The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES Water Committee 1970-02-11 (2)RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Water Committee Meeting February 11,1970 Committee:Chairman Dannels;Trustees Grove and Steele Attending:Chairman Dannels,Trustees Grove and Steele Also Attending:Mayor Brodie,Mayor ProTem Tregent,Town Attorney Hartwell,Town Administrator Hill,Water Superinten dent McCracken and Business Office Manager Duncan. Representing Phillips,Carter,Reister and Associates,Town Engineers - Walt Caldwell and Robert Kemp. Representing Carriage Hills -Consulting Engineers,Mr.Peterson and Mr.Patterson. Owners of Carriage Hills -Mr.Scott and Mr.Sigman. Mr.Peterson,consulting engineer for Fish Creek Park,Inc.(owners of Carriage Hills Subdivision)met with the Water Committee to discuss suggestions made by the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District in a letter,dated January 30,1970,concerning a raw water tap on the Bureau of Reclamation facilities above Mary’s Lake.A copy of this letter is attached to and made a part of these proceedings.Mr.Peterson stated that the ultimate water need for Carriage Hills is estimated to be 1,000,000 gallons per day and that the need,now,is from to this amount.Mr.Peterson stated that they plan to construct a water treatment plant on Bureau of Reclamation property above Mary’s Lake and that they will require a twelve inch connection on the Bureau of Reclamation facility. Mr.Peterson and Mr.Hartwell explained the decision of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District to limit the turnouts on the Bureau of Reclamation facilities and that the planned turnouts be made large enough to serve the entire surrounding area.Mr.Hartwell suggested that Fish Creek Park,Inc.,the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Town of Estes Park enter into an agreement acceptable to all parties that will provide a water turnout on the above mentioned facility large enough to supply 1,000,000 gallons per day to the sub division known as Carriage Hills and that the balance of the capacity of this turnout be reserved for the use of the Town of Estes Park. Mr.Scott and Mr.Sigman,owners of Fish Creek Park,Inc.,indicated they would be in favor of a contract such as Mr.Hartwell described. It was mutually agreed that the agreement would be completed by the Town of Estes Park no later than March 10,1970. The details of this agreement will be worked out by consultation between the Town Attorney,the Town’s consulting engineers,the consulting engineers for Fish Creek Park,Inc.and the Town Water Superintendent. Water Committee February 11,1970 Page two RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS The Water Committee discussed the apparent increase in special water districts surrounding Estes Park and the long range effect it will have on the municipal water system,as well as the future growth of the Town. There being no further business,the meeting adjourned. FEE1 Llo L Duncan,Business Office Manager Dale G.Hill,Town Administrator A );] ( -.IIRECTORS BOULDER COUNTY DUDLEY I.HUTCHINSON,JR. GEORGE DEINES MILTON H.NELSON LARIMER COUNTY GORDON C OYEKMAN CLYDE E.MOFFITT JOHN N.MOORE STAFF WELD COUNTY ].N.BAPKLEY,MANAGERW.D PARR WILLIAM E.BOHLENDER EARL F.PHIPP5, a.BEN NIX ASSSTANT MANAGER WASHINGTON AND DENNIS E.WALKER, MORGAN COUNTIES o.&N SUPERINTENDENT R 1.LAMBORN J.C.NELSON, LOGAN COUNTY CONTRACTS ADMINISTRATOR H.H VANDEMOER DAVIS.GRAHAM &STuOBS SEDGWICK COUNTY LEOAL COUFIOLL KIYOSHI OTSUKA PRINCIPAL COUNSEL— EMERITUS DIRECTORS JOHN H SAYRE OR.CHAS.A LORE AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK ED F.MUNROE BUILDING DENVER COLORADO 80202 Mr.Elmo G.Peterson Nelson,Haley,Patterson &Quirk,Inc. 2021 Clubhouse Drive Greeley,Colorado $0631 We appreciate your letter outlining the alternative choices which you feel will fulfill the requirements for domestic water service proposed for Fish Creek Park,Inc. The several means of withdrawing water from the project system have been studied by us and have now been discussed with the appropriate repre sentatives of the Bureau of Reclamation.Based upon your examination,we agree that your suggestion of a combination of Items 3 and 4,as set forth in your letter,would provide the better of your several suggestions. We also agree with your comment that thought should be given to the design of a facility which can accommodate the future needs of the entire area.On that point,you recall that we mentioned the existing outlet facility which serves the treatment plant of Koral Heights Water Company. That,of course,is another alternative if appropriate agreements could be arranged to satisfy the mutual interests of the several developing subdivi sions.Also,the Town of Estes Park might well have an interest in the general development around the Marys Lake—Prospect Mountain area since both Fish Creek Park and Koral Heights are adjacent to the present Town boundary. While it may have no direct bearing on your inquiry regarding facilities for Fish Creek Park,I cannot refrain from a general comment.Neither this District nor the United States desires to encourage a proliferation of water delivery facilities to serve a number of small treatment plants and separate distribution systems that might be better served by a single installation. One facility could provide the mutually desired water servce now being sought by several subdivisions which might,in the future,find it desirable to become a part of the Town of Estes Park. OFFICERS 1.BEN NIX,PRESIDENT CLYDE E.MOFFITT,VICE.PRES. J.R.BARKLEY.SECRETARY J.C.NEI.SON,TREASuRER NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT P.0.BOX 679 667.2437 U S.HIGHWAY 34 —WEST OF LOVELAND LOVELAND.COLORADO 80537 January 30,1970 Dear Mr.Peterson: Re:Your Proj.No.69—60—100 Oc Page 2 Mr.Elmo G.Peterson Returning to specific corrent upon your suggested use of Items 3 and 4, as you outlined them,our discussion with the Bureau disclosed that current plans are presently being developed which would assure that the line above Marys Lake Power Plant would suffer no outages except for inspection purposes or for unforseen emergencies.While the purpose of the plans are independent of your needs and will requite additional measuring facilities,it appears quite possTble that your Item 4 will satisfy your complete needs if you have provision for some emergency clear water storage. We ate advised by Bureau representatives that their plans will be completed in about 30 days and that we will be advised of their decision on plan imple mentation immediately thereafter. Because of the obvious advantage of an outlet above Marys Lake Power Plant, particularly with water available for delivery at that point at all but very limited time periods,we suggest that you postpone a decision until we receive the precise Bureau plans and can advise you in detail on the proposed operation. of the C—BT system at the location in question.It might alter your choice of treatment plant location and the quantity of clear water storage which might be requ i red. I should note that the withdrawal of water from the system above Mary’s Lake Power Plant is subject to a power interference charge of $14.49 per acre— foot as opposed to $13.37 per acre—foot below Marys Lake and above the Estes Power Plant.However,this appears to me to be rather minimal in light of the advantage of being able to utilize a single point of withdrawal. We will contact you as soon as we are advised of the Bureau’s decision on its plans. ]RB:ims CC:James E.Stokes,U.S.Bureau of Reclamation Melvin Dinner,Atto:ney,Fish Creek Park,Inc. L.C.Molander,Koral Heights Water Company Dale G.Hill,Town Administrator,Estes Park Ernest C.Hartwel I,Attorney,Town of Estes Park /‘%