►
From YouTube: Water and Sewer Board - 11 Jan 2022
Description
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/129400?handle=640F0EDBEDD243479AF2A6BA1CF602A5
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/129399?handle=B33D8F0F1A354463859C0AAB833C8AF8
1. Chair Moore approved the agenda
2. Call to Order
3. Approval of Minutes
a. Minutes of the Water & Sewer Board from – 14 Dec 2021 Meeting
4. Public Forum
a. No Public Comment.
5. New Business
a. City Ditch Relocation Agreements Steve Simon, Utilities Deputy Director – Engineering will present on the staff recommendation to enter into an Easement Agreement with the US Army Corp of Engineers an...
6. Old Business
7. Staff's Choice
a. Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control (BPCCC) Update
b. Suspension of Water Shutoff Moratorium Update
8. Adjournment
Agenda HTML: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/129400?handle=640F0EDBEDD243479AF2A6BA1CF602A5
Agenda PDF: https://englewoodgov.civicweb.net/filepro/documents/129399?handle=B33D8F0F1A354463859C0AAB833C8AF8
B
A
B
C
C
B
B
B
E
B
G
G
Thank
you
chair
this
item
before
the
board
is
a
consideration
to
recommend
that
council
approve
an
ordinance
that
comprises
two
agreements:
one
easement
agreement
with
the
u.s
army
corps
of
engineers
and
an
intergovernmental
agency
agreement
with
douglas
county.
Both
of
these
are
required
as
part
of
a
relocation
effort
of
city.
Ditch.
That's
a
result
of
the
work
that's
being
done
on
santa
fe
to
to
improve
that
roadway.
This
particular
area
is
near
the
I-470
and
santa
fe
interchange,
the
project's
being
led
by
douglas
county.
G
G
G
It
underneath
the
roadway
that's
going
to
be
a
high
volume
and
a
higher
speed
area.
There
would
have
been
manholes
that
that
were
either
in
the
roadway
or
in
islands
to
access
that,
and
we
didn't
want
city
staff
out
there
in
that
type
of
environment,
whatever
maintenance
would
have
to
be
accomplished.
So
it's
a
much
safer
approach
to
have
that
to
have
the
ditch
outside
of
the
alignment.
On
top
of
that,
if
there
were
any
failure
that
would
occur
on
the
ditch,
then
there's
a
much
lower
consequence.
G
If
that
happens,
and
it's
in
its
proposed
alignment
versus
underneath
a
a
major
roadway.
So
so
again,
there's
two
agreements
that
are
associated
this
one.
Is
the
army
corps
agreement?
That's
going
to
be
a
so
that
the
realigned
city
dish
will
be
on
army
corps
property,
so
that
then
trigger
the
requirement
for
an
easement
that'll
be
a
25-year
easement
with
the
core.
The
cost
of
that
easement
was
two
thousand
dollars
douglas
county
has
has
provided
reimbursement
for
that.
G
So
as
soon
as
we're
able
to
execute
into
this
agreement,
the
city
will
be
reimbursed
for
that
that
portion
on
the
inter-governmental
agency
agreement
side
that
basically
established
the
the
roles
and
duties
of
our
respective
agencies
in
the
in
the
continued
project
development
of
this.
So
so
from
the
douglas
county
side,
it
establishes
douglas
county's
role
to
manage
and
fund
the
work
on
the
city
side.
G
G
G
H
G
The
red
line
is
the
existing
alignment
of
city.
Ditch
that
yellow
shaded
area
is
the
proximate
extents
of
the
construction
and
the
road
winding.
So,
as
you
can
see
as
part
of
the
process,
it
would
have
put
that
red
portion
under
under
the
roadway.
So
the
blue
line
is
the
approximate
location
of
the
of
the
the
realigns
three
line.
G
Ditch
we'll
be
acquiring
at
a
minimum
of
30
foot
wide
easement
in
this
area,
which
gives
us
rise
to
do
not
only
the
construction
but
also
the
long
term
or
access
it
for
the
long
term.
Operations
in
maintenance,
as
far
as
schedule
goes
douglas
county
is
anticipating
releasing
the
invitation.
The
construction
invitation
bid
for
the
work
later
this
month
and
construction
is
expected
to
begin
later
in
the
spring
within
the
agreements.
G
B
G
H
H
However
there,
if
the
board
would
like
to
for
us
to
go
back
and
include
language
that
ensures
that
if
there
is
a
if
there
is
an
issue
with
with
securing
an
easement
25
years
from
now
that
that
is
the
responsibility
of
douglas
county
to
ensure
that
we
that
basically
our
is,
is
maintained.
If
the
corps
comes
back
and
says
I
I
think
that's
something
that
that
could
be
added.
If
we,
if
we
need
to,
I
would
have
to
defer
to
the
county
on
this
it
it
goes.
H
H
There
are
ways
to
mitigate
that
risk
in
the
language
that
again
it
comes
down
to
is
it
you
know
we're
also,
you
know
we're
also
governmental
partners
and,
and
how
do
we
you
know
want
to?
We
want
to
support
this
project,
but
your
your
question
is
a
is
a
important
question
that
we
did
talk
about,
but
internally,
but
if
it,
if
it
is
something
that
we
need
to
go
back
and
look
at,
we
can
talk
about
this
county
about.
B
Yes,
certainly
I'll
be
interested
in
other
other
reactions,
but
I
would
think
if
we're
I
mean,
I
would
assume
our
rights
are
I'll,
say
absolute
currently,
so
we
yeah,
as
you
said,
we're
trading
from
a
no
risk
situation
to
an
at-risk.
It
seems
like
we
should
have
some
kind
of
contractual
assurance
25
years.
Both
both
passes
quickly
and
also
things
can
change
abruptly
in
that
period
of
time.
A
quick
other
follow-up
question
before
I
open
it
hit
some
of
the
other
hands.
H
Easement
period
again,
if
this
becomes
an
issue
we
can
we
can.
This
can
be
mitigated
with
language
in
the
agreement,
and
so
it's
something
that
if
we
need
to
go
back
and
work
with
at
the
direction
of
the
board
work
with
with
the
county
to
ensure
that
essentially,
we
go
from
a
no
risk
situation
to
another.
No
risk
situation
as
a
result
of
this,
that's
something
that,
if
that's
the
board's
choice
we
can,
we
can
go
back
and
do
that.
C
Well,
I
I
would
be
in
favor
of
going
back
in
approaching
douglas
county
and
and
is
there
in
the
agreement
with
the
corps.
Is
there
a
possibility
of
doing
an
actual
another
25-year
option
or
something
like
that
to
at
least
see
what
we
can
get
there?
Where
are
they
going
to
say
yeah,
it's
our
agreement.
This
is
standard,
don't
complicate
it.
H
G
B
H
Yeah
I
mean
it,
I
don't
know
how
a
prescriptive
easement
works
across
federal
property
so
or,
if
you're
moving
a
prescriptive
easement.
If
that
triggers
the
need
to
formalize
the
easement
that
I
mean
in
in
my
experience.
That's
typically,
you
know
if
you're
you're,
taking
something
like
that
and
you're
moving
it
and
you're
triggering
a
change.
That's
when
you
formalize
everything,
and
so
that's
what
I
think
we're
doing
here.
I
I
again.
I
think
this
is
a.
H
C
C
G
I
Yeah,
I
I
I'm
not
sure
at
that
scale
if
you
zoomed
in
a
little
bit,
but
but
I
I
would
say
that
up
there
on
the
north
of
c470
on
the
north,
where
the
city
ditch
it's
actually
outside
of
an
your
existing
easement
that
got
resolved
years
back
with
cdot
when
they
acquired
so
we're
actually
in
the
northern
project,
which
is
the
schedule
b.
We're
actually
moving
you
into
your
easement
and
it
was
some
conflict
with
our
project
so
as
part
of
this
dual
project
that
we're
doing
we're
doing
that.
I
I
I
think
steve.
You
properly
stated
that
you've
been
there
before
the
core
came
and
you
have
a
prescriptive
easement.
I
don't
think
we
ever
found
a
document
for
that
and
in
fact
one
of
the
things
I
think
when
we
first
met
was
beyond
this
segment
that
we're
trying
to
kind
of
record
in
a
more
formal
way
that
you
expressed
interest
with
the
core
to
continue
that
further
south,
and
so
in
that
section
where
it
says
schedule
a
that's.
Just
a
prescriptive,
easement
and
now
we'd
have
a
formal
easement.
I
But
as
part
of
the
conversations
that's
been
discussed,
nowhere
did
it
say
you
were
vacating
that
I
recall
peter
that
you're
vacating
what
you
currently
have
and
we
surely
could
memorialize
that
to
help
mitigate
any
concerns,
a
matter
of
fact
that
existing
pipe
could
be
plugged
and
left
in
the
ground
as
well.
But
it
would
be,
I
think,
neil,
maybe
can
correct
me,
but
I
think
we
have
about
12
to
15
foot
of
fill
coming
as
the
project
widens.
D
B
E
D
Very
good,
I
think
the
initial
question
was
regarding
the
existing
city
ditch
and
then
also
the
proposed,
and
I
think
this
is
very
good
illustration
of
that
right
here
so
and
whether
it's
under
the
existing
roadway,
if
I
recall
that's
where
I
think
one
of
the
questions
was
there
so
in
this
lighter
blue-
and
let
me
know
if
you
can
all
see
the
screen
there
in
the
in
that
plant
view.
So
this
lighter
blue,
and
if
you
follow
my
hand
there,
this
is
the
existing
city.
Ditch.
D
You
can
see
it's
called
out
here.
What
you're
going
to
see
on
top
of
this,
of
course,
is
our
proposed
us85
widening,
and
this
is
where
again,
where
steve
was
mentioning
that,
with
our
proposed
widening
a
good
majority
of
the
existing
city,
ditch
would
be
covered
by
our
proposed
widening
there.
This
right
here
would
be
the
new
city
ditch
tying
into
the
existing
right
here
and
continuing
from
the
south
to
the
north.
D
And
again
you
can
see
right
here
where
city
ditch
is
really
kind
of
just
arcs
right
outside
into
85
there
right
and
then
just
peels
right
back
in
this
right
here.
If
you're
familiar
with
chatfield
and
the
parking
lot
area
there,
this
is
kind
of
right
at
the
bottom
of
that
embankment.
That's
right
there
and.
D
Ties
in
here
what
would
be
on
the
north
side,
for
where
I'm
sorry,
this
is
still
the
south
side
of
470
there
and
ties
into
the
old
seti
ditch
you
can
see
right
here
too.
This
is
very
good
to
demonstrate
or
illustrate
how
we're
coming
in
pretty
much
from
the
angle
from
cpw,
whereas
the
existing
you
could
see
here
was
kind
of
that
arc
that
came
out
through
85
and
comes
right
back
in.
I
D
D
Correct
this
is
all
existing
here.
We
don't
touch
that.
Then
we
pick
it
up.
What
would
be
on
the
north
of
470
here,
and
I
think
this
is
the
area
art
you
were
describing
that
the
existing
city
ditches
outside
of
the
existing
easement
and
so
we're
putting
it
back
in
the
easement
right
here
continuing
and
then
tying
into
the
existing
again
here
on
the
north
end.
D
I
I'm
not
sure
how
we
would
reduce
that
risk.
You
know
as
far
as,
although
I
I
don't
think
it's
real,
I
just
I
just
don't
think
they
have
any
in
perpetuity
anymore,
and
I
think
if
you
had
more
than
a
prescriptive
easement
through
here,
that
might
be
a
different
thing,
but
I
I'm
not
sure,
steve
or
peter
what
what
we
can
do
about
that
25-year
time
clock
that
the
core
gave
us
well.
H
So
so
I'm
not
I'm
not
suggesting
that
we
can
do
anything
about
the
the
time
clock.
What
I'm
suggesting
is
that
the
county
can
provide
an
assurance
in
the
agreement
that
says
if,
for
some
reason,
25
years
from
now,
the
the
easement
goes
away
and
we
have
an
issue
with
this
pipe
which
keep
in
mind.
This
is
our
most
critical
water
supply
for
the
entire
city.
Is
this
pipeline?
So
it's
not
like
it's
some.
It's
not
like
it's
just
a
water
line
sitting
in
a
in
a
in
a
roadway.
H
This
is
the
raw
water
system,
the
pipe
to
get
water
from
chatfield
to
the
plant.
So
it's
not.
This
isn't
some
small
piece
of
infrastructure.
So
I
guess
what
I
would
say
is
that
somewhere
in
the
agreement
is
a
there's,
a
statement
that
say
that
says
if,
for
some
reason,
the
core
and
the
future
date
does
not
renew
the
agreement,
the
county
will
will
take
necessary
steps
to
ensure
mitigation
of
that
issue.
And
it's
a
it's
like
two
sentences
like
that.
H
I
Yeah,
I'm
I'm
not
in
the
attorney
so
I'll
definitely
check
in,
but
you
know
there's
two
things
about
putting
a
statement
like
that
which
can
easily
be
done
because
any
agreement
subject
to
annual
appropriations.
You
know
29
crs
29
1-110.
You
can't
find
future
boards.
You,
you
can't
even
bind
your
own
board.
You
know
inglewood
couldn't
bind
a
future
board
and
we
can't
bind
a
future
board.
So
whatever
we
put
in
there
would
be
subject
annual
appropriations.
I
I
I
just
it
gets
complicated.
H
E
Yeah
thanks.
Thank
you.
I
think
most
of
my
questions
have
been
answered
by
this
point,
but
the-
and
maybe
this
is
for
steve-
that
we
we
talked
about
the
easements
along
the
the
city.
Ditch
there
are,
there
are
a
number
of
places
where
the
city
actually
owns
owns
right
away
right,
it's
not
all
within
easements,
just
maybe
along
santa
fe
here
or
you
do.
You
know
that
how
much
of
the
city
ditch
has
owned
and
how
much
of
it
is
within
easement.
G
H
Well-
and
it
also
comes
down
to
the
ditch,
predates
everything
right,
so
everything
in
the
area,
the
ditch
predates,
and
so
that
has
the
that
has
the
prescriptive
authority
over
anything
else.
That
was
that
came
along
with
it
as
a
as
a
water
facility
right,
my
understanding
of
it,
because
it
predates
everything.
E
Yeah,
and
so
what
I'm
I
mean,
what
I'm
getting
kind
of
getting
at
is
this
is
I
mean,
as
you
said
peter,
this
is
our
water
source
and
there's
currently
no
re.
You
know
legally,
we
have
these
prescriptive
easements
and
some
written
easements
and
possibly
some
owned
property
along
along
the
the
alignment
of
the
ditch
and
to
to
put
in
a
place
where
there's
even
a
small
portion-
and
you
know
if,
for
some
reason
we
couldn't
down
the
road,
couldn't
renew
that
easement
and
couldn't
be
able
to
build
a
ditch.
E
H
I
think
so
so
typically-
and
this
is
just
a
general
design
guideline-
you
want
as
much
as
you
can
you
want
to
remove
things
out
of
major
highways.
If,
especially,
if
you
think
about
this
pipe
in
the
future,
it
will
be
running
under
pressure
and
so
anytime
that
you
have
a
pressure
pipe
under
a
major
highway
like
this
there's
a
possibility
of
a
catastrophic
failure
associated
with
some
kind
of
a
leak
or
a
burst.
H
I
think,
back
to
about
15
years
ago
there
was
a
section
of
water
pipe
under
I-25
north
of
the
mouse
trap
that
blew
up
and
basically
shut
down
the
highway
for
several
days,
and
so
our
as
a
rule,
what
we
do
and
and
frankly
what
we
do
as
a
utility
is
we
don't?
We
also
don't
want
our
facilities
in
these
types
of
roadways
because
they
become
a
whole
lot
harder
maintained.
They
become
higher
risk
to
maintain
they
become
more
cost
to
the
utility
to
maintain.
H
So
the
right
thing
to
do
is
to
move
it
outside
of
the
travel
way
of
the
road.
It
then
goes
into
this
new
easement
and-
and
I
think
that
the
the
the
sound
approach
is
just
to
ensure
that
I
agree
with
art
that
the
likelihood
of
this
is
close
to
zero,
if
not
zero,
which
so
both
sides
of
the
coin
are
true.
H
We
could
accept
it
as
zero
or
they
could
accept
it
as
zero,
and
so
then
it
becomes
a
matter
of
if,
if
it's
a
zero,
if
it's
such
a
low
likelihood,
there
shouldn't
really
be
any
risk.
Any
significant
risk
to
the
county
to
just
make
sure
that
some
provisions
in
there
to
provide
protection
for
what
is
what
is
one
of
our
most
critical
facilities
for
the
city.
I
This
is
u.s
highway,
85
managed
by
cdot,
which
is
also
in
an
easement
owned
by
the
corps,
and
so
the
core
so
where
you're
currently
at
in
in
is
prescriptive,
which
has
your
highest
order,
and
I
think
that
we
want
to
maintain
that
as
it
moves
into
this
new
alignment
because
the
cdot's
road-
it's
not
my
road,
you
know
what
I
mean,
so
I
I
I
have
a.
I
have
a
conundrum
with
with
this
and
and
and
again
I
think
I
was
going
to
share
my
screen
just
just
really
quick.
H
Our
just
to
respond
to
that,
I
think,
if
you're
able
to
do
that,
maintain
that
I
think,
if,
if
you're
able
to
maintain
that
prescriptive
nature
of
the
of
the
easement,
I
think
that
that
is
something
that
you
know
that
works
for
us
too
again,
it's
eliminate
the
risk
that
someday
in
the
future.
We
might
potentially
have
a
stretch
of
pipe
that
we
can't
use
because
someone
decides
you
know
what
we
don't
want
to
renew
the
season.
D
I
Now
you
have
minimal
fill
over
your
pipe,
but
as
we
expand
the
road
this
way
this
auxiliary
lane
in
here
which
isn't
the
through
lanes,
which
could
be
closed
to
work
on
nonetheless,
is
now
with
about
neil
confirmed
12
to
15
foot
fill
over
the
pipe.
So
that's
a
bigger
maintenance
headache
to
get
to
your
pipe
and
it
makes
sense
to
move
out
into
this
area
where
it
has
minimal
minimal
cover
over
easier
to
maintain,
and
so
I
I
think
that
the
key
is
getting
something
in
the
verbiage.
I
I
mean,
I
think,
it's
pretty
easy
that
maybe
the
next
step
is
to
not
abandon
your
existing
alignment
that
and
we
could
add
that
into
documentation
and
that
this
is
now
a
second
one.
The
core
is
probably
not
going
to
close
the
u.s
highway
there
you
know,
and
so
you're
pretty
protected
over
there,
but
it
is
15
feet
more
fill
so
I'm
kind
of
speaking
in
circles,
but
I'm
not
I'm
not
sure
that
I
think
the
solution
is
getting
something
out
of
the
core
to
address
this
concern.
You
know.
H
And
art,
I
I
agree
with
you
that
we
don't
want
the
ditch
under
the
road
because
it
just
becomes
more
of
a
it
becomes
more
of
a
headache.
It
becomes
more
of
a
maintenance
issue,
it
becomes
more
of
a
risk
right,
and
so
I
think
we're
I
think
the
county
and
and
the
city
are
on
the
same
page
as
it
relates
to
that
it
really
comes
down
to.
B
I
think
I'm
hearing
enough
concern
on
this
board
that
we're
not
going
to
move
forward.
I
mean
you
see
you,
you
put
it
best,
there's
no
alternative
here.
This
sever
is
a
lifeline
for
the
city.
The
downside
risk
is,
however,
small
is
fatal,
so
we
have
to
have
I
mean
I
don't.
I
know
I
won't
move
forward
with
this
without
some
kind
of
assurance,
and
I
don't
I
don't
think
there's
unless
I
hear
some
board
members
speak
to
the
other
way
we
we've
got
to
do
that
for
it
to
clear
this
board.
B
So,
yes,
I
think
whether
it's
clear
that
we
can
move
back
to
where
we
were-
or
you
know,
take
the
extra
fill
now
and
don't
give
it
up
if
whatev,
whichever
alternative
gets
us
there
there
there
is
no,
there
is
no
ability
for
us
to.
You
know,
fill
this
cut
pipe
on
our
own
later
later
on
right.
This
is
geographically
determined
we're
kind
of
stuck
so
anyway,
as
miners
the
risk
is.
We've
gotta
have
an
assurance
that
we've
got
a
something
solid
in
year.
26.
I
You
know
that
you
have
immediately
beyond
this.
You
know
because
if
the
core
exercise
the
same
thing
slightly
beyond
this
four
or
five
hundred
foot
section
that
we're
doing
further
to
the
to
the
east,
you
would
you
would
be
at
the
same
risk
and
I
I
just
don't
think
the
the
corps
would
do
that
without
a
lawsuit.
You
know
I
mean
you're
cutting
off
the
water
supply
to
a
whole
city
that
had
been
in
place
and
it's
my
understanding
that
the
ulysses
s
grant
was
the
one
who
granted
this.
I
You
know,
city,
ditch
easement,
I
mean
there's
some
history
about
it,
but
that's
the
rumor
I
heard
so
so.
The
the
risk
is
is
small,
but
I
think
the
core
needs
to
honor
that
and
mitigate
it.
So
I'm
asking
if
this
board,
just
because
of
the
timing
of
moving
forward
with
the
project,
could
make
it
subject.
You
know
to
the
concern
being
mitigated.
B
Let
me
throw
this
out:
can
we
I
would
I'm
proposing
we
take
the
temperature
of
the
board
to
that
effect
that
as
long
as
this
issue
is
sufficiently
resolved,
we
would
expect
to
move
forward
in
support
and
that
further
we
are
willing
to
do
a
special
phone
meeting.
Well,
we're
all
all
by
phone
anyway,
well
willing
to
do
a
special
move
meeting
to
move
it
forward.
B
B
D
C
B
I
And
I
would
just
clarify
that
that
would
be
you
know,
subject
to
your
council
and
your
attorneys.
You
know
you
know
approval
on
that
mitigation.
Addressing
that
concern,
because
again,
mr
woodward,
I
don't
own
the
land,
so
even
where
your
existing
easement
is.
I
have
no
authority
over
that.
You
know
I'm
just
trying
to
build
a
project,
so
thank.
E
You
I
think,
if
I
can
interject
real
quick,
I
think
for
me
both
you
know
both
water
and
sewer
board
and
city
council.
The
message
I
would
want
to
be
sending
to
to
the
corps
of
engineers
at
this
point
is
we're
not
interested
in
improving
anything
less
than
something
that
maintains
our
permanent
and
senior
rights
in
this
area,
and
that's
why
I
think
john's
suggestion
that
we
don't
not
vote
on
something
to
you
know
conditionally,
approve
it
or
something
like
that,
in
spite
of
the
urgency
of
the
situation.
E
B
H
I'm
not
sure
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
come
back
and,
and
so
we'll
get
steve
and
kate
and
and
art
and
legal,
with
the
the
county
to
work
with
the
corps
to
to
mitigate
this
risk,
and-
and
we
hear
what
you're
saying
is-
we
need
to
come
back
with
some
kind
of
a
mitigation
to
that
risk,
and
so
I
think
that
that
puts
the
the
pressure
on
the
project
team
to
figure
that
out
and
we'll
I'm
sure
we
can
accomplish
it.
There's
there's
always
ways
to
accomplish
these
things.
H
B
And
the
in
the
speaking
for
the
board,
we
will,
we
will
reconvene
as
quickly
as
possible
to
move
this
thing
forward
once
you
have
a
solution,
so
we
will
do
our
best
not
to
hold
it
up
for
a
minute
extra.
After
that
all
right
great
any
any
further
discussion
on
this
subject,
I
don't
see
any
hands
raised
all
right.
I
think
we're
good
moving
on
to
staff's
choice
again.
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
that
yeah.
I
appreciate
our
guests
and
your
input
and
everyone's
involvement
on
this.
H
We
have
two
we'll
make
them
quick
updates,
because
we
know
everybody
people
need
to
drop
off
it
at
five,
so
we'll
try
and
get
through
these
in
the
next
couple
of
minutes.
So
w
director
goodman
will
provide
a
quick
update
as
we're
as
to
where
we
are
on
backflow
and
then
w
director
stone
will
provide
a
update
on
where
we're
at
from
a
shutoff
moratorium
standpoint.
These
are.
I
J
J
J
So
that's
the
21st
of
january
we're
doing
one
more
in-person
visit
to
those
customers
to
just
see
where
they're
at
the
customers
have
been
cooperative,
but
they
don't
really
seem
to
have
a
sense
of
urgency
to
to
get
those
those
tests
completed,
so
we're
hoping
to
impart
a
sense
of
urgency,
understanding
that
we
may
end
up
shutting
them
off.
So
we
will
be
having
that
conversation
this
week
next
week,
let's
see
of
of
the
30
customers,
swedish
hospital
is
actually
one
of
them.
J
They've
been
slightly
less
cooperative
than
some
of
the
other
customers,
so
we're
we're
working
very
closely
with
them,
trying
to
just
get
more
information
for
if
you
are
getting
replacement
parts.
When
is
it
scheduled
if
you're
getting
a
retest?
When
is
that
retest
scheduled
they
actually
replace
the
device
and
they're
in
the
process
of
getting
us
that
paperwork
so
we're
trying
to
make
sure
that
they're
not
telling
us
the
dog,
ate
their
homework
and
continuing
to
follow
up
with
them.
J
We
have
a
couple
irrigation
lines
that
actually
will
be
rescheduled
in
the
spring
once
sprinkler
systems
get
turned
back
on,
and
then
we
have
a
couple
of
those
items.
Swedish
swedish
hospital
is
actually
one
of
them
where
we
we
are
approaching
a
regulatory
trigger
date
with
the
state
that
we
are
again
trying
to
impart
a
sense
of
urgency
with
them
so
that
we
don't
receive
a
violation
from
the
state
because
they're
taking
too
long
to
get
a
re-test
or
to
get
replacement
parts.
H
B
A
F
F
K
Great,
so
this
is
just
the
update.
As
of
yesterday
on
the
delinquent
number
of
accounts.
We
do
have
some
improvements
since
december.
The
number
of
outstanding
accounts
has
gone
down
by
29
from
december,
and
the
outstanding
balance
is
down
by
about
27
000,
which
is
is
good
news.
So
then,
just
a
couple
additional
statistics.
You
know
54
over
half
of
those
accounts,
oh
500
or
less
there's
95
accounts
that
have
balances
over
a
thousand
dollars.
K
K
So
shutoffs
will
begin
next
month,
and
this
is
our
our
quadrant
billing
map.
Although
we're
in
there's
only
three
quadrants,
the
shut
off
dates
for
non-payment
will
start
with
quadrant
one
in
this
area
of
town
on
february
24th
and
then
the
other
two
quadrants
are
march
1st
and
march
8th
respectively,
and
then
that
we
have
communicated
through
mailers
in
the
bill
and
in
our
additional
notifications.
K
F
H
F
B
I
don't
see
further
questions,
that's
a
good
update
and
it's
a
tough
subject,
especially
with
what's
coming
up
in
terms
of
having
to
actually
shut
shut
customers
off.
But
hopefully
we
see
some
good
progress
before
we
start
having
to
do
that.
I
do
right.
We
are,
I
know,
trying
to
push
to
allow
others
to
get
out
of
here
any
quick
comments
or
questions
before
we
adjourn.
So
we
can
let
people
go.