Study Session

June 15, 2026

Transcript

Describer:

Castle Pines North Metropolitan District Work Session-

Jun 15, 2026 05:30 PM MDT

7404 Yorkshire Drive, Castle Pines, CO 80108

I. Call Work Session to order

A. Roll call & disclosure of potential conflicts

II. Finance Items

A. Review monthly claims for payments made from May 13, 2026 to June 10, 2026

CPNMD Board Work Session Claims Packet 06152026(PDF, opens in new tab)

III. Legal Items

6.15.26 Legal Status Report - CPNMD 4905-0497-2724 v.1(PDF, opens in new tab)

A. Review May 18, 2026 Work Session Meeting Minutes

5.18.26 Draft Work Session Minutes 4925-6537-6949 v.1(PDF, opens in new tab)

B. Review May 26, 2026 Board Meeting Minutes

CPNMD Board Meeting Minutes 5.26.26 4937-9240-7477 v.1(PDF, opens in new tab)

C. Review: Rules and Regulations Update re Enforcement

CPNMD Article 16 Redline (Clean)(PDF, opens in new tab)

CPNMD Article 16 Redline(PDF, opens in new tab)

D. Review: Waterline Easement Agreement - Foundry Church

CPNMD-Foundry Water Easement Agreement (Draft)(PDF, opens in new tab)

E. Review: Main Extension Agreement - Foundry Church

CPNMD-Foundry Main Extension Agreement 4932-9100-5102 v.5(PDF, opens in new tab)

F. The Ridge at Castle Pines North - Water Service Agreement

Ridge Water Service Agreement (Ridge Signed) 4910-3542-0596 v.1(PDF, opens in new tab)

IV. District Manager Items

A. Discussion: Interconnect Pump Station Surge Modifications

From the Level Engineering:

"I realize these bids are well over the engineer's estimate of $130,000 from late 2025, which may cause some issues with procurement. Due to the rise in material costs and the current bidding climate, it is apparent that this project will certainly exceed $120,000 without reducing the scope or breaking it apart into multiple projects."

Bid_Tab_CPNMD_IPS Surge Modification(PDF, opens in new tab)

V. Adjourn

Board President Jason Blankaert:

Okay. Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the Castle Pines North Metropolitan and District work session for June 15th, 2026. It is approximately 5:30 p.m. And we will call the meeting to order. We'll take a roll call. Jana is not here yet.

Board Member Director Leah Enquist:

Leah. Present.

Board Member Director James Mulvey:

Jim. Present.

Board Member Director Tera Radloff:

Tera. Present.

Jason:

And I'm Jason blank. I'm present. No conflicts as well.

We will go ahead and move on to item two. The finance items. It looks like, we need to review the monthly claims for payments made. May 13th, 2026 to June 10th, 2026.

District Manager Nathan Travis:

And Molly just jumped on. So let's give her a, Oh okay, second to orient herself.

Molly Janzen, Accountant:

I'll be ready in just a second.

Describer:

On screen.

TO: Board of Directors – Castle Pines North Metropolitan District

FROM: Eric Harris, Elevated Clarity (EC)

DATE: June 15, 2026

RE: Work Session Report – June 2026

Claims Submitted for Review

District Finance is submitting $1,600,653.59 in Payment Claims for review at the work session, consisting of $1,438,933.00 in checks and $161,720.59 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: $893,357.81

Financial Overview

A comprehensive financial report will be provided at the June Board Meeting, which will include an analysis of financial activity through

April 30, 2026.

2025 Audit in Process

Fieldwork for the 2025 audit is currently underway. Communication from the auditors this week indicates that they are through the majority of the testing and that the financial statements have been drafted and are going through the review process; therefore, we continue to be on track to receive the initial draft by June 22, 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)

June 22, 2026 – Monthly Board Meeting

July 20, 2026 – Monthly Board Work Session

July 27, 2026 – Monthly Board Meeting

Molly:

All right. You're ready for me?

Jason:

Yes, Molly. We are.

Molly:

Okay. Sorry again about that. No problem. Issues. All right. We'll go ahead and dive in. should be short and sweet tonight. We just have basically the claims, for this month. So you can see the total on the memo there. Claims submitted for review, $1,600,653.59, consisting of $1,438,933.00 and checks and $161,720.59, in electronic payments.

The most notable one, dealing with capital projects is Myers and Sons per filter beds rehab at $893,357.81. We will be providing the April, financials in the board meeting, so we'll be going over that next week. The other thing to note is just that our audit is in progress right now. We I had a meeting with the auditors today to, answer some of their final questions.

They already have a draft, in their review process, a draft of their audit. So we should be able to meet that June 30th deadline with no problem. So we will get that out to the board. If you look on the next page, there is your the total of the checks and the electronic payments, the detail of those, and then the following two pages, you have the check detail report and then the totals by vendor.

For the the same period of time May 13th.

Tera:

Molly, on that page, I do have a quick question for Bartle Wells rate study was back in February, and I noticed that we're just paying for it. That seems like an interesting timing. Can you catch me up on that?

Molly:

I think, Nathan, correct me if I'm wrong. I think that was one that they did.

They just recently bill us or did we get that and just I can't remember.

Nathan:

I'd have to go back and look at the invoice. I think it's more for like on-call work. So we're working on updating the, rate comparison between utilities. And then we've also asked him for a few questions, just while Rene works through.

Well, Rene and Eric work through revamping the, water budgets.

Tera:

Make sense. But if you scroll back the page before this, it says, like, rate study February. So maybe..

Nathan:

I can I'll have to double time for that one.

Tera:

I mean, it makes sense what you're saying. I just thought, gosh, we you know, that's a long time to not pay for the rates study.

But what you're saying makes sense. So maybe it's just kind of how it's coded in the system or something.

Molly:

Yeah, right. Sometimes when I know I noticed when we were going through the rate study last year that they, they would kind of hold ours and then bill them out. So that could be what it is. I'm looking at as well.

At it.

February hours. So they February hours. But they didn't bill it till the end of April. So that explains that.

Tera:

Thanks. I, I'm glad it's on there end and not ours.

Molly:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And and I think you'll remember we made the change to only do, checks once a month, which is actually working really well, I think.

I haven't heard any issues that the vendors are having or anything so. I think we're doing good there. Any other questions on any of the items?

Jason:

All right. Hearing none, we'll go ahead and close out the finance items and, we'll move on to legal items. Paul it looks like we got a few things to discuss.

Describer:

On screen.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Castle Pines North Metropolitan District

FROM: Seter, Vander Wall & Mielke, P.C.; Paul Polito, Esq.

DATE: June 12, 2026

RE: Legal Status Report for the June 15, 2026 Study Session

Legal Counsel Paul Polito, Esq.:

We certainly do. There are a number of items, that will be up for approval at the next board meeting. The status report itself tracks four matters that will require board action.

Describer:

On screen.

MATTERS REQUIRING BOARD ACTION

MATTER: RULES AND REGULATIONS AMENDMENTS – ARTICLE 16 (ENFORCEMENT)

MATTER: FOUNDRY CHURCH – WATER AND SANITARY SEWER MAIN

EXTENSION AGREEMENT

MATTER: FOUNDRY CHURCH – WATER EASEMENT AGREEMENT

MATTER: WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT – THE RIDGE GOLF COURSE

MATTERS IN PROGRESS

MATTER: CASTLE PINES WATER INFRASTRUCTURE COOPERATIVE

AGREEMENT

MATTER: HIDDEN POINTE METRO DISTRICT INCLUSION

MATTER: JAM RANCH RE-ZONING APPLICATION

MATTER: SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENT

MATTER: PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES IGA

PROPERTY CONVEYANCES

INACTIVE MATTERS

MATTER: SALE OF FARM PROPERTIES

MATTER: REVISIT MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CASTLE PINES METRO DISTRICT AND CASTLE PINES NORTH METRO DISTRICT RE WATER RIGHTS

Paul:

So the first is the article 16 enforcement amendments, the two Castle Pines Community Church agreements and the Bridge Water Service agreement, each of which is also a separate review item tonight. So I'll cover them. I'll cover this substance as I get to it. Beyond those, the matters in progress are the three party cooperative agreement, which the board approved.

Is now up for signature. The hidden point include inclusion, which you will see a resolution at the next meeting. after which I will forward it to the district court to set the November election. And the service plan amendment, which is filed with Douglas County, they do have everything they need. We're just awaiting first review. But that is on track.

The two inactive matters, the farm property sale and the CPNMD MOU are unchanged. With that, I will pause. If anybody has any questions about the legal status report before I move on.

Tera:

Thanks, Paul. I have, question. Let me look at my document. I know you're going to go over the the, article 16, the enforcement clause. The on the it's on your, page ten of your report. I don't know if that's page ten of the packet, but it is the, water service agreement with the Ridge.

Describer:

On screen.

MATTER: WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT – THE RIDGE GOLF COURSE

Status: As previously reported, the District has been negotiating an updated agreement with Ridge CPN, LLC concerning the District’s delivery of water for irrigation of The Ridge at Castle Pines North golf course. The new Water Service Agreement supersedes the parties’ 2016 Raw Water Agreement and carries forward the relationship originating in their 1996 Agreement. Counsel previously reviewed and revised the agreement, including terms limiting delivery when water is not reasonably available, clarifying the rate structure, and clarifying the delivery point, and the District Manager, Finance Director, and counsel met with representatives

of the Ridge, at the Ridge’s request, to address water capacity concerns.

Under the final agreement, the District will lease to the Ridge up to 240 acre-feet of water per year, drawn primarily from treated effluent, with a minimum of 0.375 million gallons per day made available, for delivery to the golf course at a single delivery point. The Ridge will pay a Water Service Fee of $0.51 per 1,000 gallons of metered usage, adjusted annually under the District’s raw water rate model, together with a fixed Capital Improvement Fee of $22,562.98 per month for the seven months from April through October each year. The agreement provides that the District makes no warranty as to the quality or quantity of the water, retains all return flows, and may limit the Ridge’s deliveries to 500,000 gallons per day during District-imposed mandatory drought restrictions. The term is thirty years.

The Ridge has executed the agreement. Counsel will include the agreement in the packet for the June 15, 2026 study session and will present it to the Board for approval at its June 22, 2026 regular meeting.

Action: Consider the Water Service Agreement for approval and authorize the Board President to execute the agreement at the June 22, 2026 regular meeting.

Paul:

Yep. Okay. Looking at it now.

Tera:

And, it says that the term is 30 years. And I'm a little curious about that. It seems like where we are water wise, I don't know what their terms of renewing it or whatever, but getting locked into a service agreement for 30 years, given that we're in a high desert and we're having who knows if we'll have a renewable solution by then, but that can you kind of walk me through that?

Just seems like such a long term for especially a water service agreement.

Paul:

Yeah. So I'm just going to do it right now. Yeah. Thinking back on, I think we were going back and forth with this. I think we were Nathan. We were originally proposing ten years, weren't we? And then it just ballooned to 30 and trying to remember what the back and forth was on this.

Nathan:

I don't remember the back and forth. I think the 30 year ultimately landed, because that's how long we're on the hook for repayment on the, Reclaim Reservoir project that's going on right now so that that loan has a 30 year note that's ultimately baked into the rates at the ridge. And so since we're going to be paying that asset that length of time, I think that's kind of what drove that more than anything.

The other bits were play in in for context to the the previous agreement did not have any kind of sunset on it at all. So the agreement that's currently enforced does not have an end date.

Describer:

On screen.

THE RIDGE AT CASTLE PINES WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT

This WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT ("Agreement) is effective as of 06/12/2026, by and between the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District ("District"), a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the state, whose address is 7404 Yorkshire Drive, Castle Pines, CO 80108, and Ridge CPN, LLC ("Ridge"), an Arizona limited liability company, whose address is 1414 Castle Pines Parkway, Castle Pines, Colorado, 80108. District and/or Ridge may sometimes be referred to herein individually as a "Party" or collectively as "Parties."

AGREEMENT

4. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be for thirty (30) years, unless terminated by mutual agreement of the Parties, or by either Party upon two (2) years' advance written notice of termination. Prior to the conclusion of the thirty (30) year term provided herein, the parties agree to negotiate in good faith a subsequent agreement for the continued sale of the Subject Water to Ridge, provided that the District has determined, in its sole discretion, the Subject Water is available for sale.

Paul:

And that said, I did review the agreement again, the, the term paragraph four, page 56 of the packet. Tera, maybe this gives you a little bit of comfort, but the either party has the option to terminated upon two years advance written notice.

That's a unilateral termination. So you do have that protection baked in where if it's looking like it's getting unruly, you do have to give them two years notice, but you can get out of it or by mutual agreement, and then that's effective immediately. And oh I think, you're on mute.

Tera:

Sorry. Yes. That does give me comfort to know that there's a I didn't think about having that, a termination clause, but yeah, that's.

Thank you.

Paul:

Yeah. Absolutely. Happy to help.

Tera:

And then sorry, the other quick question was on the hidden point. When you turn it in, it sounds like they're going to do a coordinated election. And you probably have answered this before, but who's bearing the cost of the coordinated election?

Paul:

Hidden point will be bearing the cost. We will be conducting it.

The district of Castle Pines North will be conducting it.

Tera:

Okay. Thanks.

Paul:

Yeah. Very welcome. any other questions about the legal status report? Before I move on to the minutes?

Describers:

On screen.

CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT WORK SESSION MINUTES

HELD: Monday, May 18, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. All attendees participated via videoconference.

ATTENDEES: Directors Jason Blanckaert, Tera Radloff, Jana Krell, Leah Enquist, and James Mulvey were present. Also present were: Eric Harris, Elevated Clarity; Nathan Travis, District Manager; Rene Santini, Deputy District Manager; and Paul Polito, Seter, Vander Wall & Mielke, P.C.

CONFLICTS: None.

QUORUM: Present.

CALL MEETING TO ORDER: The Work Session was called to order at approximately 5:30 p.m.

FINANCE ITEMS

Review: Monthly Claims for Payments Made from April 16, 2026 to May 12, 2026

Paul:

Okay. The minutes themselves are, start on page 14 of the packet. That's the work session minutes. The regular meeting minutes are then on page 18. And like I've said before, this is a work session. Nothing's getting approved tonight. So you do have another week to, to review these. And and if anything does catch your eye, please feel free to, to let me know.

But while we're here, does anybody have comments now? happy to address them.

I guess easy enough. Oh sorry James, go ahead.

James:

The comment that Mr. Dawes broke up about, brought up about the, you know, the fine slash, you know, statute of limitations. You know, the one person that essentially had, you know, in rough terms, 18 years of water that they were tapping in. Did you do any investigation about whether or not that's applicable or are we just going to go with what we have at this point and, and call it good?

Paul:

So whether Mr. Dawes comment applies to this. I was it's an issue I looked into before he mentioned it. And so Mr. Dawes idea was that statute limitations runs from discovery. And this was something that I ran into a lot. And when I was doing environmental litigation, as it's always based on the time of discovery. Now, the wrinkle in that is, you know, unless you should have reasonably discovered it.

So it's sort of a philosophical thing of, okay. Yeah. Maybe we can get into an argument on whether we when we should have reasonably discovered it and reach back. And, you know, the district can spend its money on my time to, to go through that with the property owner. It didn't make sense to me. It's easy to.

So basically what I did was I tied it in with what we could absolutely get, that wasn't really subject to a challenge. And even if we were trying to reach back, it would have added a few thousand dollars and made it a lot more subject to challenge.

James:

Okay. I mean, that's all I was asking. I mean, I sorry to cut you off.

I didn't want to go into the, you know, the real details of it. I just wanted to make sure that you looked at it. You're comfortable with where things are and other people on the board or comfortable with that answer as well. And if you are, I am and, you know, I didn't want to, you know, really start digging at it.

I just want to understand that, you know, we did our diligence. Okay. We should have caught it maybe sooner, but what have you and you're comfortable with moving forward with the way it is. So I'm all good.

Paul:

I appreciate it.

Jason:

And so I want to I wanted to say something about this too. I think we made a mistake last meeting.

I think we should have taken this into executive session. I don't think we should have been talking about this matter in the, in the open meeting like this, since there was sensitive information being talked about. So I just want to say that going forward, we should really break this out into an executive session, overdoing it, in the form that we did last time.

Paul:

Okay. And it agreed when it ballooned into what it did. I. Yeah, I do agree with you, Jason.

Now, I one more comment on this. Just moving forward, I think that the article 16 changes will help. It'll sort of rectify all this. You know, looking forward, you'll have you'll have a clean role to, to go to with enforcement, penalties, you know, that are reasonably related to the, you know, to the violation, and imposes a higher penalty.

So moving forward, you're not really going have the problem. You're not going to have to think about discovery or anything like that. But anyway, does anybody have any other comments about the minutes before I move on?

Leah:

Related question to, what we were just talking about. Like, do we need to explicitly because I know last time we had talked about potentially, you know, the ability like, we would have the ability to refer it for like a criminal matter. Is that something that we would need to explicitly state in our rules and regulations? I'm guessing not, but just thought I'd double check.

Paul:

Thinking on first principles. I mean, the district. The district has broad powers to effectuate its purpose. If there's somebody stealing water, I would have a hard time believing that you wouldn't be able to refer it criminally just because your rules don't account for it. That being said, the rules do account for it, so. Okay. Yeah. So belt and suspenders, they do account for it.

So moot point. You know, only because they're already included. But if you have a fair question. Does that does that answer your question?

Leah:

It does. Thank you.

Paul:

Yeah. Any other questions, comments, concerns. Before we move on to the article, 16 read lines.

Nathan:

So Paul, real quick, especially with regards to executive session. So, specific instance who we're talking about here.

That resident is electing to appeal the findings to some extent. So that's going to happen at the July board meeting. Is that something that I guess my understanding is that that appeal should or needs to be happened having in a public or an open hearing or cannot or should that be executive session.

Paul:

That will be in, in a public meeting.

Nathan:

Okay. Yeah. Just want to clarify.

Describer:

On screen. ARTICLE 16. ENFORCEMENT

16.1 Violations: In case of violation of the Rules and Regulations, and in addition to any other applicable fees, penalties, and charges, the Board may revoke a permit, revoke, disconnect, require disconnection, and/or require the District’s facilities be returned to original condition, and shall require payment of all applicable fees, penalties, and charges and all costs associated with the violation, including attorneys’ fees. This section shall not be construed to limit the rights of the District to pursue other fees, charges, penalties, remedies or forms of relief it

determines to be applicable.

Paul:

Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. So if you look on page 25 of the packet, these this is a clean copy of the changes to article 16. If you'd like to see the changes we made. Page 27 of the packet has the red lines. And I'll guide you through what we've done here. So this is the enforcement rewrite that came out of our May 18th discussion.

And the direction to bring our penalties, in line with other pure providers. And I work through it, with Nathan and Renee. And the key changes are that minimum penalties rise to $10,000 for illegal discharges, unauthorized sewer connections, and hydrant or blow off misuse. And then $1,000 for unauthorized water use. Each of these has new per day penalties for continuing violations.

The unauthorized water use section now also adds a charge that's equal to four times what our estimated unmetered usage is; it provides a 30 day window to cure, and then a 250 day, a $250 per day fine, plus disconnection. If they do not cure within that 30 day window, and then it bars the violator from the conservation rebate program.

There is a new standalone provision for unauthorized sanitary sewer connections. That this tool allows referral to law enforcement. The old separate meter tampering section is folded into the water use provision, and the stormwater references are removed. Because the district doesn't provide that service anymore.

I'll stop there, for any questions, comments, concerns regarding article 16.

James:

Have we and again, this is outside your purview. Really? But have we notified the city of the changes we're making so they can kind of pick them up on their end for sanitary sewer or not sanitary sewer, but, the drainage side of things.

Nathan:

So this I can double check with the city. They already have, pretty extensive stormwater regulations in place that were brought in with us.

One thing that I would like to open a discussion with the city about is potentially folding this into municipal code. That way for criminal offenses or when we do apply the or, refer these, we can do that to the city of Castle Pines or basically Douglas County. And we kind of make that process a little bit easier on us.

Parker has something similar in place. Castle Rock refers everything to their municipal code, but they're full service. So that's a little bit of a different, animal there. But that's something that I wanted to approach the city with and see if they might be willing to put it in the municipal code. Okay.

Paul:

Well, if anybody, anybody has any, any additional thoughts or any questions, you know, about this as the week goes on, just let me know or, you know, come with comments at the next board meeting. We can certainly address them. If there's no other questions about article 16, we can move on, to page 29, which is a water easement agreement.

Describer:

On screen. WATER EASEMENT AGREEMENT

THIS WATER EASEMENT AGREEMENT (this “Easement Agreement”) is made

and entered into as of the ____ day of ______________, 2026 (the “Effective Date”), by and between CASTLE PINES COMMUNITY CHURCH, a Colorado nonprofit corporation, whose address is [_________________________________] (“Grantor”), and CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation and political

subdivision of the State of Colorado, whose address is 7404 Yorkshire Drive, Castle Pines, Colorado 80108 (the “District”). Grantor and the District may be referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

Paul:

Okay. This is the onsite water easement, that the Foundry church is dedicating to the district across it's Lagae Ranch property. It grants two perpetual non-exclusive easements. So one is a 50ft area. It's about 7,500 ft², and then a 30ft area of about 12,600 ft². Again, as I was kind of going through last meeting, these are for water mains and facilities that will serve the church and will eventually become district owned.

I drafted this to protect the district. It bars, buildings, fences, trees, grade changes, parallel utilities and easement areas. And it limits the district's restoration obligations, you know, to replace any unauthorized or specialty improvements. Secures warranty of title liens subordination runs with the land. Preserves a governmental immunity and TABOR protections. And this pairs with the main extension agreement.

That follows. Presented for review tonight with final approval at the June 22nd meeting. So those are the that's the high level explanation of this easement. I won't drag you through the weeds on this one. If anybody has any questions about it, happy to address it at this time.

Describer:

On screen. WATER AND SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXTENSION AGREEMENT

THIS WATER AND SANITARY SEWER MAIN EXTENSION AGREEMENT (this

“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the ____ day of ____________, 2026 (the “Effective Date”), by and between CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, a quasimunicipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (the “District”), whose

address is 7404 Yorkshire Drive, Castle Pines, Colorado 80108, and CASTLE PINES COMMUNITY CHURCH, a Colorado nonprofit corporation

(“Developer”), whose address is _______________________. The District and Developer may be referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”

Paul:

Okay. What follows is a water and sanitary sewer main extension agreement. This is on page 38 of your packet. So this is the agreement under which the church, as the developer, builds the infrastructure to serve its facility, in this case, an eight inch water main and an eight inch sanitary sewer main at its sole cost. And then the district takes ownership and operates it once it's complete, tested and accepted.

So because part of the sewer line sits in city property, the district obtained a separate city easement, that you approved on May 26th, and the developer acts as our contractor, including within that city easement. So this, like the easement agreement, keeps the district protected throughout. Developer bares all costs. District has statutory liens, full insurance, indemnity, a two year warranty.

It's backed by a warranty security. Immunity and Tabor protections are preserved. And then in the red line, you'll see that we tighten the scope a little bit of what the district takes over. And again, just presented for review today, final approval on June 22nd. We'll stop there if anybody has, any questions?

Describer:

On screen.

THE RIDGE AT CASTLE PINES WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT

Paul:

Okay. And that brings us to what I believe is the last item for legal tonight. This is the Richard Castle Pines Water Service agreement. I've. I've presented this, a couple times a few months ago. This this replaces the 2016 raw water agreement, that the district, it was previously entered into with with the Ridge golf course. Carries forward the district's obligation, which originated all the way back in 1996 to supply, treated effluent for irrigation of the golf course.

So under it, the district leases the ridge up to 240 acre feet per year. Primarily treated effluent minimum, point 375 million gallons per day. It's delivered to the pond on hole 16 of the course. They pay $0.51 per thousand gallons. It's adjusted annually under a raw water rate model, and then a fixed capital improvement fee of $22,562 per month from April through October.

Importantly, and we had to fight for some of these. The district makes no warranty as to quality or quantity of water. We had to fight over the quantity, but they eventually accepted it. Retains all returned flows. Can cap deliveries at 500,000. That gap, sorry, 500,000 gallons per day during mandatory drought restrictions. And then again, this the term is 30 years, but with a two year unilateral termination rate or a mutual termination rate that is effective immediately.

The ridge has already signed, presenting it to you for your review tonight. And again for approval on June 22nd. Does anybody have any, questions about this agreement?

Okay. And that doesn't surprise me, since we have done gone through this a couple times and these were terms that that we've talked through and you agree with. So, easy enough. And that brings us to the end of we go. Thanks, everybody.

Jason:

Thanks, Paul. Any other questions for Paul? Okay. Hearing none. We'll go ahead and close out the legal mad, the legal matters, and we'll open up, item number five, four, which is the district manager items.

Nathan.

Describer:

On screen. CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT CPNMD-CWSD INTERCONNECT PUMP STATION SURGE MODIFICATIONS BID TABULATION

This is a bid costs comparison between Glacier Construction Co. Inc., Myers and Sons Construction, and T. Lowell Construction, Inc. organized for general work items and utility and site modification work items. This presentation provided by Level Engineering.

Nathan:

Good evening guys. The only thing that I've got tonight I wanted to, kind of get the board's opinion on the, surge modifications for the interconnect pump station. So this is to replace the existing surge protection system. We've been working on this for a while. I sent this out to, I think, six different companies.

Three of them responded with the price, Level pulled it together for with the bid tabulation. The biggest thing that I wanted to point out, really, is the numbers we got back. So we've got $441K, $263K and $293K. This is significantly higher than the original engineering estimate. So the engineer's estimate had come in at $130,000.

This pushes us well into, the, financial controls policy that we put in place. So this does push us into that bid requirement territory. Couple of options. We can kind of just pull it down, send it out officially for bid rather than, solicit, direct pricing from various vendors. I don't think that's going to get a significant change in the price.

Or we could shelve it and sit on it and see if any of the pricing comes down. Engineer's, opinion was that a lot of this is driven, by kind of just instability in the market, largely driven by the Iran conflict. It's that's winding down. There's a chance we could see some recession on the pricing.

I, I'm kind of in a little bit of a loss. I don't really know, what the best path forward is overall. So I just kind of wanted to get a feel from the board. What your opinions are, what your thoughts are.

Tera:

What's the timing? when, when we need this. Like, if we, if we sit on it, when would we.

What's the timeline for sending it out for bid and getting it back.

Nathan:

Yeah. It would push the entire. We're already tight on. That's a great question. So we're already tight on time getting this done this year. If we pull the trigger and say go, so if we sit on it, we're looking, we would be pushed into bidding whenever, but we wouldn't start construction until May 2027.

Leah:

In terms of the delta between what engineering thought the bids were going to be and what we're actually seeing. To me, that feels a lot greater than just kind of uncertainty in the market. And so I guess my question maybe to you, Nate, potentially, Jana, like, are we seeing these types of, I guess, like are we seeing this more broadly like in the market, or do we feel like maybe this is opportunistic?

Nathan:

Idea and maybe Jana's got some insight there. I haven't had a project like a smaller project in this price range for a while. So, I don't know if there's like, associated volatility with just kind of those, like, lower bid items. Myers is one of the respondents. I know that they've been pretty consistent across across the board.

So they're currently doing the treatment plant. They also have put in, a bid for the South Tank rehab project. That one was, fairly reasonable. So, you know, that one's tracking pretty well. I haven't seen that specific vendor, any signs of, like, opportunistic pricing. But I can't really speak much more broadly than that.

Leah:

I’m sorry, maybe before Jana jumps in. Back to Tera's question, which I thought was a good one. Like what I heard you say, is it, like, would push the timeline back substantially? But what are the implications of that?

Nathan:

The biggest thing is just in any, like a risk that we are carrying with that surge system not functioning properly.

So there's no real way to safely test if what we, our current setup would survive a would effectively be like a sudden power loss or sudden pump, supply power loss. We've also been in the same situation since like 2017. But really, that's what this solves. So it's just a level of protection against the sudden power loss to the building.

So if one happened right now, we don't really know what would happen. The potential, could be catastrophic. We could lose the interconnect pump station for months of repairs.

Tera:

So one other question. I'm curious. I imagine that you and Renee had a resounding discussion on this. What a what's your recommendation? What did you do, guys, when you talked about it, what were your thoughts?

Nathan:

From the conversations we have, you know, I, my leaning would be to move forward with the lowest bid here. Just because of that risk profile. You know, our best case scenario is probably saving, you know, assuming we could hit the engineer's estimate, we save $130,000, push everything out for a year. That's the upside. The downside is catastrophic failure of, vital piece of equipment or vital, facility.

Thank you.

James:

Yeah. This goes back to the the field trip we had that one day, and I looked at the protection system and the and those large bladders were essentially sitting at zero p.s.i. And I just kind of question that that is, you know, they were designed to absorb, initially of it's probably beyond what you would call water hammer, but that water sliding backwards down Monarch and going backwards into the building if you lost power.

Correct. Yeah. So that was a real I just had a question at the time, and it turned out that that system was not not functioning because you couldn't get it repaired, essentially, is what I remember you're saying. It was like to too old or the company wasn't in business anymore. So. This is just an outgrowth of that, that, you know, what are the chances of the power lines getting hit by a car or, or snowplow or whatever?

Who knows. At the right time of the year when you're using the system?

Tera:

Sounds like a critical infrastructure project.

James:

Yeah, that's kind of the way I put it to Nathan. And they've been bugging him ever since. You know, not not to be vicious, but it was one of those things where, you know, we'd all kind of look a little silly if something, you know, if we did lose power and we did, you know, have all that water rushing back down the hill and what would happen at that point?

I'm just surprised it cost as much Nathan. Because again, and not not to pick at it. But you were kind of talking about, you know, some sort of what I, what it sounded like, like a major blow off system that would just kind of, you know, vent that water out into the open space there or something is what I had in my head.

I don't know if that's what this entails. It's kind of hard to understand. You know what we're talking about here.

Nathan:

Yeah, a lot of that cost is material, especially on the pipe. There's a lot of custom pipe that's required. We don't have a discharge permit, so we can't run it outside the building. Well, construct ability, it was pointed out by a few of the contractors we sent it out to just trying to, like, physically cored the floor and then capture, capture those cores, you know, 20ft off the ground inside of a wet, well, almost the other one.

So there were a few things that drove it a little bit higher than we expected. But basically construct ability was a little bit other materials as what's coming in at least high compared to Level's estimate.

James:

If we did have the ability use to vent it out of the building. I'm not saying that's the right answer, but would there be a much cheaper approach?

Nathan:

I don't know about much cheaper. It would save us from coring it and funneling it back into the wet well. So there'd be the actual like discharge out of the building would be simplified. An absolute total wag would be, you know, maybe $20,000 saving somewhere in there.

James:

Okay. I mean, that's I think that's a good discussion.

If it's $20K, then it doesn't change things materially. So.

Describer:

On screen. List Item #34 - Controls and Sensor Modifications for Surge Relief Line, Sump Pump / Piping, and Surge Tank Components

Tera:

And how critical is item number 34. The controls that nobody included in their bid.

Nathan:

Controls critical but very low lift. So we pulled that out because we're going to work with Mountain Peak our Integrator directly. There really isn't a lot to do from a control standpoint.

This is a largely mechanical solution.

Leah:

Jana, we haven't heard from our other engineer.

Board Member Director Jana Krell:

So that's the actual question was what am I seeing in this does happen. Okay. So in general, I personally have seen a huge drop in prices in 2026. That would mean that contractors need more. I'm doing ..... So it seems like, ... and asphalt and stuff like that. So I got to see a big drop because 2023, 4, 5 went up.

And so it was nice to see a trend down, but didn't turn down all the way back to the way it was before 2020, but I saw a drop. So I don't know if that's normal, but that's just my own personal ...

Tera:

And what are your thoughts on timing of this project, or whether we...

Jana:

To do it.

Tera:

You know, that's kind of what I'm hearing is that it is it's critical and.

Jana:

I think it could be reckless not to do it. So.

James:

Say that again Jana.

Jason:

I agree with that too.

Jana:

I think it would be reckless. .... Okay.

Tera:

And I, I agree.

Jason:

I'm in agreement too.

Nathan:

Sounds good. I will bring, that back to the board meeting on Monday with an NOA. Or a notice of award for approval.

Jason:

All right. Thank you Nathan. Any other questions for Nathan? All right. Hearing none. We will go ahead and close out. Item number for district manager items. So we will proceed to adjourn the meeting. Thank you Everyone.

Jana:

..... I'm sorry I was late. ... I was four minutes late, and .... starts talking. And I thought wow!

Tera:

Okay.

Well you stay on for four minutes while the rest of us hang up? Okay.

Describer:

All chuckle.

James:

Who's going to watch her?

Jana:

Bye buys Thank you.

James:

Night. Bye bye.

Paul:

Take care everyone.

Nathan:

Thanks, guys.

James:

Bye bye.