The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Water Committee 1971-01-04 - Copyn RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Water Committee Meeting January 4,1971 Committee:Chairman Dannels;Trustees Steele and Prosser Attending:Chairman Dannels;Trustees Steele and Prosser Also Attending:Superintendent McCracken,Town Administrator Hill Business Office Manager Duncan 14 UNITS COLORADO-BIG THOMPSON WATER: Town Administrator Hill advised the Committee of the availability of 14 units of Colorado-Big Thompson water at $300.00 per unit.The Committee authorized Town Administrator Hill to complete the trans action on January 5,1971. PCR LETTER: The Committee read copies of the PCR letter of December 10,1970 re garding Glacier Creek pipe line materials.The Committee concurrs with the engineers and instructed Town Administrator Hill to answer the letter accordingly. WATER RATE REVISIONS: The Committee recommends approval of the proposed revised rates as stated and recommends that the Town Board adopt if the proposed sales tax passes.The C.H.Hoper &Associates letter dated December 30,1970, is attached to and made a part of these proceedings. LIENEMANN AGREENENT: Town Administrator Hill presented a memorandum of a meeting with the Town Attorney on December 30,1970.The Committee recommends that the memorandum be attached to and made a part of these proceedings.The Committee recommends approval of the above recommendations. TRUCK BIDS: Superintendent McCracken requested approval to purchase a pickup and a jeep.The Committee authorized purchasing a 1971 pickup through the State of Colorado Purchasing Agent according to Superintedent McCracken’s specifications and purchasing the jeep by bid from a dealer. VIC WALKER TAP: The Committee authorized Superintendent McCracken to advise Mr.Walker, by letter,of an illegal tap from his service line located on West Riverside Drive. RURAL WATER APPLICATIONS: The Colonial Motel -Twelve motel units adjoining the present Colonial Motel located on Fall River.The Committee re commends approval subject to all units using Town water and disconnecting from the existing well. Leonard Murphy -Three units and a swimming pool.Tabled for addi tional information. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Water Committee Meeting January 4,1971 Page two There being no further business,the meeting adjourned. - L1od A.]Duncan,Office Manager APPRO\’ED JN ii 1971 u-ETES PK BOARD OF ThUSTEES J 3OO -L 122 C.H.HOPER &ASSOCIATES UTILITIES ENGINEERS 17O GILPIN STREET DENVEI,GoLo1Ano 80218 Cob 276 December 30,1970 Mr.Dale C.Hill Town Administrator Town of Estes Park P.O.Box 1200 Estes Park,Colorado 80517 Dear Mr.Hill, In accordance with your request yesterday,we are pleased to write you concerning the water rate revisions discussed. Rate Changes Referring to the rate schedules in our November 1970 report,the following are the changes discussed: Residential Water Rate Schedule R—1 Change rate per family dwelling unit from $48 to $40. Change charge per 100 square feet of irrigated lot area in excess of 1,000 square feet from $.50 to $.25. Residential Water Rate Schedule R—2 Change rate per family dwelling unit from $84 to $70. Change charge per 100 square feet of irrigated lot area in excess of 1,000 square feet from $.88 to $.44. Commercial Water Rate Schedules C-i and C-2 (No change at this time;discussed following) Revised Revenues In Table V—E,Revised1 are listed the effects upon revenues of the revised rates,also taking into consideration anticipated reductions in irrigated areas and in consumption under the commercial rates. 00 Page two December 30,1970 The effect upon revenues of the rates proposed in our report was based upon available billing data,extent of irrigated areas and upon test meters installed on some of the commercial users.In discussing the overall increase (Page V-4), the statements were made,“It can be anticipated that when billing on metered commercial rates begins,water usage may in instances drop,especially through the installation of water conserving devices.It is possible there may also be some reduction in irrigated lawn areas.”With the rate reductions presently contemplated,it appeared desirable to attempt to estimate the shrink in revenues which may take place. In the past there was no curb on areas irrigated other than the necessity to install additional hose bibbs which cost $4.80 a year each inside the City.No one can determine definitely what i:he reduction in irrigated lawn area may be upon the adoption of the new bases of charge,but an overall reduction factor of 25% was assumed. Regarding the metered commercial rates,some classes of customers can be expected to continue to use the same amount of water as at present.In other cases,a reduction in usage can be anticipated.It is recomtpendeç tat the rw iaf ptuputd b ut mt u ffct for puiby twU yar Ifor any ±dutIns ar contemplated.Taking into consideration some of the reductions which appeared likely,revenues under the proposed rate could actually be less than presently collected under the present fiat rates. The suggested rate revisions take into consideration continuing the rate differential between users located inside and outside the Town Limits. We will be pleased to discuss the foregoing with you further at your convenience. Sincerely yours, C.H.Hoper &Associates CHH/cl TABLEV-E,REVISED REVENUE CI-IANGES Present Revised Increase Rate Rates Amount Percent Residential Flat Urban $42,097 $47,520 $12.9 Total $86,712 $100,090 $13,378 15.4 iLriZation $12,593 $2,593 Commercial Urban $41,093 $40,172 $926R 2.3R Rural 299 23 8R 2.3 R Total $51,635 50,471 $1,164R 2.3R Total Revenues $138,347 $163,154 $24,807 17.9 EMORANTYIThI Town of Estes Park Water Department PROPOSED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK AND MR.D.A.LIENEMANN This is a memorandum of a meeting with the Town Attorney on December 30, 1970,concerning the water agreement as proposed by the Town.of Estes Park and as subsequently proposed by another agreement from Mr.D.A. Lienemann. The comments on the agreement,paragraph by paragraph,are as follows: Paragraph 1 :Mr.Lienemann has changed the term “domestic”to “residential and commercial”.This is a technical difference.The attorney will advise us as to the exact definition of the word “domestic”prior to the A—7 Water Committee meeting on January 4,1970. Paragraph 2 :This paragraph is okay down to the last line.It is suggested the agreement be subject to all paragraphs and not just paragraph 17. Paragraph 3 :This paragraph has been changed to include the word “inside”instead of “outside”.It is o feeling the word “outside”should be retained. Paragraph 4 :The same.Okay. Paragraph 5 :Mr.Lienemann has changed the agreement to the effect that his subidvision would have assumed the same pri vileges as customers in the Town and not the customers outside the Town. Paragraph 6 :Third sentence.Mr.Lienemann’s agreement does not provide for his death.The last sentence of this paragraph is acceptable./z Paragraph :The same.Okay. Paragraph 8 :The same.Okay. Paragraph 9 :The same.Okay. Paragraph 10:This paragraph las been completely eliminated by Mr. Lienemann.Our attorney recommends this be retained in the agreement. Memorandum December 30,1970 Page two Town Paragraph 11 and Lienemann Paragraph 10: The same.Okay. Town Paragraph 12 and Lienemann Paragraph 11: The same.Okay Town Paragraph 13 and Lienemann Paragraph 12: The same.Okay. Town Paragraph 14 and Lienemann Paragraph 13: Mr.Lienemann has added the word “preliminary”.Our attorney advised the paragraph should be left as written by the Town. Town Paragraph 15 and Lienemann Paragraph 14: The same.Okay. Town Paragraph 16 and Lienemann Paragraph 15: The attorney recommends no changes in this paragraph. There is no provision should Mr.Lienemann either die or go bankrupt.The attorney advises “free and clear of all encumbrances and no lien of any type”.It is possible Mr.Lienemann could post a bond for the total indebtedness of a lien. Town Paragraph 17 and Lienemann Paragraph 16: The same.Okay. Town Paragraph 18 and Lienemann Paragraph 17: The engineering company has informed me 80,000 gallons would be acceptable.No big difference in this item. We are not in favor of a lien on the property.The provisions in this paragraph are to establish a minimum for the entire subdivision.There will be expenses on this system because of the pumping arrangements that are not incurred in other subidivisions.