Study/Work Session
May 18, 2026
Transcript
Describer:
Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
Board Work Session: May 18, 2026
I. Call Work Session to order
A. Roll call & disclosure of potential conflicts
II. Finance Items
A. Review monthly claims for payments made from April 16, 2026 to May 12, 2026 CPNMD Board Work Session Claims Packet 05182026 (PDF, opens in new tab)
III. Legal Items
A. Review April 20, 2026 Work Session Meeting Minutes 4.20.26 CPNMD Work Session Minutes 4899-2442-1293 v.1 (PDF, opens in new tab)
B. Review April 27, 2026 Board Meeting Minutes 4.27.26 CPNMD Regular Board Meeting Minutes DRAFT (PDF, opens in new tab)
C. CPVMD-CPNMD-CCCP Water Infrastructure Cooperative Agreement
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE (PDF, opens in new tab)
IV. District Manager Items
A. Unauthorized Use Discussion
Discuss recently discovered unauthorized use violation.
V. Adjourn
Board President Jason Blankaert:
Good evening. And welcome to the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District board work session for May 18th, 2026 at 5:30 p.m.. We'll begin the meeting call. And begin with roll call. Jana.
Sorry, I didn't hear her, but I think she replied.
Describer:
Jana's audio cuts in and out.
Board Member Director Jana Krell:
Hold on, wait! Audio? It's spotty. Okay. Continue, and I'll figure out what's wrong.
Jason:
Thanks, Leah. Are you with us?
Board Member Director Leah Enquist:
I am. Present. No conflicts.
Jason:
Thank you. Tera.
Board Member Director Tera Radloff:
Present. No conflicts.
Jason:
And I am Jason Blankaert. Present. No conflicts. We'll go ahead and, open up item 2, financial items. And, we'll begin with A, reviewing monthly claim for payments made through April 16th, 2026, to May 12th, 2026.
Describer:
On screen. See CPNMD Board Work Session Claims Packet 05182026 ink the in On Board Meeting Agenda
TO: Board of Directors – Castle Pines North Metropolitan District FROM: Eric Harris, Elevated Clarity (EC)
DATE: May 18, 2026
RE: Work Session Report – May 2026
Claims Submitted for Review
District Finance is submitting $1,966,413.96 in Payment Claims for review at the work session, consisting of $1,873,655.14 in checks and $92,758.82 in electronic payments.
All the invoices included in this month’s Payment Claims Presented for Review were reviewed and evaluated for compliance with the Financial Controls Policy/Matrix.
- Notable payment claims related to capital projects include the following:
- Myers & Sons Construction LLC – Filter Beds Rehab: $410,247.29
- T Lowell Construction Inc – Lift Stations Upgrades: $381,551.35
Proposed Changes in Cash Management
District staff and Consultants did not pursue an RFP for banking services as it is not statutorily required. Staff and consultants met with InBank to evaluate options for improving access to and management of District funds. The evaluation focused on the following priorities:
a.) A more user-friendly interface
b.) Reduced monthly fees
c.) A local lockbox in the Denver area
d.) A simpler cash sweep process
Staff recommends that the Board consider a resolution at its upcoming meeting authorizing the opening of operating and sweep accounts with InBank. Use of the accounts will be phased in over the coming months, consistent with the timeline outlined at the April 20th work session.
District staff and consultants also recommend that the District open an account with the Colorado Surplus Asset Fund Trust (CSAFE), a local government investment pool, as discussed at the April 20th work session.
The Board may also wish to consider a resolution ratifying the current slate of account signers at a future meeting. At present, the District Manager signs all checks on the District’s behalf. In addition, the District may want to formalize certain banking procedures in a policy or resolution to address concerns raised at the April 27th Board meeting, including password safekeeping, multi-factor authentication, and dual approval/signer requirements for certain transactions and banking template instructions.
Financial Overview
A comprehensive financial report will be provided at the May Board Meeting, which will include an analysis of financial activity through March 31, 2026. These quarterly financial reports will also contain annual projections for revenues and expenditures.
2025 Audit in Process
Fieldwork for the 2025 audit is currently underway. Staff and Elevated Clarity will be meeting periodically over the coming weeks and we are anticipating a draft audit report for management to review by June 22nd, 2026. As required by Colorado Revised Statutes, a draft audit will be provided to the Board of Directors by June 30, 2026, and the final audit will be submitted to the State Auditor’s Office by July 31, 2026.
Anticipated Upcoming Schedule (subject to change)
May 26, 2026 – Monthly Board Meeting
June 15, 2026 – Monthly Board Work Session
June 22, 2026 – Monthly Board Meeting
Financial Director Eric Harris:
Good evening board. Thank you for your time this evening. Starting on page 4 of your packet, you have our work session report for you, which is the standard item where we reviewed claims. As a quick reminder, the district is on a monthly schedule of around the 20th to 25th of every month of cutting checks, for claims.
So these would be for the checks that were issued last month. And also as a reminder, we have implemented a procedure to where, either Molly or myself to review, payments before they are released. And then also checks are held for approval in accordance with the financial controls policy. So within that, just a couple items of note.
As you recall, a lot of capital is currently being spent right now. So you have approximately a $410,000 check to Myers and Sons Construction LLC, and then a $381,000 check for T Lowell construction. So those are a couple of capital items to report.
Describer:
On screen. Castle Pines North Metropolitan District Payment Claims
For the Period April 16, 2025 - May 12, 2026 PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
CHECKS - 29652 through 29691 (Refer to Check Detail Report)
Voucher Checks Amount: $1,869,663.21
One-Time Checks (Customer Refunds) Amount: $491.93
One-Time Checks (Meter Deposit Returned) Amount: $3,500.00
ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS
TOTAL CHECKS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Amount: $1,873,655.14
Total Payments Presented for Review
$ 1,966,413.96
Eric:
Moving forward to, page six, what you would have is the amount of claims presented for review totaling $1,966,413.96, approximately 1.873 million of that is in voucher checks.
And you can see the the the roll of detail associated with that in the remainder for the electronic items as well listed. And we do have a large component of items. We have fully transitioned to ACH payment for utilities and payroll obviously, and things of that nature.
Describer:
On screen. Check Detail Report April 16, 2026 - May 12, 2026
Eric:
Moving forward to page seven, you'll see the listing of all the detail associated with that, starting, with check number 29652.
And you can see there is quite a bit of activity. There is lot of activity with Kennedy Jenks with the remainder of the projects and engagements that we have in place with them right now. And then of course, the capital checks, listed below, and you'll see Myers and Sons and then T. Lowell Construction listed at, Myers and Sons to item number 55.
And looking at item number 73, you'll see that total there. And then you will have the aggregate, on the next page on page eight associated with totaling $1.869 million. A very we are presenting projections and March 31st financial statements next week. So we're looking forward to that. Otherwise, I would like to answer any questions you may have in regards to the payables presented tonight.
Tera:
Hey Eric, I do have a quick question and thank you for the presentation. And I know this is not a large cost, but it kind of if I could get some elevated clarity on it. So we're on page by line item number five Comcast. And I think that's for internet or whatever. So what is our arrangement. In the building that was formerly ours and now belongs to the city that are we paying rent.
And wouldn't that include everything. Or should they be responsible for everything, all the trash removal, the internet and all that? I mean, it seems a little unclear. Of course. And Nathan, I'll take this one first. And if you can chime in as, on the and the essentially what we have here is a triple net lease for the building associated with us.
So there's no taxes. It's owned by a tax exempt organization. So we just kept paying operations, expenses as incurred, at least for the administrative building. Nathan, as it relates to the current utilities for internet service, could you potentially speak to that?
District Manager Nathan Travis:
Yeah. So we're there's two separate payments for Comcast. Those are just internet service. One of them is for internet service to this building.
We had to increase that. Oh, I can't remember Terrence. We needed to bump up our speed a little bit to facilitate the board meetings. And then the other one is for internet and phone service at the water treatment plant. So we just like we're carrying the rest of the building utilities. We're also carrying the internet because we're the ones here that are primarily using it.
And then that lease with the city is a dollar per year. So that's kind of a trade.
Tera:
But then when it's refurbished and we get back in the building, we won't be the ones mostly leaving the building.
Nathan:
We'll still be I mean, the city will be here a couple times a month, but I mean, we're here all day, every day.
Eric:
And we can certainly. And I haven't seen the design of the building, Tera, we can look at and see if there's a potential for share. Accordingly. I'm like, you know, looking at the energy usage and maybe Nathan, Rene and I can discuss this, figuring out what is the true cost burden. But I think by default the lease was written as just basically a standard triple net lease.
Thank you.
Jason:
Okay. Any other questions for Eric?
Eric, we can move on to your next item.
Describer:
On screen.
CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
REGARDING THE COLORADO SURPLUS ASSET EID TRUST (CSAFE)
Eric:
Thank you. Thank you. Board. There was two items that were tabled at last month's board meeting. It was a consideration for, opening up, I guess this first one, so I refer to it correctly, is the, Colorado Surplus Asset Fund, shortened to C-SAFE, local government investment pool.
Describer:
On screen.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
Authorization re Opening and Access to Bank Accounts
And Designation of Official Custodians.
Eric:
There was a couple questions that were raised by either the, by the board or a member of the public. So this was tabled until this, work session. And the next item would be the authorization to open, Utility Banking Account. So what, at risk of essentially restating last week's what, last month's, excuse me, work session memo and board memo.
I wanted to bring it back just out for the clarification on it. We we wanted to, basically diversify in a local government investment pool. There was an item in the resolution related to security and prevention of fraud. This is the standard language that C-SAFE uses in, in the form of their, essentially their indenture with every sort of local government in the state of Colorado.
Essentially it is our job to, safeguard our security access credentials. So one of the items we can do, we have procedures around this as far as dual signatures and multi-factor authentication. You know, in any instance of funds leaving C-Safe, or any Colotrust, for that matter, for the district's checking operating account.
We have two people involved with that transaction. Someone does instigate our start, it kicks it off, and then someone else has to approve it. In addition to wire template transfers need to go through the same authorization as well. So but that was one item. But it may be, you know, it may be the district's while to document, certain procedures in the form of a policy, if you will, either in the form of, expansion of the financial controls policy or finance and accounting, manual, if you will.
So that might be something also to look into as well. And then in addition to the next item, just so I can, not to stay long winded. For consideration of the districts opening up for an In Bank account. We did not go through, an RFP process for this. We kind of we, we evaluated banks that were somewhat in our neighborhood and our existing banking relationship, and had ongoing conversations with In Bank over a period of about 18 months..
And so and their their customer base is primarily utilities. And we overall, as discussed last month, we did see a cost savings associated for this. To the specific answer to the question, we did not, seek out an RFP for, banking or Treasury management services.
Jason:
Eric. Yes. Eric, I know that Jim had a bunch of questions surrounding this, and, and he was one of his questions was, who else did we talk to?
I haven't done a bunch of research, but just on a cursory view up in Bank and Trust-pilot has some had a 1.7 out of five. That is satisfaction rating that throws up a bit of a red flag for me, but...
Eric:
Okay, let me follow up on that for you. Okay. Thank you.
We'll have an answer, for next week's meeting for you on that.
Jason:
Thank you Eric.
Eric:
Of course. Thank you.
Jason:
Are there any other questions for Eric regarding these items? Hearing none, I will go ahead and close that. Item number two, the finance items, and we'll move on to our next item, legal items. Thank you Paul.
Describer:
TO: Castle Pines North Sanitation District
FROM: Seter. Vander Wall & Mielke, M.c Paul Polito, Las.
DATE: May 18, 2026
Legal Status Report tor the May 18, 2020 Board Meeting
MATTERS IN PROGRESS
MATTER: CASTIE PINES WATER INFRASTRUCTURE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
Legal Counsel Paul Polito, Esq.:
Evening, everyone.
On page 12, your packet is the legal status report. There are no new items, just, items you seen before, items we're working through. I'll stop here if anybody has any questions about the report, itself. Otherwise, we'll all keep moving through the legal items.
I think I think anybody has any question at any point, as I'm going through, this cooperative agreement, just just stop me. I think that that brings us next to, to the minutes for approval, and we have the, work session from April 20th. And this is just a work session, so there's no approvals today.
But if the board has any comments about either the April 20th or the April 27th minutes, happy to, happy to address them.
Describer:
On screen.
CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
WORK SESSION MINUTES
April 20, 2026 – 5:30 p.m.
HELD: Monday, April 20, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. at 7404 Yorkshire Drive, Castle Pines, CO 80108.
ATTENDEES: Directors Tera Radloff, James Mulvey, Jana Krell, and Leah Enquist were present. Director Jason Blanckaert was absent (excused). Also present
were: Eric Harris, Elevated Clarity; Nathan Travis, District Manager; Rene
Santini, Deputy District Manager; Lisa Schwien, P.E., Kennedy/Jenks Consultants; and Paul Polito, Seter, Vander Wall & Mielke, P.C. All attendees participated via videoconference.
CONFLICTS: None.
QUORUM: Present.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER: The Work Session was called to order at approximately 5:30 p.m. by Director Radloff.
FINANCE ITEMS
Review: Monthly Claims for Payments Made from March 13, 2026 to April 15, 2026
Eric Harris of Elevated Clarity presented the monthly payment claims totaling $1,425,616.50, consisting of $1,306,323.76 in checks and $119,292.74 in electronic payments. Mr. Harris confirmed that all invoices have been processed through the established review channels and have been evaluated for compliance with the Financial Controls Policy/Matrix. Mr. Harris highlighted notable claims, including pay applications associated with capital projects (Myers &
Sons Construction, LLC for the Filter Beds Rehabilitation in the amount of $107,476.00, and T Lowell Construction, Inc. for the Lift Stations Upgrades in the amount of $309,770.01), the District’s $400,000 annual capacity readiness charge to Highlands Ranch Water under the Highlands Ranch Water IGA, and aggregate charges of approximately $61,372.07 to QP Services, LLC for ongoing repair work.
Tera:
I have a couple quick questions. Yep. Where it says held we are meeting remotely. So I know that we weren't actually at the Yorkshire building. So I don't know if that's just our meeting of record or but since we're not in there, had a question.
Paul:
That's a fair point, Tera. You know, it's a, it was probably a carryover, I think, as I was looking at that, I don't really know what to do with that. I put that we're participating via video conference. But fair point. I'll, I'll remove the reference to the 7404 and just make it clear that it's video conferencing.
That's that's my mistake.
And I'll do the same for the April 27th minutes as well. So anybody else have any, questions, comments, concerns regarding either the minutes. Okay.
Describer:
On screen.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
(Castle Pines North MD; Castle Pines Village MD; The Country Club at Castle Pines)
THIS COOPERATIVE AGREEEMENT FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
(“Agreement”) is entered into by and between CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT (“CPNMD”), CASTLE PINES VILLAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
(“CPVMD”), each a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado, and THE COUNTRY CLUB AT CASTLE PINES, INC., a Colorado nonprofit corporation (“The Country Club”). CPNMD, CPVMD, and The Country Club may be referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
That brings us to, the, cooperative agreement, for water infrastructure. This is that agreement that we briefly discussed, a couple of board meetings ago with the the country club and Castle Pines, as well as, CPVMD what you're seeing is a track changes version of the latest changes that we have received from CPVMD.
None of which change the substance of the agreement. They're all clarifications, references to rules, whatnot. So I did let ... CPVMD’s Council know, that I was fine with it and they can circulate a final, first signature. So I'm just waiting on that. But this had previously, we talked about some of the terms I incorporated in this, to include some protections for the district.
They accepted all of those terms. So I'm happy with this agreement as it's drafted. They've they've actually been very easy to work with. So, again, nothing approved today. We do have a a week, to look through this. And if anything catches your eye, just let me know. I'm happy to address it.
And then again, this will be going on for signature as well. So you have a couple of bites of the apple. Now I do want to mention, me and Jim, had an offline, conversation following the last board meeting about the district's data collection. This is spurred by our, conversation about the the smart meter data and, you know, government intrusion and whatnot.
What's okay to collect and what's not. And, looking into this a little bit, there's actually the district would have good support to enact a resolution that would prohibit the sharing of its smart meter data, to any third party, including law enforcement, without a warrant. It actually, as I was looking through this, Fourth Amendment case law, search and seizure, what's appropriate, what's not, it actually helps, governmental entities out when it does have these sorts of protections.
If somebody were to ever challenge the governmental entity that this was an illegal search or seizure, the fact that you do have some protection in place, that you're not disclosing it, to law enforcement or any sort of government agency without a warrant, actually helps you if you were to ever get that sort of challenge. So I think it's likely you'll get that sort of challenge.
No. But, you know, again, you could provide those protections, to the right, to your residents. What I would advise is this would take the form of a resolution, if you were interested in it, because there would need to be some carve outs, certainly to comply with CORA. There's certain carve outs, for some, federal agencies, data collection, whatnot, but, if the board's interested in that, I can bring a resolution to that effect for, for consideration at the next meeting.
And, I would just encourage you all just think about it a little bit. Feel free to email me. If there is an interest in this. I think I see Jim unmuting himself so I'll start now. And I'm just getting a chance to talk.
Board Member Director James Mulvey:
No, the only thing I'm going to say is I'm going to remain quiet, because of what happened at last meeting.
And, I just, like, appreciate everybody else's thoughts, and that's it.
Jason:
I have give, excuse me. I haven't given this much thought yet, so. But I will between now and next meeting. I don't think it's a bad idea. You know, Paul and I have had, a discussion around it, too, so I do want to, let you know that I do as a staff representative. I do support having that, resolution in place.
It also gives us some clarification. should that ever become an issue, it'd be nice to have a guidance document that I could follow or that we can follow.
Tera:
I agree with that.
Paul:
Okay. Well, I'm hearing, I'm hearing a majority interest. Jana. Leah, any any comments? Okay. All right. Well, I will I'll bring that resolution, for the board's consideration at the next meeting.
And that concludes legal.
Jason:
Thank you. Paul. Yeah. Thank you. Jason. Okay, we'll go ahead and, close out legal and, we'll move on to item number four. The district manager items, Nathan.
Nathan:
Sorry about that. I was muted inside, so the only thing I wanted to bring to the board's attention and kind of get some feedback on, inside of your packet in the supplemental materials is a draft violation letter to a resident. So, because it's in that supplemental materials, it is not available to the public. So only the board can see that.
I'm also not sharing my screen for that reason. So, when we were at Renee and I started looking into potential, rate tiers related to the board's request around, conservation management. And through that process, we were looking at various high lots, high use lots, and we were really just picking them off of aerial photography, aerial photos and then pulling usage data to start, putting into like the basic framework for Rene's remodel.
While we were doing that, we came across this one resident with, an extremely large lot. It's a two and a half acre lot, 16,500ft² of irrigated turf. 9400ft² of xeric and landscape areas. And really, since that account was created when the house was built in 2006, the usage hasn't changed much month over month.
It hangs out usually around 4 or 5000 gallons. I think the highest we saw was 7 or 8, which was really was a red flag to us that either we had an issue with the meter or that there was an unauthorized use connection. So we generated a work order. Our technician went out, there's a photo and, draft violation that showed that that resident, did it at some point, tap into their irrigation line, from aerial photography and kind of historic Google Photos, it looks like that was in 2008.
And since that time has had that unauthorized connection to feed their irrigation. Looking through the rules and regulations, talking with Paul, I did send this to Sigler Communications as well. They requested on this one that we just default to legal and kind of let them. Let legal handle the, the wording. We came up ultimately with a fine a total amount do of $9,150.
So that would be and Paul was going to do some checking to see if we can do the, fine for authorized use. over each year. I apologize, let me back up shortly. There is a three year statute of limitation. So we can really only go back three years in terms of usage. From the time that the unauthorized connection was put in place.
Quick estimate puts us probably around six and a half, 7 million gallons of total usage. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 43 to $50,000. Over the course of that time. We estimated un-billed usage based on square foot and typical watering rates for those types of material. Added some time in there for district staff, labor consultant year and laborers.
So that includes $700 in attorneys fees for Paul's effort on this, bringing us to a current total amount do of $9,150. We did have, this did pop up previously. It built clear back in 2012. This was actually noticed a technician that hasn't worked at the district almost since then. Just did a drive by. They know they saw the xeric plant material out front and just said it's xeriscape, it's native.
It's probably not irrigated. And so that's why we missed it for so long. Next efforts are Rene's was also able to build a, an average of based on the average of like June, July and August of last year's usage for every account in the district versus their lot size came up with the ratio. And then we were able to sort those.
So we did go through and identified three other accounts that maybe, maybe have unauthorized connections. We verified that one of those today was okay. But in order to make sure we handle this going forward, that's just going to become a regular part of our annual process. So how we look at doing that every September following the irrigation season.
So we don't miss this. We do have monthly reporting for drastic usage changes, but that are automatically generated to our billing and meter reading system. They were just never designed or really have the capability to catch something like this, where it was basically from the genesis of the account. So really I just wanted to hit, a feel for any board comments, any questions. Get a good idea of whether or not they agree with, the violation letter and the amount.
And I'm going to send that out and we'll go from there. The A resident was made aware of the, unlawful connection or made aware that we recognized it by the technician when he was on site. We have not contacted him, at all since then.
Jana:
How did you react when contacted?
Nathan:
So it was just a meter check.
So, Troy was the technician that went in. He just swapped out the meter to make sure everything was on the up and up. We need to change that anyway. Told them that there was an unauthorized connection, and the homeowner said “Okay, I'll get my. I'll have my plumber fix it." And then Troy went on his way.
Jana:
Oh, that's a and then for clarification for me, when you said something about September, this is going to be something we're going to do in September.
Nate. What were you referring to?
Nathan:
Oh, just an annual process year over year following irrigation system, irrigation season, to compare all of our accounts to the lot size, to find any outliers.
Tera:
Okay. Like a water audit? Correct.
Jana:
That's a good way of saying that. Okay, so I got it. I supported it sounds like for years he's irrigated multiple acres without paying.
It sounds like he's getting a good deal at $9,000 is my thoughts, but I'm, open to whatever you guys think. But that's I do support, pursue the funds for three years of back pay.
Tera:
I have a question about saying something like you were told. So if we, have this type of thing in the future, it seems like we should have some.
And this would be probably a question for Paul, but some kind of, Wait a it's other than, hearsay. Right? We either need a, some kind of door hanger that they leave. Or something that they've not like you write a ticket. But there has to be, some sort of proof. And just saying that our technician told you to me is not proof. Not taking that into question, but I just don't.
That doesn't, seem right to me.
Paul:
It's. I can tell you it's legally sufficient, but to your point, it's it's a bare minimum. So you can certainly provide much more notice than that. And I think it would be a good idea to.
Deputy District Manager Rene Santini:
I believe the letter supposed to be the notice. Right. And the official notice of violation.
Paul:
If we're talking about,
Tera:
But in the letter, it says, as our technician advised you.
Rene:
Well, I would say
Tera:
And I take exception to that.
Rene:
Yeah. I mean, we could probably strike that, you know.
Paul:
We can tighten up that process for sure.
Rene:
Because we could we could say that, you know, like we have a photo provided by Troy of the violation. So, you know, this we I mean, I don't know, I don't speak legalese.
Tera:
So the violation is actually some type of document or,
Paul:
I think I see what you're getting at Rene.
Right. So, Tera, there will be a letter that will be issued that will be the official notice of violation. It will have pictures from the inspection. And that will lay that's sort of the initial, that's the official, the first formal notice.
Tera:
Okay. So then can we strike that particular thing from the letter that as our technician advised you, because it sounds like I mean.
Paul:
Absolutely.
It's it's kind of just declarative that way.
Tera:
That just seems like hearsay, if you can, if to what Renee is saying, if you can show me because I'm thinking if I'm a homeowner was like, I'm not going to remember that I talked to a technician or whatever. It just seems a little condescending. But if you're saying, here's the picture, here's the thing, this is what the violation looks like.
That's what I was looking for.
Paul:
I okay, we can definitely change that wording.
Jason:
I agree with Tera on that point, and not that this person needs to have this in there, but do we need to put an appeal clause on there, too?
Nathan:
We did. We, yeah.
Jason:
Oh I must be missing it.
Paul:
There's a reference to, article 17 of the rules which points out the, they're right to appeal. They are requesting it.
Jim:
I just have a quick question, comment. The, based on the previous event where you had something similar. Do we want to request flesh and force, photo documentation and billing that shows the repair or basically placing it back into the correct operating condition? Yeah.
Nathan:
So we are requiring a physical, we are requiring access for a physical inspection by district staff.
We can include that. We'll take. So we can also include in the notice of photos while we are there.
Tera:
But won't the water bill still? I mean, if the water bill remains unchanged, it seems like there's that's a also a data point.
Nathan:
Correct. Yeah. We'll definitely monitor usage going forward on this one. In addition to that, we can also include that in the letter.
Jim:
And your water usage now is based on square footage acreage. What have you considered. It'll pop. It'll pop up like when you do billing every month if it's out of order, so to speak, over under a significant amount, it'll flag you.
Nathan:
It will. So billing the way that it's currently set up, it'll only flag us if there's a significant change.
So for the first month when they start watering it, we'll get a high usage alert because, you know, their account average is like 5 or 7000. Then they'll have whatever the build usage is for irrigation water. That'll create an alert. But we will have to do more of a, like manual process to sort through this district wide, moving forward.
Jim:
Thank you. Thanks. Sounds good.
Paul:
There have been a number of rule revisions this year, so I'm hesitant to suggest another one, but if there is board interest, I could revise the rules to include a harsher penalty for this sort of thing, because I do agree with with Jana. I think he's getting off easy on this one. I don't think.
Jana:
No one ever agrees with me.
Paul.
Paul:
I got you today, Jana. Well, you're right. And I let me and Nathan were saying the same thing. I do, he said. Yeah, he's really getting off late on this one. And, you know, I, I was looking for ways to impose more of a penalty, and there's really nothing, to stand on other than what we're doing now.
And but the district can certainly impose much stricter rules for this sort of thing. You can do a per day penalty. You can do $100 per day penalty. You know, you can do whatever the water rates is, times a triple penalty. And there's a number of ways to skin the cat. If there's interest. I could, I could bring forward some different ideas for consideration.
Leah:
I would be supportive of having a stiffer penalty. I mean, it sounds like theft to me. And we're not talking a small amount. Talking a large amount. And, Yeah, I'd be supportive of doing anything that would curb that type of behavior. Yeah.
Tera:
And I think about the way that it's being approached is that he did it on purpose and with malicious intent, which, I don't think we can prove and and we don't know. So I'm okay with penalizing, but trying to, you know, make ourselves the water police and come down hard. I think as I read through the the notes about in response to what was brought up last time, and you know, how the city even tries to take more of an incentive approach than, a harsh approach.
I just think that's what's warranted. I don't I don't know that we need to, you know, try to hammer people and go after them. Maybe he did it with knowledge, maybe he didn't.
Jana:
But, and, Tera, I, I agree that we don't know, so I, I will I will say that but then to your point about we're not the water police will if we're not in charge of policing the water who is? Like to me that feels like that is our goal of I'm not trying to I'm not trying to.
Tera:
100% we are with you, but we are the water police.
But I think about putting, you know, a a really, harsh fine in there that's out of line with our, our industry or our surrounding things, I think doesn't, make sense.
Leah:
Is our fines out of line? Like, do you have any insight into that Tera.
Nathan:
They are I they're significant low significantly lower. And Parker has daily find that they could put in place I think there's like Rene, correct me if I'm wrong.
We were looking at this Parker had like up to $500 a day once the conditions discovered. If it's not remedied. Castle Rock handles this through their municipal code. So it's a misdemeanor inside of Castle Rock. I have personal experience with being a former employee there that we didn't even run those through billing. Those were, you know, we called police, and then the police would run it through the court system.
With the utilities department listed as the victim, they would get restitution. Basically every other fines structure that we looked at for unauthorized connections were significantly more punitive than ours is currently is.
Leah:
Tera I know, like, if if we're not matching the industry, then I agree. Like, we probably want to be more commiserate with our, fellow water providers.
Which sounds like we would need to raise fines for, illegal connections and, and, and a lot of these things and not a lawyer, obviously, but like, I don't think fines should hinge on intent or not. Right. Like, if something is, if something's not allowed, it's not allowed. Whether you did it on purpose or on accident.
Paul:
Intent is what usually divides criminal from civil.
If you can prove intent, it's usually a criminal matter. Oddly, or funnily enough, I would say in this case you actually could refer this guy criminally if you wanted to. I'm not advising you to do it. But you have an intentional bypass of a water meter, from somebody who used to be the president of the Hidden Point Metro District.
That is, that's if you put that in a court of law, and it seems pretty intentional.
Jason:
Well the bigger picture. Oh, sorry. Paul.
Paul:
Yeah. No, that's that's a and again, not advising to do it. Just painting the picture of yeah. You know sort of just how this works. You can, you can, you can impose civil penalties once once you're getting into intent and criminal stuff, you have to refer that out to the state.
Can't do anything criminal, but that's just one think about it.
Jason:
Well, the bigger picture, I think too, is by giving us the ability to do this doesn't mean that we have to do with every case. It's just an egregious cases like this. I think it's warranted, but it doesn't mean that we have to set these fines to everybody that's.
Jana:
I second you Jason. It doesn't mean we have to, but it gives us the power.
So thank you.
Tera:
But I think it's going forward that we're putting an annual audit in place makes sense. Because if we really go back and look that he was doing it for 18 years, that reflects poorly on us, that we haven't been conducting our auditing in our business. Well, especially since somebody noticed it in 2012 and nothing was done.
This is a different administration. It's a different board. That's good. But, you know, we also we don't look great in this scenario either because we allowed it to happen.
Jim:
Question. for Paul, I think maybe, Nathan, is this person the original owner of the home, or can we determine that?
Nathan:
Yes. They're the original owner of the home.
Jim:
Okay. So the I was going to try to get a benefit of the doubt that said, you know, maybe the previous owner had put something in and they had no idea so.
Jana:
In this case Jim, it's very hard to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. It just keeps stacking against them.
Jim:
So yeah, I agree. I just I wonder raise the question owner.
Jana:
If he was a new owner.
And he didn't know. Of course we'd be empathetic to that. Sure.
Tera:
I've lived here for 23 years and I ever hired somebody to do the work and they did the work. And then you came back 20 years later and told me that, you know, I was stealing water. I'd be thinking I didn't, you know, I didn't do the work.
I didn't know my water bills been the same. How would I know?
Jim:
Yeah. And then just a final comment. This person's stealing from their neighbors in the community, and I just fundamentally it to me, it's it's disrespectful to your neighbors and the community at large. And so I think a fine is warranted and appropriate and whatever, you know, whatever you guys want to do, I, I think I'm supportive.
Jana:
Hey. Hey, Tera. Just a thought, hypothetical question. If you did find out that you were accidentally stealing because to your point, I agree. If my irrigation system was on a bypass, I wouldn’t know. I wouldn't check it. But if I were to find out that I had been not paying for my water, how would you feel you would want to handle it?
As a resident?
Tera:
Oh, I would make it right for sure.
Jana:
See? So either way, to me it's the same whether, you know, if he's been doing it for so long and you think, oh well, I can only pay back for three years, I understand why I'm getting a fine. Yeah. It's a it's a small drop in the bucket of what he actually would have been paying.
Understand. Okay. Yeah. So to me it doesn't even feel even if it wasn't malicious intent to me, it's completely justified.
Tera:
I'm agreeing with making it right. Yeah. It just to me the discussion feels like this very aggressive approach. And to Jim's point, there are neighbors. You know, there are community. I don't know that he was stealing water because he got water from somewhere.
He certainly wasn't paying for the water being used. But I think, you know, what do we really want? Well, well, okay. Mr. Water User, we want you we want to let you know this is happening. I don't think we need to do that in an aggressive manner and say we're going to essentially, you know, it's kind of like first step should always be the, you know, a conversation, hey, more a letter, but it's more like, hey, you've been using this what we want.
We well, we want to let you know, we want you to stop, and we want you to show us that you've fix. We want you to fix it. And hey, show us you fixed it and but there does need to be, consideration for the water that you've been using, right? So just, it's just, I think phrasing that I'm not.
I'm agreeing with everything. That's just the, conversation. The approach sounds like, oh, my God, we caught him. Let's hammer him. Let's put the handcuffs on him send them to jail. And that's just not my, that is, just not how I would, approach it.
Paul:
And I'm definitely happy to change the language in that letter. And Tera I'm happy to forward it over to you. If you want to just take a look at it before we send it out.
Rene:
And then I think, if I'm hearing the board correctly, we want the ability to have more, strict penalties for this type of cases. And then the board, at their discretion, through the appeals process, could decide to, decrease that or, or not, depending on the specifics of the case.
Tera:
Right. It was helpful that we had that conversation, because I had no idea where we stood in relation to those around us.
And if we are doing other things in kind of a regional, thoughtful approach, I think it makes sense to be, in line with what our water communities immediately around us are doing. That's my standpoint.
Paul:
And the board will always have enforcement discretion, to apply its own rules.
Okay. Well, I will, I'll bring a resolution regarding those rule changes for the increased penalties. If this happens in the future and then the board can apply that on a case by case basis. We'll bring up for your consideration and for Tuesday.
Nathan:
Perfect and Paul if we could set a brief meeting, probably just you, me, you, Rene and I.
Rene and I have some thoughts on how to, kind of build that program out or build those that fine structure out so that it's easy to understand for staff, residents and the board.
Paul:
Okay. Yeah. Yeah, I'm happy to talk more of, that works for you.
Nathan:
All right. That is all I had for district manager items this evening.
Jason:
Okay. Thank you. Nathan, if, that is all you have for that, we'll close that out and we will adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Everyone. Thanks, guys. Thanks, everybody. Thank you so.