8:00 p.m.; (b) the customer must apply for the exemption through the District’s website; and (c) the exemption is not available during the months of July or August. Pursuant to Section 1.14 of the Rules and Regulations, the Board hereby delegates to the District Manager the authority to administer the application, approval, and denial of exemptions under this Section, including the authority to adopt reasonable application procedures, evaluation criteria, and conditions consistent with this Resolution.

Paul:

So this is the resolution adopting the water use restrictions and amending the district's water conservation rebate program. So Steve had some very good comments and points, which, as an agency attorney for four years, I can I can absolutely appreciate because, he reminded me of a lot of the provisions, a lot of the the procedures that we had to follow as an agency before we amended our rules.

It's a little bit different with special districts. There is no special requirement aside from changing rates, for special districts to notice and hold, a public hearing before amending or adding to its rules, other than just the general public meeting requirement that the district always has. So statutory baseline that governs just about all of this.

32-1-1001, gives water and sanitation district boards the authority to do this stuff. Adopt, amend, enforce reasonable rules and regulations. It doesn't prescribe any specific procedure for doing so. So that's different than what you would find in, say, a municipal code which has formal ordinance procedures, publications, second reading, things like that. For special districts, legislator delegated broad rulemaking authority to the district and really left a procedural design to each district.

So what the statute does require is that you adopt it at a public meeting under the Open Meetings law, which which we're doing with 24 hour notice and posting. And you have to comply with the substantive standards. So the rules must be reasonable. And within the district service plan and statutory authority, you have to have the power to enact these rules before you do.

That's just general service plan powers and that's it. That's it. As a matter of state law, no statutory mandate for separately notice, public hearing, no comment period publication before adoption or anything like that. That being said, Steve brings up some good points on due process. So, you know, how does due process work in this sort of situation?

What happens? So due process requires reasonable notice to customers before you do something such as an a penalty to be enforce against them. You can't do that without giving them sufficient notice and right to be informed that.

Describer:

On screen.

8. Publication and Notice. District staff and District legal counsel, Seter, Vander Wall & Mielke, P.C., are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions reasonably necessary to publish, post, and otherwise provide notice of the water use restrictions and the amended rebate program adopted herein to District customers, including, without limitation, updates to the District’s website, the District’s customer communications, the District’s rebate request form, and the District’s water conservation program materials.

Paul:

So section eight directs customer facing publication, which is the right move? Now, just a few practical points here.

There is a defensible gap between the adoption of the and speaking from due process. You know, we all clear. There is a gap between adoption and, and the enforcement of this, and this is aside from the board, you know, what I anticipate the board will do is pull is delay enforcement for a certain period of time under this resolution if it adopts it.

Even that aside, the fact that the first violation is a warning builds in, a little due process. So that you know that effective immediately, language is fine because the customer gets notice and then they get funding the second time. So there's a little ramp. One thing I would be careful of is if the district wants to hold off on, enforcement for a certain period of time, just make sure you apply that uniformly.

So there's no sort of claim about special enforcement or anything like that, just uniformly ban it for a certain period of time. That's what I would recommend. There was Steve did bring up whether you know the definition of waste water and we're not defining waste water. You know, there may be certain situations where a piece of property is situated in a certain way that it may be unavoidable, but to that I would say there's it's already restricted in the district's rules.

Anyway, that was actually something I was going back and forth with, with as others drafting this resolution. It's already restricted in the district's rules. You already can't waste water anyway. So truthfully, this is this is echoing what's already within the rules. This isn't a new requirement. It's it's been in practice for years within the district, to not waste water.

So it's a regurgitation. It's it's nothing new. Now, all that being said, I'll take a break here and answer any questions, comments, concerns anybody has at this point.

Tera:

Thank you. Thank you, Paul, for that, perspective and for doing the research on the HOAs that was really helpful. I would, you know, the it seems a little different than what we had talked about in our study session, where I agree with Steve in a lot of ways, and I had marked that in my red lines as well.

Describer:

On screen.

Tera:

We have not declared I would strike those two paragraphs, upon determination, in those two whereas clauses, upon determination that the district is facing an immediate storage in its supply of water. Which is we're not. And that based upon current drought and water supply conditions, we declare that we are facing immediate shortage. Which we don't have.

I think there is a lot of communication that needs to be, a predecessor to putting this in place. We also had discussed how, last week when we discussed it, we did not want to implement fines until next year. So I would not include that in the resolution if we are going to adopt it tonight. But my personal opinion is we are not ready to adopt this.

This does need a lot of communication. To Leah's point, we need to educate the HOAs and the residents and the HOAs. And we are going from I understand that this is the same watering schedule that we've used for the last three years, but the restrictions have been voluntary and we're moving straight to mandatory restrictions. So we are wanting to do this to responsibly manage water.

We are not in a drought. You know, we're not in the same position as the other districts. We are doing this in support of a regional approach to water. And I think we, you know, our,

Constituents deserve more lead time on this.

Jason:

I'd like to agree with what Tera said. I think, we do need to communicate this a lot more with our communities first before implementing anything. And I did like, we a suggestion that we defer all, all, penalties until next year. And but yes, at some point this summer, we do need to get this on the board.

But I think right now it's too soon. We haven't done enough, communication.

Tera:

I think the messaging is key because, again, we don't want to freak anyone out. I think the great news is that we have responsibly managed our water. We are in a great position, but we also are aware, that we live in a high desert and what that means to lawns.

But also, you know, I thought Rene brought up a good point in, the study session about we also don't want to get into a position where neighbors want to turn in other neighbors because they have a dispute that has nothing to do with water. So I think having some community involvement in there, is also kind of bringing the community along, instead of it seeming like it's coming from us down, getting their involvement, getting community involvement.

I think there's always a win.

Leah:

I have a question probably for Paul. And I'm trying to figure out, is this like a chicken and egg situation, like, does it not make sense to communicate anything until we actually have a policy to communicate? Meaning like, is this a dependency where we would have to, like vote on it first and then we communicate it?

Or can we communicate our intent if we haven't really voted to codify it into a policy? Because to me, that would actually be really confusing. Like if we were communicating our intent to do something and then for whatever reason, we ended up not doing it. Yeah. So that's my only question. And then the other point too, is like, if we were to adopt this because we're not enforcing anything, like it wouldn't really be a change to the citizens, it would more just be to like Tera and Jason's point, landing it with the community.

So I guess the way I thought it had to work in my head was like, we would have to adopt something like this first so that we have a policy to land, and then we're landing it with the residents, but more just for awareness. And then there's kind of the enforcement piece which we're separating out. And so like, I guess taking that piece separately, the enforcement piece, like, would it make sense to pull it out of something like this if we're not going to be enforcing it?

And then we would just amend it when we do enforce it. Hopefully that makes sense.

Paul:

It does. And it's it's an interesting question because you just you just got to the heart of what I struggled with for a long time, which is, I think essentially, where do you draw the line on board action? Can a board act without a motion?

Where's the line in there? Do you need to specifically direct something, to staff? So the short answer is that, yes, a board can act without a motion for procedural matters. The line is anything that creates legal effect. So in this situation, if you just want to inform citizens, if you want to inform the district residents about an upcoming, potential rule change or something like that, you can do that.

That really doesn't rise to the level of legal effect. You're not changing the district policy and you're not. It doesn't rise to that level. It's gray and everything's case by case, and that's why people like me exist. But that's a good general way to think about it for the most part. So you can absolutely. You know, now, if there's a disagreement on the, on the board, you know, about, you know, a direction of action, then it gets a little hairy.

But yeah, if it's something like this where there's, you know, there's unanimous consent that. Yeah, we want to we want to get this out to residents. You can certainly do that.

Leah:

So just to make sure I understand like we we can communicate this stuff without necessarily having adopted and voted on and approved a resolution. Is that correct?

Paul:

That's right. Gotcha. In this situation, yes.

Leah:

I mean, if that's the case, then I, I personally don't feel super strong either way because I feel like if we were to adopt this or not adopt this, like we would still be communicating the same thing. So it feels a little procedural to me. And I thinking about that the right way Paul?

Paul:

I think so I'd say yes.

Tera:

So I just want to make sure that I understood kind of the process that our resident was asking us, which is so we don't have to vote on this a resolution this evening unless we really want to put signs in place, unless we're going to put mandatory

Watering in place. I think that's a a backup. But the process could be that we because we've talked about it in study session, we talk about it here. We want to responsibly manage our water resources. But I think what our resident was asking us is could, a committee, reach out as part of our communications plan, reach out to our, customers and see if there are people who wanted to be involved in kind of this.

We we would put this in front of them, maybe not in this form, but this information in front of them, and get their input on some of the questions that maybe need to be included. Which is, get some comments from the committee so that there's a process and there's time to bring the community along to get to the goal, which is to responsibly manage these resources. To get to the goal of, making sure our community is educated and, know knows the hierarchy between the HOA and the district in regard to fines and to, you know, understand things.

Even a question like I had, I didn't know what overwatering meant. And to kind of educate along these things, instead of just coming with a policy that is, different than what we've done in the past, which was voluntary, now we're going to go to a mandatory thing, and we really don't want to enforce the fines until next year.

So they don't belong in there. I just think the process could be we don't have to vote on this tonight. It doesn't sound like it's ready for prime time, and we could actually get some citizen comments in there to make it more collaborative. And not a surprise to the community.

Paul:

One comment I would make in favor of delaying this a little while.

So there have been a number of comments tonight on a couple of these, whereas clauses referencing section 12.2 of the rules. So within the district's rules of regulations, the district has boxed itself in a little bit. It requires a finding under 12.2 that the district is facing an immediate shortage in its supply of water. In order to enact this sort of, this sort of resolution, something that curtails the use of water.

So what I would propose is given everybody's comments tonight and that the district is absolutely not facing an immediate water shortage. That we do hold this off. I would like to amend the rules to, to broaden when a district can issue this sort of order. I don't think that I don't think that facing an immediate shortage of supply of water, is a is a low enough bar.

So I would like to tour that a little bit and bring it to the board for consideration. Then I would feel good about removing both of those paragraphs from the Whereas clauses. The district doesn't have to make that sort of finding. Residents don't have to be concerned about something that's frankly just a procedural. You know, who. So yeah, that's that's how I would propose.

Leah:

One thing I thought about is, Nate, remember when we did that town hall? And I wasn't able to go to it, but it sounded like we had some residents attend. And they had great questions and, like, it was a good interaction. Maybe this is something we can do, like a town hall around. Just a thought.

Nathan:

Yeah. We could do some sort of resident outreach.

Tera:

Good idea. Leah.

Nathan:

Yeah, we could, we could put together something along those lines. I'll talk to, Sigler. That'll be it wasn't accounted for in our budget. So though there might be a little bit of, just creep in terms of our communications budget, but I think overall that'll be fairly minor.

We can put something like that together. I do, want to make sure that we are not throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. The other part of this resolution, I think this is something that we could put in place ..... with. And Paul you can correct me, if I'm wrong. Is the additions and changes to our rebate program.

So I think those are probably going to be far more ready for prime time. But if we could maybe discuss still putting those in place, and then in, in terms of everything else we can kind of follow the path that Paul recommended. I'm going to plan on go ahead and releasing those water schedules as they're outlined in this, in this resolution that's not new.

That's the same thing we've been doing for a long time. So I'll point that out from a normal comms perspective. But yeah, I'd still like to, if possible, at least get some consideration around the rebate program adjustments.

Tera:

So, Paul, what would that look like? Would that be the we approve section six of the resolution, or is there some way that we can.

Paul:

Yeah. Pretty much. Yeah. So you approve that specific part of the resolution? I'll draft a new resolution where it's just an amendment of the rebate program. So basically, direct legal counsel to draft a resolution incorporating section six. Is that it, Nathan just six and seven?

Nathan:

Yeah. And seven. Correct.

Paul:

So, direct legal counsel to prepare a resolution incorporating section 6&7 into a new resolution regarding rebates.

Tera:

And can we get that approved, or do we need to wait for the new resolution?

Paul:

And you can approve it at this meeting?

Tera:

Okay. So I'm, I move to, direct counsel to, draft the new resolution and approve the new resolution with section six and section seven of this resolution in front of us. Or however, Paul put it more eloquently.

Paul:

I could have probably put a little, a little easier for you.

But yeah, I got the gist.

Leah:

I'll second that.

Board Voting All Speak:

kay. Thanks. Having a second to a move to vote. Tera. Approve. Jana. Approve. Leah. Approve. Jim.

Jim. Approve. Great. And I approve as well. The motion passes.

Paul:

So Paul's going to redraft this. Item number six and seven into a new document that we approve of already. So. Very nice. Jim. Jared, did you guys either of you have any questions regarding this?

James:

No. Not six and seven. But, can we go back to the enforcement part of it, even though that's sort of future state?

I just want to, try to understand it. Paul you there with us?

Paul:

Yep. I'm here.

James:

Okay. So in theory, we're using district tax dollars, and we're going to put in smart meters, and everybody's house is correct at some future date.

Nathan:

It's already in process, but yes.

James:

Okay. You know, and then those meters are going to be used potentially again, I don't know.

Describer:

James' audio cuts out.

Nathan:

We lost you, Jim.

Paul:

Yeah. I can't hear you.

Jim, are you there?

Tera:

Jim, maybe you can take it in the chat. We we can't hear you.

Leah:

That's a good idea.

Well, while we're waiting for Jim. Tera, I have a quick question for you. And maybe Jason, too. And I don't have a point of view. It's more just out of curiosity. In terms of, like, notice to residents about any restrictions, like what feels like a fair lead time to you.

Tera:

I would say minimum of 60 days.

Jason:

I was thinking 30 to 60 as well. There's a lot of information that needs to be dispersed.

Leah:

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That makes sense.

James:

Can you. Can you guys hear me now or not? Yes. Now. Yep. Okay. Just, my wife called and it did something to my microphone. So I had to tell her I was in a meeting.

Anyway, so, so in the enforcement portion, residents are paying to have their water meters upgraded. Those same water meters are going to be used, essentially monitored the residents, and potentially result in fines. Is that a true statement? Talking future state?

Nathan:

It's partially true. If we were going to give it a Snopes rating, the primary driver behind the replacement of the water meters is that they are aged out.

So it's not it's a capital replacement that needs to happen anyway. The new meter technology, generally speaking, everybody is using smart meters. So we've been installing those already. At least the census product, we're about 70%, 70, 75% smart meters already. So it's really just completing a retrofit program. A byproduct of that is that those meters do give us more capability, including leak detection, big check, resident access.

And then, there are new platforms coming out are not necessarily new platforms, but, new updates to those software packages that also allow for this kind of enforcement as well.

James:

Okay. So going one step even deeper, I assume there's going to be some app that the person can go in and look at their water meter. Correct.

And use. Okay. Would there be a notification that they are there's a pending fine that would essentially they be. Yeah, I know I'm going a little deep here and I apologize to the board. But you know, this kind of stuff really it kind of bothers me on a fundamental level. Where I mean, anybody who's read 1984 and again, that's taken a little too far, but, was going to mention it's, you know, I get really kind of bothered by a lot of this stuff, smart meters and things like that.

We're, government intrusion into people's lives and, and whatever they're doing with their water or their personal situation, that's fine. Same thing with electricity. But the fundamental thing that bothers me is, you know, we're we're paying for something that's going to be used to monitor us, and I and I know all the positive sides of it, but there are some negative sides as far as the individual or the family or the homeowner is concerned.

And then that same device that you paid for and instead installed in your house is used to monitor you and then potentially fine you. I'm just wondering if Paul wants to talk to that and whether or not that is considered an invasion and whether or not you're, you're you're, essentially providing information that's used against you. Yeah.

Nathan:

I think go. Paul, I guess my I was going to say, I guess my original or my first thought with that is that a water meter? I've never thought about water meters this way, but almost, almost like by definition that's what they are at this level. Right. So you're extending that to further the capability of that device. But a water meter in and of itself is just that.

It's the device that you are paying towards, the resident that tells us how much water you're using.

James:

Oh, I, I get I get all that. But we keep we keep extending the capabilities of these things. And, and I agree, it's kind of like a, but, you know, I, I get disturbed about a lot of this kind of thing.

Yeah. The same thing with, you know, I can't drive around Castle Pines without being on four different. What are the cameras? There's two of them right in our neighborhood. And, you know, I'm. I'm really, really kind of, you know, fundamentally bothered by a lot of this stuff, so. And, and I know the purposes for crime and this and that and everything else, but, I'm kind of, I'm kind of aligning some of those things with stuff like this, and, and I, and I would love to understand your position, Paul, on this and, and, and, you know, you know, teach me and educate me.

Paul:

I'm happy to give it. I'm happy to give it.

Before I first of all, let me just say I hate the surveillance state just as much as you do. Jim. I'm not. But. Yeah, just sort of. Yeah. So how does this actually work in a legal sense? Is that, you know, is it a legal invasion of privacy? You're taking me back to law school on this one?

Good.

Describer:

Board members chuckle.

Paul:

The short answer is definitely going to be no. Here. Not in any sort of meaningful constitutional sense or not any Colorado sense either, that that I'm aware of. But, but the framing does kind of matter. So without I won't get too deep into it for everybody stay here. But I'm happy to give a little primer. So this is all about Fourth Amendment, Fourth Amendment protection.

Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that data? And is that collection of data a search? Right. This is all under search and seizure disorder, fourth amendment. There are a couple doctrines that I can think of that push toward a no privacy interest here for a water meter. So third party, so information voluntarily conveyed to the service provider.

So whoever it is, water utility, electricity company, bank. From my recollection, has always been historically treated as outside and Fourth Amendment protection. So any sort of consumption data like, like this stuff that's gonna fall comfortably within there. And then, you know, I'm thinking, like, business records, utility records, you know, courts consistently hold that ordinary utility billing records, stuff like gallons consumed for billing cycle.

Those aren't constitutionally protected. You're theoretically you're voluntarily using the service, right? So, the meter reading is the basis for the bill. District has a legitimate operational and billing need for that data. So you get the data. Now, you know, we can get into a the Supreme Court.

James:

That wasn't the part I had a problem with, by the way.

That okay, which one? I didn't have a problem with anything you just said. And I and I understand it from a fundamental standpoint, you know. I my problem comes from, you know, the penalty side of things.

Deputy District Manager Rene Santini:

And, and so, Jim, just a thought. So I, I get your concerns and I suppose one way we could sort of keep individual freedoms, if I'm hearing you correctly, would be to restructure the tiers so that you choose to use water so you can have the greenest law in the neighborhood, but but the rates, sort of discourage that, if you will, so that we can be good stewards of, of, of this shared resource.

But you still have that choice. And you, you vote with your wallet, essentially. So there's no sign, no slap on the wrist. You know, we can structure our our rates. So that conservation, you know, becomes important if, if that's, you know.

James:

Now now you're going where I really wanted to go instead of a just a set penalty and a tiered penalty system, I'd rather

Rene:

Just have rates that disincentive.

James:

If somebody wants to step over as far as what is reasonable and customary for their water use, for their size, lot and what have you, then they need to understand that, you know, right there when they step over that line,

Tera:

Don't we have that?

Nathan:

How's that different?

James:

So kind of have that now. But I'm just saying that, you know, with instead of I'm just saying when they log into their app for their meter to inform them, they're, they're about to, you know, exceed something.

And that's their penalty. Because now that you have the intelligence to it, instead of just sending them a $250 fine, pay this. Let them understand that there is, essentially. You know, they're they're essentially going to be paying considerably more for the water. That is unreasonable.

Jason:

Jim do you think, that we've if we put the burden on us to alert them and something fails in that system and the alert doesn't go out, or they they don't see the alerts and they still billed this, then it kind of puts the onus on us.

James:

And just the opposite. I mean, I'm just saying that you're you're already saying you're doing that with these fines. I we don't have to solve it here. I'm just trying to make you think a little bit about it. You know, I hate the whole, you know, heavy handed, $250, $500. I mean, for most of us, yeah, it's a little bit of money, but it's not going to kill you.

For some people, that may not be true. And and I bet you.

Tera:

Yeah, I appreciate what you're saying, Jim, and I like, where Rene was going with that. I think, you know, he he's definitely understanding what you're saying, and and I, I have I agree with what you're saying. I mean, look at our rebate program that hasn't been highly adopted.

I think we definitely live in an area where there are people who bought their homes here because it was established and because they have, Kentucky bluegrass and they like it green. I think we've seen over the years, certainly Nathan has probably seen and and I can think of some neighborhoods where they are not, price sensitive. Their water as much as they want to water.

But I, overall, the goal is to be good stewards. That's what we've been tasked with as a board, be good stewards of this, the shared resource, even though we are in a fortunate position where we we aren't in a in a drought situation and we have the resources that we need because we have responsibly managed and planned.

But I do understand what you're saying, and I didn't hear if, Nate answered your question on whether or not the app would have the ability to alert people if they were going to get a fine. I mean, I think that would be a nice feature to have. But I also appreciate what Jason saying about we don't want to put too much of the, the burden burden on us.

We need our we need our customers to participate as well.

Nathan:

Right? Yeah. Yeah. I think this is all great discussion. Oh, go ahead, Jim.

James:

I'm just saying instead of doing the enforcement side of just tiered fines system, I think Rene was describing it pretty well, better than I was. But I'd rather go the other direction that if you're going to have an excedance, provide that information to the person.

And again, a lot of this is software and what have you. And I have capability of a system in which I don't know if it exists. Excuse you. Maybe my dog is whining, but, you know, I'd rather go in the other direction with it. And, you know, I just hate fines in general. This kind of stuff, at least from from a district.

I'd rather see it. People be encouraged or incentivized to use less water or only use a reasonable amount of water. That's all. That's all I'm really trying to say. And, if they're going to exceed that, they do it knowingly and they pay a higher price for doing so. That's it. Thanks for listening.

Tera:

And would this be what would be the relation between this fine structure and the tiered structure that we have.

So the the tiered structure that we have to me and I live in the district, but I'm just learning about it. Is there's a lot of tiers because it's based on square footage and not like total magnitude. You know, the way I'm more familiar with, if you will, it is the first 4000 gallons or this much the next, you know, 4 to 8 or these eight to whatever.

And they get progressively more, you know, expensive, regardless of how big your lawn is and how big your lot is. So if you have a big lot, you get the same amount as everybody else. So if you want all of your lot to be green, that comes at a price. And then you can choose to, you know, decrease your lawn size to, to save.

So I could see that, you know, restructuring in a way that conservation isn't always thing. Without having to put fines in place and then, you know, because the there's a saying, you know, like a fine is it means it's legal for a fee, right. So you can park anywhere you want, you know, it might cost you 200 bucks to park in a handicapped spot or it's legal for a fee.

So. But I don't know if that's if if changing the tier structure, it's from the sounds of it is a more complicated endeavor than just saying, you know, we're going to see if you water more than three, three days a week.

Tera:

Yeah. I mean, I, I actually like the, the, prohibitive, fee structure in the tiers rather than a fine system.

And I and I also brings up, question where we there was in the enforcement. It's something about cutting water off. I don't really think legally we can cut people's water off. Right. Because that's what they drink and how they flush the toilets and that kind of thing.

Nathan:

If that already exists, our current rules and regulations.

So we have the ability to shut water off or water waste already.

Paul:

Like every, every water district has the authority.

Leah:

Because the authority I had asked about this in the study session about, our tiers and if we could like, play with the thresholds or the pricing. If I recall correctly, Nate, your response was that our, tiering and our pricing was already pretty aggressive.

And so it didn't seem like that was a worthwhile option. But now that we're talking about it again, I, I guess just to revisit like, is, I mean, do we have any room? Because I would be supportive of that to like, my understanding is we have a water budget, and if you go above your water budget and you pay higher prices, so I'm assuming some levers could be that we could, change the water budget.

Right. People have a lower water budget. Another lever I think could be if we keep the water budget and they go over, then we could raise the rates. But again, Nate, just kind of going back to your comment that we already do that and it's already pretty aggressive. Just wanted to get your thoughts on that. Yeah.

Nathan:

We can make it more aggressive. Yeah. It's more of a direct comparison to what other districts are doing. Realistically, the kind of tiered structure that we have associated directly with lot size, I think it's really just us and Castle Rock in the area that are doing that. But yeah, certainly there's there's more room to make that, more aggressive.

I don't necessarily. Yeah. It to me it's, it's six one way, half a dozen the other. Whether we're getting that through fines in bulk for violating a water schedule or if we're doing it from a rate perspective, if we're going over a budget. It's just a different way to say penalty or a different way to say, fine, but we can we can do that.

Sure. There's we'd have to look into it a little bit deeper. We were also having that conversation as more of like, rates and fees conversation as well. Not necessarily conservation. So I think that's a different flavor to look at it.

Leah:

You know, in our study session, like if we have, if we at least have a baseline of how it works today, kind of like what the water budgets are, by approximate lot size.

And with those tiers and associated prices would be I actually think having a fine versus changing tiers and prices, if you go over like I think they're perceived differently by people.

Nathan:

Yeah I agree.

Leah:

And, and I, I do think like a fine would be perceived more negatively. And then Jim, like some of the things that you mentioned about, you know, people feeling like we're surveilling them, whereas this is more like, here are the guidelines.

And if you go above them, like, you know. Exactly. And I guess it's the same with a fine too. But I guess to me it feels less punitive.

Tera:

And I like what Leah is saying. And the other thing that I think that does is kind of, lessens the scenario that Rene had proposed was last week about people being water cops and turning in their neighbors and everything.

It's like it's all seamless because it's all happening through your system. So no one's, you know, turning in their neighbor for overwatering. Or I've seen my neighbor watering seven days a week or, you know, that seems like it would be a little bit more seamless because it just is all done through the system. Because we know how much water they're using.

James:

In and mainly I wasn't recommending changing tiers or any of that. I was really providing or trying to push the point of can we provide a feedback loop to the resident. Once the app is in place and the meters are in place, we we have education that says, you know, we haven't changed anything. But we're going to provide you where you are on the continuum as far as are you going to go into a new tier and how much water have you utilize this month.

Tera:

And, I appreciate that, but it did support discussion.

And I think it is worth noting that, you know, I agree with Leah that people are going to get less fluffy if if they get a huge water bill than if they get something that's called a fine. I think that's really, you know, yeah, they're going to get a lot fluffier about it.

James:

Yeah. I just the whole fine thing just chafes me like I and I it really I, I can't even describe it.

It just bothers me that my water utility is going to find me. And it could be something innocuous like, you know, I'll just tell you what my last couple weeks have been. And just as a quick example, this dog that you hear in the background, she's 85 and 90 pounds and she likes to rip the sprinkler heads out of the ground.

She digs them out of the ground and and the sprinklers go off. And I have fountains going on all over my yard because she just pulls the sprinkler heads out. So, you know, I would be violating their of, a system that's broken, basically.

Tera:

So, well, I think she wants to put in xeriscape and she shouldn't be our mascot.

Jana:

Can I, can I get a slightly back on task? Because I think we understand. Jim. Hey. It's fine. can we I just I, I think we have beaten this dead horse, and so, and I think we have good info here, but I would really like to see us continue with our agenda. And I'm so sorry I'm being rude and just trying to move us forward.

Paul:

I just want to add one five second comment on this before we move on. And really, just because I think you all need to hear this.

Jana:

Do we ... you Paul?

If we do, if we do,

Paul:

I'm so sorry, Jana. I know it's going back to back two weeks. I think. Okay. so it's it's a new it's a new rate.

So just keep in mind 30 day notice you're adopting new rates. It's a whole new thing you're noticing. It's a public hearing and whatnot. I just want you all to be aware of that, that's all. All right. I'm done.

Jason:

All right. Very good. We should, bring this up in a study session. Are all valid and good points.

Paul:

So, one last thing. At the time of day watering restrictions, if you don't have a penalty, it's going to be hard to enforce that. Okay. Now I'm I'm actually done now.

Jason:

Okay. All right. We are closing out the legal, what do we call it?

Paul:

No, I don't think you're done yet. I think there's one more thing.

Jason:

Oh, sorry. Go ahead Paul.

Paul:

I know it feels like you've been on legal for an hour. We probably have. Okay. I promise I'll make this quick. That brings us to approving the IGA. Between the city of Castle Pines and the Castle Pines North metro district.

Regarding this is that Castle Pines Parkway, westbound replacement of the water line. We talked about this during the work session last week. But I believe, Tera wants to talk about maybe some provisions here. I will let Tera have the floor.

Tera you're on mute, by the way.

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

Tera:

Thank you. So, yes. I when I reread this, I was a little surprised that, we the basically, the city is totally in control and we pay them, but that we it says the city shall request full payment from the district of the district's estimated cost upon issuing notice of the award for the project and waterline replacement.

So we're basically paying for it up front. Seems like they're going to put it in a construction account. They're going to manage it. I just want to make sure our staff is prepared to do that. I don't know if Eric had seen that clause. And then, you know, there are there is some language that alludes to the management of it and that if they can't make if they can't find us to make a decision on something immediate, then they're going to make the decision.

In the event a field decision affecting the water line replacement must be made, city will make every reasonable effort to consult and coordinate with the district. In the event that's not feasible, they'll make final field decisions according to their engineering judgment, and they won't be liable to us. So it's very, I appreciate our cost saving measures on doing this, jointly with the city, because it does save our customers money.

I just was surprised about having to pay for it up front and basically having having the city run the whole thing.

Paul:

So you have the same thoughts that I initially had as I was going through the ultra of, of this diagram, for, for Monarch. And full disclosure and, and I think all of you probably already aware of this. Kim drafted the majority of this language in the last iteration of the IGA that was negotiated with Castle Pines.

So just on first pass, I was hesitant to really change that sort of language. And when I first saw that Tera, I had the same reaction you did. And I went like, well, upfront payment. I've never really seen something like this. What alleviated my concern was paragraph eight F.

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

8f. The City shall provide the District with copies of the approved pay applications evidencing the balance of the Construction Account. Following completion of the Water Line Replacement and during probationary acceptance thereof by the District, which probationary acceptance shall be made in accordance with the District’s rules and regulations, as they may be amended from time to time (“District Rules”), the City shall provide the District with a final accounting of the total costs associated with the Water Line Replacement and the Shared Project Costs. In the event the District disputes any of the costs, the District shall notify the City in writing within ten (10) days of receipt of the City’s final accounting. The City shall have thirty (30) days to review the records to verify the costs and provide the District with a final cost reconciliation. In the event the District does not agree with the City’s final reconciliation, the District shall be entitled, within sixty (60) days of receipt of the final accounting from the City, to have an independent Certified Public Accountant examine the financial records pertaining specifically to the Water Line Replacement, including all invoices, change orders, addendums, and statements from the Construction Account. If the accountant determines that there is a discrepancy in the financial records which results in a payment adjustment in favor of the District exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), the City shall make the appropriate adjustment in the final costs associated with the Water Line Replacement and shall also pay for the accountant’s fee and expenses as well as the District’s reasonable accounting fees and expenses incurred with respect to such review. If no discrepancy is found or there is a discrepancy in the financial records which results in a payment adjustment in favor of the City exceeding Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), the District shall pay one hundred percent (100%) of the accountant’s fee and expenses as well as the City’s reasonable documented accounting fees and expenses incurred with respect to such review.

Paul:

So there is there is a mechanism within eight f that I believe will address a lot of your concerns, or all of them.

So just quickly, you know, I'll go through this here. The first sentence of eight requires the city to provide copies of approved applications evidencing the balance of the construction account, to the district. So it's it's not flying blind. It sees every payoff as it comes through.

Describer:

On screen.

6. City Responsibilities and Obligations.

e. The City may withdraw funds from the Construction Account, as defined in Paragraph 8 below, as necessary to pay for the District’s Estimated Costs associated with the Water Line Replacement, as pay applications from the Contractor are submitted and approved by the City.

Paul:

Whereas if we were to say amend 6e includes some sort of, approval process for each pay app. You know, that would include, say, like a five day deadline, right, or ten day business day deadline for us to approve it.

But it's already covered within here, if further down as well as I'll talk about, I don't think we want to add something to a deadline when we can come back after the project is done and actually challenge it, but the districts funds themselves are already restricted, by 8A.

Describer:

On screen.

8. Funding and Contract Administration.

a. The City shall set up a separate account for the Project (the “Construction Account”) into which the City’s Estimated Costs and the District’s Estimated Costs will be deposited. The City will track District and City expenditures and Shared Project Costs. The City shall not use any funds deposited by the District for any purpose other than paying actual costs associated with the Water Line Replacement and the District’s share of the Shared Project Costs.

Paul:

So the city shall not use any funds deposited by the district for any purpose other than paying actual costs associated with the waterline replacement in district share of

The costs. If the city pays a non-qualifying item from the district's funds, that's a contractual breach. The moment it happens, you don't need any sort of pay app objection right to.

Tera:

And I'm not concerned about the legality or anything. My questions for staff is one is is Eric aware of it? Because it's more about our cash flow and handling that we have to we have to pay for this upfront.

So it's more a financial thing. And two, are Rene and, Nate going to be okay with the language in here of how this is functionally going to, work?

Paul:

And maybe, Nathan, it takes a little education for me on on that final accounting. I'll let you talk first. Go ahead.

Nathan:

Yeah. No, it's it's, the concerns are understandable. I think that, adding some sort of, language that gives us the ability or the authority to look at the pay apps as they're coming across, for approval.

Makes sense. Functionally. I mean, we've used this IGA before. Functionally, that's what we do anyway. So before the city sends this stuff out, they give it to, myself. And then Lisa, the engineer that runs the project, and she works through all of that. And then the city doesn't pay, pay apps until we kind of give them the green light.

So since we're functionally doing that anyway, I don't have a problem, necessarily capturing that in the IGA in terms of the language.

Tera:

Perhaps that's why we had a problem, right? When they didn't bill us and they weren't billing us, maybe because they thought we had paid for it upfront. Remember how we got up? We got hit with a huge, bill because they had not invoiced us all along, so maybe they thought we had paid upfront.

I don't know if the staff is comfortable with it. I'm comfortable with it. I just was surprised by it and I wanted to make sure that Eric had planned for it.

Paul:

But I just want to add one more thing, and I and I, I believe Eric's I well, I sent it to Eric. I don't know how closely he's, he's looked at it so I don't know I, I defer that to Molly or Eric.

One thing I want to add about, about all of this. There is a whole back end reconciliation process for this. So within 8f there is an accounting requirement. So once this is all done in the district, will the city shall provide. The district doesn't even have to request. The city shall provide copies of all the approved applications.

And then the district has a, a ten day dispute window, a 30 day city reconciliation. And if the district's not happy with the reconciliation, it can hire a CPA to actually look through all the documentation. And if the discrepancy is over $5,000, the city pays for that CPAs work. So nothing out of pocket to the district. Any improperly charged item gets caught and refunded.

The district isn't tied to catching it at a certain time or at a certain pay. And I'm only.

Tera:

And I'm okay. We don't need to belabor it. I mean, really, that was my concern. My concern was paying all the money up front. I know the city well. I know they're very, good financially. I'm glad that Mike Farina is going to be around.

I just want to make sure that we were prepared to pay that money up front, and that you, that Nate and Rene were prepared to, do project management under these terms. Otherwise, I we don't need to belabor it.

Paul:

Fair enough. I did talk about it with Nathan about paying it upfront, whether he was comfortable with that. He did say that he was it was something that we discussed.

And sorry if I got a little bit into the weeds there.

Tera:

So we're all good legally, but everyone's ready to get going back to their family. Yeah, yeah.

Paul:

Well, unless there's any questions, comments, concerns regarding this, that's that's it from legal. All right. I'm not seeing any. So we will go ahead and close out the, legal, counsel's status report.

Paul:

Oh, we will need a motion to approve the IGA.

Jason:

I apologize. Right. Sorry. I'll go ahead and do it. I move to approve the, intergovernmental agreement between the district and the city for waterline replacement project, including an amended language requiring the district to review and approve the applications for the waterline replacement components, and to authorize the district manager to execute the agreement and any minor non substitute substantive revisions necessary to finalize document.

Board Voting All Speak:

Second. With a 2nd, we'll move to vote. Tera. Approve. Jim. Approve. Jana. Approve. Leah. Approve and I approve as well. The motion passes.

Jason:

And with that we will go ahead and close out the legal council status report. Thank you very much, Paul. So we will move on to item number nine. The district manager report. Nathan.

Describer:

On screen.

Memorandum

From: Nathan J. Travis

To: CPNMD Board of Directors Date: 04/27/26

Re: District Manager’s Report

AGENDA ITEMS

Douglas County Water Commission (Agenda item A)

• Rene and I attended both scheduled meetings as part of the Douglas County Water Providers user group for the Douglas County 2050 Water Master Plan. The meetings were focused on gathering feedback from providers and presenting various potential solutions and approaches for the plan. Providers expressed concern that the plan’s planning horizon only extends to 2050 and that its primary focus on groundwater may not adequately address long-term sustainability and the need for a more diversified, renewable water supply portfolio. Over the coming months, the County will be soliciting public comments before releasing the official document this fall. I will continue to provide updates as more information becomes available.

Stantec Study, Regional water supply study (Agenda Item B)

• Stantec has scheduled a virtual meeting for April 29 to discuss findings from the water yield analysis and will also be reaching out to gather availability for an in-person workshop in mid-May to review study findings prior to release of the draft final report. I previously encouraged them to send the scheduling request as soon as possible to avoid conflicts and ensure availability on calendars.

• The project remains on budget with approximately $60,000 remaining. These funds will be spent on the water yield analysis, the remaining workshops, updating the data, and finalizing the report.

• The milestones for the remaining project schedule include:

o Mid- April — Spheros Environmental – Finalize water yield analysis (complete) o End of April – Virtual meeting to review water yields findings (Scheduled)

o Mid-May 2026 — Final in-person workshop

o End of May 2026 — Draft Final review

o June 2026 — Final Deliverable

Interconnect Pump Station- Surge System Modifications (Agenda Item C)

• Final adjustments are being made to the surge system modifications. The total project cost is anticipated to fall below the District’s public bid threshold. We have begun procurement of long-lead items and are directly soliciting pricing from trusted contractors, with the goal of obtaining at least three bids prior to contractor selection. We plan to seek Board approval at the May Board Meeting. The project is targeted for construction.

Nathan:

Before I jump into it, does anybody have any questions they would like me to address?

About my report, and then otherwise, I'll just touch briefly on these items and we can keep rolling. All right. first thing I had, is, an update on the Douglas County Water Commission. So Rene and I have now attended two user group meetings that were hosted by Forest Green Associates. The guys that are doing the Douglas County 2050 water plan.

But the second one wasn't that much different than the first. This one just had more of a focus on some of the proposed recommendations. And so providers gave comments, the kind of more broad strokes, there continue to be concern that the long term water plan only goes to 2050. And it is also still fairly groundwater, heavy.

And so the next steps for that whole process are going to start doing a public outreach of some sort to bring in, community and resident user groups and then the draft the next draft iteration. I think they said, would be ready in August, September sometime. Rene, anything that you want to add to that?

Rene:

Not from from that meeting.

Nathan:

Any other questions on that one? All right. Stantec. So I don't have, much to do. Much of an update here we are doing a virtual meeting. Rene and I, along with the other participants on the 29th. It's a virtual meeting just to discuss the, proposed water yield of all of the 12 possible options that we're looking at.

And then the high level cost, and that's really more of us to receive that presentation. And then we'll be moving forward with, selecting and evaluating those different options. And so we should have the finalized report, sometime in, in June or early July. Next up after that will be, where that kind of board action in actual decision making starts, starts to happen kind of where the rubber meets the road.

So I am excited to see that project is on budget. There's, a breakdown of the schedule in, in the packet in my report. But other than that, any other questions on the Stantec study?

All right, so interconnect pump station surge modification. So those are moving forward. Design is complete. We're anticipating the total cost to be under the bid required under the district's bid threshold by quite a bit. And so rather than go through the, public posting, we're directly soliciting from contractors that we know are good at the work. So we've reached out to five of them.

So far, I've gotten positive responses from three of them. Asking that those, bids be submitted back to us by June 1st, and then we'll, we'll move forward with that project with that selection there. I think we're looking at like 80 to $90,000 total, total cost on that. So, glad to get that done. The target is to get it done before October 1st.

So while we're running on the plan this summer, before we turn on the, interconnect pipeline, next, next year. Any questions on the interconnect pump station project?

James:

Yeah, just thank you. Appreciate it.

Describer:

On screen.

South Tank Rehab Capital Project (Agenda Item D)

• South Tank Rehabilitation – Capital Project: The project will be delivered using the CM/GC method. Contract documents have been reviewed and approved by legal counsel. Site walks were conducted with four prospective contractors. Staff requests that the Board designate Vice President Jana Krell as the Board representative to participate in the evaluation of respondents.

ADDITIONAL UPDATES

Lift Station Renovation Program

• Scope A (Lift Stations 1, 2, & 5) The project remains on schedule. Serena Drive and Hidden Point are open to traffic. T. Lowell is currently performing open space restoration and is largely off-site. They will demobilize for approximately two months pending equipment delivery, with construction activities scheduled to resume in June at Lift Station 1 and continue at Lift Station 2.

• Scope B (Lift Stations 3, 4, & 7) The pre-bid meeting for this scope was held on January 20, and bids were opened on March 11. The extended timeline allowed for the issuance of necessary addenda and provided plan holders sufficient time to review and incorporate them into their bid packages. Approval to award the contract was received at the March 23, 2026 board meeting. The contract documents have since been executed, and staff is in the process of scheduling the pre-construction meeting.

Request for Service- Ventana Capital

• Holdover: Last December I met with Darwin Horan to discuss the possibility of CPNMD providing water service to a development known as the “Crowsnest”, a property also being considered for annexation by the City of Castle Pines. Ventana hopes to develop this land with relatively high structure density, the location is non-contiguous to CPNMD’s current boundaries and would require a significant amount of infrastructure to connect to the area (located near Stroh Road, and Crowfoot Valley). This inclusion would require that we purchase water from Parker to provide service. After an informal discussion with Ron Redd of Parker water on the matter, Parker, understandably would not likely have an interest in providing water to us, to provide to Crowsnest. Sanitary Sewer treatment capacity is another strong issue with no clear answer on how we would be able to treat the wastewater for the proposed development. Unless something drastically changes, this development will need to find service through Parker Waters and Sanitation District.

Nathan:

Yeah, absolutely. Last one. So we are we're still moving forward with the South tank rehab, capital project. This is another one that we're doing.

So this isn't construction of a new tank. This is rehabilitation of the two existing tanks by the country club. We are moving forward, as presented before, with the CMGC or CMAR. I can't remember which nomenclature we officially attached to this one. Contract documents. Or the process is going to be incredibly similar to it was with the filter plant.

This is the only item I have right now that I just need. Requesting board direction on. Because of that selection, the selection process will be the same. So we'll need at least three district representatives to look at that. I feel like it went pretty well last time. So my request is that they be myself.

Rene. And then from the board, Jana again. And so I did touch base with her earlier. I gave her a whole, like, hour and a half heads up that I was going to put that on the agenda tonight.

Jana:

No that I'm good with it. And we went through it last year, and this is my cup of tea. So, I’m in.

Nathan:

Oh, as long as nobody has any problems with that, that is all I had on my report. I can also take any questions that you guys have on the operations or engineering report, if you have any of those, one agenda item up on you.

Jason:

Okay. So anybody have any questions, Jim?

James:

Just just a real minor one on, the bottom of Serena. Nathan, if you could have. And take a look at that, or at least put up some cones. They have, 2 to 3 inch declivity on the one side of the road closest to the pump station, where they kind of they built up the other side, and people keep going around it, driving on the wrong side of the road.

It's open to avoid the big step in the right hand side of the road as you head east. I guess.

Nathan:

I know right where you're talking about. I will first figure I just drove that earlier, so I will first figure out why that's there. And then, yeah, we can get something in place in terms of traffic control or finishing the patch, whatever the holdup is, there.

James:

This throw up some cones because people who are hitting it at night when I walk the dog. So. Okay. Yeah.

Nathan:

Oh, thanks for that. Heads up. When I was out there, I did have cones on at 12. That's. Oh okay. Okay. Yeah, we'll get it. Thanks.

Leah:

Super quick question Nate. And apologies because I know I could find this on the city website, but when does, the construction on Castle Pines Parkway begin?

Like on the other side? Do you know?

Nathan:

I was muted I do not have a specific date yet. I think they were targeting mid-May, early June. But as soon as I have a hard date, I will let you guys know.

Leah:

And then that's it, it ended up being that side, right? Like the other side where we'll have to do the waterline replacement.

Correct? Yep. Okay.

Tera:

And Leah I think they sent it out in their source. They said you may have that in your mailbox. I think I may have seen it in there, but I can't remember.

Leah:

Okay. I'm excited for that. That road is.

Jason:

Great. Any other questions? okay. Hearing none. We'll go ahead and close out the district manager's report, and we'll open the operations and engineering report. Nathan.

Describer:

On screen.

April 23, 2026

Memorandum

To:

From: Subject:

Nathan Travis, District Manager

Castle Pines North Metropolitan District

Greg S. Sekera, P.E.

District Engineer Report for Board of Directors Meeting on April 27, 2026

Castle Pines North Metropolitan District

KJ Job No. 2646002*GENW

Briefly presented below are the items that we have been involved in during the past month as well as on- going engineering related items.

DISTRICT PROJECTS

Water Treatment Plant & Finished Water Upgrades – Projects in Progress:

- Filter Rehabilitation Project: Myers and Sons has maintained their construction schedule on this project to date. In filter structural and coating repairs have been completed. Filter bed equipment including under drains and troughs have been received on-site and will be installed over the next month.

- South Water Tanks Rehabilitation: KJ received NTP from the District for this Project and has started the project design efforts. This project is planned to be procured with a CMGC selection, similar to the Filter Rehab Project. The solicitation process of CMGC Contractors has begun.

Collection and Distribution Projects – Projects in Progress:

- Lift Station Upgrades

Plan set A – Lift Stations 1, 2, and 5. T Lowell has installed two overflow vaults at Lift Station 1, gravity sewer from Lift Station 1 to Lift Station 2, and the 10” force main near Lift Station 2. Restoration is taking place in Serena and Hidden Point Blvd. Construction will start up again in June when the Gorman Rupp pump skids are available for delivery.

Plan set B – Lift Stations 3, 4, 6, and 7. GSE was awarded the project. The construction contract has been signed, and we are scheduling a kick-off meeting and/or preconstruction meeting.

- CP Tank Site Water Line Relocations – Garney completed the relocation of all three CPNMD water lines at the tank site (20” potable, 24” potable, and 8” raw water). All pipes have been filled, tested, and tie-ins are complete. We requested record drawings from Garney and CP Village.

- Monarch Water Line Phase 3 Operational Improvements – We provided water line plans and technical specs to the City, to be included in their bid package. HEI was awarded the project. We are coordinating closely with the City because the water line will be constructed with their roadway improvements in Castle Pines Pkwy.

Nathan:

Sorry. Rene actually dropped off a copy of the source to my office. To my office earlier. So they haven't listed, the start date as June 2026. And then. Yeah, if anybody has any questions for the Operation Engineering report, feel free to ask. But I think everything the pertinent updates we've already covered.

Jason:

Okay. Yeah. I don't see any questions. So, we will go ahead and, close out the operations and engineering report. Then we'll open up item number eight. The directors matters. Do any of the directors have any, items they'd like to discuss that we haven't discussed already?

Tera:

Yes. Just very quickly. I want to thank the board, and I want to thank Nate for implementing it and standing out there on Saturday.

But, the Douglas County Sheriff's Office collected 1,148 pounds of unwanted unused and expired medications. That is not going into our water supply. So, it's something that I thought was really successful, and I hope that we continue to do that. I know they do it twice a year. But I would love to get either a competition going with our other water providers or get that more as a regional thing, because, again, I think it shows that we not only care about, preserving our, shared resource, we care about what's going into our water and keeping it safe.

Nathan:

And Tera, we had, what, probably about a dozen or so of those, like black contractor bags that we filled just from our little stop. Yeah.

Jason:

That's great news. Anybody else have anything? Okay. Hearing none, we'll go ahead and close our director's matters and we will adjourn the meeting.

All Speak:

Thank you. Everyone. Have a great night. Thank you. See ya everyone.

Good night. Thanks, everyone.