The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Water Committee 1986-04-21t. 1, WATER COMMITTEE Monday, April 21, 1986 - 2:00 PIM. AGENDA _ i, 0 k#i 1. Rural Water Application submitted by Phil Winter,3(7~,1#' 1321 Devil's Gulch Road - Horse barn. 2. Stanley Heights - Customer complaints regarding dls-colored water, 3. Windy Gap: A. Resolutions regarding Budget, B, Water Broker. 4, Resignation - Water Superintendent Richards, 5, Water Use Reports for March, TOWN OF ESTES PARK - WATER DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE Taken by Date Q.,SAA..9 12 lag(o Name THIL + SARAI\ WI NTER. Address /32( IPEVILS 64,4/4 ROAD .EST E S FA R-K Telephone 526- Â£509 Location dLE 44 - S W'11 - sis -TSN -R 12_ /523 321/#45 C?UL<N FoAD Type of Unit B Ae-H Number of Units ONE Number of Fixtures 2 The undersigned assumes responsibility for any and all engineering and legal costs incurred by the Town in processing this Request for Water Service. Signature aud 4 1464Â· Applicant or 6-_ licant' s Authorized Representative ----------------------------------- Is the property described above within the Northern Colorado Water Con- servancy District? Yes X' No Is the property described above below 7,850 feet in elevation? Yes X No (/ A, 1 1- I Conf irmed by 7:2*Â«44/ -_ Date 4 1 18)*u 9 1 1 ------------------------------------ Committee Action Town Board Action Superintendent's Recommendation Customer Notified Tap Number Expiration Date E. . TOWN OF ESTES PARK 1 4 1 ' $ L~ v i - i 5 4 /. h k' 41 .7 Water Department . 4:K -- - -:-fl . ...'; ' . ~ - 2 'j 16-42.-- .. G 1 7 9 '* . - Robert L. Richards .. .u---. r- -4 Suptâ€¢rinte ficilÂ·rit ..1 ...-'> 3/7.*..'.Da~9'tj ;F~~~4:'11.. f 1 :4. --03, ... v - *f .-*-.4 4 'i. 1 04Â£ ai~rÂ·,/'#'3'4 :4444& *~: *i-'2 3~4?FiJff*f- I. C. . - ..):Â·r-: u ...r. : .TJA 3.06, ~:. ' p_4+ d 0 4 '20Â·-Â·:1. - .7.. ~-4. 1.Â· :. , --h - 4- - 4- f.:,2., 4-4 i,.. /.4.. .:' 3 , 1 , 14 - ' .. .... #0 .- - I. I ...' .. - /1.X..t~Â£9~3=44-,=r.%_. , - Estes Park, Colorado 80517 November 19, 1985 J. L. Monarchi, President STANLEY HEIGHTS ASSOCIATION P. 0. Box 1568 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Mr. Monarchi: This letter is in response to your request that I confirm in writing our phone conversation regarding rusty water in the mains in Stanley Heights. Since May, 1985, the Water Department has spenta considerable amount of money and man hours in Stanley Heights trying to improve the rusty water situation. We have done the following: 1. Replaced 1,314 feet of 2" pipe, with 4 ft. ductile iron pipe. 2. Removed two (2) check valves in the system - one on West Lane and one on East Lane. 3. Flushed the system at least every two weeks in July, August, and September. 4. Run water tests for safe water in the system twelve different times. 5. Removed a 4 ft. section and then later replaced the section in the southwest corner of the loop. 6. Opened and closed different valves to change the flow through the system. 7. Spent four hours with two different engineers and consultants about the problem. P.O. Box 120() Telephone 1.30.31 386-3331 Ext. 205 'f t Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 I feel the Water Department has worked consistently on the problem, however, there is no easy answer to the problem. We have removed or replaced any known problems in the loop itself. We are now in the process of changing the flow pattern through the loop to see if the rusty water is being drawn into the loop or if the rust problem is being created within the loop itself. Each time we have done something to the system, it has riled up the system and then we have to wait about a week or two to see if the problems have beeh resolved. As you can see by the number of times we have worked on the system, the residents in Stanley Heights have had rusty water problems more than they would normally have experienced if we had not been working on the system. I have hoped the residents would appreciate the work we have been trying to accomplish and would understand that we were doing our best to solve the problem. I have received a number of calls from residents in Stanley Heights who are very upset with me and my department. However, it is not an easy problem to solve and will not be solved unless we continue to try different approaches Â· to solving the problem. I hope the Stanley Heights residents will bear with us a little longer. Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES PARK Water Department Robert L., Richards Superintendent RLR:ca Enclosure . 6 Le A 0- . 6 ,~/ 'f, O 6 5 1 + DZ 4 i ?, p. a .4 fl. 1 'nus . g, 9 54,25 ~ ~fvwl.0 L./CL-~ ~01~ di~Ec,/c 2 Cl- L J e.â‚¬4 Vi f , - '' & 2.5 r ~ 4 R d. CL 1 Â·t Zi 1 Elâ‚¬ f Lacvl L- 2.6,oa li.. E,(2 44.-24.4 @4.37/,F 4, Art, /1 Cll OE 3, RCULAI\Xy E \/ 511.L- fl Â¢Z.V t. Ay .2 6.-, cilit 32, i./ i ;;4 kv fl,1,1-, , 5 . A )3\4/6611-s-2 keR 9,72 4 tor Z Ar. -606/5 4 0/c/e'. w 6, 270. 71 \,Â«4 e + 9 e :, 0 , 10 Â¢ ( oj Ct. 2.- ._ â€¢ .1 / 4 0.0. 1 4 . 1 r~ 0.4 /2.2-0 -p t.kÂ·r, _ / 46, 40 I .1 --7 t . n Â¢-5 2 i MEÂ«Â·ouL A 021 7..titu.c<- CLcln .,% CGP{'Crl foe.,3.\// 570Â£ 4 (10,<.+ O f Leo 9-3 25.oah-cl:4.- 2 nie.l'/0,37 8krs ./,527,34 A .1 - I 11. t\' s Wj ail'A bj .(,49 (1 y:41 ~04 7 di H Â·-te..cf Val:/c Â·F;o + ' i 'ZE C' GU...(Lo vit-rq.l_ --r---Â·-< .4,-,re-t.l,#:. -nva~- , _13 4, A 424 44 1 1 1-ht .<.5/62.7 1 7 _ . _.-/ -71,16 -*. ; 4 1 41Â·2 2(0,1.-1- 1 - 'Alt Â¥ A d.Â¢ 1 CA tf<lA i. 1 5 1 .cr r, j tvÂ·~ d r.1, i O h OtcÂ·LdÂ·-Fl - -PH 2-AL 29-.~Le 42 ~~63,eo A , 5 -- 1, E '4 L .1 --Fi Â« L 253-Â· 06 11.1 / h r . 11 E, 6 o i -- - -Â· /6,750 , es 4 1-1,000,00 - ' TOWN OF ESTES PARK ADJUSTED EXPENDITURES TO INCLUDE UNEARNED INCOME ON WINDY GAP EXPENDITURES MAY 1, 1986 ANNUAL ADJUSTED COMPOUND PROJECTED EXPENDITURES ACTUAL EXPENDITURES AVERAGE INTEREST INCLUDING YEAR EXPENDITURES (INCLUSED INTEREST) INTEREST RATE (%) EARNINGS UNEARNED INTERES' 1975 $32,689 $32,689 7.063 $2,309 $34,998 1976 49,338 84,336 6.200 5,229 54,567 1977 49,333 138,898 6.603 9,171 58,504 1978 62,000 210,069 8.977 18,858 80,858 1979 62,500 291,427 12.742 37,134 99,634 1980 62,500 391,061 15.692 61,365 123,865 1981 200,000 652,426 15.030 98,060 298,060 1982 80,000 830,486 11.033 91,628 171,628 1983 80,000 1,002,114 10.150 101,715 181,715 1984 80,000 1,183,829 10.908 129,132 209,132 L.,85 418,192 1,731,153 9.270 160,478 578,670 1/ 1986 316,593 2,208,224 -' 7.95 14,210 330,803 Total through 05/01/86 1,493,145 729,289 2,222,434 Less value of 100 acre feet sold in 1985 (45,285) 2,177,149 Cost for 3,900 acre feet of water 2,177,149.00 Cost for 3,500 acre feet of water 1,953,851.67 Cost for 100 acre feet of water 55,824.33 Cost for 50 acre feet of water 27,912.17 Cost for 1 acre foot of water 558.24 J/ Average interest rate on investments as of March 31, 1986. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ADJUSTED EXPENDITURES TO INCLUDE UNEARNED INCOME ON WINDY GAP EXPENDITURES AUGUST 1, 1986 ANNUAL ADJUSTED COMPOUND PROJECTED EXPENDITURES ACTUAL EXPENDITURES AVERAGE INTEREST INCLUDING YEAR EXPENDITURES (INCLUDES INTEREST) INTEREST RATE (%) EARNINGS UNEARNED INTERE 1975 $32,689 $32,689 7.063 $2,309 $34,998 1976 49,338 84,336 6.200 5,229 54,567 1977 49,333 138,898 6.603 9,171 58,504 1978 62,000 210,069 8.977 18,858 80,858 1979 62,500 291,427 12.742 37,134 99,634 1980 62,500 391,061 15.692 61,365 123,865 1981 200,000 652,426 15.030 98,060 298,060 1982 80,000 830,486 11.033 91,628 171,628 1983 80,000 1,002,114 10.150 101,715 181,715 1984 80,000 1,183,829 10.908 129,132 209,132 /r--N L )85 418,192 1,731,153 9.270 160,478 578,670 1/ 1986 506,549 2,3,98,180 - 7.950 59,360 565,909 Total through $774,439 $2,457,540 08/01/86 $1,683,101 Less value of 100 acre feet sold in 1985 (45,285) $2,412,255 Cost for 3,900 acre feet of water 2,412,255.00 Cost for 3,500 acre feet of water 2,164,844.23 Cost for 100 acre feet of water 61,852.69 Cost for 50 acre feet of water 30,926.35 Cost for 1 acre feet of water 618.53 1/ Average interest rate on investments as of March 31, 1986. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ADJUSTED EXPENDITURES TO INCLUDE UNEARNED INCOME ON WINDY GAP EXPENDITURES JANUARY 1, 1987 ANNUAL ADJUSTED COMPOUND PROJECTED EXPENDITURES ACTUAL EXPENDITURES AVERAGE INTEREST INCLUDING YEAR EXPENDITURES (INCLUDES INTEREST) INTEREST RATE (%) EARNINGS UNEARNED INTERES 1975 $32,689 $32,689 7.063 $2,309 $34,998 1976 49,338 84,336 6.200 5,229 54,567 1977 49,333 138,898 6.603 9,171 58,504 1978 62,000 210,069 8.977 Â· 18,858 80,858 1979 62,500 291,427 12.742 37,134 99,634 1980 62,500 391,061 15.692 61,365 123,865 1981 200,000 652,426 15.030 98,060 298,060 1982 80,000 830,486 11.033 91,628 171,628 1983 80,000 1,002,114 10.150 101,715 181,715 1984 80,000 1,183,829 10.908 129,132 209,132 ~ --85 418,192 1,731,153 9.270 160,478 578,670 l/ 1986 759,823 2,651,455 - 7.950 143,010 902,833 Total through 01/01/87 $1,936,375 $858,089 $2,794,464 Less value of 100 acre feet sold in 1985 (45,285) $2,749,179 Cost for 3,900 acree feet of water 2,749,179.00 Cost for 3,500 acre feet of water 2,467,211.92 Cost for 100 acre feet of water 70,491.77 Cost for 50 acre feet of water 35,245.88 Cost for 1 acre foot of water 704.92 1/ Average interest rate on investments as of March 31, 1986. WINDY GAP DEBT RETIREMENT . AND ESTIMATED FIXED OVERHEAD COSTS 1987 TO 2017 EXTIMATED FIXED TOTAL DEBT SERVICE ESTIMATED FIXED OVERHEAD COSTS TOTAL ESTIMATED DEBT PER UNIT OVERHEAD PER UNIT COST PER YEAR SERVICE TOTAL + 48,000 2/ COSTS TOTAL + 48,000 UNIT 1987 $ 9,342,216 $ 194.63 $ 1,430,000 $ 29.79. $ 224.42 1988 10,197,216 212.44 1,573,000 32.77 245.21 1989 10,192,366 212.34 1,730,300 36.05 248.39 1990 10,196,391 212.42 1,903,330 39.65 252.07 1991 10,197,891 212.46 2,093,663 43.62 256.08 1992 10,196,128 212.42 2,303,029 47.98 260.40 1993 10,195,328 212.40 2,533,332 52.78 265.18 1994 10,194,878 212.39 2,786,665 58.06 270.45 1995 10,193,578 212.37 3,065,332 63.86 276.23 1996 10,196,603 212.43 3,371,865 70.25 282.68 1997 10,202,443 212.55 3,709,052 77.27 289.82 1998 10,189,543 212.48 4,079,957 85.00 297.48 1999 10,194,393 212.38 4,487,953 93.50 305.88 2000 10,198,943 212.48 4,936,748 102.85 315.33 2001 10,191,843 212.33 5,430,423 113.13 325.46 2002 10,197,643 212.45 5,973,465 124.45 336.90 2003 10,198,643 212.47 6,570,812 136.89 349.36 2004 10,198,493 212.47 7,227,893 150.58 363.05 2005 10,191,531 212.32 7,950,682 165.64 377.96 2006 10,194,475 212.38 8,745,750 182.20 394.58 2007 10,199,537 212.49 9,620,325 200.42 412.91 r-908 10,197,687 212.45 10,582,358 220.47 432.92 L.009 10,196,612 212.43 11,640,594 242.51 454.94 2010 10,193,075 212.36 12,804,653 266.76 479.12 2011 10,193,837 212.37 14,085,118 293.44 505.81 2012 10,194,737 212.39 15,493,630 322.78 535.17 2013 10,196,612 212.43 17,042,993 355.06 567.49 2014 10,194,837 212.39 18,747,292 390.57 602.96 2015 10,199,787 212.50 20,622,021 429.63 642.13 2016 10,190,450 212.30 22,684,223 472.59 684.89 2017 10,202,450 212.55 24,952,645 519.85 732.40 1/ TOTAL $315,220,166 $6,567.27 $260,179,103 $5,420.40 $11,987.67 1/ Debt retirement schedule in bond prospectus is off $16.00 ~/ Fixed overhead costs are estimated to increase 10% per year. The 1986 budget of $1,300,000 is used as a base. tdf. WINDY GAP DEBT RETIREMENT 1987 TO 2017 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE DEBT SERVICE DEBT SERVICE ON DEBT PER UNIT PROPOSED SALE WATER RETAINED BY TOWN AR SERVICE TOTAL + 48,000 COLUMN 2 X 3500 COLUMN 2 X 400 1987 $ 9,342,216 $194.63 $681,205 $77,852 1988 10,197,216 212.44 743,540 84,976 1989 10,192,366 212.34 743,190 84,936 1990 10,196,391 212.42 743,470 84,968 1991 10,197,891 212.46 743,610 84,984 1992 10,196,128 212.42 743,470 84,968 1993 10,195,328 212.40 743,400 84,960 1994 10,194,878 212.39 743,365 84,956 1995 10,193,578 212.37 743,295 Â· 84,948 1996 10,196,603 212.43 743,505 84,972 1997 10,202,443 212.55 743,925 85,020 1998 10,189,543 212.48 743,680 84,992 1999 10,194,393 212.38 743,330 84,952 2000 10,198,943 212.48 743,680 84,992 2001 10,191,843 212.33 743,155 84,932 2002 10,197,643 212.45 743,575 84,980 2003 10,198,643 212.47 743,645 84,988 2004 10,198,493 212.47 743,645 84,988 2005 10,191,531 212.32 743,120 84,928 2006 10,194,475 212.38 743,330 84,952 2007 10,199,537 212.49 743,715 84,996 2008 10,197,687 212.45 743,575 84,980 2009 10,196,612 212.43 743,505 84,972 ( 10 10,193,075 212.36 743,260 84,944 2011 10,193,837 212.37 743,295 84,948 2012 10,194,737 212.39 743,365 84,956 2013 10,196,612 212.43 743,505 84,972 2014 10,194,837 212.39 743,365 84,956 2015 10,199,787 212.50 743,750 85,000 2016 10,190,450 212.30 743,050 84,920 2017 10,202,450 212.55 743,925 85,020 TOTAL 1/$315,220,166 $6,567.27 $22,985,445 $2,626,908 1/ Debt retirement schedule in bond prospectus is off $16.00. WINDY GAP PROJECTION APRIL 18, 1986 ESCROW DEPOSIT NEEDED AT.12/1/86 TOTAL FOR 3500 AF DEBT DEBT SERVICE SERVICE INTEREST YEAR 48,000 AF 3500 AF RATE AMOUNT 1987 $9,342,216 $681,203 5.00% 11,533,162 1988 10,197,216 743,547 5.25% 11,203,052 1989 10,192,366 743,193 5.50% 10,887,469 1990 10,196,391 743,487 5.75% 10,585,635 1991 10,197,891 743,596 6.00% 10,296,818 1992 10,196,128 743,468 6.25% 10,020,330 1993 10,195,328 743,409 6.50% 9,755,524 1994 10,194,878 743,377 6.75% 9,501,792 1995 10,193,578 743,282 7.00% 9,258,561 1996 10,196,603 743,502 7.25% 9,025,292 1997 10,202,443 743,928 7.50% 8,801,477 1998 10,189,543 742,988 7.75% 8,586,640 1999 10,194,393 743,341 8.00% 8,380,328 2000 10,198,943 743,673 8.25% 8,182,118 2001 10,191,843 743,155 8.50% 7,991,608 2002 10,197,643 743,578 8.75% 7,808,422 2003 10,198,643 743,651 9.00% 7,632,203 2004 10,198,493 743,640 9.25% 7,462,614 2005 10,191,531 743,132 9.50% 7,299,338 2006 10,194 ,475 743,347 9.75% 7,142,073 2007 10,199,537 743,716 10.00% 6,990,538 2008 10,197,687 743,581 10.25% 6,844,463 2009 10,196,612 743,503 10.50% 6,703,595 2010 10,193,075 743,245 10.75% 6,567,694 2011 10,193,837 743,301 11.00% 6,436,534 2012 10,194,737 743,366 11.25% 6,309,898 2013 10,196,612 743,503 11.50% 6,187,584 2014 10,194,837 743,374 11.75% 6,069,399 2015 10,199,787 743,734 12.00% 5,955,160 2016 10,190,450 743,054 12.25% 5,844,694 2017 10,202,450 743,929 12.50% 5,737,837 Â¢315 ,220,166 $22,984,804 ============= WINDY GAP DEBT RETIREMENT 1987 TO 2017 ASSUMING CALLING IN OUTSTANDING PORTION OF BONDS ON DECEMBER 1, 1993 DEBT SERVICE DEBT SERVICE DEBT PER UNIT PROPOSED SALE YEAR SERVICE TOTAL 4 48,000 COLUMN 2 x 3,500 1987 $9,342,216 194.63 681,205 1988 10,197,216 212.44 743,540 1989 10,192,366 212.34 743,190 1990 10,196,391 212.42 743,470 1991 10,197,891 212.46 743,610 1992 10,196,128 212.42 743,470 1/ - 1993 1,225,000 25.52 89,320 1994 1,325,000 27.60 96,600 1995 1,435,000 29.90 104,650 1996 1,560,000 32.50 113,750 1997 1,700,000 35.42 123,970 1998 1,835,000 38.23 133,805 1999 2,005,000 41.77 146,195 2000 2,190,000 45.63 159,705 2001 2,380,000 49.58 173,530 2002 2,600,000 54.17 189,595 2003 2,835,000 59.06 206,710 2004 3,090,000 64.38 225,330 2005 3,365,000 70.10 245,350 2006 3,675,000 76.56 267,960 2007 4,020,000 83.75 293,125 2008 4,390,000 91.46 320,110 2009 4,795,000 99.90 349,650 2010 5,235,000 109.06 381,710 2011 5,720,000 119.17 417,095 2012 6,250,000 130.21 455,735 2013 6,830,000 142.29 498,015 2014 7,460,000 155.42 543,970 2015 8,155,000 169.90 594,650 2016 8,900,000 185.42 648,970 2017 9,535,000 198.65 695,275 Debt service requirements from 1987 through 1992 would amount to $4,398,485 and a total amount of $7,624,271 would be required to call bonds equivalent to 3,500 acre feet per year through the life of the bond issue, 7,474,775 x 102% = $7,624,271. 1/ Principal only for 1993 to 2017, assuming outstanding bonds would be called on 12/01/1993. -1- C- Assuming 7.5% interest rate on investments: Sale Price $9,800,000 Broker Fee (475,500) Town's investment to 08/01 (2,164,844) 08/01 to 12/01 (253,276) Debt Service through 1992 (4,398,485) Interest earnings 4,289,235 6,797,130 Needed to retire bonds (7,624,271) Amount short $(827,141) Assuming 7.00% interest rate on investments: Sale Price $9,800,000 Broker Fee (475,500) Town's investment to 08/01 (2,164,844) 08/01 to 12/01 (253,276) Debt Service through 1992 (4,398,485) Interest earnings 3,938,368 6,446,263 Needed to retire bonds (7,624,271) Amount short $,1,178,008) L RESOLUTION WHEREAS, The Town has determined that it is necessary to pay the annual assessment for its water from the Windy Gap Project to the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District; and WHEREAS, at the time of the adoption of the 1986 budget an appropriation was not made in an amount sufficient to pay said assessment; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to transfer budgeted and appropriated monies from the General Fund and the Light and Power Fund to the Water Fund; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to transfer budgeted and appropriated monies between line items in the Water Fund to the Windy Gap Assessment line item. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. That the 1986 appropriation for the Water Fund is hereby increased from $1,147,950.00 to $1,399,950.00 for the purpose of paying the 1986 assessment in the amount of $762,321.60 to the Municipal Subdistrict of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. 2. That the sum of $126,000 is hereby transferred from the General Fund-Contingency Fund to the Water Fund for the purpose of paying the assessment as more fully described in section 1 above. 3. That the sum of $126,000 is hereby transferred from the Light and Power Fund-Contingency Fund to the Water Fund for the purpose of paying the assessment as more fully described in section 1 above. 4. That the Windy Gap assessment shall be payable between April 1 and December 1, 1986 in monthly installments. That the actual transfer of the aforementioned funds shall be made at the time the assessments are actually due and owing to the Municipal Subdistrict and that all monies budgeted for said payments in the Water Fund have been paid. ADOPTED THIS DAY Â· OF , 1986. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Approved: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk , RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park has, in Resolution 86- authorized the transfer of certain sums from the General Fund and the Light and Power Fund to the Water Fund for the purpose of making the payments on the 1986 Windy Gap assessments; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park to have those transferred funds be loans from the General Fund and the Light and Power Fund to the Water Fund; and WHEREAS, it is the intention of the Board of Trustees that at the time the money is available in the Water Fund to repay the payments, the appropriate amounts shall be transferred to the Light and Power Fund and the General Fund unless the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park determines otherwise; and WHEREAS, The Board of Trustees has determined that the amount of payments shall bear an appropriate rate of interest from the date of the payment. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: 1. That upon transfer of any monies from either the General Fund or the Light and Power Fund to the Water Fund for the purpose of paying the 1986 Windy Gap assessment, that said transfers of sums shall be a loan between the appropriate funds. 2. That the amount transferred shall bear interest at the rate of 7.0 % per annum from the date of the transfer until repaid. 3. That the obligation to repay the principal and interest from from the Water fund to the General Fund and/or the Light and Power Fund is subject to any future action by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park. ADOPTED THIS DAY OF , 1986. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Approved: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk ~t , TOWN OF ESTES PARK Water Department 44 TAO-Â¥V#f' - i.-44" J'- 1 'ki- 9 . . Robert L. Richards --4f~~WL__ r- mi*a Superintendent <r.lyriph.#4. 472. 1:4 , Â¥047*- ->34. :7814Â£5,4..#St,1.1-933:M#*-4, 9043,7 #B#V~-~~1:'au .- , Myq#4:i,-Â· 778/:.-LUJÂ·->~ 2.k Estes Park, Colorado 80517 te r April 11, 1986 Mr. Dale Hill Town Administrator TOWN OF ESTES PARK Post Office Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Dale: Please accept my resignation, effective May 30, 1986. Under doctors advisement, I must leave this altitude for a lower, warmer climate as soon as possible. Therefore, as much as I regret leaving the Town of Estes Park, I beg your indulgence in my personal decision. It has been a great pleasure to be a part of the Town of Estes Park and to be of service to all. Thank you very much. Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES PARK Water Department /fll f RU Robert L. Richards Superintendent RLR:ca P.O. Box 12()0 Telephone (303) 586-5331 Ext. 205 4 J.-' I TOWN OF ESTES PARK 4 ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for March, 1986 (Net) 10,858.181 U gal. Water Use for February-14th through March 13th : Feb. 14th to 28th Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,997,000) ( 15 days) *Fall River 4,025,400 Glacier Creek , Â· 5,998,000 *Big Thompson 3,797,348 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (- 691,037) March 1 to Mar. 13 Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,836,000) ( 13 ) *Fall River 2,959,200 Glacier Creek 5,411,000 *Big Thompson 3,155,680 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (- 576,294) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 20,246,297 Adjustment 8,231,196 TOTAL 12,015,101 Percent Accounted For 94% 1. A 1. Mize - Charles Heights 27 days 2. Devil's Gulch & Wonderview 28 days 3. Fall Riveer Estates Bleeder 27 days 4. Hondius Bleeder 27 days 5. Joan Banker 27 days 6. Baldwin 28 days 7. Swimming Pool 28 days 8. Woods 28 days 9. Gavell Trailer - Elm Road 28 days 10. Dale Sumner 28 days 11. Hobbs 27 days - 303 days 11 Bleeders @ 2.167 gal/day (1.5 gal. min.) x 303 7,222,611 Flush Hydrants - Stanley Heights 3/7/86 100,000 Fl ush Hydrants - Grand Estates 3/13/86 100,000 Water Dispenser 24,585 Lower Fall River Bleeder - 28,000 x 28 days 784,000 TOTAL 8,231,196 TOWN oF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same MonI 1984 1985 1986 Last Month Last Yeai 59.27 ac. ft. 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. Jan. 19.315.120 cal. Jan. 29,741,000 gal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. +4.90' - 34.20 50.14 ac. ft. 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac. ft. Feb. 16.339.150 qal, Feb. 33,488,000 qal. Feb. 20.974,216 qal. +7.20% -37.40 48.75 ac. ft. 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. Mar. 15.888,300 qal Mar. 21,391.000 qal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal -0.31% -2.25 53.18 ac. ft. Â·73.99 ac. ft.. Apr. 17.328,460 qal.- Apr. 24,110,504 gal. Apr. 69.73 ac. ft. .98.53 ac. ft. May 22,723,106 gal. May 32,-106,550 gal. May 113.24 ac. ft. 131.24 ac. ft. Jun. 36,899,615 gal. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. 153.88 ac. ft. .154.52 ac. ft. Jul. 50,142,300 gal. Jul. 50,351,784 gal. Jul. . I 132.85 ac.fft. .167.68; ac/ft. Aug. 43,290,000 gal. Aug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug. 95.75 ac. ft. . 95.29 ac. ft. Sep. 31,201,500 gal. Sep. 31,051,965 gal. Sep. 37.59 ac. ft. . 78.78 ac. ft. Oct. 12,249,009 gal. Oct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 42.77 ac. ft. 67.97 ac..ft. Nov. 13,936,841 gal. NOV. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 42.78 ac. ft. 57.25 ac. ft. Dec. 13,940,500 gal. Dec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 899.99 1,184.97 ac. ft. 293,623,901 gal. 386,124,317 gal. TOWN OF ESTES PARK .. WATFR ']SF RECORD m ARcu 19R6 4 V 1.Z 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 6 -BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL_ _SUBTDTAL __BTG TOTA! TOTAI -Â£811.YON RIVER CREEK GAI.LO,\IS AERF ~7. THOMPEON ~ . GAI I ON<; ACRF FT -45)26 0 \1)8 %?\0 0 4,9000 641 400 /.16% &238806 . 786|206 29, 1 -9 9 + 2,2, 0, khz*100 4|33 00 o 534600 1.64 0~61719 7 4 44 7% 294 2 -9 5600 0 !10 zf710 0 4 0 800 0 4667 DO 23015 6 \ 69 0% 50 11 2 .3 -1/ 39!00 0 91!60!7100 36%000 499700 050 2931250 1 7014940 137 4 -1.394" bhoijo O 4620(8 53 3360 1163 I 8 7177 6 ' 7 216 7 6 22/ ' s -)33.000 b13 4.460 425coo 61110,> Ift, 0 2915(0 S jo 2/ 0 2,99 5 -1 57.00 0 91|3 jolo 0 90 4 400 564000 /54 136146 69 0/4,Â· 1.// 7 -)31\00 0 47 83\0 0 433000 56130 0 194. 26 9922 9372.28 154 6 ..13100 0 212 4500 411 00 0 5,4 Soo 1,51 3,3226 22115Â¢2 154 3 -\756 00 0 1|77'90 0 464 6 0 0 425#00 l,30 23 i 4 60 654360 10/ ic -,153,600 ..83 -Â£600 421 000 4%0600 /47 1 22359 2 186 192 1/ 6 11 - j 5000 0 2~(7|700 402000 469700- IN Â¥ 1 )99%39 66 953 y 205 11 4/3 *48 0 2 2 Mo 0 4 6 o OÂ© O 4 1,3 1 D o 199. 11 1654 11145 4 1 21/ 11 -:/ 54* O i 4 8170 0 3 8700 o 38370 0 1,1 7 /9 527 4 57 59 7 4 /7 7 14 1 -1/0-20!00 220 i 0 0 39 6 000 46% i 0 0 1,4 3 22/35 4 6 g 91/54 1./ / 15 7 -'/252!02 0 176!00 0 4/6000 440000 1.3 5- 2.39936 679130 105 16 -:/6-/1600 19#1200 382.000 005200 5,6~- 29 254 4 / /0714 1 3 40 U 415/ido o j 51 14 00 41 1 00 0 . 4/ S gao / 2% /6320 0 69'IWco / 73 1, 2!tio o j 54|700 407000 399700 02 20 7336 607030 /,/t Â£ 11 -919/!49 0 N/1900 397000 700900 1./ 5' 1920 1 4 4929/4 114 2, _:.-Â· -i/|42]dec 231|706 1 356<So O 729700 2.13 22 4520 4562'20 193 21 ..... 2 -'114 22ia D 22 1 Id 0 0 4 SZ e 0 0 531 0 0 0 463 209639 737(03 4: lia A 29 -Ul#21600 1 961700. 41 1 000 749900 230 253302 /003202 7> O 7 zo Â·. J -1)~1/Â£800 )10'000 40/000 439000 , 34.235372 67437 2 1 8 7 24 .- P -1/!32-loor 206)1300 402.000 170300 1 /.44 22320 0 69%500 1/4 z: -111.32.600 1178!Ze o 452.00 0 99%10 0 19I 293|ry F '1420 4 6 1,17 2, . -/320'00 206200. 333000 950'too 19' 27 2]96 2 ; 2131 4 1 3 7 5 21 -\111 0 D O O 120 91100 40908 0 4701 00 I.4,6 2291830 10 7930 1/ 7 2, -:/'Voot,0, !19440 0 49(700 0 503)00 )54 33 42 0 2 %3790,2 257 25 -c . .4:42*) 0. 173*0 0 4 3 eoco 46500 o 1,42. !26 4|39 6 72Â£1358 113 0 14_ ''/Vor):6'0 I~[52000 44900 0 #211000 1,29 12!37U-9 6151 0154 - 10 2 ' 31 UL A-qu!/ 00 616,7/ 67!0 0 /217,6 2.6 3 10 IM!61573100 : i44,74| ,7'33107!915 14%beA!061% , ' :4;7.~.,4.31 4Â· -c /: 1 ' 1 1 4 i 111 1 1 111 11 '11 li Ill lilli 1 lilli 1 11 1 " i FT. '1 11 i' 19* 1 1 3|11 61 xjxk>:xxk>x , ixxxXxkix '.2 22,3:Â¥ xx0xx)ixixix i| 1 0.54 3, 1!1 11 I'llilli 1 1'lili .l:Iii |!l|'i 1 1 i bS 5% 31 I I 659-504 r'i@61341101036-19kll9#/ .Â© ! l i l l i 1,28%~7513?)5)i/bb#b q-) llit, SH 1XXXXXXXX2 lili nExidoix-1 1 I f i xxxXXXXXx I XxxxXXX>x 1 1 11 lilli '33 TER 1.11 1 EEDERS..XXXXXXXX-1xxx2XXXXXX XXX>xxkxx 111 11 -_XXXXX.X)0(X-bo~X iXXXXX i,1 Ii' 'I i !1111 -131 T.GAI I ' 'I,DEd 481- /231&44610 |/Â¢057'36 0 xxxXXXXxx I xxxXXXxxx 15967: 643/|XXXXXXXXXX 3, 1 It(r 92% 1 )11 11/5|~~7.s- 11 1 22.6<71 1.'IIil 11 141 1 1-3-k;341 1!!lili 41 'PS ~ i i lifi.illitu,1,11 1' 1317]2lo||.,1,.,..1...2.-t Iii|Ii| Ir~ ilill 111 414,76 11 11 lilli 1.1111\ i i lili 11 110 / 1 WATER COMMITTEE / Ch- AGENDA JUNE 12, 1986 1. Prospect Mountain Water Company - Preliminary request for town water. Reports: 1. Water Use for April and May 2. Cross connection ordinance 3. Windy Gap Water Sale - meeting with City of Westminster 1 1 . L . .. I , .... 1 , 4 a. -1 1 491;\ a: 4 .i I : Â¢ . \ -1 1.. 0, '774-1 w~, Â·2 : -- . S. 2-1 ' ' , 1.1. -1 .~ ...72* 4 i i t:~* 7--Â« 1 i. Icri-lo 4 6 . t. -> CL a. ,/ 7'/..- . I.. 1 ' 0 2 . -- I , 2 - OX: . %d 90; I X - L_" bl i .- I , it /41 , t j 53 - *18! Z Â·% 0 Jf TE as i / Â· fl 3% Ng 1 M , 4 1 44 Zi *201 1. 59 Â¢ .~ge . t. './ ke&6 rÂ· E i Â£ 3 I I , 4 \ Cl- 0 - <1 0 1 Z / - O 03 --4-0 1 A-J- \ Id f Ul Z 99/ 1 fZ I <D \ & \T H O - \ 1 . 4 : /i . / //4 - i % MoRAL Well,N75 6,7 Â£ Â£95 48 2 *use 3-4 AME Mv Euv LLON TANK 'Il e TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for April (Net) 13,901,821 gal. Water Use for March 13th through April 13th March 13 to 31st Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-2,585,000) ( 18 days) *Fall River 3,358,100 5,351,000 Glacier Creek *Big Thompson 4,195,118 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (- 745,210) pril 1 to 13th Water Supplied: Black Canyon 1,908,000 ( 13 ) *Fall River 2,216,700 Glacier Creek 5,447,000 *Big Thompson 2,896,836 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (- 528,026) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 17,698,518 Adjustment 883,805 TOTAL 16,814,713 Percent Accounted For 82.7% i '4 ADJUSTMENTS 1. Charles Heights Bl eeder 30 days 2. Hondius Tank Bleeder 5 days 35 days 3. Bleeders @ 2,167 gal/day (1.5 gal. min.) x 35 151,690 gals. Dispenser 16,115 gals. Stanley Heights Flush 100,000 gals. Fall River Bleeder 28,000 x 22 days 616,000 gals. 883,805 gals. 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 01 /71 In OU-5 Alk; WATFR I]OF RFCORD AP,0 /9%6 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 6 BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBIOIAL_SUBIOTAL- BIG -TOTAL__..i:__ TOTAL__li |CANYON RIVER CREEK GALLONS ACRE F-. THOMPSON GAI IONS 1 ACRE_EL= ATE 1- -!/06*,5. Ig700/9, 434000 4% 7100 0 2 1 /109 216-57 0 . */ 3337~ 0_1.._._Uff_f 2 -11#4810.0 /53 000. 406000 4/5000 ! i /112il 2'2|82-0 e ; igl#320'0 ~, ' 1):97i h - 9.15 7 010 0 I %48000. -3790 0 0 4062Â» 1 1 14* 1/ 02-7 0 %11 781710. |/0,3,91 U. * - -1/157bbo 233206 . 4/22000 50 420.0 f 1 ~019 3-3 1 46 6 #5 5.4610.1.-411Â© L -*/431950 /72000 43/000 1/66050 i ~ 44!/ 13 / 460 5!9 / 4:610 I , , IJ,/ 21 i 1 -i/432),40 /40000 442000 437000 N,:' 4 13 1 1-160 41 0-4.419-__...1-Â·10_3 lit. 1- -b Vitboo 176000 425000 45?000 ~ Il,qio 207989 96691!â‚¬ ' ; lip-f H -~/7-4/@z,0 /43300 4/0000 404380 1 1Â·1/00 1/ 9094 5|2739iq : : 9.9/1 Â¢ 1 g -1,3200 0 / 97200 429000 474200 1 -1/lf k /9742 8 614 216:2 â‚¬ i '10*3 :s 10 *-9!43600 16( 100 409000 42,7100 1 1 |1331/ 14580 4 6~7 29!0 4 ' 1, 10,61 1!n 11 -9 1/309 0 153200 39 100 0 46/ 200 1 lab 21/900 6 / 3/4 0 i ; 1/0 FIA !1* 12 $ /' 2~ 9 22â‚¬2.60 1 6.6-A~O 0 1 1 !/Fyi h 13 - 4)43%00 1 51000 446000 454000 1 |/i319 231002 : 69/032 1 i 1.JIN ME -1/749,91 12'9000 ~04000 45Dboo i 1/13~g 2200.5-0 6 7 Diolfo i ;2 jo#[ 9# 15 -/bbOO /43)00 42Â£Moo 447160 I 11,47Â· . 24026 2 : 627*6 2 1 E bi,le 16 -1) 9 23.3 0 04 /000 0. 4/ /00 0 4730 0 0 1 Al* 12810 0 9 0 112~00 1 1 117% 11 -|/36080 0.390900 q-3ooeo 6 2 1/9 do 1 31,110 2282-d o ! 9/ 3/ b o M 1 5 ;R 0 18 -1) 2 10 i, 22 97 70 0 . 4 /6000 39 2780 I /k~ 0 219 9 4 0 6/ 7 #14 0 i i kg# , 6 19 -|/2/030 /20000 Nolooo 900800 L ),de 244222 G 44%;28 1 1 1~917 in 20_ -92/000. Jl#3'00 . 410000 9/39'00 0 /.217 . 2647/ 2- i 67~/ 2. I I Jbk 4 -1 8090$ 111 500 .,644000 42756 0 /'912 2-44300 o ' 27 2bloo i I 160 4 zz -1 72000 4442 490 a *446000 778800 13'9 :Â¥4352, o /1/ 439 0 ! 372 4 n - 4 4 00 0 >00070 o *59 360 O 43970 0 - /40 X398196 83719* 1 1 357 92 24 -1 *DDD *203700 *440000 44370 0 Â· :1316 44 53 466 i 1%97#116 G I ' 1* !6 25 -1/1 3ic C o 29?zoo 41/4000 620200 1 /,94 /23 28.0 1 17 7 1/10*0 I i 3 *gl liz: 26 -11261060 331300 472000 6883:00 9 017 39 82 2- ~7 / Sj tz__1.1.--3.Ls#_15 -\)-23\006 307600 3%5000 569400 144 7 ze 9 6 16 4 1%19 6.-li_ESL_J r; 28 4 79000 *7950 0 15 60 0 0 4 56 5-Do /.410 39-5-1 1 2- i U/_-4ILk-- i. -_1;|/1 !' 13 -\ 406 0 0 3-14%00 166000 336%0 0 / el.3 39,36 zo : 0 20~.2 o li /.YIF-In -\3,40023 145660 12-5080 4366Â©o ltv 392230 %1914.jo i i (FY Irio ;i i !' I j [in TOTAL(-1 3 07619,0 0 01, 6 3'696100 1/1903Â·000 /4,(0'02,4 100 li ! 132'/'870 1)'9'Â¢!6-470 1Â· : i E GAL. f-~ 4 1 1 [ 1 AC. FT] -(*Ad.4-)' 1 ,413 0' lidio xxk>:12, Axxdxx>:x ~ ble, *xx:<xx:xxx I -T--Frt(izij-t 1 L 1 J.: 1:1. 1 1 1 1 -!11!11!11 1 1 111 1 11 i ' i 11 :!si LESS 5% -2_1_J_._1___.925!1. re.E-~P.!1_~i._1_1_-L,...___|| | _-j~3012924-47-72% 33/_ Li--2-LL--_.C r lilli Â·IN *%11 4 .14 WATER ' WASH I xxxXxxkxx_ _u_---i--_ .xxkxxki~lx_]-1-L_-1____.__xjxx~o<k>.xii! 1 , ~ " 11 BLEEDER,3 XXXXXXXX. -XXXXXXXXXX xxx>:xkxxx il._LL ' 1 -xxx3xxx):x. i_xxx.ixxx74,S')3 1%9011 ' I i -13 TOT.GAI'. i:~1 4,10;3[1!) 12101))&11203+Oi ~111 XXXXXXXPX rz 01 1 1217|7 22*)33-Gbâ‚¬7 XXXXXXXXXX ' 32 1 â‚¬PS i i,;1 1. , 943/1 1 1,1 1/Z26 ; :i !|i: 11 1;11!1 1 70.1971 1 9,4 6 5- ! I i . 1 *a OT_Ar._FT]_ ' :|1|||| 9!MÂ·kb~ |1 319: 4/7 1 11 x'Y;~JyylJY 11 1|Illl 1 0,1/4514 1 4;13.45 .1 14-3.'Ag i TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change 1984 1985 1986 Last Month Last Yea % Change Same Mon 59.27 ac. ft. 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. Jan. 19.315.120 cal. Jan. 29.741,000 gal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. +4.90% - 34.20 % 50.14 ac. ft. 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac. ft. Feb. 16.339.150 cal, Feb. 33.488,000 qal. Feb. po.974.216 gal. +7.20 % -37.40 % 48.75 ac. ft. 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. Mar. 15,888,300 oal Mar. 21,391.000 gal. Mar. 20.907.694 qal. -0.31 % : 2.25 % 53.18 ac. ft. -73.99 ac. ft.. 63.08 ac. ft. Apr. 17,328.460 cal.- Apr. 24,110,504 gal. Apr. 20.556,057 gal. -1.68% -14.74 % 69.73 ac. ft. .98.53 ac. ft. May 22,723,106 qal. May 32,-106,550 gal: May 113.24 ac. ft. 131.24 ac. ft. Jun. 36,899,615 gal. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. 153.88 ac. ft. 154.52 ac. ft. Jul. 50,142,300 gal. Jul. 50,351,784 gal. Jul. 132.85 ac.-ft. .167.68; ac.-ft. Aug. 43,290,000 gal. Aug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug. 95.75 ac. ft. . 95.29 ac. ft. Sep. 31,201,500 gal. Sep. - 31,051,965 gal. Sep. 37.59 ac. ft. . 78.78 ac..ft. Oct. 12,249,009 gal. Oct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 42.77 ac. ft. 67.97 ac..ft. Nov. 13,936,841 gal. Nov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 42.78 ac. ft. 57.25 ac. ft. Dec. 13,940,500 gal. Dec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 899.99 1,184.97 ac. ft. -293,623,901 gal. 386,124,317 gal. . TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT ' Water Billing for May, 1986 (Net) 15,795,198 gal. Water Use for April 14th through May 13th : April 14th to 30th Water Supplied: Black Canyon ( - 1,661,000) ( 17 days ) *Fall River 4,152,900 Glacier Creek 6,356,000 *Big Thompson 4,485,034 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% ( - 749,697) May 1st to 13th Water Supplied: Black-Canyon ( - 738,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River 3,606,200 Glacier Creek 3,246,000 *Big Thampson 4,421,866 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% ( - 563,703) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 22,555,600 Adjustment 1,528,062 TOTAL 21,027,538 Percent Accounted For: 75% ADJUSTMENTS May, 1986 1. Prospect Estates tank drain/clean 125,000 gal. 2. Dispenser . 19,250 gal. 3. Main flushing (5 days) 1,319,012 gal. 4. Bleeders a. Charles Heights - 30 days @ 2,160 gal/day (1.5 gal./min.) + 30 64,800 gal. 1,528,062 gal. TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD MAY 1986 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIS SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (6AL) (AC-FT} 1 (32,000) 247,100 212,000 427,100 1.31 0.66 361,860 1.11 0.56 788,960 2.42 2 (10,000) 242,300 237,000 469,300 1.44 0.73 429,016 1.32 0.66 898,316 2.76 3 (23,000) 234,500 311,000 522,500 1.60 0.81 364,468 1.12 0.56 886,968 2.72 4 0 192,800 391,000 583,800 1.79 0.90 369,032 1.13 0.57 952,832 2.92 5 (66,000) 283,200 341,000 558,200 1.71 0.86 243,522 0.75 0.38 801,722 2.46 6 (108,000) 303,500 323,000 518,500 1.59 0.80. 273,514 0.84 0.42 792,014 2.43 7 (120,000) 414,300 332,000 626,300 1.92 0.97 152,568 0.47 0.24 778,868 2.39 8 (100,000) 300,400 162,000 362,400 1.11 0.56 349,472 1.07 0.54 711,872 2.18 9 (54,000) 296,000 108,000 350,000 1.07 0.54 358,600 1.10 0.55 708,600 2.17 10 (54,000) 255,200 206,000 407,200 1.25 0.63 392,830 1.21 0.61 800,030 2.46 it (54,000) 263,200 188,000 397,200 1.22 0.61 389,570 1.20 0.60 786,770 2.41 12 (49,000) 260,700 101,000 312,700 0.96 0.48 406,198 1.25 0.63 718,898 2.21 13 (68,000) 313,000 334,000 579,000 1.78 0.90 331,216 1.02 0.51 910,216 2.79 14 (68,000) 206,800 321,000 459,800 1.41 0.71 369,358 1.13 0.57 829,158 2.54 15 (135,000) 448,300 330,000 643,300 1.97 1.00 270,580 0.83 0.42 913,880 2.80 16 (135,000) 406,000 331,000 602,000 1.85 0.93 200,000 0.61 0.31 802,000 2.46 17 (135,000) 347,400 333,000 545,400 1.67 0.84 211,417 0.65 0.33 756,817 2.32 18 (135,000) 297,800 322,000 484,800 1.49 0.75 247,434 0.76 0.38 732,234 2.25 19 (95,000) 298,000 359,000 562,000 1.72 0.87 266,342 0.82 0.41 828,342 2.54 20 (92,000) 346,200 349,000 603,200 1.85 0.93 320,784 0.98 0.50 923,984 2.84 21 (53,000) 312,500 347,000 606,500 1.86 0.94 341,648 1.05 0.53 948,148 2.91 22 (27,000) 136,200 379,000 488,200 i.50 0.76 393,156 1.21 0.61 881,356 2.70 23 (60,000) 0 735,000 675,000 2.07 1.04 176,692 0.54 0.27 851,692 2.61 ., 24 (60,000) 0 649,000 589,000 1.81 0.91 489,000 1.50 0.76 1,078,004 3.31 25 (60,000) 0 676,000 616,000 1.89 0.95 517,036 1.59 0.80 6133,036 23.48 26 (60,000) 0 711,000 651,000 2.00 1.01 575,390 1.77 0.89 1,226,390 / 3.76 9 27 (25,000) 0 600,000 575,000 1.76 0.89 317,198 0.97 0.49 892,198 2.74 28 (85,000) 0 623,000 538,000 1.65 0.83 337,868 1.04 0.52 875,868 2.69 29 (138,000) 0 739,000 601,000 1.84 0.93 144,418 0.44 0.22 745,418 2.29 30 (98,000) 0 754,000 656,000 2.01 1.01 206,032 0.63 0.32 862,032 2.65 31 (98,000) 0 776,000 678,000 2.08 1.05 296,008 0.91 0.46 974,008 2.99 TOTAL (2,297,000) 6,405,400 12,580,000 16,688,400 10,102,227 26,790,627 (GAL) , TOTAL -7.05 19.66 38.61 ************ 51.21 31.00 ************ 82.22 (AC-FT) LESS 51 ************ (320,270) (629,000) (834,420) (505,111) (1,454,381) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** (64,800) TOTAL GAL 6,0B5,130 11,951,000 15,853,980 ******** 9,597,116 ***************** 25,271,446 *****â€¢** CFS(AVE) 0.30 0.60 0.48 1.26 TOTAL AC-FT 18.67 36.68 55.35 29.45 77.56 77.56 TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change 1984 1985 1986 Last Month Last Yea % Change Same Mon 59.27 ac. ft. 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. Jan. 19.315.120 cial_. Jan. 29.741.000 qal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. +4.90 % - 34.20 % 50.14 ac. ft. 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac, ft. Feb. 16.339.150 gal, Feb. 33,488,000 qal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. +7.20% -37.40% 48.75 ac. ft. 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. Mar. 15.888.300 Gal Mar. 21,391.000 gal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. -0.31% -2.25% 53.18 ac. ft. .73.99 ac. ft.. 63.08 ac. ft. Apr. 17.328,460 qal._ Apr. 24,110,504 gal . Apr. 20,556,057 gal. -1.68% -14.74% 69.73 ac. ft. .98.53 ac. ft. 77.56 ac.-ft. May 22,723,106 qal. May 32,-106,550 gal. May 25,271,446 gal. +22.94% -21.29% 113.24 ac. ft. 131.24 ac. ft. Jun. 36,899,615 gal. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. 153.88 ac. ft. 154.52 ac. ft. Jul. 50,142,300 gal. Jul. 50,351,784 gal. Jul. 1 v 132.85 ac.*ft. -167.68; ac.<ft. Aug. 43,290,000 gal. Aug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug. 95.75 ac. ft. . 95.29 ac. ft.. Sep. 31,201,500 gal. Sep. 31,051,965 gal. Sep. 37.59 ac. ft. . 78.78 ac..ft. Oct. 12,249,009 gal. Oct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 42.77 ac. ft. 67.97 ac..ft. Mov. 13,936,841 gal. Nov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 42.78 ac. ft. 57.25 ac..ft. Dec. 13,940,500 gal. Dec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: ' TOTAL: 899.99 1,184.97 ac. ft. 293,623,901 gal. 386,124,317 gal. I 4/ WATER COMMITTEE Â£7/ 6/U AGENDA JULY 10, 1986 0 1. Rural Water Applications: a. Jerry and Diana Napier - Reapplication of expired application. 2. Cascade Diversion Dam - Discussion of proceeding with project. Reports: 1. Water Use for June 2. Glacier Creek Discharge Permit 3. Avalon Water Line construction 4. Village Acres Complaints f:. 9 c TOWN OF ESTES PARK ' F:Â·-, i 2 0 1 t tp: ,<,&9 W 11 2 ..'.,Â·-.."; <r :% ~ , g 'J .1 -2. ~7 f 99 'i.:?>/' ..1 , I. H. Bernerd Dannels 18 0,45 1.5- .- .a- Mayor -- 45:24.7 - 4 1 --0, - 0%.404?.*talÂ·.t~436,191.-42% ber.993-47 -- -Â·-~:*>- 9~it Â· - 4 4, *-'~ t?Â·upx, , LA U- ./ -yi':'-L8,;- + 4 - I & -..77 , . , f#t *' ff + GÂ» 4 , i,7 5-1 ---->1*imÂ·*449{B; 9 EAOW.,. ll-tr'/4 i,'t' 0 / 4.'k k '2Â·*A*.0 4i{267**~4-... Â£~.~te .144 ~4'92,Â·403., . f ' i %Â·3'-* 3-EQ,Ii--yÂ·9 12.-DI~~.4.5#*--*ilg> -te.44 .1 ./ â‚¬I- /*.1,5**ifit:mit' $ 0 34 23*4 , Estes Park, Colorado 80517 . I' : ./ \ June 11, 1986 Mr. James Thompson, Superintendent ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Moraine Route Estes Park, Colorado 80517 - Dear Jim: The Town of Estes Park is continuing in its effort to restore to operating service a diversion structure for a permanent water supply to its Fall River Water Treatment Plant. As stated in previous correspondence, North American Hydro is working with the Town on the design of this structure in order to provide the capability to supply water to a modified hydroelectric operation if it is determined feasible in the future. In an effort to determine the exact design and cost of this project we would like to discuss our plans with you in the design of the diversion structure, as it would be rebuilt in the vicini- ty of the old dam. This structure is very low profile, in fact at times would be totally submerged by normal river flow. The exact location of the structure has not been determined but it anoears it would be slightly upstream from the original dam. The penstock which was in place prior to the flood would largely be used; however, certain portions would be rerouted to avoid future erosion problems and allow more cost-effective reconstruction. We believe the overall impact of our Hydroelectric and Water Supply Project in the area of the old lake and dam, although minimal overall, would be very positive. It would include riprap, non-erosion technique, redressing of some scarred slopes in the vicinity of diversion and pipe area, and a productive use of existing hydraulic facilities for Town water supply and possible future electric power production. P. O. Box 1200 Telephone (303) 586-5331 j T ir.\'11 of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Mr. James Thompson, Superintendent ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK SERVICE June 11, 1986 Page two Please notify us when you could arrange a meeting to discuss, in detail, the location of the diversion structure as well as its design. We would like to keep you fully informed of our project intentions and the time-frame in which it may be completed. Please contact me should you have any questions concerning this matter. Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES PARK 46;26-'- H. Bernerd Dannels Mayor l HBD/vo cc: Mr. William Harris/North American Hydro \\\ - I-I- -1---. ---0 . , 2 \ ; -yA..... --*/ ; --1 \ NORTH //SO \\\\ -+Ii' 1 ., t. \ \ F '\- - \\ C 'Il l ' # NEW 30" STEEL i PENSTOCK- - - -- / , /1 /. -- AIR RELEASE VALVE- -- - i I \ 1 /. i / / . 4 Â· 1 C / UPSTREAM RIPRAP '31'V.yj:r - r O APRON On 4 / 8 ~ t~ -70 \ ~ / NEW 18" PVC -,-- T \1 SLUICING PIPE /:. f Â·Â· i i- I- - - I./.4>f / 1 - 1,4. Â· 8 4 1 ar- .i, 2 Â£ /.7 0 . 9 ---09 1 / ; -- -â€žK < th- 0 8460 % IF / f 0 p i 0 ../ Q C \ .-I - ./.-\ - \ --7 ./ .**.+ C \ j -4 \ ON c - --1.. --- ./.**'/-0 ~- ***bt-- -- --- -I/- --2 2 ~L---Ct:-=E-â‚¬L --33=u= 0 -2-f-11--3- 9-/ * N - - -r~=Er~z- n *_> 847 0 li- *% --/ -.i.- I.---- -.-.1- ---- I FIGURE 5 -13- SITE PLAN :-110 1"=on' 1 11 1 1 1. t 4 :. 1 1 1 . 1 1 1 1 5 U i LU W 9 (\>1 Â§2 1 g m~ Ld 25 i. Â«8= - 1 1,1 CCE Mal l UJ Â£ R ..IX .6 .. ,\t g i * I' - - 0 - - CE,1-v .2 4, 1 40 > . B i ry q:j U 0 1 R I. A. 1 Illlili till \ ' r 72 1 Cx V Rk 91 1 A . - 1 I \ Mil J 34 \ CM L. g 1 Wd l.Â·11'te 1 e e.r i.Â·lis , te , w322 0 1 21-12 _L t.n f.1 a. COJ 1 4: - 4 3= E lo to 9 2 1 gamm E U 11 12% 9 EL '4 N 1. - 4 k E=WI W 1 :Â§1 00 5 2 h 4 1 2 * g i yeiil /- M u 0%8 8 as t=tajo- % j fl'. itt' 4 6 ; Â¢ X W 1.- 5'R 3 2 COLULL-A< 0. .-1 -.*O OLD /, I. t t,Â·. 1 1 0/ - j tri , 7 2 = 2- 0 .. F- al, 0 1 , ME N LU + CO 9-ill Z __1 Cd OW 3321 & g r 4 . 1 EU to RI 1 =.0 E .1 0 $ .2: , %3 E , En Id N I I ' 5% ' 122 .2 lf ' -1 Sg C. < a. , 5 c 1 11.1 -1.70 LU In Li_ = -4 ./ 1% 3 6 e #A 6 k -1 ./ 86 z g gm,Et 2 R- ,# hu tw I i IN 1 18 1 r.-4/ 6 q f 4 x E # A-,7- . 6 to 1 W d thiÂ· A Â·d - 1 3 2 ..1 0 7 ItÂ¥.1 1 1 i!6/ I - I Lifi; /4 Fk' < z co MR : 10 M X nA Â·'p\ C.0 A a . 1 = ti 2203. 01;1 14 23 9 FU 14 9 7 ry 2 B <X 05 , 1 \ EW. ILJ 1 5 ..& 1 1 - t.. 4. ' k -44.- G. f#.--Â·Â· P 29 M M H. WN,#V iTJ VM R"M fr4 9= "m- 1,- 1% ~. 2 . EXISTING EASE VALVE SLIDE GATE 453.00 30" STEEL PENSTOCK 8451.00 13'-0" 40'-0" I 10'-0" g 10'-0" ~ SLOPED TRASH RACK 8459.00 8460.001 8468.00 8-8 NOI 1035 , DI=â€ž I :0 L POS -MBUJ#U'.fs; Akl,Â·N, 1 y ~-65#248,.a,4,t ,-Â¥6.~~~~,$=~ah , - â€¢ EadQdAb~. . TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for June, 1986 (Net) 24,197,270 gal. Water Use for May 14th through June 13th : May 14th to 31st Water Supplied: Black Canyon (- 1,559,000) ( 18 days ) *Fall River 2,799,200 Glacier Creek 9,334,000 *Big Thompson - 5,680,361 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% ( - 423,978) June 1st to 13th Water Supplied:= Black Canyon (-1,007,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River (Plant Off) Glacier Creek 8,437,000 *Big Thompson 5,273,412 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% ( - 263,671) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 28,270,324 Adjustment 2,126,870 TOTAL 26,143,454 Percent Accounted For: 93% ... ADJUSTMENTS June, 1986 1. Dispenser 59,070 gal. $134.25 = 537 x 110 2. Street Cleaning/Flushing 65,000 gal. 3. Park Watering 491,900 gal. (109,311 S.F. @ 4.5 gal/S.F.) Est. 4. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights (metered) 397,400 gal. b. Fall River Plant (22 days @ 50,000 gal/day) 1,100,000 gal. 5. Flushing a. E.P. San. (6/9) 3,500 gal. b. 2" off Wonderview (6/9) 4,000 gal. c. N. Lane (6/16) 6,000 gal. TOTAL 2,126,870 gal. \ TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD JUNE 1986 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BI6 SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS} THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (6AL) (AC-FT) 1 (98,000) 0 814,000 716,000 2.20 0.00 316,400 0.97 0.49 1,032,400 3.17 2 (85,000) 0 618,000 533,000 1.64 0,00 365,772 1.12 0.57 898,772 2.76 3 (63,000) 0 762,000 699,000 2.15 0.00 4841436 1.49 0.75 1,183,436 3.63 4 (96,000) 0 469,000 373,000 1.14 0.00 425,756 1.31 0.66 798,756 2.45 5 (90,000) 0 600,000 510,000 1.57 0.00 384,680 1.18 0.60 894,680 2.75 6 (61,000) 0 583,000 522,000 1.60 0.00 397,200 1.22 0.61 919,200 2.82 7 (61,000) 0 688,000 627,000 1.92 0.00 398,372 1.22 0.62 1,025,372 3.15 8 (61,000) 0 660,000 599,000 1.84 0.00 540,508 1.66 0.84 1,139,508 3.50 9 (101,000) 0 588,000 487,000 1.49 0.00 370,988 1.14 0.57 857,988 2.63 10 (112,000) 0 613,000 501,000 1.54 0.00 321,762 0.99 0.50 822,762 2.52 11 (93,000) 0 636,000 543,000 1.67 0.00 420,540 1.29 0.65 963,540 2.96 12 (55,000) 0 761,000 706,000 2.17 0.00 400,328 1.23 0.62 1,106,328 3.40 13 (31,000) 0 645,000 614,000 1.88 0.00 446,670 1.37 0.69 1,060,670 3.26 14 (31,000) 0 681,000 650,000 1.99 0.00 548,658 1.68 0.85 1,198,658 3.68 15 (31,000) 0 687,000 656,000 2.01 0.00 594,298 1.82 0.92 1,250,298 3.84 16 (16,000) 0 687,000 671,000 2.06 0.00 564,958 1.73 0.87 1,235,958 3.79 17 (47,000) 0 940,000 893,000 2.74 0.00 448,578 1.38 0.69 1,341,578 4.12 18 (76,000) 0 1,041,000 965,000 2.96 0.00 370,336 1.14 0.57 1,335,336 4.10 19 (94,000) 0 1,015,000 921,000 2.83 0.00 389,896 1.20 0.60 1,310,896 4.02 20 (55,000) 0 1,049,000 994,000 3.05 0.00 443,360 1.36 0.69 1,437,360 4.41 21 (55,000) 0 1,243,000 1,188,000 3.65 0.00 516,710 1.59 0.80 1,704,710 5.23 22 (55,000) 0 847,000 792,000 2.43 0.00 441,078 1.35 0.68 1,233,078 3.78 23 (44,000) 0 1,165,000 1,121,000 3.44 0.00 505,300 1.55 0.78 1,626,300 4.99 24 (69,000) 0 1,027,000 958,000 2.94 0.00 437,166 1.34 0.68 1,395,166 4.28 25 (100,000) 0 988,000 888,000 2.73 0.00 286,228 0.88 0.44 1,174,228 3.60 26 (100,000) 0 1,066,000 966,000 2.96 0.00 286,228 0.88 0.44 1,252,228 3.84 27 (75,000) 0 915,000 840,000 2.58 0.00 419,236 1.29 0.65 1,259,236 3.86 28 (75,000) 0 1,018,000 943,000 2.89 0.00 419,236 1.29 0.65 1,362,236 4.18 29 (75,000) 0 1,052,000 977,000 3.00 0.00 545,072 1.67 0.84 1,522,072 4.67 30 (115,000) 0 967,000 852,000 2.61 0.00 286,554 0.88 0.44 1,138,554 3.49 31 0 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 TOTAL (2,120,000) 0 24,825,000 22,705,000 12,776,304 35,481,304 (GAL) TOTAL -6.51 0.00 76.19 ************ 69.68 39.21 ************ 108.89 (AC-FT) LESS 51 ************ 0 0 0 Â· (638,815) (638,815) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** (1,497,400) TOTAL GAL 0 24,825,000 22,705,000 ******** 12,137,489 ***************** 33,345,089 ******** CFS(AVE) 0.00 1.28 0.63 1.66 TOTAL AC-FT 0.00 76.19 76.19 37.25 102.33 102.33 .. . TOWN OF ESTES PARK Ir WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Mont] 1984 1985 1986 Last Month Last Year 59.27 ac. ft. 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. Jan. 19.315.120 gal, Jan. 29,741,000 qal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. +4.90.% - 34.20 % 50.14 ac. ft. 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac, ft. Feb. 16.339.150 gal, Feb. 33,488.000 qal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. +7.20% -37.40% 48.75 ac. ft. 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. Mar. 15,888,300 gal Mar. 21,391.000 gal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. -0.31% -2.25% 53.18 ac. ft. 73.99 a c.. ft. - 63.08 ac. ft. Apr. 17,328,460 qal.. Apr. 24,110,504 gal. Apr. 20,556,057 gal.. -1.68% -14.74% 69.73 ac. ft. .98.53 ac.. ft. 75.56 ac. ft. May 22,723,106 gal. May 32,-106,550 gal . May 75,271,446 gal. +22.94% -21.29% 113.24 ac. ft. 131.24 ac. ft. 102.33 ac. ft. Jun. 36,899,615 gal. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. .33,345,089 gal. +31.95% -22.03% 153.88 ac. ft. 154.52 ac. ft. Jul. 50,142,300 gal. Jul. 50,351,784 gal. Jul. 132.85 ac.'ft. .167.68: ac.-ft. Aug. 43,290,000 gal. Aug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug. 95.75 ac. ft. . 95.29 ac. ft. Sep. 31,201,500 gal. Sep. 31,051,965 gal. Sep. 37.59 ac. ft. 78.78 ac..ft. Oct. 12,249,009 gal. Oct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 42.77 ac. ft. 67.97 ac..ft. Nov. 13,936,841 gal. Nov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 42.78 ac. ft. 57.25 ac..ft. Dec. 13,940,500 gal. Dec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 899.99 1,184.97 ac. ft. 293,623,901 gal. 386,124,317 gal. â€¢ N ... 1 9, ~ . 1 -- . .- it -'- Â· 2-- - I I -40 .... . h 125,000 GALLON 5.000 GALLON : TANK HWL 8161 TANK HWL 85001. ..-.- - - -- - - -- - --. -- 4 L 0 - 9 0 . i. V . , 1 - f N 500 GALLON TANK , .. 1 D PUMP STATION 4+. ... - 1- 8190 Â£ t ./ \ 1 . . .. . 9 4- 4- ~ I . - -I - . PUMP STATION ,--1 k -t V ..*7.- ri)â€¢oposco 8. -Z--1 7 .. 6 02 j . rrN. WATER CO. - ER PLANT 4 . 11.- fl- .r' 3TATION 4. 1 ./ I 4- , 90 '' . . .0-4 4 1 I -7 -.Am- fâ‚¬7. f - - 16--3 '-,fi-2.1-4 -.iÂ· 2>< ;_ \ -6 -- - - 7 4 7- Ar-L . ,--LII=1-1.1/f f . A. , r: . . i . ... n 'A - to / - 0 - . - 4.3.-f- C Z- -- i . . h... I:. --/1 . 4'PRV T - A , - 1 1 .ne .Â·P' I / 1 , . N -'ll . . q I . ' . 7., \...../ . C f u _ 3.-61-0 -7\ - I. 9â€¢. / Â·"-/ 1.-- ''Â·'' 1--CRYSTAL WATER COMPANY d --1 7 V. ... . - I .- ..1 1 ..1- 500 000 GALLON Â·Â· rt: ti~<i<--i-1 - - / 1 TANk HWL 8055* . * 1 t PRV ~ \ 9 6 " . 1 .- 4,/- .,-1--/5 .1 I CRYSTAL WATER CO. \ ' 4 :. I 125,000 GALLON - * TANK HWL 8160Â£ - . , . I ... ._.. -. -~ A... ...~~ 1 >r---4, b / / A Â¢7 1 +1!:.1 - ~ -I IN' / /A' i ./ / MY' 6 . 1 ~ P~~~ tv . :l h. - rÂ»LÂ©74/ f l' 1/19 4-- - .. /fof 1-,2 3.1 - 3-X i Â« f k /*t ---2 4344 / ;650 7 j 11)4 l i i U.-- 1,~Cl___j + 4.' j I 1 i I , 1 1 1 3 , -9 6 '*47 1, 1 / .. , I . , ,Â· 0 . . I /12 , / 4 1 I ; '1 'Â·I # k . h \ / I . , / r 1 , ; /1 1 - 11/6 / f ~ ~ 1 i -Il, t.-- -of~ * AT N / -FI.99\1 \/ /: , . 1 / P.. Lk 1 1 1 4, 1 \ t . , /. / \ \ \ 1 7 1 ~~~3 ~ \ TWIN ~/ r.fr,/ -~ 1.,f 1 6 / -- ,) ,... >-(41 J i .j:-11 1 1 , R 1 --* 1 j tog 1 \ \ A 41 11 i / j AS-. $ 17, / Ni \ 1 :29 / 1' C , ~11]NEE . / A. - ---2 i . --L. /. -219 TREN Al; - /4.5 j 1 1.-- 10 - . 0/1 1 : t. , C - -- /' ~ 41/ 1 , 0 / -Ap ,) Â·~ , ---- >4 .3 --1 i --+7-Â¥.21!~--J - 6 / ! IN i I 1Â«\( C 21 ((2 - 1 ,/ \ f /)(~10-ltz,---t ;:. l'. f ; 1 , , 'i Ilto 1210 / // I. .7 i i--- 2-- i A . 1 I , C J:.,3/ AL;/1 , f./. ./4</SuaD/Uff;W / ,/1 //h v // 4 iric / '522-4 1 - ./ 3/ b '' M i 1 ~rl .-0 Aj , . ---'-'. -A'' I , ' r ' vity--7 ' . r I ~~C,433/05,~ /4 <~--BAL/- / '>..'/' ' , '/ Al 4 . V . . I. (/\J -. ,- 1-- t .. . . .4. i / -l . . / 7 7 .- y tfT , \0 j i 4 ht\~1,Â»\~ Â· Â· ...tr/2-h7Â». ~------- 41.$' --/ - . . .-- ------ 1.-- - 1 C \ 4\ .4, t.. I .4.- 00# 2. - 1 \ \ 26~1 '\\\ :r<Â·Â·,<i-- - I \ --. --21. : ---1 1 \ \ \\ \ c r.\>\ . 3 14 7 MOU~VT):i'Nk \j CÂ«~c.~\TECRN-0-Â£*O-0- - - 4 i ~ . I .{ vÂ»Â»> , ---2---*-:Â·Â·.*94,- :129 \ !1.5-- .\ - , j: \, T Cul Utic.1 9 - c. - F 4'4 4. ~1 4 1, k - ,i . .. 0 t; 1 3 I'll.Il.I .-Il.*.I..# .Â»--4 1 , 1~==n 1 1 -----.---*.-- 8- 1 1 -:it . . - - - I - , , . , / .--li r-~ Â· -- . , ./Ill I _ 1140 / 11 0 1 6, 1 1 111 1 ) 11 1 , 0 1 1/ - i .1 .~ 1 il I. y . / 1 \ 1.20 0. 1 , \ ' 11 1 /1/1,1 1 , :725 1 A- , 1 , '-- , ., j / 1/5 - r /. ., i L 1\ 33/ */ w ; 1, :' 1 1 -- . . $ 9 i VIEW 4 / r .'0 Â· Tr7 , /r 01 / 7 -r ./CPO.RT /, ,,>4<~~ .9 6 ,/ I , t : \ I & \/ . ,<Ci /i , , /Â¢729. 1 / ; Isfo 1 , ) / , i -111 , $ 934*/r 4- I WATER COMMITTEE , AGENDA AUGUST 11, 1986 1. Range View Water Association - Request to have Town read meters and bill individual houses. 2. Cascade Diversion Dam - Review of design contract. Reports: 1. Water Use for June t . R,V, WATER & ROADS, INC, Â· e . RANGE VIEW ESTATES P. O. Box 3291 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 i rilm@IRRWIC k JUL 2 81986 6 I July 28, 1986 ZOWN OF ESTES PARK * itÂ· PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. ,BY. Mayor Bernie Dannels Town of Estes Park 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Subject: Range View Subdivision Reading Water Meters and , Billing by Town Dear Mayor Dannels: - In 1982, R. V. -Water & Roads, Inc. (the homeownerâ‚¬_ asspciation---- for Range View subdivision) _entered- into -an- arreemeITE with the town _to_have-pubtic-ulfility water provided to the "blue line" in - - the subdivision. After the mains were constructed, we conveyed, and the town accepted, the system to this point. Just recently,' we completed the water distribution system for the subdivision. This was done in accordance with town code; the construction observed by town personnel; and it has been certi- fied to the water board that this system conforms with town code. However, this distribution system is above your Â·present "blue , line", but will all be under the new elevation when your treat- ment plant at Mary's Lake is built in the future. At that time, it is our intention to transfer the distribution system to the town, as we did the portion constructed in 1982. Presently, there are ten homes in our subdivision served by your light and power department. All homes are equipped with water meters and electric read-outs, which were purchased from the town. We would like to request, at the August 14 meeting of the water board, the board approve our request that the town take over the task of reading the meters and billing our homeowners for water used. By doing this, the water department revenues would be increased over our - present arrangements with you, and we would not have to do these tasks ourselves. Our request does not ask you to take over maintenance of the lines, at this time, since they are above your present "blue line". . Mayor Bernie Dannels July 28, 1986 Ideally, your first reading of the meters would occur when the - electric meters are read in September, 1986, and the first indi- vidual billings being made with with the October readings. At that time, our bulk water billings would cease and be replaced by the individual billings to homeowners. This will give us a month, so electric and water meter readouts can be arranged as you may re- quire. Sincerely yours R.V. WATER & ROADS, INC. 16Â·9 ~41 /lutvÂ« + Secretary Treasurer - - ---0.-Ill-* I~$---..- WRB:jt jt -2- 7. The Town shall charge water rates to R.V. for the water provided through the water main as follows: (a). A master meter shall be installed by the Town at the junction of the water main with R.V.'s pumping station. The Town shall be responsible for the installation of said master water meter. R.V. will reimburse the Town for the cost of said water meter and the installation thereof. (b). The Town shall charge a water fee for the amount of water delivered through the meter as follows: (1). The number of users served times the minimum will be the total calculated minimum per month; (2). The number of users served times 2,500 gallons per month will be the gallons furnished under the minimum. (c)--All additional-water-used-to-be -charged--at- the - rural water rate. (d) . Both the minimum and the additional rural water rate shall fluctuate according to the minimum and rural water rate as from time to time may be established by the ordinances of the Town - 1 1 1 I I PROPOSAL FOR SERVICES I 1 CASCADE DIVERSION STRUCTURE 1 1 Submitted to Town of Estes Park Public Works Department - -Ill- '..Ii ---- - - - - - - .1 .- -. Submitted by Warzyn Engineering Inc. 1770 25th Avenues Suite 300 Greeley, CO 80631 WARZYN \; Warzyn Engineering Inc. 1770 25th Avenue, Suite 300 Greeley, Colorado 80631 303/356-5465 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT -1 1 PROJECT NO. TOWN OF ESTES PARK DATE August 6. 1.986 -I-- 3 PROPOSAL TITLE: Design of Cascade Diversion Structure - PROPOSAL DATE: August 8, 1986 - SPECIAL TERMS: Terms are per the attached proposal. General Conditions Paragraph IX is deleted. ACCEPLANCE The terms and conditions outlined on the back of this page and the scope of services defined in the above proposal are accepted and WARZYN ENGINEERING INC., is hereby authorized to proceed wjth the work: Accepted by: Date: Submitted by: Date:.Atiollot 8, 1986 WARZYN ENGINEERIN~ INC. 1 Title TINE Rranrh Manager Please return one copy for our records. J , WARZYN ENGINEERING INC. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Servicer w:11 be involced as indicated on the reverse slde and In the refer- Property Damage - 5 500.000 each occurrence enced proposal ,ind its attached fee Schedule and other attachments ALL S 500.000 aggregate TIME. Inchid,rig travel hotirS. Spent on the prOJect or proposal preparation PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY - S 1,000.000 aggregate by professional. techrlic,11 and clerical perfonnel will be invoked Unless St,000.000 limit per claim ,1 otherwise stated. any cos[ estimate presented in our proposal ts for , budgeting purposes Only and Is not a fixed lump-sum bid Only those costs AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY incurred {ocomplete a project regardless if theyare less or greater than the Bodily Injury - 5 1.000.000 each person cost estimates wm be invoked unless prior written notification is received St,000,000 each occurrence to frop work If it 15 apparent that the budgetary estimate g riot sufficient Property Damage - $ 1.000.000 to complete the project tri a satisfactory manner, the client will be advised . ~ as soon as practical. Wartyn Engineering Inc. 1Warzyn) reserves the right Insurance certificates will be furnished on reque5t. Within the limits of said to escalate the rates on time and material contracts to account for increases insurance, we agree to Save the client harmless from and against loss, in its direct or indirect costs, if work extends beyond the current calendar damage, injury, or liability arising directly from the negligent acts or omis year. sions of ourselves, our employees, agents, subcontractors, and their employees and agents. If the client's contract or purchase order places 11. SCOPE OF WORK AND TIME LIMIT greater responsibility upon Warzyn, or requires further insurance coverage. Tile proposal Irldicated on the REVERSE SIDE Is valid for a period of 60 days we, if specifically directed by the client. will take out additional Insurance M procurable) to protect us, at the client's expense: but we shall not be from the proposal date The scope of work is as identifted in the proposal. If acceptance and authorization to proceed with the work ts not received respons,ble for property damage from any cause, including fire and explo .9 within 60 days. Warzyn reserves the right to renegotlate the estimated costs. sion, beyond the amount and coverage of our insurance. In addition. we ~1 require that Warzyn be named as an additional insured In any hold-harmless schedule for completion. personnel commitments. and overall scope of work. agreements against third party suits between the client or owner and any Warzyn reserves the right to renegotiate the proposal should the client choose to alter the scope of work from that presently indicated in the contractor who may perform work in connection with any study or report proposal prepared by Warzyn 111. RIGHT OF ENTRY VI11. WARRANTY UnlesS otherwise agreed. the client will furnish right-of-access on the land Our professional services will be performed, our findings obtained, and our 1 for Warzyn to perform the required surveys. explorations or other necessary recommendations prepared in accordance with generally and currently investigations Warzyn will take reasonable precautions to minimize damage accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty,s In I,eu of all ~ other warranties either expressed or Implied. to the land from use of equipment. but has not included in the fee the cost for restoration of damage which may result from our operations. If the client desires Warzyn to restore the land to its former condition, this will be accom- IX. LIMITATION OF PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY phshed and the cost will be added to the fee The client agrees to limit any and all liability or claim for damages, cost of defense, or expenses to be levied against Warzyn, to a sum not to exceed IV. UTILITIES -- - - $50,000, or the amount of our fee. whichever is greater. on account of any In the performance of our work. Warzyn will take all reasonable precau- design defect. error, omission. or professional negligence Further, the client tions to avoid damage or Injury to subterranean structures or utilities. The agrees to notify any contractor or subcontractor who may perform work client agrees to hold Warzyn harmless for any damages to subterranean in connection with any design, report, or study prepared by Warzyn of such structures which are not called to our attention and correctly shown on limitation of liability for design defects, errors. omissions. or professional the plans furnished. negligence, and requires as a condition precedent to their performing the work a like limitation of liability of their part as against Warzyn. In the event V. INVOICES AND PAYMENTS that the client fails to obtain a like limitation of liability provision as to design defects. errors. omissions. or professional negligence, any liability of the client Invoices will be submitted once a month and payment is due upon receipt and Warzyn, to such contractor or subcontractor arising out of a des,gn of the invoice. A one (1) percent per month service charge will be added defect, error, omission, or professional negligence, shall be allocated to all accounts more than thirty (30) days past due. in the event that Warzyn between the client and Warzyn in such a manner that the aggregate liability shall be successful in any suit for damages for breach of this agreement, of Warzyn for such a design defect to all parties, including the client, shall including nonpayment of invoices. or to enforce this agreement or to enjoin not exceed $50,000 or the amount of our fee, whichever is greater the other party from violating this agreement, Warzyn shall be entitled to recover as part of its damages it< reasonable legal costs and expenses for X. SAFETY bringing and maintaining any such action Any construction review of the contractor's performance conducted by VI. SAMPLES Warzyn js not intended to include review of the adequacy of the contractor s safety measures in. on. or near the construction site. The contractor will be All samples of soil and rock, which remain after testing, will be destroyed solely and completely responsible for working conditions of the Job site. 60 days after submission of our report unless otherwise directed by the client. Including safety of all persons and property during performance of the work. Upon request, we will deliver samples to the client. shipping charges col- This requirement will apply continuously and not be limited to normal work- lect on delivery, or we will store them for an agreed charge. ing hours. VII. INSURANCE XI. PROPRIETARY INFORMATION ~ Warzyn ts protected under the following Insurance In the amounts Indicated: The ideas or other information contained in the proposal may be proprietary WORKERS' COMPENSATION and shall not be disclosed to any parties outside of the clienth 5taff or be 1 AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY S 100,000 each accident duplicated. used. or disclosed in whole or part for any purpose other than GENERAL LIABILITY to evaluate the proposal. Should the proposal be accepted, the client shall Bodily Injury - St.000,000 each occurrence have the right to duplicate, use. or disclose the information to the extent $ 1.000,000 aggregate provided through a written agreement with Warzyn. WARZYN 1 1 Engineers & Scientists ~ Environmental Services Waste Management ~ Water Resources Site Development Special Structures Geotechnical Analysis 1 1 I August 8, 1986 1 Town of Estes Park ~ Public Works Department P. 0. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Attn: Richard D. Widmer, PE-LS Re: Proposal for Services Cascade Diversion Structure Warzyn Engineering is pleased to submit this proposal for the design of the Cascade Diversion Structure. We are submitting this proposal in accordance with your Request for Proposal dated July 23, 1986. Our understanding of the scope of work is based on this request, our meetings and the joint meeting we had with the National Park Service. In addition, we are very familiar with the project, since we have done the previous studies on the replacement of Cascade Dam. We intend to use two subconsultants to assist in this work. Van Horn Engineering and Surveying of Estes Park will conduct the survey and prepare necessary legal easement descriptions. Western Resource Development of Boulder will assist with the vegetation and wildlife evaluations required as part of the Environmental Assessment. SCOPE OF WORK -, 1. Environmental Assessment. Warzyn Engineering will prepare the Environmental Assessment required by the National Park Service. We have met with their staff and understand their requirements. Fifty (50) copies of the completed document will be provided. We will monitor the approval process to assist in the timely approval of this document. Because it is not known at this time if a public hearing will be required, time and expenses for preparation and attendance at any required public hearing are specifically excluded from the basic compensation detailed later in this proposal. These costs would be invoiced at our standard rates provided within this proposal. -h 2. Permits. Warzyn Engineering will prepare the necessary paperwork required for a Corps of Engineers' 404 permit and submit this paperwork. We will monitor progress of the approval process. Again, it is not known if a public hearing will be required and costs Warzyn Engineering Inc. associated with any required hearings are specifically excluded. 1770 25th Avenue Suite 300 Greeley, Colorado 80631 1303) 356-5465 - 3. Surveying. We will subcontract the survey requirements to Van ~ Horn Engineering and Surveying. Van horn will extend the U.S.G.S. . elevation available in the area to the powerhouse and the diversion 1 structure. They will survey pertinent features and elevations of the . diversion area and the upper portion of missing penstock. They will 1 determine property ties in this area so that easement descriptions can I be prepared for the new sections of penstock. They will prepare these 1 legal descriptions. They will also survey pertinent features and . elevations of the lower portion of the missing penstock, the water 1 treatment plant and the powerhouse. They will provide mylar contour 1 drawings of all survey work. Specifically excluded from this survey 1 work is a profile of the existing penstock from the diversion point to ~ the powerhouse. The Town of Estes Park shall be responsible for rights of entry to those private lands which must be surveyed. 4. Soil Borings. Three boring will be taken at the location of the diversion structure. Of theses two will be in the location of the abutments and will be to a depth of 20 feet. Midway between theses a third, 15-foot boring will be done. Soils logs and a soils report will be provided. Specifically excluded are any borings in the location of the proposed relocated penstock. If these are required, the work will be done by the Town of Estes Park, using their equipment and personnel under the direction of a Warzyn geotechnical engineer. 5. Conceptual Design. Warzyn and the Town have agreed that the structure shall be similiar in concept to that prepared by Warzyn in August, 1984. However, many design details need to be clarified. Warzyn will meet with Colorado State University researchers who are monitoring sediment movement in Fall River to determine sediment loading conditions. We will also do the necessary hydraulic analysis to properly size the diversion structure, the penstock and related appurtant valves, etc. We will meet with the National Park Service _* and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to negotiate any low-flow requirements which may be imposed at the diversion site. We will submit our resulting conceptual design to the Town for approval of the structure prior to final design and the preparation of design drawings. 6. Design. Warzyn will perform all design necessary for the diversion structure, the replacement penstock and piping to the water treatment plant. We will also design the necessary gates and controls to provide remote control operation of the structure from the water treatment plant. Also included will be the design for any fill required at the lower site, any temporary access roads, stabilization of the embankment at the upper site where the existing penstock has been eroded, removal of the existing dam debris and channel erosion protection. 7. Design Drawings and Specifications. Warzyn will prepare the bid documents and technical specifications in a ready-to-bid form. Design drawings will be prepared on 24-inch by 36-inch mylars to Warzyn's standard drawing specifications. We will also provide an estimate of WARZYN 0- 6 construction items. All these items will be submitted to the Town for review. Following review, one set of reproducible drawings and one set of reproducible construction specifications will be submitted to 1 the Town. Warzyn will also provide 25 sets of prints and 25 sets of bid documents/specifications. Specifically excluded is any ~ attendance at prebid meetings or assistance in bid evaluation/award. 8. Construction Administration. No construction administration is ~ anticipated. Any consultation required during construction will be billed at Warzyn's standard hourly rates. SCHEDULE n The following schedule assumes award of a contract on August 12, 1986. TASK COMPLETION DATE Surveying/existing site drawings August 29, 1986 Soil borings August 29, 1986 Environmental Assessment Report August 29, 1986 Submit 404 Permit August 29, 1986 Conceptual Design August 27, 1986 Estes Park review of concept September 4, 1986 Design September 12, 1986 Drawings/Contract documents September 26, 1986 Estes Park review October 4, 1986 Advertise for bids October 13, 1986 Receive Permits November 1, 1986 Award contract November 10, 1986 COMPENSATION Fees and expenses for this project will be invoiced monthly at the rates shown in Warzyn's "1986 Standard Fee Schedule" (Attachment A) for hours and expenses actually incured. However, these fees and expenses will not be invoiced in excess of the "not-to-exceed" amounts shown in the following table. TASK AMOUNT Environmental assessment/Permits $7,800 Soil Borings 2,750 Survey/easement descriptions 3,000 Conceptual Design 2,600 Design/construction documents 18,800 Expenses Automobile 250 Meals 50 Environ. Assess. Report reproduction 150 Drawing reproduction 350 Contract document reproduction 250 WARZYN TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED COST $36,000 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION For your information, I have included a description of Warzyn Engineering, a brochure on Western Resource Development, selected resumes and appropriate project descriptions. Since Van Horn Engineering and Surveying is well known to those in Estes Park, I have not included material on this firm. John Spooner, P.E. will serve as project manager. The environmental assessment report will be done by Stephanie Vrabec of Warzyn and Dave Johnson of Western Resource Development. Geotechnical design will be by Michael Schultz, hydraulic design by John Spooner and Rob Montgomery, structural design by Ken Nichols and Glen Bengsten. In- house review will be provided by either Larry Andersen or Douglas Spaulding. I have appreciated the opportunity to provide this proposal to you. Sincerely, WARZYN ENGINEERING INC. f 4,1,0. 406Â« John A. Spooner, P.E., Ph.D. Project Manager JAS/js Enclosures as stated VUARZYN = ATTACHMENT A 1 1986 STANDARD FEE SCHEDULE ~ WARfYN ENGINEERING INC. 1 1 1 PROFESSIONAL AND TECHNICAL STAFF Staff Category Rate/Hour 1 Technical Director/Project Director.....................$ 85.00 1 Technical Manager/Project Manager....................... 70.00 1 Senior Professional..................................... 58.00 1 Professional 48.00 Staff Professional 42.00 Professional Assi stant/Fi el d Specialist..........:...... 36.00 Senior Technician................... .................. .. 30.00 Technician............................. ................. 24.00 Support................................................. 18.00 Personnel have been classified in the above staff categories based on skill, education and experience levels. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Mileage.................................................$ 0.25/Mile Travel and Subsistence....................... ........... Cost Telephone.....................................Based on Geographic Location Copies (8 1/2 x 11).....................................S 0.15/Copy Reproduction and Printing............................... Cost + 10% Materials............................................... Cost + 10% Special Equipment.. Upon Request Equipment Rental Cost + 10% Subcontracted Services. .. Cost + 5% Personal Computers/Text Processors......................$ 10.00/hour OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS Â· The time of corporate managers devoted to projects will be billed at assigned rates to be quoted upon request. Â· A surcharge of 50 percent will be added for expert witness testimony and/or for participation at hearings, depositions, etc. Â· Non-exempt employee overtime will be invoiced at 1.4 times the standard hourly rates, noted above, when such overtime is authorized by the client. Â· Holidays will be observed in accordance with Warzyn policy and include New Year's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Â· Progress invoices will be issued at least monthly and shall be due and payable upon receipt. Balances past due more than thirty (30) days shall be subject to a monthly finance charge of 1.0 percent (which is an annual rate of 12 percent per year) until paid. January 1, 1986 A [pjs-14-43] WARZYN 4-Il . TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for July 1986 (Net) 34,760,284 gal. Water Use for June 14th through July 13th : June 14th to 30th Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,113,000) - ( 17 days ) *Fall River (Plant Off) Gl acier Creek 16,388,000 *Big Thompson 7,502,892 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% ( - 375,145) July 1st to 13th Water Supplied: Black Canyon ( - 843,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River - (Plant Off) Glacier Creek 13,478,000 *Big Thompson- 5,652,148 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% ( - 282,607) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 40,407,288 Adjustment 2,731,700 TOTAL 37,675,588 Percent Accounted For: 92% ADJUSTMENTS July, 1986 1. Dispenser 82.00 = 328 x 110 146.75 = 587 x 60 _ 71,300 gal. 2. Street Cleaning/Flushing 43,700 gal. 3. Park Watering (Estimated) Â· 491,900 gal. 4. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights (metered) 513,000 gal. b. Fall River Plant (30 days @ 50,000 gal/day 1,500,000 gal. c. Old Man Mountain Lane 11,000 gal. d. Charles Heights (30 days @ 2,160 gal/day 64,800 gal. Total Bleeders 2,088,800 gal. 5. Flushing a. Dunraven Lowering . (6/2) 16,000 gal. b. Thunder Mountain Pressure Test (6/17) 14,000 gal. c. Flush North Lane (6/23) 1,000 gal. d. Estes Park Sanitation (6/24) 3,000 gal. e. 3rd Street & U.S. 36 (7/11) 2,000 gal. Total Flushing 36,000 gal. Total Adjustments 2,731,700 gal. . TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Changf - % Change Same Mor 1984 1985 1986 Last Month Last Yee 59.27 ac. ft. 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. Jan. 19.315.120 gal: Jan. 29,741,000 qal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. +4.90. % - 34.20 % 50.14 ac. ft. 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac, ft. Feb. 16.339.150 gal. Feb. 33,488,000 qal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. +7.20% -37.40% 48.75 ac. ft. 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. Mar. 15,888,300 qal Mar. 21,391.000 gal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. -0.31% -2.25% 53.18 ac. ft. Â· Â· -73.99 ac.. ft. . 63.08 ac. ft. Apr. 17,328,460 qal.- Apr. 24,110,504 gal. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. -1.68% -14.74% 69.73 ac. ft. .98.53 ac.- f t. 75.56 ac.-ft. May 22,723,106 gal. May 32/106,550 gal. May 75,271,446 gal. +22.94% -71.29% 113.24 ac. ft. 131.24 ac. ft. . 102.33 fac. ft. Jun. 36,899,615 gal. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. 133,345,089 gal- +31.95% -22.03% 153.88 ac. ft. 154.52 ac. .ft. 125.09 ac. ft. Jul. 50,142,300 gal. Jul. 50,351,784 gal. Jul. - 40,760,736 qal. - . +22.24% -19.05% 132.85 ac.*ft. .167.68.ac/ft. Aug. 43,290,000 gal. Aug. 54,637,657 gal. .Aug. 95.75 ac. ft. . 95.29 ac. ft.. Sep. 31,201,500 gal. Sep.---31,051,965 gal. Sep. 37.59 ac. ft. . 78.78 ac..ft. Oct. 12,249,009 gal. Oct.- 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 42.77 ac. ft. 67.97 ac..ft. Nov. 13,936,841 gal. Nov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 42.78 ac. ft. 57.25 ac. ft. Dec. 13,940,500 gal. Dec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 899.99 1,184.97 ac. ft. 293,623,901 gal. 386,124,317 gal. TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD JULY 1986 DATE BLACK FALL 6LACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT} (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (GAL) (AC-FT) 1 (96,000) 0 1,031,000 935,000 2.87 0.00 411,412 1.26 0.64 1,346,412 4.13 2 (50,000) 0 1,048,000 998,000 3.06 0.00 486,066 1.49 0.75 1,484,066 4.55 3 (57,000) 0 1,252,000 1,195,000 3.67 0.00 534,640 1.64 0.83 1,729,640 5.31 4 (57,000) 0 836,000 779,000 2.39 0.00 459,008 1.41 0.71 1,238,008 3.80 5 (57,000) 0 1,028,000 971,000 2.98 0.00 456,400 1.40 0.71 1,427,400 4.38 6 (57,000) 0 1,077,000 1,020,000 3.13 0.00 238,632 0.73 0.37 1,258,632 3.86 7 (92,000) 0 1,026,000 934,000 2.87 0.00 382,398 1.17 0.59 1,316,398 4.04 8 (76,000) 0 1,019,000 943,000 2.89 0.00 410,434 1.26 0.64 1,353,434 4.15 9 (86,000) 0 1,035,000 949,000 2.91 0.00 427,712 1.31 0.66 1,376,712 4.22 10 (86,000) 0 1,015,000 929,000 2.85 0.00 307,704 0.94 0.48 1,236,704 3.80 11 (43,000) 0 1,012,000 969,000 2.97 0.00 447,924 1.37 0.69 1,416,924 4.35 12 (43,000) 0 1,150,000 1,107,000 3.40 0.00 583,540 1.79 0.90 1,690,540 5.19 13 (43,000) 0 949,000 906,000 2.78 0.00 506,278 1.55 0.78 1,412,278 4.33 14 (30,000) 0 1,189,000 1,159,000 3.56 0.00 503,344 1.54 0.78 1,662,344 5.10 15 (66,000) 0 1,020,000 954,000 2.93 0.00 549,310 1.69 0.85 1,503,310 4.61 16 (98,000) 0 1,105,000 1,007,000 3.09 0.00 338,714 1.04 0.52 1,345,714 4.13 17 (130,000) 0 1,119,000 989,000 3.04 0.00 378,160 1.16 0.59 1,367,160 4.20 18 (136,000) 0 1,121,000 985,000 3.02 0.00 126,162 0.39 0.20 1,111,162 3.41 19 (136,000) 0 1,056,000 920,000 2.82 0.00 182,560 0.56 0.28 1,102,560 3.38 20 (136,000) 0 1,152,000 1,016,000 3.12 0.00 192,014 0.59 0.30 1,208,014 3.71 21 (137,000) 0 923,000 786,000 2.41 0.00 274,492 0.84 0.42 1,060,492 3.25 22 (112,000) 0 855,000 743,000 2.28 0.00 398,046 1.22 0.62 1,141,046 3.50 23 (79,000) 0 900,000 821,000 2.52 0.00 466,180 1.43 0.72 1,287,180 3.95 24 (79,000) 0 883,000 804,000 2.47 0.00 422,496 1.30 0.65 1,226,496 3.76 25 (79,000) 0 843,000 764,000 2.34 0.00 442,708 1.36 0.68 1,206,708 3.70 26 (79,000) 0 935,000 856,000 2.63 0.00 552,570 1.70 0.85 1,408,570 4.32 27 (79,000) 0 1,075,000 996,000 3.06 0.00 600,492 1.84 0.93 1,596,492 4.90 28 (54,000) 197,800 1,022,000 1,165,800 3.58 0.00 511,168 1.57 0.79 1,676,968 5.15 29 (93,000) 460,800 1,070,000 1,437,800 4.41 0.00 434,558 1.33 0.67 1,872,358 5.75 30 (83,000) 425,200 944,000 1,286,200 3.95 0.00 484,762 1.49 0.75 1,770,962 5.43 31 (83,000) 388,100 935,000 1,240,100 3.81 0.00 498,780 1.53 0.77 1,738,880 5.34 TOTAL (2,532,000) 1,471,900 31,625,000 30,564,900 13,008,664 43,573,564 (GAL) TOTAL -7.77 4.52 97.05 ************ 93.80 39.92 ************ 133.72 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ (73,595) 0 (650,433) (724,028) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** (2,088,800) TOTAL GAL 1,398,305 31,625,000 30,564,900 ******** 12,358,231 ***************** 40,760,736 ******** CFS(AVE) 0.07 1.58 0.62 2.03 TOTAL AC-FT 4.29 97.05 101.35 37.93 125.09 125.09 , , WATER COMMITTEE AGENDA SEPTEMBER 17, 1986 1. National Park Service - Request for Town water for utility area. 2. High Drive Area - Discussion of serving the area with town water. Reports: 1. Water Use for August Â° Cascade Diversion Structure 4t 1. A: F 0, F lo' 4.nuu /Â¢5~ 1 JE p/*a.c:Â¥1 - United States Department of the Interior r.1 IN~Awl :61 e' 14--1,4 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE \Xly... Rocky Mountain National Park - Estes Park, Colorado 80517 RECEIVED IN REPLY REFER TO: D5039 (RMR-ME) AUG 15 1986 August 12, 1986 TE.*x F ESTES NiK ll.. 7. 'Â·.22..1NiSii'WOR Mr. H. Bernerd Dannels, Mayor Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Dannels: Enclosed is a memorandum from our Regional Office that discusses various aspects of connecting the Rocky Mountain National Park Headquarters area water system to the Town of Estes Park water main with a 2-inch tap. We request that the Town consider this proposal and that we begin to i discuss specific details related to using the Town water supply as our primary source. We currently have the capability of providing an adequate supply of water for our facilities, except for high iron levels that can be removed with the addition of iron removal facilities. The cost of using the Town water as our primary source is less than installing iron removal facilities. In addition, if we were using Town water, we would not be in a position of year-around treatment plant operation. Considering these aspects, it is therefore financially practical for the Park to construct the connecting pipeline and appurtenances to tap the Town water main, providing that the miscellanequs tapping fees are not excessive. Thank you for considering this matter. We look forward to discussing this proposal with you in the near future. Sincerely, , E n 8 A. 2 =) i .-' James B. Thompson WE,8-0 CE 1 - U . - Superintendent ,EAâ€¢,038=<<4 g '6 2 -1 2 t.9.2 %3 239 it \J Enclosure 0 4 o = 2 2 2 a: 21521 F N lilli NI\113 0 J 1 9 ) / I. 2 , 0 j E 0 0 -22 - 61. d.. d.. 0 . 2 4- 0 0 .. t l \i 1, 1 1 ~ \ 5 08 4% 0 0 0 E 1 m li .â‚¬ 9 7 4 0 Ch 2 245 5( Arc, m Z J 1 .. ... 1. - 001 3 /-1 f odn : t. U//f ~\hjj /h :%0'0\. 0 01<.0 0 1 11 00 0 P. â€¢Â£1-5*, 0 01 - / i . I 2 Ch c. (a 0 5- 9 11 o 0i 0 - 2 iiI zof* 5 0 t- Emaciot i> . / 11 -C) 0 0% 3 3%203 mt 00/ gu) 5 -1 3 1 0 11 02mm 0 .6,44 0 19=0 0 mx I I I 84 1 11 :Â§ 1 le r-7 0 1 1 M lvNOSV 3S -CPON_aVie_=-Â£m--~ - MAINTENANCE 0*3831 319Â¥ls M3.LSAS *31â„¢ SHILS:*3 )IMVd 1 PARK LUE ARROW 00Â¥80100 '-00 aÂ¥ NIVINnOM A)(0041 31WA i l - BLAC P CANWON HEADWORKS - X t . - F A -L RIVER TREATM PLANT //i , Ir.0 - 1% R FALL R PER TANK 2---00.0.04* 4 DOWNTOWN ESTES PARK r NPS HEADQUARTERS TANK 3 981_1 -Eli G ;.ACIER CREEK TREATMENT PLA \ 0 0 r 4 % R i 1- 9 W . & 2 3 \S \ i \J . i Â»71 i . -- 810 T 1)6(PSON TREATMENT Pl 1 11 1 Ill - 11#8 1 il #'31 4 4 m 8 3 e O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 r-1 9 OODZ 06;12SL - )18Â¥M H0N38 Se.osn OOSZ 009Â£ 7700 7800 7900 8000 8100 ,-HW.L 7982.79 A.W. L. 797-3 Z 77Â¥9 6*4*â€¢jw38 CONNECTION AT E EVATION - H.W.L. 8008- -d-N NIV.1.NnOW A)100%1 >18Vd 53153 30 Al!0 - 919 s -ME .s 9 osn NOI1VA313 >INV1 H31 AA 133â€¢2 /0 371,1 asanop 8661*h 2 38091 J. lu) A 102- /14 89702 PLâ€¢,4 I.16 Rocky Mountain National Park The Rocky Mountain National Park Utility Area and Village is within the Study Area, ~ Center area, a mile west of the Park Utility area. This well allegedly is high in iron. and has its-.own water supply consisting of a well in the Moraine Park Visitor's A second well is planned for construction in the near future, drilled in proximity to m the existing one. This well, also, is anticipated to require iron treatment. The system includes two buried concrete water reservoirs. One has a 100,000 gallon capacity, and the other 150,000 gallon; both have a high water level of 8,005 feet. 1 The Park maintenance personnel for this system have indicated that they would be interested in pursuing service from Estes Park if terms and prices were reasonable. Some residences within the Utility Area are apparently already serviced water from ~ Estes Park. The maintenance personnel did not expect that major political hurdles would need to be overcome in servicing a national park from a town -- the Upper Thompson Sewer District currently provides sewer service to this Utility Area. Similar arrangements could probably be made for water. We recommend Estes Park pursue discussions with the Rocky Mountain National Park staff. Upper Fall River Area and The Harmony Foundation i The upper Fall River area, in the northwest corner of the Study Area, includes a I number of restaurants, motels, and condominiums. Those above elevation 7,850 -- the "blue line" -- basically have their own water supplies. Some of these establishments requested to tie into the Estes Park system when they first began operation, but Estes Park had maintained a posture of not normally serving customers above this blue line. Thus, these establishments pursued other water supplies, generally from alluvial wells in the vicinity of the Fall River. Now that these individual water systems are installed, there is a disinterest in tying into the Estes Park system. The Harmony Foundation, a drug and alcohol rehabilitation hospital, recently requested information regarding a connection into the Fall River Estates pumped system. However, the cost quoted to them for extending a line was too high for them to pay alone. They contacted some of the other establishments in the area, who appeared disinterested in helping to finance such a pipeline. They therefore pursued t the tie-in no further, and instead purchased 2-acre feet per year of Fall River water, and reactivated an existing alluvial well next to the Fall River. However, the Harmony hospital staff realize they need a reliable water supply, and are therefore r /=5$:5-9 . ' Â£'L. 2,2221_31Â·30 ' ELâ€¢â€¢Oâ€¢ , 11:1 1.,L.,0-: ,â€¢~ Â·O" 1 â€¢, Lâ€¢â€¢â€¢ - /,74#ter,f,lucilj-1114 ADO,TIC 1 < f < -132'--2.-~-- - - --- k â€¢ALL" ..... .. 14 *.0... â€¢VÂ· . E . IT.. . 2 0 1'.Mrs I 'I ' . , PUMP STATION AND ' 1 MASTER METER - .A,A'*Li &&~UÂ·l 1 1 1 , - r-- "ANGE 1 j VIEN \ 4,1-.4*- 7 -4247.-li 1 *41:f :'423)'- .. ./. 1,1 -". 3 -Oeotâ€¢â€¢O â€¢4,â€¢. r 5 , --n~ , L -r- 1 " ri.. 4 Ls=2 V -71 ' ~ ' ~ ~ I . ;.A v-TA#vr _ --Ar'gl iCJ,-: 1 1 A Tnl / -+, 1, 0 .- t *, ;-1 p Â·Â· 1 1 ....1 1 I. I., 9. Il ./ 1 1 --132=Z i : 64;4:1 E. L"t 152.4,5-1- ~ â€¢000[â€¢43 -HONDILS WATER COMPANY -2_. 4 V t .,.11 L XS,1*/1.Llk '0 \ ', 4 11 .... 1 ' -1 ./:16â€¢,0 - I 4 ,-1 -,20 V.4*2--~~:/1 /--0.-.*-. - L... 'll. - ijccl -4-vÂ« r e -/ <644*.ui. -- - ' i /37 . AL-_ 3/STATES' .11 1, 0 0 , .:37 . - 1 -,4...Al-'ll -rx ---~t,â€¢'~ Trqui Ifffâ€ž~Â· LL#y-41 :/.NAT! r ..' V ' --22, 2<LI I_' 1 '1 PP" --- - -N . 7 1 1.PAA- - -~~~~~----22,FiEAEr/j.-1-1- , I. , , 'r- - -77 7 , ,Â¥ 61 .1 ~ . 11 if, 1 1Â· ..Aâ€¢'.202. ' ' ' t .00'11,14 .1 Â»<\ . po,N r I' .~*A 4. 51 114. itte .27.- 1/ 7 \ \WILâ‚¬ /2-17 , , 1 1-%\ - /i, 1 \ -- ,Â«60;\vt:Nk , U 1 -- \ 4, "-1->914"1Â¥11'F..'. bo~; 1. --~ r .0,000-I.~ ..1'.I .I-*Â·J[,l ,~ PXÂ· 11 101 ;-~it~ 1,>f<4 ' l;1:Â·J 5â€¢AN'fâ€¢ , 9. pir:,lo-frr-1-1~4-f<-1 TY,EFF:~DI ~ -~1>' }}f f ' ' ht-, L .L! ! 11, 1 - N.*-t--1/~F - _.*>' ~ I ,sCF;~'~ '~ ~ ~~ 7Â·142[ -. . >JA- A- J I 0**f; \ , L- i - 1 51/' 1.4106 . .-- i. % 1, . â€ž -1 1 '1% 1 , 6 1,46 1 .1 '1. I # VIE. -pi it _, r / ("A'Â£/5~â€žI/,1-'- 1 1 /7 4 1 2 1 1 . 1,1,0 1 '; H ' p; [i.-f [ >r--. ,w: i r-~-Â·* 1 t. .. L --1 1 1 , ,/,0 j , '... 1 - t,Â·Â·T ' '~ 5 ,-PLEa-0 - -- . ..'01\.3, 4,1 .Ar--u-.tr,1 21 .L!.._ 1 4 ~ or -9./ - L----_0- 1 1,9,/ 51 t 1 - , PROSPECT MOUNTAIN 1 i -- -ffs 1 1 1 3 /40 1 I /-11 -- - I lu j 49./. 1 1 1 - 4\ 1 192.6 E .-, 1 , 1 1 . 1 1 1 ~ .~ .I i i 313 1 ! 1 1 1 1 h RADFORD PUBLISHING CO., DENVER RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Water Committee t~September 10, 1980 Committee: Chairman Wagner, Trustees Dannels and Meusel Attending: All .. Also Attending: Mayor Tregent, Town Administrator Hill, Water Super- intendent McCracken and Finance Officer Duncan : HIGH DRIVE WATER DISTRICT A delegation headed by Mr. E. R. Anderson appeared before the Committee and asked the following: 1. If the High Drive Water District was re-organized into a "Mini" district would the Town serve it water? The Committee indicated the Town would be interested in serving a smaller district. 2. If the High Drive "Mini" district decided to finance the water improvements on a private basis would the current water extension policy apply to them? The Committee indicated this would be the case. 3. Would the Town be interested in selling water connections on a long-term payment basis? The Committee did not indicate a position on this matter. 4. Would the Town serve water to this area of the High Drive with a special agreement that would allow High Drive to maintain their own distribution system? The Committee indicated some special agreement could be worked out along this line. The representatives of the High Drive Water District indicated they had scheduled a meeting with their consulting engineers in the very near future. 1981 BUDGET The Committee again reviewed the proposed 1981 Water Department Budget. FUTURE WATER NEEDS FOR ESTES PARK There was considerable discussion regarding this matter. No decisions were made at this meeting. AUGUST WATER USE The water use for August, 1980 was up 26.03% from August, 1979 and down 6.18% from July, 1980. Â·) REPORTS Applications for discharge permits at Glacier Creek and Black Canyon are in process. Big Thompson Drain Line - construction has begun. W Alot. #79Â£141 PUKI I-15 The YMCA appears to be satisfied with their water system, and are not currently interested in becoming involved with the Estes Park system. Likewise, most of the YMCA is atftoo high of an elevation to be gravity-serviced from Estes Park's Glacier Creek plant. For these reasons, it is recommended that involving the YMCA in the Estes Park system should not be pursued at this time. Wind Cliff Estates Wind Cliff Estates is in the southwestern corner of the Study Area and located east of the proposed Thunder Mountain subdivision. This development has its own water system, which reportedly is somewhat unreliable. However, they have secure C-8 T water rights. They have a small pressure filter and two water storage tanks. Wind Cliffs ranges in elevation from 8,000 to 8,500 feet. It currently has roughly 30 residences, and is subdivided to accommodate additional houses. It may be in the interest of Wind Cliff to join with Thunder Mountain to install a connector pipe to the Glacier Creek transmission main. We recommend that Estes Park be open to such proposals. Hondius Water Company ~ The Hondius Water Company, on the western side of the Study Area, services Woodland Heights, and an unplatted but developed parcel of land just east of Woodland ~ Heights. This area consists of approximately 120 small summer cottages on several ~ acre lots, 60 of which are in the Hondius Water District. Hondius attempted to ~ receive service from Estes Park nine years ago, but several out-of-state homeowners ~ thwarted such efforts in the courts for eight years. Although Hondius eventually ~ won the case, the delay caused such an escallation in costs that the homeowners ~ voted down the Estes Park service in a bond election. Representatives of Hondius I still apparently desire to be served by Estes Park. L- Rangeview Park Entrance Estates The Rangeview Park Entrance Estates, located just east of the Hondius Water Company and west of Estes Park, is serviced by master metered supply from the Estes Park system. The Rangeview system services roughly 20-30 residences, and includes a pump station and 2-inch water mains. . ' TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT 3 1 / Water Billing for August, 1986 (Net) 41,031,650 gal. Water Use for July 14th through August 13th July 14th to 31st Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,689,000) ( 18 days ) *Fall River 1,471,900 Glacier Creek 18,147,000 *Big Thompson 7,356,516 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (- 441,421) August 1st to 13th Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,433,000) j (13 days ) *Fall River 3,681,900 Glacier Creek 11,633,000 *Big Thompson 4,443,385 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (- 406,264) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 42,764,016 Adjustment 1,637,704 TOTAL 41,126,312 Percent Accounted For: 100% . ADJUSTMENTS h August, 1986 1. Dispenser $419.25 = 1,677 x 60 100,620 gal. 2. Street Cleaning/flushing 53,820 gal. 3. Park Watering (Estimated) 491,900 gal. 4. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights/Fall River/Old Man Mountain 486,700 gal. b. Charles Heights (Mise ) (31 days @ 4,844 gal/day) 150,164 gal. c. Fall River Pit (25,0C0 gal/day 8/1-15) 325,000 gal. Total Bleeders 961,864 gal. 5. Flushing j a. 3rd & U. S. 36 (7/11) 2,000 gal. b. 3rd & S.H. 7 -(7/31) 2,000 gal. c. 3rd & S.H. 7 (8/1) 20,000 gal. d. 6" line flush (8/7) 3,000 gal. e. Fire Department-(8/12) 2,500 gal. Total Flushing 29,500 gal. Total Adjustments 1,637,704 gal. ~ TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Mont 1984 1985 1986 Last Month Last Year 59.27 ac. ft. 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. Jan. 19.315.120 qal. Jan. 29,741,000 qal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. +4.90 % - 34.20 % 50.14 ac. ft. 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac, ft. Feb. 16.339.150 qal, Feb. 33,488,000 qal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. +7.20% -37.40% 48.75 ac. ft. 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. Mar. 15.888.300 qal Mar. 21,391.000 qal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. -0.31% -2.25% 53.18 ac. ft. 73.99 ac.. ft.. 63.08 ac. ft. Apr. 17,328,460 qal._ Apr. 24,110,504 gal. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. -1.68% -14.74% 69.73 ac. ft. 98.53 ac. ft. 75.56 ac.Â·ft. May 22,723,106 gal. May 32,-106,550 gal . May 25,271,446 gal. +22.94% -21.29% 113.24 ac. ft. 131.24 ac. ft. 102.33 ac. ft. Jun. 36,899,615 gal. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. ..33,345,089 gal. +31.95% -22.03% 153.88 ac. ft. 154.52 ac. .ft. 125.09 ac. ft. Jul. 50,142,300 qal. Jul. 50,351,784 gal. Jul. 40,760,736 gal. +22.24% -19.05% 132.85 ac. ft. .167.68; ac.-ft. 123.91 ac-. ft. Aug. 43,290,000 gal. Aug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug. 40,379,219 gal. -0.94% -26.10% 95.75 ac. ft. 95.29 ac. ft. Sep. 31,201,500 gal. Sep. 31,051,965 gal. Sep. 37.59 ac. ft. 78.78 ac..ft. Oct. 12,249,009 gal. Oct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 42.77 ac. ft. 67.97 ac..ft. Nov. 13,936,841 gal. Nov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 42.78 ac. ft. 57.25 ac. ft. Dec. 13,940,500 gal. Dec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 899.99 1,184.97 ac. ft. .293,623,901 gal. 386,124,317 gal. - TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD AUGUST 1986 DATE BLACK FALL SLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (GAL) (AC-FT) 1 (105,000) 414,800 960,000 1,269,800 3.90 1.96 296,660 0.91 0.46 1,566,460 4.81 2 (105,000) 386,400 1,218,000 1,499,400 4.60 2.32 296,660 0.91 0,46 1,796,060 5.51 3 (105,000) 386,400 817,000 1,098,400 3.37 1.70 296,660 0.91 0.46 1,395,060 4.28 4 (136,000) 394,000 761,000 1,019,000 3.13 1.58 215,812 0.66 0.33 1,234,812 3.79 5 (130,000) 315,100 959,000 1,144,100 3.51 1.77 401,306 1.23 0.62 1,545,406 4.74 6 (106,000) 267,000 971,000 1,132,000 3.47 1.75 352,406 1.08 0.55 1,484,406 4.56 7 (110,000) 288,200 943,000 1,121,200 3.44 1.73 386,310 1.19 0.60 1,507,510 4.63 8 (140,000) 251,000 769,000 880,000 2.70 1.36 342,626 1.05 0.53 1,222,626 3.75 9 (140,000) 304,600 934,000 1,098,600 3.37 1.70 180,278 0.55 0.28 1,278,878 3.92 10 (140,000) 247,100 946,000 1,053,100 3.23 1.63 265,369 0.81 0.41 1,318,469 4.05 11 (80,000) 89,900 800,000 809,900 2.49 1.25 455,096 1.40 0.70 1,264,996 3.88 12 (68,000) 177,500 677,000 786,500 2.41 1.22 439,122 1.35 0.68 1,225,622 3.76 13 (68,000) 159,900 878,000 969,900 2.98 1.50 515,080 1.58 0.80 1,484,980 4.56 14 (72,000) 273,200 807,000 1,008,200 3.09 1.56 545,398 1.67 0.84 1,553,598 4.77 15 (74,000) 362,400 810,000 1,098,400 3.37 1.70 435,536 1.34 0.67 1,533,936 4.71 16 (74,000) 328,700 999,000 1,253,700 3.85 1.94 534,314 1.64 0.83 1,788,014 5.49 17 (74,000) 268,800 982,000 1,176,800 3.61 1.82 399,024 1.22 0.62 1,575,824 4.84 18 (100,000) 303,100 1,103,000 1,306,100 4.01 2.02 331,542 1.02 0.51 1,637,642 5.03 19 (89,000) 267,000 775,000 953,000 2.92 1.47 537,248 1.65 0.83 1,490,248 4.57 20 (117,000) 237,600 736,000 856,600 2.63 1.33 326,000 1.00 0.50 1,182,600 3.63 21 (125,000) 250,000 687,000 812,000 2.49 1.26 310,352 0.95 0.48 1,122,352 3.44 22 (126,000) 298,100 729,000 901,100 2.77 1.39 365,772 1.12 0,57 1,266,872 3.89 23 (126,000) 282,200 721,000 877,200 2.69 1.36 298,616 0.92 0.46 1,175,816 3.61 24 (126,000) 264,100 650,000 788,100 2.42 1.22 298,616 0.92 0.46 1,086,716 3.34 25 (127,000) 249,500 720,000 842,500 2.59 1.30 248,086 0.76 0.38 1,090,586 3.35 26 (137,000) 282,600 650,000 795,600 2.44 1.23 315,568 0.97 0.49 1,111,168 3.41 27 (135,000) 277,200 727,000 869,200 2.67 1.34 290,466 0.89 0.45 1,159,666 3.56 28 (118,000) 270,300 897,000 1,049,300 3.22 1.62 375,226 1.15 0.58 1,424,526 4.37 29 (125,000) 252,500 707,000 834,500 2.56 1:29 311,330 0.96 0.48 1,145,830 3.52 30 (125,000) 317,100 905,000 1,097,100 3.37 1.70 407,500 1.25 0.63 1,504,600 4.62 31 (125,000) 206,000 762,000 843,000 2.59 1.30 306,440 0.94 0.47 1,149,440 3.53 .t TOTAL (3,428,000) 8,672,300 26,000,000 31,244,300 11,080,419 42,324,719 (BAL) TOTAL -10.52 26.61 79.79 ************ 95.89 34.00 ************ 129.89 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ (433,615) 0 (554,021) (987,636) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** (961,864) TOTAL GAL 8,238,685 26,000,000 31,244,300 ******** 10,526,398 ***************** 40,375,219 ******** CFS(AVE) - 0.41 1.30 0.53 2.02 TOTAL AC-FT 25.28 79.79 105.07 32.30 123.91 123.91 V- 4/ WATER COMMITTEE AGENDA . bj~ OCTOBER 9, 1986 0 1. 1987 Budget - Review. 2. Rural Water Requests: a. Lot 5 & 6, 01ympus Heights (Dolman). b. Lot 21, Hondius Heights (Hall). '3. 1987 Water Rates. Reports: 1. September Water Reports 2. Cascade Diversion Structure 3. Bulk Connector Water Rate Study 4. Elkhorn Lodge Waterline Fall River Crossing Replacement 5. Employee Resignation TOWN OF ESTES PARK - WATER DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE Taken by c'Â·--/ 5~akirD-to Date *-22 - 96 01 4 Name ' Ja'Â·me g Jâ€ž bÂ» j777-271 + IUÂ£41:,0,6%, ,25,W,7 Address RBI 80-74 /3 98, /41.4 -Ill ,Â« 1 Ave: 5,14 2,14*,0â€ž0~*-- / 1(&1â€¢,ca- 75 4 0 2- Telephoneoto 5-~ 0- f~3 -3 4, 1 7 Location f~ At g.lÂ· Â£27 6 : 0 32-44#A,4x MÂ£21,225 (boo m OC ORAticav 4,4) 'S U CJ . Type of Unit 3&20&+-,9._ Number of Units $7'U-- Number of Fixtures 10, The undersigned assumes responsibility for any and all engineering and legal costs incurred by the Town in processing this Request for Water Service. Signature <31â€ž+ 2. 304.:,004< Appl~ant or Applicant's Authorized Representative I---0-------------------------0--0-- Is the property described above within the Northern Colorado Water Con- servancy District? Yes >< No Is the property described above below 7,850 feet in elevation? Yes _L No - Confirmed by 17 --f'i) ll. A Date /6/8/96 it -0--0---0--------0-----------0-0--- Committee Action Town Board Action Superintendent's Recommendation Customer Notified Tap Number Expiration Date 'Da . P . rl'.fr. W-â€¢4 L, â€¢ LÂ»-A ty.ab '221, A 2 6 n J T r . JOB: QUANTITY FIXTURE TYPE - FIXTURE VALUE EXISTING NEW TOTAL Bathtub 8 Drinking fountain (cooler) 1 Drinking fountain (public) 2 Kitchen sink, 6" connection 3 l Lavatory, 3/8" connection 2 [ - 46 Laundry tray, 11" connection 3 Shower head (shower only) 4 | - 4 Service sink, 12" connection 3 Urinal, pedestal flush valve 35 Wall or stall 12 Trough (2' Unit) 2 Water closet, flush valve 35 - Tank type 1 3 3 washer, 12" connection 4 bashing machine, li" Connection 5 Hose bib, li" connection 6 TOTAL: lOt OTHER: Permittee: By: Date: Building Inspector e 1 1,1 1 1 i.~,-D_Â£zÂ£_paTe 9-1 7- /A ...,4 ",1 - urran irn,,Mrow, 0,111 1 Int ivi, M.to,ruit / .Ialpa..U -1- ,- r.- 2 6 R 9 1- #-6 - O,6 3)09 253rtri x t'fÂ°4-_, w 5 iontractor. 1)0 4. ' tr .~ 0,- ' e F r.c- 3 ole usignation of Tap - Date I y . ookup of Service - Date 47<.ra , 7.1 i y rÂ· ~Â· r, g 3 ANd 0 1 nspection of Service - Date r27. r" :7 i y <152.- r..a R Â· FA tâ€ž / / ype of Pipe: VCP PVC / Cast 1 C A f tÂ·,jur Brvice Line .TA ; â€ž9 Â·,c - 1 3 Â· + 1- + 1- 4- "- -7' * NA t - i ap Size Al" Comm Res >6 6, 1 (A" lits 1 6. , . prarks ./ O /,, t.tiâ€¢ IÂ·*fc . o I. 1 % C. 0 ..A d r .1. j -1 7 4 3 , h :P Pd $_188'1 Permit Pd $ 619 â‚¬ C c 4 -'Â» ;sued by 6--1 , â€¢5 . 1, .2, .. ' *, .. : . r.* TOWN OF ESTES PARK - WATER DEPARTMENT . e o *244> 2." .....2 REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE Taken by Date Lillian Szydlo October 8, 1986 Evan E. or M. Lucille Hall Name Â· Address Box 727 Estes Park, Co. 80517 Telephone 6-4027 ... Location 535 Hondius Circle Lot 21, Hondius Heights Type of Unit Residential Number of Units one 68 Number of Fixtures The undersigned assumes responsibility for any and all engineering and legal costs incurred by the Town in processing this Request for Water Service. Signature 2 14/ge Applicant or Applicant's Authorized Representative , , Is the property described above within the Northern Colorado Water Con- servancy District? Yes X No Is the property described above below 7,850 feet in elevation? Yes -11 No - 1 i Confirmed by ~,~ Date /2)/~&/~6, 1 It t -ill--0---0----0-----Il---Il---------Il-- Committee Action Town Board Action Superintendent's Recommendation Customer Notified Tap Number Expiration Date 2.1 ~ N AM #- 22*v ,</4 6 - DATE: /O l 2124 1 1 JOBÂ·. 539 /44~ 0, us C,Aciâ‚¬ .(b-r 21 Llwolus /Jrlâ‚¬4,4-7~\ 1 â€¢, QUANTITY FIXTURE TYPE FIXTURE VALUE EXISTING NEW TOTAL Bathsub Â· 8 2 /6 Drinking Fountain (cooler) 1 Drinking Fountain (public) 2 Kitchen Sink, 1/2" connection 3 Lavatory, 3/8" connection 2 Laundry Tray, 1/2" connection 3 Shower Head (shower only) 4 Service Sink, 1/2" connection 3 Urinal, Pedestal Flush Valve 35 Wall or Stall 12 Trough (2' unit) 2 Water Closet, Flush Valve 35 Tank Type =3 3 shwasher, 1/2" connection 4 / .ashing Machine, 1/2" connection 5 / Hose Bibb, 1/2" connection 6 2 TOTAL FIXTURE VALUE: 48 Tap Fee Tapping Materials .... Tapping Labor Fixture Values X $39.33 (over 40) Water Meter Demote Readout ing Fee (Rural' Only) 9E Permittee: 7)AL Date: /0 47 4. .~r Dia /).a 6.5 ,>)PL Â©90%06~ 0\44* - .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD SEPTEMBER 1986 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (GAL) (AC-FT) 1 (125,000) 283,000 907,000 1,065,000 3.27 1.65 263,082 0.81 0.41 1,328,082 4.08 2 (153,000) 234,800 821,000 902,800 2.77 1.40 197,556 0.61 0.31 1,100,356 3.38 3 (136,000) - 256,300 785,000 905,300 2.78 1.40 258,B44 0.79 0.40 1,164,144 3.57 4 (119,000) 276,800 654,000 811,800 2.49 1.26 301,550 0.93 0.47 1,113,350 3.42 5 (82,000) 287,100 615,000 820,100 2.52 1.27 502,040 1.54 0.78 1,322,140 4.06 6 (82,000) 230,200 634,000 782,200 2.40 1.21 423,800 1.30 0.66 1,206,000 3.70 7 (82,000) 300,300 659,000 877,300 2.69 1.36 410,434 1.26 0.64 1,287,734 3.95 8 (96,000) 271,300 600,000 775,300 2.38 1.20 376,530 1.16 0.58 1,151,830 3.53 9 (121,000) 275,700 606,000 760,700 2.33 1.18 336,432 1.03 0.52 1,097,132 3.37 10 (125,000) 269,400 608,000 752,400 2.31 1.16 300,898 0.92 0.47 1,053,298 3;23 11 (102,000) 278,200 653,000 829,200 2.54 1.28 348,820 1.07 0.54 1,178,020 3.62 12 (70,000) 311,700 638,000 879,700 2.70 1.36 393,482 1.21 0.61 1,273,182 3.91 13 (70,0001 295,000 654,000 879,000 2.70 1.36 436,840 1.34 0.68 1,315,840 4.04 14 (70,000) 271,700 729,000 930,700 2.86 1.44 471,396 1.45 0.73 1,402,096 4.30 15 (87,000) 198,400 648,000 759,400 2.33 1.17 400,980 1.23 0.62 1,160,380 3.56 16 (68,000) 215,200 638,000 785,200 2.41 1.21 401,958 1.23 0.62 1,187,158 3.64 17 (58,000) 192,600 628,000 762,600 2.34 1.18 409,456 1.26 0.63 1,172,056 3.60 18 (98,000) 174,400 861,000 937,400 2.88 1.45 270,254 0.83 0.42 1,207,654 3.71 19 . (117,000) 164,300 829,000 876,300 2.69 1.36 204,402 0.63 0.32 1,080,702 3.32 20 (117,000) 203,500 1,043,000 1,129,500 3.47 1.75 248,249 0.76 0.38 1,377,749 4.23 21 (117,000) 192,000 915,000 990,000 3.04 1.53 248,249 0.76 0.38 1,238,249 3.80 22 (144,000) 166,900 861,000 883,900 2.71 1.37 135,616 0.42 0.21 1,019,516 3.13 23 (140,000) 189,700 838,000 887,700 2.72 1.37 158,436 0.49 0.25 1,046,136 3.21 24 (134,000) 189,400 620,000 675,400 2.07 1.04 289,814 0.89 0.45 965,214 2.96 25 (129,000) 160,900 607,000 638,900 1.96 0.99 294,704 0.90 0.46 933,604 2.87 26 (72,000) 180,900 492,000 600,900 1.84 0.93 313,286 0.96 0.48 914,186 2.81 27 (72,000) 197,800 498,000 623,800 1.91 0.97 402,936 1.24 0.62 1,026,736 3.15 28 (72,000) 178,700 477,000 583,700 1.79 0.90 362,186 1.11 0.56 945,886 2.90 29 (94,000) 178,000 458,000 542,000 1.66 0.84 362,572 1.11 0.56 904,572 2.78 30 (94,000) 188,600 452,000 546,600 1.68 0.85 307,418 0.94 0.48 854,018 2.62 31 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 TOTAL (3,046,000) 6,812,800 20,428,000 24,194,800 9,832,220 34,027,020 (GAL) TOTAL -9.35 20.91 62.69 ************ 74.25 30.17 ************ 104.43 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ (340,640) 0 (491,611) (832,251) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** (604,364) TOTAL GAL 6,472,160 20,428,000 24,194,800 ******** 9,340,609 ***************** 32,590,405 ******** CFS(AVE) 0.33 1.05 0.48 1.63 TOTAL AC-FT 19.86 62.69 82.55 28.67 100.02 100.02 i .I TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for September, 1986 (Net) 29,318,040 gal. Water Use for August, 14th through September, 13th : August 14th to 31st Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,995,000) ( 18 days ) *Fall River 4,990,400 Glacier Creek 14,367,000 *Big Thompson 6,637,034 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (- 581,372) . Sept. 1st to 13th Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,363,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River 3,569,800 Glacier Creek 8,834,000 *Big Thompson 4,550,308 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (- 406,005) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 38,603,165-gal. Adjustment ~ - 1,070,929 TOTAL 37,532,236 Percent Accounted For: 78% --9 :W. ADJUSTMENTS September, 1986 1. Dispenser $244.25 = 977 x 60 58,620 gal. 2. Street Cleaning/Flushing 32,020 gal. 3. Park Watering (Estimated) 368,925 gal. 4. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights/Fall River/Old Man Mountain 404,200 gal. b. Charles Heights (Mise) (31 days @ 4,844 gal./day 150,164 gal. c. Fall River Pit (2 days @ 25,000 gal./day) 50,000 gal. Total Bleeders 604,364 gal. 5. Fl ushing/Leaks a. East Lane Flushing (8/27) 1,000 gal. b. Devil's Gul ch 4" break (9/8) 5,000 gal. c. Park Entrance Estates Leak (9/11) 1,000 gal. Total Flushing 7,000 gal. Total Adjustments 1,070,929 gal. TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Mont 1984 1985 1986 Last Month Last Year 59.27 ac. ft. 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. Jan. 19.315.120 qall Jan. 29,741,000 qal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. +4.90 % - 34.20 % 50.14 ac. ft. 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac, ft. :eb. 16.339.150 qal, Feb. 33,488,000 qal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. +7.20% -37.40% 48.75 ac. ft. 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. tar. 15.888.300 qal Mar. 21,391.000 qal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. -0.31% -2.25% 53.18 ac. ft. 73.99 ac.. ft.. 63.08 ac. ft. Apr. 17.328,460 qal._ Apr. 24,110,504 gal. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. -1.68% -14.74% 69.73 ac. ft. .98.53 ac. ft. 75.56 ac.Ift. lay 22,723,106 gal. May 32,-106,550 gal . May 25,271,446 gal. +22.94% -21.29% 113.24 ac. ft. 131.24 ac. ft. 102.33 ac. ft. Jun. 36,899,615 gal. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. 133,345,089 gal. +31.95% -72.03% 153.88 ac. ft. 154.52 ac. ft. 125.09 ac. ft. Jul. 50,142,300 qal. Jul. 50,351,784 gal. Jul. 40,760,736 qal. +22.24% -19.05% 132.85 ac.:ft. -167.68; ac.-ft. 123.91 ac. ft. Aug. 43,290,000 gal. Aug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug. 40,379,219 gal. -0.94% -26.10% 95.75 ac. ft. . 95.29 ac. ft. 100.02 ac. ft, Sep. 31,201,500 gal. Sep.- 31,051,965 gal. Sep. 32,590,405 gal -19.29% + 4.69% 37.59 ac. ft. . 78.78 ac..ft. oct. 12,249,009 gal. Oct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 42.77 ac. ft. 67.97 ac..ft. Nov. 13,936,841 gal. Nov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 42.78 ac. ft. 57.25 ac. ft. Dec. 13,940,500 gal. Dec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 899.99 1,184.97 ac. ft. 293,623,901 gal. 386,124,317 gal. ! 6Â» 91< 14/ 1/ / "b.4 U \ 1.-r-, n / /t, 1, i f 1 12.--ZI~> 27 U An<(43=02Â»620 -- A : e #*---,I- 1 f j /-x- -\ ~ 11 4 10\ 3Â©0 , I--/ Ao / - 32, \ - --1615 -Tiff=rET' 1-/ i Cm==300 :>L ./. ~ 320 4 '1'/, -IRI -ETE-- -- 3 to - 4 0// 1 1/ 1 -7<APPoti INN I e 153 r j f. , / 1 0/ ....1 / ' 7 24 22 580 23 '~sÂ· <L' m / N *21 .CA<*D SUNNY " 1 - - O - .A . hE - 4500 - 220 : 5,# 1 /6 A - 0 -7580 var 552 2=2-7 -\ COMIC 0 545 11 --*.~ , X 7577. ADC 3 55( 1 IF- 540 | 54/ ~.uj;:i 41 2/ /11 -7-2 \ / \ i \\ 4.22 tr \. I . \ -cl,--i-/ AdR/IL - CL . N .2.17 2.~ - <41\ 17 --< --j 1 /8/ \440\4.- < - -------2-L--------1--- -\ --\ 0 000-1 ._ u~ZEZZ~~~~~27~~~-~29-42Â« 411 WA,CAL,alâ‚¬. REPLACEâ€¢â€¢â€¢47 - .2 4-A FALL RivER- O EUCHAIN LOCC~_ 1 ---=Imp~ 4. / 1---.r- /O/:6 1.1 'CX=: +1 --1 - N j 7.7~ 4 WATER COMMITTEE AGENDA NOVEMBER 13, 1986 44 j hi 1. Evan Hall - Discussion of water line to serve Lot 21, Hondius Heights. 2. 1987 Budget - Review. 3. Rural Water Requests: a. Lot 6, Hondius Heights (Reitz). b. Lot 1, Savitske Exemption (Savitske). 4. Bulk Connector Rate - Discussion of Consultant's report. Reports: 1. September Water Reports 2. Cascade Diversion Structure 12 07 1 - 14+ 2 Â¥ 360 LF . 4..12 4542 .222 - ~ .t , f r op fc 6/A/â‚¬ -,~ 4.VAN /4 1/ - 1 A j L07 2/ M.wows 4% 1- N 1 ; New t 7 1.â‚¬2Â¢AW#,0,4 . ~ Nâ‚¬u>G/4 Le / K e/,e~ \,4, 1 Â£ 1 1 1/10' ~ 70' .// /,6 76 , < tLs---4 f---. -t75'----4,7/ -- 2) Â«-4 5 jl - 1 1 2# 4 44 GA; serv,e.4 'i TOWN OF ESTES PARK - WATER DEPARTMENT 9 .... 1/ ' REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE Taken by Lillian Szydlo Date October 28, 1986 t Name Neil & Leanna Reitz 1 Address r 94 Mossey Cup San Antonio, Tx. Telephone 4 4 . 565 Hondius Circle , ' Location ' Lot 6, Hondius Heights, Larimer County, Co. 2 : .. Type of Unit Residential Â· Number of Units one 77 Number of Fixtures .1 1 4 . The undersigned assumes responsibility for any and all engineering and . legal costs incurred by the Town in processing this Request for Water 1 Service. . ..1 0 \ Signature 6~44. (70.>46,1 U.Al,1- 1 UMLM.Â£12-it 1 Applicant or Applicant' s AUthbrized Representative 1. 1 Is the property described above within the Northern Colorado Water Con- servancy District? Yes X No A~ 1 4 Is the property described above below 7,850 feet in elevation? ' 4 Yes No Ak'17,*4~- 84,Â£-0/4~ S,79 /5 4,tio 72St)' 1 Â¥ 1 , i F Confirmed by 0422 Date )/~/2~YL -9 1 1 i 1 ' R f . ------------------------------------ 4 ~ Committee Action f . 1 , 4 1 1 i 6 Â£ t. 1 Town Board Action l 1 - 46 i Superintendent's Recommendation 4. Customer Notified ~ ' 1 E , Tap Number { 0 Expiration Date I 5 1 , 1 + 1 7.- N . / 4 t ./ 1 + - P .k . ~62.1.1, '~ ' $ Al,h.--2' .,â€¢s: .4.44?46Â·?40**Aa,wt 1 - 1 4 Â· TOWN OF ESTES PARK - WATER DEPARTMENT â€¢ REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE i . . 1 dr~- ' . Taken by --* - JÂ»,02-4 Date 'TL<,41. 3 . i 9.R 6 ~ Name -D O-Â¥ULefL . n ~ke - J oj.x-or Address 8-5-7. 1 , â‚¬'#i.-~ G-AG Telephone 6- 67/0 1 Location 1 92 D ,3 /71[ 0-V= 1 . 4 Jor. 6 1 1-4&), R. 1 3 LJ 1 Ra L + 1 a e.1.&sa.k~ . A, '1 -- I 'fh V -, ..... A , U Type of Unit 'Â¥2_o_-<A A o-=2Â»D 1 Number of Units A Le_ Number of Fixtures j The undersigned assumes responsibility for any and all engineering and ' legal costs incurred by the Town in processing this Request for Water Service. AL<t, de.~tâ€¢-A 4 Signature n~on/4,4.- C'*LL - 1 ~ Â»-Oy.) A#plicant or ApplicAnt's Authorized Representative --------------------------- -- I Is the property described above within the Northern Colorado Water Con- , .a . it servancy District? Yes No X - 31/4 64 ve.,4J u.; 4- AL .1042/1 1 Is the property described above below 7,850 feet in elevation? Yes -X No 1 9-\ A.92-31 Confirmed by ,9~*.Ar ... Date /4/2 j YG . B e " ----------- ! 8 k6 95 Committee Action Town Board Action , Superintendent's Recommendation , Customer Notified ~ ~Â· Tap Number Expiration Date i . -,â€žbe*54&..26514.*li~,..116~.:*Â£44~:as:1,9#te:.:26+Â»Â·,aC*.-1#Â·2.6: 'i.:Aidbmeall . Â¥0931(299:97Fk:. 42-3 n #01.lpict .1-l.41 0 1 11~ NOV 0 1 4nn 1! i N Jt DMJMPhillipsÂ·ReisterÂ·Haley: Inc. ti' Â·r DEPT. rOWLN OF â‚¬3733 PARK RUBLLC We ,.4...5, November 6, 1986 Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Attention: Mr. Dale G. Hill, Town Administrator Reference: Proposed Rates for Bulk Water Users Gentlemen: The Town of Estes Park requested that DMJM determine a water rate for bulk water users. The premise is that a group of users having their own distribution system would like to obtain water from the Town of Estes Park through a single connection with a master meter. The Town of Estes Park has established water rates based on the up-front payment of a tap fee. The purpose of this water rate study is to determine a rate structure where the tap fee is not collected up-front but is paid over a period of years by placing a surcharge on the water bill. In essence the Town of Estes Park would be financing the payment of the tap fee for the bulk rate users. Water users in Estes Park pay different water rates depending on whether they are urban or rural users. The monthly bills consist of a minimum charge for 2500 gallons or less and then additional charges based on a rate per thousand gallons used over 2500 gallons. This study compares five different methods of billing bulk water users. Three methods use the assumption that the bulk water user is the same as the individual user in Estes Park while the other two give credit to the bulk user because the Town is not incurring the expense of billing each individual user every month and is not maintaining the water distribution system to which the individual user is actually connected. The minimum charge portion of the water bill for individual users is to make sure that every account pays the cost of meter reading and billing and contributes towards the operation and maintenance of the system. As the following methods are reviewed it must be recognized that the tap fee to be collected over a period of time is over 12 times the average annual water bill for rural residential users in Estes Park. Even when the user is given significant considerations the surcharge is actually quite large when compared to the current water rates. A Subsidiary of - Suite 700 Planning Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall 910 Fifteenth Street Architecture Denver, Colorado 80202 Engineering Telephone: 303/892-1300 Systems Cable: DIMJIM Denver Economics Mr. Dale G. Hill November 6, 1986 Page Two Following are assumptions made in preparing the bulk water rate study: 1. The present total cost of the plant development fee and water rights fee is $2,678.50. A 10% increase is anticipated in January, 1987, which will raise the total tap fee to $2,946.35. The following calculations are based on the anticipated 1987 tap fee and on 1987 water rates which are 10 percent higher than the current 1986 water rates. 2. The Town of Estes Park does not currently have a water rate for bulk water users. Bulk water users are assumed to have the same obligations as metered customers for contributing the full fee per tap to cover (a) the plant development fee which is the proportionate share of the capital cost of the existing facilities of the Estes Park water system, and (b) the water rights fee which is the cost of acquiring additional raw water to supply the new user. 3. Water going to bulk water users will go through a single master meter. The individual taps of bulk water users will not be metered by the Town. 4. The Town will send a single bill to the owner of the bulk rate group's water system. The bill will include the collection of the tap fees based on a full residential tap fee for each residential connection to the system. If minimum charges are levied based on the number of taps and an allowance of water for each tap then the total allowance for the group will be the number of taps times the allowance. 5. The bulk rate water users are assumed to be rural residential users and subject to that water rate. 6. The estimated average annual use of water per residential tap is 60,000 gallons. This number was determined by studying the water use records for urban residential users in Estes Park over a one year period covering June 1985 through May 1986. 7. The tap fee collection is to be spread over a period of time with no interest being charged. Interest charges at 8% would approximately double the necessary surcharge 8. The surcharges were calculated using a 20-year time period to collect the tap fee. Currently rural residential users are charged a minimum charge of $14.54 with an allowance of 2500 gallons and then $2.30 per thousand gallons for the amounts used over 2500 gallons. In 1987, it is anticipated that, the minimum 'charge will be $16.00 with an allowance of 2500 gallons plus $2.53 per thousand gallons for all water used after the first 2500 gallons. DMJM PhillipsÂ·ReisterÂ·Haley, Inc. Mr. Dale G. Hill November 6, 1986 Page Three In order to collect the tap fee of $2,946.35 over 20 years it is necessary to collect an average of $12.28 per month per tap. If the average amount of water used is 5000 gallons per month then a surcharge should be $2.46 for every thousand gallons used, including the 2500 gallon allowance. Following are three variations as to how this could be applied: Alternative No. 1: Add the $12.28 monthly surcharge to the minimum monthly charge of $16.00 per tap. This, in essence, means there is no surcharge on the water used. The result is a minimum charge of $28.28 per tap with a 2500 gallon per tap allowance and then the regular rate of $2.53 per thousand gallons is applied to water used above the 2500 gallon per tap allowance. Under this rate, the typical monthly charge per tap on a bulk user's system, assuming an average per tap use of 5000 gallons per months would be: Minimum, including 1st 2500 gallons - $28.28 Next 2500 gallons @ $2.53/1000 gallons - 6.32 $34.60 Note that this is only an average value per tap. The actual minimum charge by the Town to a bulk rate system having 50 taps would be 50 x $28.28 which would include an allowance for 50 x 2500 gallons per month. For comparison, the charge to a normal full-service rural residential customer using the same 5000 gallons in one month, but without the tap fee surcharge, would be: Minimum, including 1st 2500 gallons - $16.00 Next 2500 gallons @ $2.53/1000 gallons - 6.32 $22.32 Alternative No. 2: This variation increases the minimum charge $6.15 from $16.00 to $22.15 per tap. This increase results from applying the tap fee surcharge of $2.46 per thousand gallons to the 2500 gallons allowed under the minimum. The charge for water above the first 2500 gallons per tap would be $4.99 per thousand gallons. This results from adding the $2.46 surcharge to the basic rate of $2.53. Under this rate, the typical monthly charge per tap on a bulk user's system, assuming an average per tap use of 5000 gallons per months would be: Minimum, including 1st 2500 gallons - $22.15 Next 2500 gallons @ $4.99/1000 gallons - 12.48 34.63 Alternative No. 3: This variation leaves the minimum monthly charge per tap at 16.00 but applies a higher surcharge per thousand gallons above the first 2500 gallons to compensate for the absence of the surcharge on the first 2500 gallons. The charge for water above 2500 gallons is then the sum of the basic rate, $2.53 per thousand gallons plus a surcharge of $4.92, totalling $7.45 per thousand gallons. DMJM PhillipsÂ·ReisterÂ·Haley, Inc. Mr. Dale G. Hill November 6, 1986 Page Four Under this rates a typical monthly charge per tap use of 5000 gallons per month, would be: Minimum, including 1st 2500 gallons - $16.00 Next 2500 gallons @ $7.45/1000 gallons - 18.63 $34.63 All three alternatives result in the same charge of approximately $34.63 to the hypothetical average tap using 5000 gallons per month. .The disadvantages of these rates are: 1. Since the monthly minimum charge is computed by multiplying the per tap minimum by the number of taps in the bulk user's system, the Town must constantly keep track of the number of taps in that system. 2. Because individual taps in a bulk rate system are not metered by the Town, the unused portion of the 2500 gallon allowance of one tap can be used by another tap. This nullifies the minimum charge. One of the purposes of the minimum is to make the low user or part year user pay his share of the fixed administrative costs of the water system. The next two variations present the argument that the bulk rate users, on an individual basis, must pay the tap fee but are not billed a minimum monthly charge. They pay only for the water actually used. Alternative No. 4: This variation has no minimum charge but all the water used is billed at $4.99 per thousand gallons. This is the total of the basic rate of $2.53 per thousand gallons plus the tap fee surcharge of $2.46 per thousand gallons. The cost per tap using 5000 gallons per month would be: 5000 gallons @ 4.99/1000 gallons = $24.95. Alternative No. 5: This variation collects the tap fee by charging the necessary $12.28 every month for every tap connected and applies the standard rural residential rate of $2.53 per thousand gallons on all water used. One main consideration for collection of the tap fee is whether to collect the tap fee by a constant fixed monthly fee or to collect it by placing a surcharge on the amount of water used. Another is to what degree the method chosen is to encourage potential users to utilize the opportunity. It is felt that there are certain advantages in using a constant fixed monthly fee rather than a surcharge on the amount of water consumed. Following is a discussion of those advantages. 1. The surcharge on water used can certainly not be considered a small surcharge. Imposing such a large surcharge may discourage water use and could invalidate the estimates of water consumption upon which the surcharge was based. DMJM PhillipsÂ·ReisterÂ·Haley, Inc. Mr. Dale G. Hill November 6, 1986 Page Five 2. The surcharge on water used is based on an estimate of water consumption and is subject to error or alteration. It is not as definite as a constant fixed monthly fee. 3. A surcharge on water consumed based on an average consumption rate will result in above average users contributing more toward the tap fees then below average users. Heavier users will be subsidizing lesser users in regards to tap fees. 4. The owner of the bulk users' water system is probably going to have to add on his own surcharge to water consumed to fund the maintenance of the system. This will further discourage the use of water and could delay the collection of the tap fees. On the other hand, there are certain advantages to the surcharge on the quantity of water used rather than a fixed monthly fee or monthly minimum. 1. The minimum or fixed monthly fee is based on the number of taps on the bulk rate system. Determining the number of taps or equivalent taps is not difficult to do, but is time consuming. Further, it requires constant surveillance or periodic re-inspection to keep current with changes in the number of taps on the bulk rate system. This is much more difficult. The surcharge on water used only requires the Town to read a master meter each billing period. 2. The administration of the surcharge on quantity used is simple to understand. The customer served by the bulk rate system can readily understand that their rate per thousand gallons is higher in order to pay their tap fees on a time payment plan. 3. Eliminating the monthly minimum charge is justifiable since only one meter needs to be read and only one bill needs to be sent. The cost of billing, in terms of cost per tap on the bulk rate system, is so small that it can be ignored. With the understanding that Estes Park wishes to encourage connections to the system it is recommended that Alternate No. 4, the surcharge on all water used, be considered the best choice to achieve the desired results. While it lacks the accuracy of a fixed monthly charge or the monthly minimum, it is the simplest type of rate to administer and the most easily understood. If the Town agrees to adopt this type of rate for bulk water sales, we recommend that the rate be computed as follows: Basic rural residential rate (1987) $2.53 per thousand gallons Plant development surcharge 1.02 per thousand gallons Water rights surcharge 1.44 per thousand gallons $4.99 per thousand gallons If the bulk user is able to transfer adequate water rights or CBT units to the Town, then the rate should be the sum of the first two items only, or $3.55 per thousand gallons. DMJM PhillipsÂ·ReisterÂ·Haley. Inc. Mr. Dale G. Hill November 6, 1986 Page Six The surcharge should remain in effect on a bulk use connector for a 20 year period after which the surcharge to that connector would be eliminated and the rate paid for water used by that connector would drop to the normal rural residential rate in effect at that time. This is complicated situation and the final choice depends on many factors. We are available to discuss the contents of this report at your convenience. If you have any questions, please call. Very truly yours, DMJM/PHILLIPS, REISTER, HALEY, INC. Robert K. Kemp CC: Richard Widmer DWUM PhillipsÂ·ReisterÂ·Haley, Inc. . 9 . 9 4 TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for October, 1986 (Net) 20,351,053 gal. Water Use for September 14th through October 13th September 14th to 30th Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,683,000) ( 17 days ) *Fall River 3,243,00u 11,594,000 Glacier Creek *Big Thompson 5,281,912 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% ( - 426,246) October 1st to 13th Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,560,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River 2,543,900 Glacier Creek 5,759,000 *Big Thompson 3,878,592 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% ( - 321,125) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 28,310,033 Adjustment - (953,260) TOTAL 27,356,773 Percent Accounted For: 74% ' r- ADJUSIMENTS October, 1986 1. Dispenser $208.50 = 834 x 60 50,040 gai. 2. Street cleaning/flushing N/A 3. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights/Fall River/Old Man Mountain 407,900 gal. b. Charles Heights (Mise) (30 days @ 4,844 gal./day) 145,320 gal. Total Bleeders 553,220 gal. 4. Flushing/Leaks a. Fall River Plant Clarifier Cleaning (10/10) 250,000 gal. b. Big Thompson Plant Clarifier Cleaning (10/6-7) 100,000 gal. Total Flushing 350,000 gal. TOTAL ADJUSIMENTS 953,260 gal. . thr. ; e } 4.... . TOWN OF ESTES PARK . WATER USE RECORD OCTOBER 1986 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIB SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (6AL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (6AL) (AC-FT) 1 (119,000) 194,900 448,000 523,900 1.61 0.81 - 289,814 0.89 0.45 813,714 2.50 2 (116,000) 173,500 407,000 464,500 1.43 0.72 312,634 0.96 0.48 777,134 2.38 3 (109,000) 200,500- 447,000 538,500 1.65 0.83 309,700 0.95 0.48 848,200 2.60 4 (109,000) 152,700 466,000 509,700 1.56 0.79 326,326 1.00 0.50 836,026 2.57 5 (109,000) 167,200 442,000 500,200 1.54 0.77 249,356 0.77 0.39 749,556 2.30 6 (128,000) 178,200 425,000 475,200 1.46 0.74 339,040 1.04 0.52 814,240 2.50 7 (114,000) 193,000 453,000 532,000 1.63 0.82 391,526 1.20 0.61 923,526 2.83 8 (124,000) . 171,500 429,000 476,500 1.46 0.74 290,670 0.89 0.45 767,170 2.35 9 (126,000) 193,700 440,000 507,700 1.56 0.79 302,854 0.93 0.47 810,554 2.49 10 (126,000) 450,200 455,000 779,200 2.39 1.21 279,382 0.86 0.43 1,058,582 3.25 11 (126,000) 173,000 422,000 469,000 1.44 - 0.73 281,664 0.86 0.44 750,664 2.30 12 (126,000) 134,600 466,000 474,600 1.46 0.73 249,064 0.76 0.39 723,664 2.22 13 (128,000) 160,900 459,000 491,900 1.51 0.76 256,562 0.79 0.40 748,462 2.30 14 (128,000) 198,300 434,000 504,300 1.55 0.78 293,400 0.90 0.45 797,700 2.45 15 (128,000) 132,600 442,000 446,600 1.37 0.69 269,928 0.83 0.42 716,528 2.20 16 (132,000) 174,200 443,000 485,200 1.49 0.75 293,400 0.90 0.45 778,600 2.39 17 (121,000) 176,500 408,000 463,500 1.42 0.72 247,108 0.76 0.38 710,608 2.18 18 (121,000) 195,000 428,000 502,000 1.54 0.78 306,766 0.94 0.47 808,766 2.48 19 (121,000) 185,100 467,000 531,100 1.63 0.82 319,806 0.98 0.49 850,906 2.61 20 (131,000) 172,400 408,000 449,400 1.38 0.70 242,544 0.74 - 0.38 691,944 2.12 21 (134,000) 168,400 407,000 441,400 1.35 0.68 217,116 0.67 0.34 658,516 2.02 22 (141,000) 187,900 462,000 508,900 1.56 0.79 212,878 0.65 0.33 721,778 2.22 23 (113,000) 193,400 349,000 429,400 1.32 0.66 241,240 0.74 0.37 670,640 2.06 24 (113,000) 190,700 420,000 497,700 1.53 0.77 259,100 0.80 0.40 756,800 2.32 25 (113,000) 181,300 434,000 . 502,300 1.54 0.78 259,100 0.80 0.40 761,400 2.34 26 (113,000) 183,300 449,000 519,300 1.59 0.80 259,100 0.80 0.40 778,400 2.39 27 (124,000) 205,100 392,000 473,100 1.45 0.73 259,100 0.80 0.40 732,200 2.25 28 (58,000) 350,000 494,000 786,000 2.41 1.22 353,389 1.08 0.55 1,139,389 3.50 29 (71,000) 156,800 345,000 430,800 1.32 0.67 277,752 0.85 0.43 708,552 2.17 30 (107,000) 210,500 400,000 503,500 1.55 0.78 328,282 1.01 0.51 831,782 2.55 31 (85,000) 201,300 397,000 513,300 1.58 0.79 291,933 0.90 0.45 805,233 2.47 TOTAL (3,614,000) 6,006,700 13,338,000 15,730,700 8,810,534 24,541,234 (GAL) TOTAL -11.09 18.43 40.93 ************ 48.28 27.04 ************ 75.31 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ (300,335) 0 (440,527) (740,862) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS *****************************************â€¢**************************************************** (553,220) TOTAL GAL 5,706,365 13,338,000 15,730,700 ******** 8,370,007 ***************** 23,247,152 ******** CFS(AVE) 0.28 0.67 0.42 1.16 TOTAL AC-FT 17.51 40.93 58.45 25.69 71.34 71.34 , TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT - COMPARISON SHEET % Change 1984 1985 1986 Last Month Last Yea % Change - Same Mon 59.27 ac. ft. 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. Jan. 19.315.120 qal. Jan. 29,741,000 aal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. +4.90 % - 34.20 % 50.14 ac. ft. 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac, ft. Feb. 16.339.150 oal, Feb. 33,488,000 gal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. +7.20% -37.40% 48.75 ac. ft. 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. Mar. 15.888,300 cal Mar. 21,391.000 gal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. -0.31% -2.25% 53.18 ac. ft.. . .73.99 ac.. ft.. 63.08 ac. ft. Apr. 17,328,460 qal._ Apr. 24,110,504 gal. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. -1.68% -14.74% 69.73 ac. ft. .98.53 ac.. ft. 75.56 ac.-ft. May 22,723,106 gal. May 32,-106,550 gal . May 25,271,446 gal. +22.94% -21.29% 113.24 ac. ft. 131.24 ac. ft. 102.33 ac. ft. Jun. 36,899,615 gal. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. 133,345,089 gal. +31.95% -27.03% 153.88 ac. ft. 154.52 ac. ft. 125.09 ac. ft. Jul. 50,142,300 gal. Jul. 50,351,-784 gal. Jul. 40,760,-736 gal. +22.24% -19.05% 132.85 ac. ft. .167.68; ac.--ft. 123.91 ac: ft. Aug. 43,290,000 gal. Aug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug. 40,379,219 gal. -0.94% -26.10% 95.75 ac. ft. 95.29 ac. ft. 100.02 ac. ft. Sep. 31,201,500 gal. Sep. 31,-051,965 gal. Sep. 32,590,405 gal. -19.29 +4.69% 37.59 ac. ft. . 78.78 ac. ft. 71.34 ac. .ft. Oct. 12,249,009 gal. Oct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 23,247,152 gal. -28.67% -9.45% 42.77 ac. ft. 67.97 ac..ft. Nov. 13,936,841 gal. Nov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 42.78 ac. ft. 57.25 ac. ft. Dec. 13,940,500 gal. Dec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 899.99 1,184.97 ac. ft. _293,623,901 gal. 386,124,317 gal. 1 . WATER COMMITTEE 5- i AGENDA DECEMBER 11, 1986 . 1. BULK WATER DISPENSER - Proposal to modify. Reports: 1. November Water Reports 2. Cascade Diversion Structure 3. Bulk Connector Rate Ordinance 4. Employee Hiring I , f ~f ! 1 fi , 1, It ii ti -JVF22.1-- 1 1 1 1 1. 4 % -0 - . i i ' 1 i 1 11 9 62 t t 2 , : i 1! 1 13 0 1 ! 1 1 4 f: 11 it 1 t 1 I --Mr 1 Â© .1 ! 1 141 40" i 0 ID EIN _ it 04 + 1 1 < 40. 2 i i i ii (:F== ih==11 FUssuy< 1/pe- Bve.Ke/ == -6 PR v , D resse,Â¥ CIP X'07 tjlry Mod'~ 1/puz. A'\ e fe w 7_"lurb,/ve J- OYM N /4 :A \ E le.d- Sci uplve EJ- 31 . G A-e VA-(u e If Clk * 411 TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for November, 1986 (Net) 16,347,977 gal. Water Use for October 14, 1986 through November 13, 1986 : October 14 to 31st Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-2,054,000) ( 18 days ) *Fall River 3,462,800 Glacier Creek 7,579 ,000 *Big Thompson 4,931,942 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (-419,737) November 191- tn 131-hWater Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,326,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River 1,911,400 Glacier Creek 5,261,000 *Big Thompson 3,669,419 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (-279,041) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 22,736,783 Adjustment -2,602,964 TOTAL 20,133,819 Percent Accounted For: 81% . ADJUSTMENTS November 1986 1. Dispenser: $253.75 = 1015x60 = 60,900 Gal. 2. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights/Fall River/Old Man Mountain 427,500 Gal. b. Charles Heights (Mise) (31 days @ 4844 gal/day) 150,164 c. Hondius Tank (11/10 - 11/13) = 4 days @ 10,000/day 40,000 d. Fall River Estates Condos (11/13) = 1 day @ 25,000/day 25,000 e. Prospect Mountain Tank (11/3 - 11/13) = 11 days @ 5900 gal/day 64,900 f. Fall River Pit (10/28 - 11/13) = 4 days @ 50,000 gal + 14 days @ 75,000 gal 1,250,000 TOTAL BLEEDERS 1,957 ,564 3. Flushing/leaks a. Estes Park Sanitation (10/15) 3,500 Gal. b. Olympus Flushing (10/16) 500 c. Fall River Tank - Drain (10/22) 368,000 d. Elkhorn Lodge - Hydrant (10/23) 1,000 e. Flushing Hwy 34 (10/27) 1,500 f. Flushing 12" Fall River (10/28) 210,000 TOTAL FLUSHING 584,500 TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 2,602,964 TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD NOVEMBER 1986 DATE BLACK FALL 6LACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS] THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (6AL) (AC-FT) 1 (85,000) 145,800 376,000 436,800 1.34 0.68 291,933 0.90 0.45 728,733 2.24 2 (85,000) 202,500 423,000 540,500 1.66 0.84 254,606 0.78 0.39 795,106 2.44 3 (118,000) 132,900 388,000 402,900 1.24 0.62 292,422 0.90 0.45 695,322 2.13 4 (107,000) 183,800 388,000 464,800 1.43 0.72 252,650 0.78 0.39 717,450 2.20 5 (110,000) 170,400 395,000 - 455,400 1.40 0.70 329,370 1.01 0.51 784,770 2.4l 6 (102,000) 180,600 389,000 467,600 1.44 0.72 220,050 0.68 0.34 687,650 2.11 7 (99,000) 152,100 346,000 399,100 1.22 0.62 255,910 0.79 0.40 655,010 2.01 8 (99,000) 184,600 444,000 529,600 1.63 0.82 302,625 0.93 0.47 832,225 2.55 9 (99,000) 136,200 399,000 436,200 1.34 0.67 302,625 0.93 0.47 738,825 2.27 10 (101,000) 145,500 426,000 470,500 1.44 0.73 310,500 0.95 0.48 781,000 2.40 ll (l02,000) 61,700 435,000 394,700 1.21 0.61 263,082 0.81 0.41 657,7B2 2.02 12 (126,000) 77,100 444,000 395,100 1.21 0.61 295,030 0.91 0.46 690,130 2.12 13 (93,000) 138,200 408,000 453,200 1.39 0.70 298,616 0.92 0.46 751,816 2.31 14 (91,000) 167,800 474,000 550,800 1.69 0.85 275,000 0.84 0.43 825,800 2.53 15 (91,000) 119,700 411,000 439,700 1.35 0.68 297,000 0.91 0.46 736,700 2.26 16 (91,000) 138,100 421,000 468,100 1.44 0.72 297,000 0.91 0.46 765,100 2.35 17 (117,000) 162,800 447,000 492,800 1.51 0.76 261,452 0.80 0.40 754,252 2.31 18 (105,000) 102,800 424,000 421,800 1.29 0.65 283,620 0.87 0.44 705,420 2.16 19 (103,000) 149,700 404,000 450,700 1.3B 0.70 27B,078 0.85 0.43 728,778 2.24 20 (100,000) 110,200 420,000 430,200 1.32 0.67 302,854 0.93 0.47 733,054 2.25 21 (98,000) 120,200 415,000 437,200 1.34 0.68 268,850 0.83 0.42 706,050 2.17 22 (98,000) 129,100 385,000 416,100 1.28 0.64 266,016 0.82 0.41 682,116 2.09 23 (98,000) 158,900 478,000 538,900 1.65 0.83 322,088 0.99 0.50 860,988 2.64 24 (100,000) 125,200 409,000 434,200 1.33 0.67 259,170 0.80 0.40 693,370 2.13 25 (96,000) 94,700 407,000 405,700 1.25 0.63 306,114 0.94 0.47 711,814 2.18 26 (90,000) 134,600 392,000 436,600 1.34 0.68 293,726 0.90 0.45 730,326 2.24 27 (90,000) 140,900 444,000 494,900 1.52 0.77 293,726 0.90 0.45 788,626 2.42 28 (67,0001 141,500 426,000 500,500 1.54 0.77 337,B44 1.04 0.52 838,344 2.57 29 (67,000) 152,300 352,000 437,300 1.34 0.68 337,844 1.04 0.52 775,144 2.38 30 (671000) 109,400 275,000 317,400 8.97 0.49 337,844 1.04 0.52 655,244 2.01 31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 TOTAL (2,895,000) 4,169,300 12,245,000 13,519,300 8,687,645 22,206,945 (6AL) TOTAL -8.88 12.80 37.58 ************ 41.49 26.66 ************ 68.15 (AC-FT) LESS 5% **â€¢4*44***4* (208,465) 0 (434,382) 1642,847) (WASH WTR} BLEEDERS ********************************************************â€¢*******************â€¢***************** (1,957,564) TOTAL GAL 3,960,835 12,245,000 131519,300 *â€¢****** 8,253,263 ************â€¢**** 19,606,534 *****â€¢** CFS(AVE] 0.21 0.63 0.43 0.98 TOTAL AC-FT 12.16 37.58 49.73 25.33 60.17 60.17 WATER USE REPORT TOWN OF ESTES PARK COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Mont 1984 1985 1986 Last Month Last Year 59.27 ac. ft. 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. Jan. 19.315.120 gal. Jan. 29.741,000 qal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. +4.90 % - 34.20 % 50.14 ac. ft. 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac, ft. Feb. 16.339.150 qal, Feb. 33,488,000 qal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. +7.20% -37.40% 48.75 ac. ft. 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. Mar. 15.888.300 qal Mar. 21,391.000 gal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal . -0.31% -2.25% 53.18 ac. ft. 73.99 a c. ft. - 63.08 ac. ft. Apr. 17.328.460 qal._ Apr. 24,110,504 gal. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. -1.68% -14.74% 69.73 ac. ft. 98.53 ac. ft. 75.56 ac. ft. May 22,723,106 gal. May 32,-106,550 gal . May 25,271,446 gal. +22.94% -21.29% 113.24 ac. ft. 131.24 ac. ft. 102.33 ac. ft. Jun. 36,899,615 gal. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. .33,345,089 gal. +31.95% -22.03% 153.88 ac. ft. 154.52 ac. ft. 125.09 ac. ft. Jul. 50,142,300 gal. Jul. 50,351,784 gal. Jul. 40,760,736 441. +22.24% -19.05% 132.85 ac. ft. .167.68; ac.-ft. 123.91 act ft. Aug. 43,290,000 gal. Aug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug. 40,379,219 gal. -0.94% -26.10% 95.75 ac. ft. 95.29 ac. ft. 100.02 ac. ft. Sep. 31,201,500 gal. Sep. 31,051,965 gal. -Sep. 32.590.405 gial. -19.29 + 4.69% 37.59 ac. ft. . 78.78 ac. ft. Oct. 12,249,009 gal. Oct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 23.247.152 gal. -28.67% - 9.45% 71.34 ac. ft. 42.77 ac. ft. . 67.97 ac..ft. 60.17 ac. ft. Nov. 13,936,841 gal. Nov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 19,606,534 gal. -15.67% -11.48% 42.78 ac. ft. 57.25 ac..ft. Dec. 13,940,500 gal. Dec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 899.99 1,184.97 ac. ft. -293,623,901 gal. 386,124,317 gal. TOWN of ESTES PARK Nmember Water UM 3B 36 34 32 30 28 - 9 26 - C 24 - 22 - 20 - \ /1\ Â»Af 18 - 16 - 14 - 12 . 1 1,1 :I'I, 1 e74 1078 1078 1080 1082 1084 1 &6 TOWN of ESTES PARK Year-to-Date Water U,0 (Thru No,~,mber> 580 540 - t.ti 520 -/ soo - 480 - 460 - 440 - 42C - '2 400 - = 380 - Ill , 360 - L/- 0 4 ,4 340 - /.\ 320 - 300 - , 1 \ 280 - . 1 260 - 240 - 1,1 1 1 l'1, 1074 1078 1 078 1080 1082 1084 1G26 \ . < . ri-, 4 WATER COMMITTEE 0/60 AGENDA ~\~ ' FEBRUARY 9, 1987 1. DISCHARGE PERMITS - Request to take a proposal from DMJM for water plant discharge permit renewals. V L 2. BULK CONNECTOR RATE - Discussion of RMNP response to rate. 3. FIELD TRIP - Tour of Glacier Creek Water Plant (Time and weather permitting). .Reports: 1. December Water Reports 2. Cascade Diversion Structure W ':-11' '' /- ,/ I 0 > 44'z) TOWN OF ESTES PARK ty Public Works Department ' .1=-~fÂ·.uÂ·u Richard D. Widmer Â·f: 'hi â€¢. .. 4 - Â· Â· 14 ~,2.. ~:Â· ..~. Direct(Ir Â·-1. iÂ·'Â·-4: -78<fal 4 - . .Â·' q .Â·IN 'I ..Â·> '414 Â·Â· :*.Â·wiÂ« _.- . - Â·-p\t," r&(14-0-Jll-(> < J 44 4.',-, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 November 20, 1986 Mr. James B. Thompson Superintendent ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK Moraine Route Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Bulk Connector.Rate Dear Sir: As you know, the Town has contracted with DMJM to perform a rate study for a rural bulk connector rate based on selling water through a master meter, with all internal distribution system maintenance performed by the bulk connector user. The study has been completed and the rate recommended by the Water Committee to the Town Board is as shown below: Basic Rural Residential Rate (1987) $2.53 per thousand gal. Plant Development Surcharge 1.02 per thousand gal. Water Rights Surcharge 1.44 per thousand gal. TOTAL RATE $4.99 per thousand gal. If the bulk user is able to transfer adequate water rights or CBT units to the Town, the rate would be the sum of the first two items only, or $3.55 per thousand gallons. The surcharge would remain in effect on a bulk use connector for a 20 year period after which the surcharge to that connector would be eliminated and the rate paid for water used by that connector would drop to the normal rural rate in effect at that time. Obviously, the rate proposed would also be subject to the same rate increases as the rest of the water system users. P. 0. 80x 1200 Tela/bâ€¢ae (303) 586-5331 . Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Mr. James B. Thompson November 20, 1986 Page 2 3 The study was based on the following assumptions: 1. The present total cost of the plant development fee and water rights fee is $2,678.50. A 10% increase is anticipated in January, 1987, which will raise the total tap fee to $2,946.35. The following calculations are based on the anticipated 1987 tap fee and on 1987 water rates which are 10 percent higher than the current 1986 water rates. 2. The Town of Estes Park does not currently have a water rate for bulk water users. Bulk water users are assumed to have the same obligations as metered customers for contributing the full fee per tap to cover (a) the plant development fee which is the proportionate share of the capital cost of the existing facilities of the Estes Park water system, and (b) the water rights fee which is the cost of acquiring additional raw water to supply the new user. 3. Water going to bulk water users will go through a single master meter. The individual taps of bulk water users will not be metered by the Town. 4. The Town will send a single bill to the owner of the bulk rate group's water system. The bill Will include the collection of the tap fees based on a full residential tap fee for each residential connection to the system. If minimum charges are levied based on the number of taps and an allowance of water for each tap, then the total allowance for the group will be the number of taps times the allowance. 5. The bulk rate water users are assumed to be rural residential users and subject to that water rate. 6. The estimated average annual use of water per residential tap is 60,000 gallons. This number was determined by studying the water use records for urban residential users in Estes Park over a one year period covering June 1985 through May 1986. 7. The tap fee collection is to be spread over a period of time with no interest being charged. Interest charges at 8% would approximately double the necessary surcharge. 8. The surcharges were calculated using a 20-year time period to collect the tap fee. . th ..: I 1 i .Â¥ gqÂ¥ C Town of Estes Park . Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Mr. James B. Thompson : 6.- 2 ' November 20, 1986 Page 3 - - .. 2-â€¢1 f Currently, rural residential users are charged a minimum charge of $14.54 with an allowance of 2500 gallons and then $2.30 per thousand gallons for the amounts used over 2500 gallons. In 1987, it is anticipated that the minimum charge will be $16.00 with an allowance of 2500 gallons, plus $2.53 per thousand gallons for all water used after the first 2500 gallons. For pumped flow users, the maximum charge is $20.54 with an allowance of 2500 gallons, plus $2.63 per thousand gallons for all water used after the first 2500 gallons. In order to collect the tap fee of $2,946.35 over 20 years, it is necessary to collect an average of $12.28 per month per tap. If the average amount of water used is 5000 gallons per month, then a surcharge should be $2.46 for every thousand gallons used, including the 2500 gallon allowance. In all, five different alternative rate structures were analyzed. This rate was chosen because it does not require the number of taps to be determined or re-inspected, because the administration is simple to understand, and because it is justifiable since only one meter needs to be read. The Town believes this rate structure is the fairest and most equitable to all considered. Please advise me if you have additional concerns or questions. Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department 431_ 4'Richard D. Widmer, PE-LS Director RDW:ca CC: Dale Hill .T~ 5, /43*Â»rutxll United States Department of the Interior . 111<M/L/\ 161 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE \'<2500/ IN REPLY REFER TO: ~ FEB 0 6 1987 l J February 3. 1987 1-11< --..---6-j TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBUC WORKS DEFr. BY Mr. Richard D. Widmer Director, Public Works Department Town of Estes Park Estes Park, CO 80517 Reference: Bulk Connector Rate Dear Sir: We received you letter of November 20, 1986, concerning the water use rates established for bulk water users and have reviewed the application of those rates to the operation and maintenance of our system. At this time, we are unable to make a decision to purchase water from the Town as a result of an issue with our residents which indicates that they should not be put in a position of paying for the surcharge fees. To help us move closer toward purchasing Town water we request that the surcharge fees be identified as lump sum costs paid upon initial use of the water. We need to know the total plant development fee and an explanation of the total water rights fee. In addition, we understand that the basic rural residential rate of $2.53 per thousand gallons is the same as the Park would be charged. We feel that this rate does not take into consideration that the Park operates and maintains their own distribution system including watermain and fire hydrant repair andÂ·replacement, and watermeter reading operation caa maintenance. We request that the Town identify a basic rate that takes these aspects of water system operation and maintenance into consideration so that we may justify the use of Town water. ) James B. Thompson Superintendent, Rocky Mountain National Park TOWN OF ESTES PARK January Water Billed 14.2 14.2 14 - 13.8 - 13.7 13. 13.6 - 13.4 - 13.2 - 07 ZC 0 0 13 13 - 3E 12 12.8 - 12.6 - 12.4 - 12.2 - 12 11 11.8 Â· i Â· I 1981 1983 1985 1987 4 TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for January, 1987 (Net) 14,178,530 gal. Water Use for December 14, 1986 through January 13, 1987 : December 14 to 31 ' Water Supplied: Black Canyon ( - 1,822,000) ( 18 days ) *Fall River 2,450,800 Glacier Creek 8,554,000 *Big Thompson 4,595,621 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% ( - 352,321) January 1 to 13 Water Supplied: Black Canyon ( - 1,355,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River 1,962,500) Glacier Creek 6,250,000 *Big Thompson â€ž 3,218,922 Subtract for: .*Wash Water - 5% ( - 259,071) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 23,243,451 Adjustment 4,808,874 TOTAL 18,434,577 Percent Accounted For: 77% ADJUSTMENTS - January, 1987 1. Dispenser: $221.25 = 885 x 60 53;100 gal. . 2. Bleeders: a. Stanley Heights/Fall River/Old Man Mountain : 370,500 gal. b. Charles Heights (Mise) (31 days @ 4,844 gal/day) 150,164 gal. c. Hondius Tank (31 days @ 10,000 gal/day) 310,000 gal. d. Fall River Estates Condos (31 days @ 25,000 gal/da) 775,000 gal. e. MacGregor Avenue (31 days @ 7,500 gal/day) 232,500 gal. f. Fall River Pit (31 days @ 75,000 gal/day 2,325,000 gal. g. 0. H. Woods (metered) - 37,400 gal. h. Banker (metered) 60,600 gal. i. Stanl ey Park Pool (metered) 311,000 gal. j. Rogers (metered) 155,100 gal. Total Bleeders 4,727,264 gal. 3. Flushing/Leaks a. Flush 231 Davis Street (12/18) 2,750 gal. b. Repair East Riverside (12/19) 1,500 gal. c. 552 W. Elkhorn River Crossing (I2/18) 10,000 gal. d. Flush Woodland Heights (Cott) (12/24) 3,500 gal. e. Flush 554 Grand Estates (Saalfeld) (12/26) 6,760 gal. f. Flush Stanley Hotel Line (1/5) 3,000 gal. g. Flush Hondius Circle (1/9) 1,000 gal. TOTAL FLUSHING 28,510 gal. ~ TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 4,808,874 gal. 1 - 7Â·Â· 1 ., TOWN DF ESTES PARK , WATER USE RECORD . JANUARY 19B7 DATE BLACK FALL 6LACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BI6 SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL . TOTAL - ~ 0 CANYON RIVER CREEK (6AL) (AC-FT] (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) 4 (BAL) (AC-FT) 1 1 .(86,000) 192,800 529,000 635,800 1.95 0.98 251,672 1.77 B. 39 BB7,472 2.72 2 (97,000) 175,400 481,000 559,400 1.72 1.87 264,820 0.81 0.41 824,220 2.53 3 (97,000) 150,700 472,000 525,700 1.61 0.81 264,020 1.81 0.41 790,520 2.43 4 (97,000) 132,700 518,000 553,700 1.70 0.86 264,820 0.81 1.41 818,520 2.51 5 (112,000) 133,200 483,000 504,200 1.55 1.78 240,588 1.74 0.37 744,7BB 2.29 6 (117,000) 159,100 461,000 503,100 1.54 0.78 246,782 0.76 0.38 749,882 2.30 7 (111,000) 146,300 465,000 500,300 1.54 0.77 204,402 0.63 0.32 704,702 2.16 8 (105,000) 139,000 476,000 510,000 1.57 0.79 265,364 0.81 0.41 775,364 2.38 9 (105,000) 138,100 436,000 469,100 1.44 0.73 235,046 0.72 0.36 704,146 2.16 10 (105,000) 120,400 466,000 481,400 1.48 1.74 193,644 0.59 0.30 675,044 2.07 11 (105,000) 180,700 525,000 600,700 1.84 0.93 300,572 1.92 0.47 901,272 2.77 12 (107,000) 129,800 473,000 495,800 1.52 0.77 224,940 0.69 0.35 720,740 2.21 13 (111,000) 164,300 465,000 518,300 1.59 0.80 261,452 0.80 0.40 779,752 2.39 14 (114,000) 164,800 460,000 510,800 1.57 0.79 234,068 0.72 0.36 744,868 2.29 15 (109,000) 135,300 460,000 486,300 1.49 0.75 245,152 0.75 0.38 731,452 2.24 16 {101,000) 144,400 412,000 455,400 1.40 0.70 231,460 0.71 0.36 686,860 2.11 17 (101,000) 144,400 581,000 624,400 1.92 0.97 231,460 0.71 0.36 655,860 2.63 18 (101,000) 162,300 491,000 552,300 1.69 0.85 256,236 0.79 0.40 608,536 2.48 19 (107,000) 155,000 476,000 524,000 1.61 0.81 257,214 0.79 0.40 781,214 2.40 20 (116,000) 131,100 481,000 496,100 1.52 0.77 236,676 0.73 0.37 732,776 2.25 21 (105,000) 123,100 473,000 491,100 1.51 1.76 257,866 0.79 0.40 74B,966 2.30 22 (98,000) 92,300 485,000 479,300 1.47 0.74 257,866 0.79 0.40 737,166 2.26 23 (98,000) 113,900 479,000 494,900 1.52 0.77 286,554 0.88 0.44 781,454 2.40 24 (98,000) 109,400 493,000 504,400 1.55 0.78 270,906 0.83 0.42 775,306 2.38 25 (98,000) 122,900 498,000 522,900 1.60 0.81 286,484 I.8B 0.44 809,384 2.48 26 (89,000) 135,400 498,000 544,400 1.67 0.84 286,228 0.88 0.44 830,628 2.55 27 (103,000) 154,500 488,000 539,500 1.66 0.83 294,704 0.90 0.46 834,204 2.56 28 (111,000) 146,700 440,000 475,700 1.46 0.74 293,400 0.90 0.45 769,100 2.36 29 (98,000) 113,200 488,000 503,200 1.54 0.78 258,192 0.79 0.40 761,392 2.34 30 (91,000) 174,200 467,000 550,200 1.69 0.85 236,676 0.73 0.37 786,876 2.41 31 (91,000) 170,200 497,000 576,200 1.77 0.89 265,364 0.81 0.41 841,564 2.58 TOTAL (3,184,000) 4,455,600 14,917,000 16,188,600 7,905,428 24,094,028 (6AL) TOTAL -9.77 13.67 45.78 ************ 49.68 24.26 ************ 73.94 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ (222,780) 0 (395,271) (618,051) (WASH WTRI BLEEDERS *************************â€¢*********************************************************â€¢********** (4,727,264) TOTAL GAL 4,232,820 14,917,000 16,188,600 ******** 7,510,157 ***************** 18,748,713 ******** CFS(AVE) 0.21 0.74 0.37 0.94 TOTAL AC-FT 12.99 45.78 58.77 23.05 57.54 57.54 TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Month 1985 1986 1987 Last Month Last Year 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. Jan. 29,741,000 gal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. +3.54% - 4.20% 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac. ft. Feb. 33,488,000 gal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. Mar. 21,391,000 gal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar. 73.99 ac. ft. 63.08 ac. ft. Apr. 24,110,504 gal. _ Apr. 20,556,057 gal . Apr. 98.53 ac. ft. 75.56 ac. ft. May 32,106,550 gal. May 25,-271,446 gal . May 131.24 ac. ft. 102.33 ac. ft. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 154.52 ac. ft. .125.09 ac. ft.- Jul. 50,351,784 Jul. 40,760,736 gal. Jul. 167.68 ac. ft. .123.91 ac. ft. Aug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug- 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 95.29 ac. ft. 100.02 ac. ft. Sep. 31,051,965 gal. Sep. 32,590,405 gal. Sep. 78.78 ac. ft. 71.34 ac. ft. Oct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 23,247,152 gal. Oct. 67.97 ac. ft. 60.17 ac. ft. Nov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 57.25 ac. ft. 55.57 ac. ft. Dec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 1,184,97 ac. ft. 965.65 ac. ft. 386,124,317 gal. 315,317,871 gal. . ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT . Customer Service Response Report January, 1987 ACTIVITY NO. OF RESPONSES MAN-HOURS Hydrant Flushing 0 0 Bleeder Maintenance 4 2.75 Utility Locations 9 5.2 Billing Questions 3 1.25 Water Shut-Off 1 0.5 Tap Requests 1 0.5 Water Quality 3 0.9 Pressure 2 1.1 Frozen Lines 12 7.3 Line Breaks 0 0 Back Flow Prevention -0 0 Construction 0 0 Street Repair 0 0 Snow Removal 1 1.0 Sign Repair 0 0 Storm Drainage 0 0 Other 4 3.0 WATER LOST 200 Gallons MATERIAL USED LABOR HOURS 23.5 Man Hours EQUIPMENT USED I .4 WATER COMMITTEE j h AGENDA JANUARY 15, 1987 1. FIELD TRIP - Tour of Glacier Creek Water Plant. Reports: 1. November Water Reports 2. Cascade Diversion Structure - 3. Hondius Heights Water Line (Evan Hall) 1 . TOWN of ESTES PARK Total Yearly Accountable Water 100 90 - 83.8 84.8 80 - \\ li 75.0 73J 73.4 70 62.8 9 4% 60 ~ 44Â¢tit 30 20 10 9%4444 0 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 i'*SH/130/RS:/26*/Rj 1745 <CX << C<X< I t tx/.RiN'RE'giti'*28'*52'Ri I,} , 1 Exptio/tix/Nti.tix/giti/# /gi,/Q. 'l X t. 7'*221Â§/RiM/ON ,Â¤Â¤'Â¤R';515'b~'i&i&Ca8~ZBRCÂ¤ e- X X 1< < << << << C << << << < G 1 / 1/ , , 11 1 Ixx/x.,/*A/,Â¢2/FFE,8/gsm/gym/*m/m~/Mm'Am'*RE'&2~'Ey*:*2 9 X X XX X V , 1 1 , I, , 1 '2148'Max=g'bucw IY[Yilti~';[Q'M _, 4 *R x - f << < << << << < 4 'bo/tio.48/4 Z * 1 lo/Â©2,2,#/gygy/*1/25;*/O >- X X / 1 ix >212'228/*222'RER'%112'82 1 ixf~ c<Xc< <<x< /1 , R X i|x |x|M /40/0&$/#g/li ac X A X C /7 t ,!i#'48.00'*8'4Â¢i'* r'i 5 << << << < X X 1/ 1 11011 <<:<I <0 3 10 0 10 0 - (Suoill!~4) SUOIIDS TOWN of ESTES PARK Water Billed 1981 - 1986 030 AON bldÂ¥ 833 996 1 E;329 9961 961 Â£961 196 1 IE~I 1861. 45 40 - 35 - 30 - 25 - - OZ TOWN of ESTES PARK December Water Billed 13 12.9 - 12.8 - 12.7 - 12.6 - 12.5 - 12.4 - 12.3 - 12.2 - 12.1 - 12 - 11.9 - 11.8 - 11.7 - 11.6 - 11.5 - 11.4 - 11.3 - 11.2 - 11.1 - 11 - 10.9 I I I I 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 TOWN of ESTES PARK Year-to-Date Water Billed (thru Dec) 255 250 - 245 - 240 - 235 - 230 - 225 - 220 - 215 - 210 - 205 i i i i 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 (Millionâ€¢) (Millions) . TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for December, 1986 (Net) 12,534,270 gal. Water Use for November 14, 1986 through December 13, 1986 November 14 to 30 Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,569,000) ( 17 days ) *Fall River 2,257,900 Glacier Creek 6,984,000 *Big Thompson 5,018,226 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% ( - 363,806) December 1 to 13 - Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,127,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River 1,810,300 Glacier Creek 4,692,000 3,944,273 *Big Thompson Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% ( - 287,729) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 21,359,164 Adjustment 4,402,760 TOTAL 16,956,404 Percent Accounted For: 74% .. 6 0 ADJUSTMENTS December, 1986 1. Dispenser: $167.25 = 669 + 60 = 40,140 gal 2. Bleeders: a. Stanley Heights/Fall River/Old Man Mountain = 314,800 gal. b. Charles Heights (Mise) (30 days @ 4,844 gal/day) = 145,320 gal. c. Hondius Tank (30 days @ 10,000 gal/day) = 300,000 gal. d. Fall River Estates Condos (30 days @ 25,000 gal) = 750,000 gal. e. Fall River Pit (30 days @ 75,000 gal/day . = 2,250,000 gal. f. MacGregor Avenue (12/10 - 12/13) (4 days @ 7,500/day = 30,000 gal. g. Rogers (metered - 811 Old Ranger Drive) = 235,000 gal. i. Stanley Park Swimming Pool (metered) = 325,000 gal. Total Bleeders = 4,350,120:gal. 3. Flushing/Leaks: a. Flushing Highway 34 (11/28) 5,000 gal. b. Flushing Sunrise Resort (12/2) 1,500 gal. c. Flushing Courtney Lane (12/9) 1,000 gal. d. Flushing Fall River Estates (12/11) 5,000 gal. Total Flushing 12,500 gal. Total Adjustments 4,402,760 gal. I I I . Â· . TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Montl 1984 1985 1986 Last Month Last Year 59.27 ac. ft. 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. Jan.Â· 19.315.120 qal. Jan. 29,741,000 qal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. +4.90. % - 34.20 % 50.14 ac. ft. 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac, ft. Feb. 16.339.150 qal, Feb. 33.488.000 qal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. -+7.20% -37.40% 48.75 ac. ft. 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. Mar. 15.888.300 qal Mar. 21,391.000 qal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. -0.31% -2.25% 53.18 ac. ft. .73.99 ac.. ft.. 63.08 ac. ft. Apr. 17.3289460 qal._ Apr. 24,110,504 gal. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. -1.68% -14.74% 69.73 ac. ft. .98.53 ac. ft. 75.56 ac. ft. May 22,723,106 qal. May 32,-106,550 gal . May 25,271,446 gal. +22.94% -21.29% 113.24 ac. ft. 131.24 ac. ft. 102.33 ac. ft. Jun. 36,899,615 gal. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. 1 33,345,089 gal. +31.95% -22.03% 153.88 ac. ft. 154.52 ac. ft. 125.09 ac. ft. Jul. 50,142,300 gal. Jul. 50,351,784 gal. Jul. 40,760,736 gal. +22.24% -19.05% 132.85 ac.fft. .167.68; ac.-ft. 123.91 ac. ft. Aug. 43,290,000 gal. Aug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug. 40,379,219 gal. -0.94% -26.10% 95.75 ac. ft. . 95.29 ac. ft. 100.02 ac. ft. Sep. 31,201,500 gal. Sep. 31,051,965 gal. Sep. 32.590.405 gal. -19.29 + 4.69% 37.59 ac. ft. . 78.78 ac..ft. 71.34 ac. ft. Oct. 12,249,009 gal. Oct. -25,672,598 gal. Oct. 23.247.152 Gal. -28.67% - 9.45% 42.77 ac. ft. 67.97 ac..ft. 60.17 ac. ft. Nov. 13,936,841 gal. Nov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 19,606,534 gal. -15.67% -11.48% 42.78 ac. ft. 57.25 ac..ft. 55.57 ac. ft. Dec. 13,940,500 gal. Dec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. 18.107.824 gal. -7.64% -2.94% TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 899.99 1,184.97 ac. ft. 965.65 ac. ft. .293,623,901 gal. 386,124,317 gal. 315,317,871 gal. 1 f TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD DECEMBER 1986 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BI6 SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (6AL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (6AL) (AC-FT) 1 (65,000) 132,000 300,000 367,000 1.13 0.57 321,436 0.99 0.50 688,436 2.11 2 (70,000) 126,000 272,000 328,000 1,01 0.51 364,468 1.12 0.56 692,46B 2.13 3 (70,000) 140,000 300,000 370,000 1.14 0.57 325,348 I.00 0.50 695,348 2.13 4 (74,000) 124,300 312,000 362,300 1.11 0.56 364,142 1.12 0.56 726,442 2.23 5 (70,000) 138,900 305,000 373,900 1.15 0.58 303,505 0.93 0.47 677,405 2.08 6 (70,000) 121,500 291,000 342,500 1.05 0.53 392,504 1.20 0.61 735,004 2.26 7 (70,000) 130,500 349,000 409,500 1.26 0.63 286,228 0.88 0.44 695,728 2.14 8 (92,000) 134,000 312,000 354,000 1.09 0.55 311,982 0.96 0.48 665,982 2.04 9 (95,000) 133,300 448,000 486,300 1.49 0.75 238,632 0.73 0.37 724,932 2.22 10 (134,000) 146,800 454,000 466,800 1.43 0.72 276,774 0.85 0.43 743,574 2.20 11 (111,000) 177,100 449,000 515,100 1.58 0.80 238,306 0.73 0.37 753,406 2.31 12 (103,000) 150,700 455,000 502,700 1.54 0.78 260,474 0.80 0.40 763,174 2.34 13 (103,000) 155,200 445,000 497,200 1.53 0.77 260,474 0.80 0.40 757,674 2.33 14 (103,000) 127,400 474,000 498,400 1.53 0.77 260,474 0.80 0.40 758,874 2.33 15 (111,000) 127,900 444,000 460,900 1.41 0.71 239,284 0.73 0.37 700,184 2.15 16 (115,000) 141,000 455,000 481,000 1.48 0.74 266,994 0.82 0.41 747,994 2.30 17 (118,000) 94,100 440,000 416,100 1.28 0.64 248,412 0.76 0.38 664,512 2,04 18 (109,000) 137,200 444,000 472,200 1.45 0.73 266,016 0.82 0.41 738,216 2.27 19 (109,000) 147,100 452,000 490,100 1.50 0.76 219,072 0.67 0.34 709,172 2.18 20 (110,000) 131,600 490,000 511,600 1.57 0.79 280,034 0.86 0.43 791,634 2.43 21 (109,000) 123,200 464,000 478,200 1.47 0.74 226,570 0.70 0.35 704,770 2.16 22 (109,000) 101,400 474,000 466,400 1.43 0.72 255,910 0.79 0.40 722,310 2.22 23 . (107,000) 152,500 480,000 525,500 1.61 0.81 210,270 0.65 0.33 735,770 2.26 24 (107,000) 141,000 540,000 574,000 1.76 0.89 247,597 0.76 0.38 821,597 2.52 25 (107,000) 135,800 432,000 460,800 1.41 0.71 247,597 0.76 0.38 708,397 2.17 26 (84,000) 155,500 450,000 521,500 1.60 0.81 260,365 0.80 0.40 781,865 2.40 27 (84,000) 187,000 502,000 605,000 1.86 0.94 260,365 0.80 0.40 865,365 2.66 28 (84,000) 137,600 560,000 613,600 1.88 0.95 260,365 0.80 0.40 B73,965 2.68 29 (84,000) 119,800 488,000 523,800 1.61 0.81 298,942 0.92 0.46 822,742 2.52 30 (86,000) 158,800 495,000 567,800 1.74 0.88 265,038 0.81 0.41 832,838 2.56 31 (86,000) 131,900 470,000 515,900 1.58 0.80 282,316 0.87 0.44 798,216 2.45 TOTAL (2,949,000) 4,261,100 13,246,000 14,558,100 8,539,894 23,097,994 (GAL) TOTAL -9.05 13.08 40.65 ************ 44.68 26.21 ************ 70.89 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ (213,055) 0 (426,995) (640,050) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS *******************************************************************************************14** (4,350,120) TOTAL GAL 4,048,045 13,246,000 14,558,100 ******** 8,112,899 ***************** 18,107,824 ******** CFS(AVE) 0.20 0.66 0.40 0.90 TOTAL AC-FT 12.42 40.65 53.07 24.90 55.57 55.57 A K fri 12 / / P 6/ // \> ff MARCH 12, 198 WATER COMMITTEE . 1. DEVELOPMENT PLAN # 87-1 (Lot 3, Block 5, First Addition to Lone Pine Acres) - Request for Town to share water extension costs. 2. DISCHARGE PERMITS - DMJM proposal for permits, spill containment plan, and effluent metering. 3. BUDGET - Discussion of proposed budget amendment. 4. PURIFICATION EQUIPMENT - Request to purchase auto switch chlorinators. 5. FIELD TRIP - Tour of Fall River Water Plant (Time and weather permitting). Reports: 1. February Water Reports 2. Cascade Diversion Structure 3. Bulk Rate Ordinance & RMNP Response 4. Anheuser Busch Water Rental 5. AWWA Conference '1 6-*- I i 1.0 ch Lo 2-0 52 March 11, 1987 0 <0 LO Mr. Richard Widmer, P.E. Town of Estes Park P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Fire Protection in Lone Pine Acres Dear Mr. Widmer: Mr. Dick Hannigan (and partners) are proposing construc- tion of nine dwelling units on Lot 3, Block 5, Lone Pine Acres. These units will be in the form of three duplexes and one triplex to be phased over a five year period. Each unit will be about 1,000 square feet in size and are to be marketed at a price of about $65,000. A development plan was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission on February 17, 1987. During the review process, the Estes Park Fire Department, ran a flow test on a fire hydrant in the vicinity and found a pumping rate of 530 GPM was possible for a 5 minute dura- tion. This flow rate for such a short duration is not adequate fire protection for existing residences, let alone r additional units. Therefore, the Planning Commission con- ditionally approved Hannigan's proposal requiring modifica- tions to the water system in this area to upgrade fire flow rates. Lone Pine Acres was platted in 1960 and 4 inch and 2 inch / lines were installed to serve the development. Although static line pressure in the area is fairly high, 190 psi, the 4 inch line is just not large enough to supply adequate fire protection by today's standards. The solution to this problem in the area of Hannigan's proposal is to con- nect the 8 inch line along U.S. 34 to the lower end of Lone Pine Acres' 4 inch line in Raven Avenue. The Town's Master Water Plan calls for this connection to be made by extendÂ·*ng--~ a 12 inch line up Dry Gulch Road to Raven Avenue and (i--6_iEL_-2 or 8 inch line up Raven Avenue to the existing 4 inch line. P.O. Box 3047 ESTES PARK SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, Inc. First Nat'I B nk~31 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Mr. Richard Widmer 3/11/87 Fire Protection in Lone Pine Acres Page 2. ' Mr. Hannigan could proceed with construction of a duplex on his lot because it does not require review by the Planning Commission before a building permit can be issued. This would also allow the Hannigans the opportunity to generate the capital from sales to help construct the water lines for better fire protection. However, they realize that this would not resolve the problem in a timely or efficient manner and would like to remedy the situation prior to the construction of any units. Over the last three years the Town has approved development plans immediately adjacent to Hannigan's that include twelve multi-family living units. Additionally, several single family homes and one duplex have been constructed in Lone Pine Acres in this same period that did not require develop- ment plan review. None of the proponents to build these newer units were required to contribute to the upgrading of fire protection in the area. The Hannigans would agree to assist in developing the connec- tion as described above for the improvement of fire protecm tion in Lone Pine Acres. They propose to purchase all the pipe that is needed not to exceed $9,000. This represents a $1,000 per unit investment on their part. Your staff has indicated that the remainder of the cost could be accomplish- ed most economically by the utilization of Town construction crews. The Town should contribute to this project because:Â· 1. Fire flow rates that now exist are inadequate for even single family construction. 2. This new connection benefits far more than just the Hannigan's project. 3. A good opportunity to remedy an existing problem is the crux of this proposal. 4. By reviewing and then approving other projects of a similar nature, the Town has assumed responsibility for adequate fire , protection in the area. Development plan review criteria speaks clearly to the de- termination of adequate fire protection by the Town. Mr. Richard Widmer 3/11/87 Fire Protection in Lone Pine Acres Page 3. . We will be present at the water committee meeting on 4 March 12, 1987 to discuss and present this cost-sharing proposal. If you have any questions or require additional ' information, please contact us. Your support and assist- ance would be greatly appreciated. Respectfully yours, ESTES PARK SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, INC. 1 47 A AW- Paul M. Kochevar, P.E. Vice President PK:m f 1 -1 1 4 ,1 . 1 4 -- -2.- -7. , - 1 - - -20/ 2 / . Â«2==21 - --217 =- -* 5-- - 7--=u==CnrÂ· ASZ=73uz-r--: - -7 rd -<_ - 1-4-7----*- 1 1 J 7 --- 1 4 .4091Â·----/.1-/=--li-- I.Zzl../1 - + itt ~ i 991\ \ 1 ) 11/2, tx.\/ /77--77 -7.- 32--: fili - . 1, \ 4,1 \ 4 /,/Â«1 9- a 14 4 -+ , I Unt,I -i-7 1 77><d ' 7 /' \ \/\\ \\ 1 1 m X. %. 1. / 1 '. 1 1 -- ./. ./.I 1 \ .1 \ 1 X411\ C Y./1 70, baÂ« h \ Iv , to /\ \/0 1 1 '~'43235~Â£l)<t X44-7/L-/ .Â· - 4 -rfÂ«-4/ Â·4- --4/ / f. . -! 1 2/ / h /// . 1 - 1-4 c h . 1-<r - /4 E 1 '/0 4// \:\ , O 3< .,4 \2(\ ~ ~\R\~iJziz'%4\9 / / 5 K /- * \*tij * E "ri A /. /9 7- 2 A. /f f f \ '4' t /,-1 4 - i . 9 ' i ' /1 7 L \?/1 , 4 0 1/ W C. 1 j~ / - 4 1. 1\ (. ''~ .1\/f\\ ,~11 1.9/ Lf + f g * 1 P \ \\~ / /'l 0 4 1 6\\ 1 , 2,4 PS 7 / W* *4. .14. 04 i 4/ 4, / ' 11 5 11 \ 4 ~ 9,1 \44 4/ 1 41 9 W \ I n o , ..'4 0,/ .0-X ) t tiL// 2/ :% --* l 1 Lll 11 â€¢r, 6 5 . 1 5 1~ 1\ ~ // of' 8-14 Â£ it \ \.32 ~ 1%:Ch & C 4 -/ râ‚¬- 4 7 \// - ~--) - 34Â« 'p ul U-1--a---3> , ~ 2 \\ 9'.. {4\ 1 . Q \ \ 1 L m . id . . L f. . \ f. -11; -A: . 1 1/f 3 1 ~/Al/ h h : / . L x J 4, 3 8 'h , 1 .. 9. ?t-â‚¬ 1 - j 4 - 1 1 ~h.. C \/ *.4 -1 *1 i i I -- . - P/L 3: f. /1/l/ 4 <\11 0 7- m i /7 \ 30 1 - . 123 4 <u l 26 / 4 44 -4-1 1. 1 g\% erÂ· 3 : 66- . I.U /4/ 45 CED U. L fi; 1,#f k <43.9 o ' + 64 , 4/ -1 v-*31 --\ A . / 0 / 4 4- 1 - N '14\ h i 1% 114- . i--\ $ i . / \10>t. 1 1 \/ \ P. 9 rf 4 7/9 :,(53, --t 4 , . C \Ch ..4 3 1 1 .: \ 1 0 1 . I. ., I M 9% .' 1 1\ ~ b. ''~ \ . 25 // L fi ... ly. # a. N + 9 \ '15 244\414 \:\\\ ... 3 4-; ' .:14 . ! r / 76 -72 .... 1\ \ Â»V/-1.- I.. rllâ€¢ f /. j. -t ' J .\ 14 4 - f: -- ) , ~ 4-34 1 1 . ~24 +0Â«: . # 2 43 ----/ t Â·~ ./'~~ . 1 8,1 DAUC L. 1, 1 . 1 I ,-./2 - â€¢ .,1 La- ./ ~_1 \ ' 4, 41 1.1. i. 'F ir, ., hiv Â¢322 '4 6 --84 1/.9 -1.. 5 . I .-24\ W - ..0 1 -- At WÂ· I *9' 7 .. 4 24 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 'll Public Works Department Richard L. Gerstberger Assistant Director w# 1/1 j'~-C<-r --92. VÂ¥ 9 b-Ztz: #C. /C--LIT, ,/& - 72 -Â·- Estes Park, Colorado 80517 A r r 1 -7- -1 MEMORANDUM TO: Rich Widmer , / FROM: Dick Gerstberger\â‚¬730~ -P DATE: February 25, 1987 J SUBJECT: Water Treatment Plants iff< Discharge Permit Renewal Discharge permits for the Fall River and Big Thompson water treatment plants will expire December 31, 1987. Applications for renewal of these permits must -be submitted to the Colorado -Department of Health f**e months before the expiration date. â€¢V As authorized by the water committee, I requested the following proposal from DMJM for the preparation of both applications. The estimated cost is $1,600 total. In 1985 DMJM billed the town $1,240 for the Glacier Creek permit application. This year's application process is benefiting from DMJM's efforts at Glacier Creek. I recommend approval of their discharge permit renewal proposal. The final Glacier Creek permit issued by the Health Department contained two conditions that we have not yet satisfied: (1) the preparation of a spill containment plan, and (2) metering facilities on the effluent discharge. DMJM has estimated the cost of preparing a spill containment plan for the Glacier Creek plant at $500 and the cost of a preliminary design for resolving the effluent metering problems at that plant at $1,500. The preliminary de-sin for the effluent meter is a little higher than I -anticipated--P~-e to the uncertainty of the proper solution. I recommend approval of this proposal for all three projects. P. O. Box 1200 Telephone (303) 586-5331 DP.UM February 20, 1987 Mr. Dick Gerstberger Assistant Public Works Director Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Reference: Discharge Permits - Fall River and Big Thompson Water Treatment Plants Gentlemen: Confirming our telephone conversation of February 12, 1987, DMJM proposes to prepane the application forms for renewal of the Town's NPDES Discharge Permits for the Fall River and Big Thompson Water Treatment Plants, including attach- ments and drawings, for a fee to be based on our normal billing rates for the personnel performing the work, plus direct costs such as printing or vehicle mileage. Based on our estimate of the engineering, drafting, and stenographic time required to prepare the two applications, we estimate that the fee would be approximately $1,600. In addition, we propose to prepare a spill containment plan to fulfill one of 1the conditions of the discharge permit for the Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant for a fee, based on our normal billing rates, estimated to be approxi- mately $500. Also, we propose to study and recommend a method. for metering the backwash water discharged form the Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant for a fee, based on our normal billing rates, estimated to be approximately $1500. The level of detail for this would be up through concept sketches and selection of a type of metering device. For the final design, including preparation of construction drawings and specifications to solicit bids for furnishing and installing the meter, we propose that the estimated fee be calculated after the type and location for the metering element has been determined by the preliminary study. We would be happy to discuss any details of this proposal with you if you have any questions. Please feel free to call us. Very truly yours, Division Manager Daniel, Mann, Johnson,& Mendenhall Planning CC: R. Kemp Suite 700 Architecture 910 Filteenth Street Engineering Denver, Colorado 80202 Systems Telephone: 303/892-1300 Economics UN February 24, 1987 Water Department Windy Gap Assessment - April 1, 1987 $752,000.00 ALTERNATE NUMBER 1: Procedure pursuant to the 1987 Budget - Borrow ..... $675,000 Water Dept.. 77,000 $752,000 ALTERNATE NUMBER 2: Amend the Water Department 1987 Budget as follows: (Source of funds) Ijj k-bf~ontingency (reduce to zero) ........................ $110,000 Windy Gap Assessment (pursuant to budget) ........... 77,000 I 96-, 0-0-0 ~) UWA~Capital (from $250,000 to $25,000) .................. 2-2-5,000 370,0-0-0 ~ Loan (from Insurance Reserve Fund) .................. -310,000- $752,000 < 24-3. 0-01 16 6753 "-0 ' > CANYON SYSTEMS INC A 306 5.- Lookout Mtn. Rd., Golden, Colorado 80401 Date: February 16, 1987 Area Code 303 526-0658 Quotation #: 151-287 Reference: Telecon Terms: Net thirty days TO: Town of Estes Park -- . - Prices F.O.B.: Denver P. 0. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Delivery: Two - three weeks ARO Attention: Dave Coleson Prices (lood For: Thirty days rEM QUAN DESCRIPTION PRICE AMOUNT A 3 Sets of parts to convert existing Capital Controls manual chlorinator Model 480 to Capital Controls auto switch over Model 485. - Parts required: 2 1 - bottle mounted vacuum regulators 3 - wall mounted remote metering tube assemblies 3 - wall mounted auto switch over modules 3 - sets of tubing adaptors and tubing TOTAL PRICE $ 2890.00 - 300. A O 9510 19 BY: il AA A. 48 ud-AJ U Jim A. Bauer MILIES Inc. Telephone 303/761-9710 Telex 45-979 2875 South Tejon Street Englewood, CO 80110-1292 Manufacturer s Representative DATE: February 25, 1987 QUOTATION #: 38MG-2-87 Town of Estes Park REFERENCE: P. 0. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 TERMS: Net 30 Days Attn: David Coleson PRICES F.O.B.: See Quotation DELIVERY: See Quotation PRICES GOOD FOR: 30 Days UNIT TOTAL ITEM QUANTITY DESCRIPTION PRICE PRICE We are pleased to offer our quotation for the following equipment. 2 Capital Controls Vacuum Regulators 0-100 ppd service, Model 480 3 Remote Metering Tubes 3 Auto Switchover Modules #AS100C 100' 3/8" Vacuum and Vent Tubing- Total Net Price F.O.B. Factory $3,402.00 Delivery: 3-4 weeks after receipt of a purchase order Should you have any questions concerning this quotation feel free to call. l .j'. .4 BY: 7/~- Michael Gibbany d;*) MG/eh Tech Sales Solutions 3, TECH SALES, INC. 2875 Sci:t, Tejon Street â€¢ Enalewood. Colorado 80110 Telephone (303) 761-9710 GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE 1. PRICES: 'Er.-9: 3:'2.-O.2. factory..Pr:ce.3 Co not,ncicrjea,ly sa'es. 7. '.VAARANTY: 32!le- warrap:3 :93 'or a ser'cd of 12 mer;tr.s ic :Â·- use or sner taxes or project bonding. Suv. fees wiN be added to the s:Â·art-UP Of Clu:pmer;: cr :8 mc-.:rs -af:gria:2+0~Stic.mer?.3, Â·.Â·..licÂ·-2.-=- Oric,3 unless a val -1 ex.emotion certificate has been provided tv cencd is shorter. aM products :o be :yee from c.'=c'.3 Ji: inH:erial .6- 2 Purchaser. Ouc:ed pr,ccs if n t ac-epâ€¢ed by Purchaser witnin.33 days WorK:nalisnip. Seller must receive Droms: wr,tten notice Of Cla.Â·rec from cate of this quotation, aresubjecttochangeprior toacceotance of de'ec:s. which n'ctice must be receivect no later than 30 days after :ne orcer by the Seller. unless specif.cally modified in this proposal- end of :he warranty period. This 'warrasty shan not ap:Ny ic -., products altered or repaired outside Se!!er's factory cr with et.hertral 2. PAYMENT AND CREDIT: Terms of Pay;Tlent are net 30 days unless Setier:s reptacernen' Â·.arÂ¢-,- unless suc,1 repair was authof,zed othernise sta:ed. Al! orcers are subject tc :he approval of seller's Grad.: 3/ Seller. or to products or parts subject to mt;use. abuse. :lec;ect or department. If P-:'chaser is in default in any payment: Solier may accicentor damaged by improper ins:a:!atic. ora-plicarcr:. in rof, en: dec!are an paymen:s for work completed immedia:ely due and Dayable. shall Seller be liaole for normal wear and tear. nor icr ally inc,denta or step a!! f urthop,Â·/crk un*il payments are brcught current and:or require cciser'Ucntia: damages due to inoperabili:,7 cf its oreducs. advance payment for future shipments. Seller makes no warranty with respec: to parts. deÂ·=eiscr:es. 07 Purcha:er agrees to reimburse Seller for court costs and reasonasle COn:Cne--3 manufac:ured by others. The warranty acc:icab'* iD St Z - attorney's fees 3hou!C court action be necessary for Se;lei to cclies items is that offered by the!r respec:ive mang:acture's. amount due. The foregoing is in lieu of all other warranties, expres:1 of ims',eÂ·U irclicing tne warrant,es of merchan:antlity and fi:ness fer par:ic:.:a: 3. ITEMS INCLUDED: Each saie includes only the equipmenti purpose..rep shaii Se!(er De liable casea acon any claim o; necÂ·-:.Â·3-: services described .7 the order. - equi=ment Cesign cr manufacture. Seller shail net be res:crisible for comptiance with state of loca! safe:v and health s:antes ..iniess R has acceyed sues responsibility in writina. 8. CANCELLATION. SUSPENSION OR DELAY: If Purcrasp- recuests or causes acancellation, s:.spension or deÂ·aye? 2:1 4. SHIPMENTS AND DELIVERY: Senershalluser.ascnal:!ee:fortsto Purchaser shall pay Seller al! aoprocr:ate charges incÂ·.irred up .:. , .. meetsoedied delivery cates. but such datesareestirnates only and are cate N such carcellatior, suscens,on or deiay: plus Seiter's over..2.33 not guaranteec anc Seller shall have no liabiiity. direct or indirect. for anc! reasonaole profit. Additionany, an charges related to and risÂ·-,2 de!ay in delivery. Selier may not be dec!ared in breach ncr shall the ... incident :0-storage. disposition and./or resum,xion of work Gral 03 orcer be subject to car:ceiiation sc long as Seler is making bcna fide borne soleiy by Purchaser. effort to complete manufacture and delivery. In any event, delivery is basod upco the effective date of :heorderand submet te crompt receipt 9. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: Se?'er Ehai; act he lia:oleto Ours-JEE- by Sexper of aN : ece-330Â· ir, formation and Instrucrons from Purchaser, fer am,Â· 01- dÂ·en<al or conseclien:,8 CamaceS of any flature Lot- 2,- , inciucing any reCJ;res apprevai cf driÂ·.vings. StiprentÂ·; shÂ·al! be bv reascn Â·.Â·.'22.:sceÂ·.er Se..efs :'at :'ty tinter no circans'37.203, 6- - st.irface freigns Se:.er may niake part!al s,ripment. Fer shipnients Exceed -73 -:Ste:i.li pcrtio- - -- Â· D .0 outs,de the Urn:ed States. Seller shan arrir.ne 'c- :,sla, .4 ., â€ž,,â€ž- - .., . V . - :_i.. - I g - i .... c â€¢-n A-!11- --- 0.-- I crt C :exr an.1 2.311' caccerace Â·.vito Purchaser's agents n 712.:ing â‚¬CESGary arrar,gem:37Â·3 for overseas scoment ar,3 precar na 10. CHANGES AND BACKCHARGES: 6.eners:.a!; r.ot be ..22Â· ...'i ' aC-OSS I.na'9?â€¢3 ad * el L:.Un;9 idjÂ·..Strnâ‚¬:'I :3 ma.de :3 02,Â·:2 1-Â·-1 7 - 0 - 47. ru:,Â·.41 r.lAJOUR=: 3Â·21!er 32,311 not be resconsible or ! able in anÂ·/ Â¢Mt-# W I - 7. way for an, farÂ·Jre to perform due to ac:s of Got, - 9, ficcd: sercus S-Mier Â·.Â·.Â·21' 1 120:Â·ove oracces:rer.jrns/-2 crtick{Nurgcs :' 2-22'.,CH acct.-nts 'creir or Unted Sta:es emcargo, war or r:ct, serÂ·:xs *1.<a- :1â€¢Â·Iâ€¢Â·-r , 3. 3 0'her CEnts inci.rr-Â·.4 +1 -'Â·2'; --fÂ·+Â·rÂ· 'm i .c-:---Â·Â·-Â· shor:. -.33, Â·.ir,aÂ·.ailas:Ii tÂ·/ cr s,gn; ticar,t pri -9 1.ncreases in ccmmed:-ies. se:-.:a or r -n.entâ€¢â€¢1 ..44 n -Â·Â·Â· ~Â· ~'1 --- Â·7-'~Â·Â·-~4 # .'"' .:'.Â·1 ... 11.'N :ec 'ti mabr:Â·1*3 -,r .3-pc:'-n:s. i..:ordisputes,7,:erruction oftrangportat' cn. V- 0 - L M .0 fir . -â€¢/ *1 1' ....../*. I- 1.1 +1 Â·..â€ž 7 - -M-.â€ž,~.. ... Q -|-. 10-- .1f -0,2.2 IntÂ· 3, ......â€ž1 ...10.-,- .1-1.'...... lawÂ·3. ri;:es. reguianÂ·ins. * -pr Â·.Â·--4-1- .mr .râ€¢:- f 1.- '! 2 ..r fore:on covernmernalaut:'ority, or bv - - 11. PROPRIETARY INFOR'.lATION: Al: nformal:I.:Â·, f'-7,5'-er -: any o:nor etent ceycnd tne reasolab!2 -imc. 0. rlier or :to St)!ier 3 :LtÂ·-1;:teÂ·: 31:wiy ;or Purchaser susear;:lina:Inctbe.3 32,23-7 to Jrk wi:fc parh without SoileÂ·.3 or,or v.Â·r:-:c.1 conse:*.t. 6. RISK OF LOSS: Risk of loss or damage shall be torne by Purchaser upon delivery of Seller's equipment to the carrier. All shipments are F.O 8 Set!er's ?ackry and all claims for damage. delay cr shortage rising trom any shicmen' shall be direc:ly against the carrier by the i.rcnaser. Parchaser shall inspect the equipment. ||U.1* Seller of any da:nage cr shor:age Â·.vitrin one week of receist. Failure to so notify S.Ker sh,lii ce,ls:.:ute acceptance by Purchaser. relieving Seller of iiability for 32:nages or shortages. 3.1 4 3 d V 0 61) ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Customer Service Response Report February, 1987 ACTIVITY # OF RESPONSES Â· MAN-HOURS Hydrant Flushing 0 0 Bleeder Maintenance 0 0 Utility Locations 10 9.0 Billing Questions 4 1.15 Water Shut-Off 0 0 Tap Requests 0- 0 Water Quality 7 9.0 Pressure 0 0 Frozen Lines - 2 5.0 Line Breaks 0 0 Back Flow Prevention 0 0 Construction 1 0 Street Repair 2 1.5 Snow Removal 9 4.90 Sign Repair 0 0 Storm Drainage 0 0 Other 6 4.7 TOTALS 41 35.25 WATER LOST 33,000 Gallons TOTAL CALLS 41 3% Increase over last month TOTAL MAN HOURS 35.25 50% Increase over last month TOWN OF ESTES PARK February & YTD Water Billed 30 28 - 26 - 24 22 - 20 - 18 - A i 16 - 14 - 10 - 8 - 6- 4 - 2 - 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 O February + Year-to-Date TOWN OF ESTES PARK February & YTD Water Revenue 90 80 -- 70 - 60 - 0 .0 50 - 0: C 3% ..1 3 0O 05 40 -- 30 - 20 - 10 - 0 1 1 1 1 1 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 O February + Year-10-Date GALLONS . I TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for February, 1987 , (Net) 12,731,170 gal. Water Use for January 14, 1987 through February 13, 1987 : January 14 to 31 Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,829,000) ( 18 days ) *Fall River 2,493,100 Glacier Creek 8,667,000 4,686,506 *Big Thompson Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (- 358,980) February 1 to 13 Water Supplied: Black Canyon (- 1,267,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River 1,950,100 Glacier Creek 6,246,000 *Big Thompson ' 3,408,004 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (- 267,905) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 23,727,825 Adjustment 5,110,684 TOTAL 18,617,141 Percent Accounted For: 68% ADJUSTMENTS February, 1987 1. Dispenser: $384.25 = 1,537 x 60 92,220 gal 2. Bleeders: a. Stanley Heights/Fall River/Old Man Mountain 319,800 gal. b. Charles Heights - Mise (31 days @ 4,844 gal/day) 150,164 c. Hondius Tank (31 days @ 10,000 gal/day 310,000 d. Fall River Estates Condos (31 days @ 25,000 gal/day) 775,000 e. MacGregor Avenue (31 days @ 7,500 gal/day 232,500 f. Fall River Pit (31 days @ 75,000 gal/day 2,325,000 g. Ferguson Sub - Ed Rogers (23 days @ 4,320 gal/day) 99,360 h. Hill Road - Reeser (19 days @ 5,760 gal/day) 109,440 i. Metered: Woods, Banker, Stanley Park Pool, Rogers, Baldwin/Cott 565,700 TOTAL BLEEDERS 4,977,964 gal. 3. Flushing/Leaks - a. Flush Fall River Estates (2/9) . 8,000 gal. b. Flush Lone Pine (2/11) 25,000 gal. c. Flush U.S. 34 Motels (2/13) 7,500 gal. TOTAL FLUSHING 40,500 gal. TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 5,110,684 gal. I I TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD 4 FEBRUARY 1987 DATE BLACK FALL 6LACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BI6 SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (GAL) (AC-FT) 1 (91,000) 138,800 503,000 550,800 1.69 0.85 306,114 0.94 0,47 856,914 2.63 2 (104,000) 129,400 480,000 505,400 Â· 1.55 0.78 244,826 0.75 0.38 750,226 2.30 3 (113,000) 171,200 468,000 526,200 1.61 0.81 264,712 0.81 0,41 790,912 2.43 4 (117,000) 140,400 482,000 505,400 1.55 0.78 258,192 0.79 0.40 763,592 2.34 5 (100,000) 101,800 474,000 475,800 1.46 0.74 229,830 0.71 0.36 705,630 2.17 6 (87,000) 170,600 456,000 539,600 1.66 0.83 266,994 0.82 0.41 806,594 2.48 7 (87,000) 154,100 520,000 587,100 1.80 0.91 266,994 0.82 0.41 854,094 2.62 8 (87,000) 182,100 473,000 568,100 1.74 0.88 266,994 0.82 0.41 835,094 2.56 9 (98,000) 145,000 476,000 523,000 1.61 0.81 248,738 0.76 0.38 771,738 2.37 10 (109,000) 153,100 474,000 518,100 1.59 0.80 266,342 0.82 0.41 784,442 2.41 11 (88,000) 170,100 471,000 553,100 1.70 0.86 242,870 0.75 0.38 795,970 2.44 12 (98,000) 152,500 500,000 554,500 1.70 0.86 267,972 . 0.82 0.41 822,472 2.52 13 (88,000) 141,000 469,000 522,000 1.60 0.81 277,426 0.85 0.43 799,426 2.45 14 (88,000) 173,100 507,000 592,100 1.82 0.92 338,062 1.04 0.52 930,162 2.85 15 (88,000) 230,200 500,000 642,200 1.97 0.99 220,213 0.68 0.34 862,413 2.65 16 (88,000) 174,600 515,000 601,600 1.85 0.93 220,213 0.68 0.34 821,813 2.52 17 (106,000) 171,200 571,000 636,200 1.95 0.98 292,748 0.90 0.45 928,948 2.85 18 (108,000) 124,200 391,000 407,200 1.25 0.63 211,248 0.65 0.33 618,448 1.90 19 (113,000) 135,400 486,000 ' 508,400 1.56 0.79 260,800 0.80 0.40 769,200 2.36 20 (58,000) 135,600 583,000 660,600 2.03 1.02 237,002 0.73 0.37 897,602 2.75 21 (58,000) 139,000 490,000 571,000 1.75 4 0.88 278,730 0.86 0.43 849,730 2.61 22 (58,000) 150,200 503,000 595,200 1.83 0.92 239,936 0.74 0.37 835,136 2.56 23 (103,000) 138,100 482,000 517,100 1.59 0.80 293,514 0.90 0.45 810,614 2.49 24 (110,000) 96,700 481,000 467,700 1.44 0.72 260,800 0.80 0.40 728,500 2.24 25 (105,000) 125,300 487,000 507,300 1.56 0.78 244,500 0.75 0.38 751,800 2.31 26 (107,000) 109,700 487,000 489,700 1.50 0.76 237,654 0.73 0.37 727,354 2.23 27 (69,000) 114,000 429,000 474,000 1.45 0.73 244,500 0.75 0.38 718,500 2.21 28 (69,000) 119,700 557,000 607,700 1.86 0.94 264,060 0.81 0.41 871,760 2.68 29 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0,00 30 0 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 31 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 TOTAL (2,595,000) 4,087,100 13,715,000 15,207,100 7,251,984 22,459,084 (GAL) TOTAL -7.96 12.54 42.09 ************ 46.67 22.26 ************ 68.92 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ (204,355) 0 (362,599) (566,954) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** (4,977,964) TOTAL GAL 3,882,745 13,715,000 15,207,100 ******** 6,889,385 ***************** 16,914,166 ******** CFS(AVE) 0.21 0.76 0.38 0.84 TOTAL AC-FT it.92 42.09 54.01 21.14 51.91 51.91 TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Month 1985 1986 . 1987 Last Month last Year 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. Jan. 29,741,000 gal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. +3.54% - 4.20% 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac. ft. 51.91 ac. ft. reb. 33,488,000 gal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 qal. -9.78% -19.36% 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. lar. 21,391,000 gal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar.. 73.99 ac. ft. . .63.08 ac. ft.. \pr. 24,110,504 gal.- Apr.-- 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 98.53 ac. ft. .75.56 ac..ft. lay 32,106,550 gal. May - 25,-271,446 gal. May 131.24 ac. ft. 102.33 ac. ft. lun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun.- - 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 154.52 ac. ft. .125.09 ac. .ft. - ]Ul . 50,351,784 . Jul. - 40,760,736 gal. Jul. 167.68 ac. ft. .123.91 ac. ft. lug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug.* 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 95.29 ac. ft. . 100.02 ac. ft. iep. 31,051,965 gal. Sep. --32,590,405 gal. Sep. 78.78 ac. ft. 71.34 ac. ft. )Ct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 23,247,152 gal. Oct. 67.97 ac. ft. 60.17 ac. ft. lov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 57.25 ac. ft. . 55.57 ac. ft. )ec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 1,184,97 ac. ft. 965.65 ac. ft. 386,124,317 gal. 315,317,871 gal. . , ..7 TOWN OF ESTES PARK H. Bernerd Dannels 6 I |wr Mayor 2*441*lk# _ 5/1+ I \ A*1_ 2..bl/VIT*7/242 ~- 9 : --Irl. 2*S.-~95~1â€¢,YBr,t:fu I.X ->6. Â«14"- W,Ay. RNÂ·~24#~18~ F ' 14, 'liWN V SV#0Â¥*b~ .Â«40*OPJIL* 04\':.3/,4 2=SR+I ~ It _~nadle# C Estes Park, Colorado 80517 March 9, 1987 Colonel Steven West District Engineer Omaha District CORPS OF ENGINEERS 1612 U. S. Post Office and Courthouse Post Office Box 5 Omaha, Nebraska 68101-0005 CERTIFIED MAIL #P110704915 Re: 404 Permit Application, Number CO 2SB OXT 2 009160 Cascade Diversion Structure, Estes Park, Colorado Dear Colonel West: This letter is the formal response from the Applicant (Town of Estes Park) to comments by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) as a result of the public comment period for the above referenced project. As you are aware, the Cascade Dam was destroyed by the Lawn Lake Dam breach flood July 15, 1982. Cascade Dam, in place since 1907, was the diversion structure for the Town's Fall River Hydropower Plant. Also, the Town had diverted water using the Cascade Diversion Structure for its Fall River Water Treatment Plant since 1959. Following the destruction of Cascade Dam in 1982, a temporary pipe intake/pumping system was put into opera- tion to meet the critical needs of the Water Treatment Plant. A consultant was then engaged by FEMA to provide recommendations for the replacement of the Cascade Diversion Structure. Although the consultant provided the Town with recommendations for re- placement of the diversion structure in 1983, the Town delayed its decision on replacement of the structure at the request of the National Park Service in order to study a change in design of the diversion structure. The purpose of the change of design was to study the possibilities of a low profile structure as opposed to the former high profile dam. P. O. Box 1200 Telephone (303) 386-3331 6 Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Colonel Steven West District Engineer CORPS OF ENGINEERS Â· March 9, 1987 Page two In the summer of 1986, the Town selected the low profile diver- sion structure and hired Warzyn Engineering, Inc. to provide a final design of the structure and coordinate the permit process. Pursuant to the appropriate permit process, the 404 Permit Application was filed with your office. The filing indicated that the diversion structure was a low profile structure located approximately 120 feet upstream of the previous location. The structure is to be placed in the stream and access to the site is across inholder property in Rocky Mountain National Park. All reconstruction of the penstock from the diversion structure to the Fall River Hydroplant is in the deeded right-of-way owned by the Town of Estes Park. As you are aware, the Town of Estes Park acquired the necessary rights-of-way for the diversion structure and penstock from the Public Service Company of Colorado in 1945. The Public Service Company had acquired the rights-of-way through a series of transactions which relate back to the original owners of the property, Peter Hondius and F. L. Clerc. The original diversion structure and penstock were constructed on property owned by said individuals prior to the creation of Rocky Mountain National Park. As part of the 404 Permit process, the Town's consultant prepared a detailed environmental assessment and the 404 Permit Applica- tion. The application was submitted to your office on September 23, 1986. This was done with the hope that the Town could engage in construction in the late fall of 1986 when stream flows would recede to levels acceptable for construction. However, due to extension of the public comment period, this construction sched- ule is no longer feasible. The issues raised as part of the review process are discussed in the following paragraphs: 1. Threatened and Endangered Species. Concern was ex- pressed regarding endangered species on the Platte River. Apparently the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not understand that the Town is proposing to provide augmentation for consumptive use portions of the Town withdrawals through the use of Windy Gap Water. Thus, there would be no downstream impact. Even if this augmentation plan were not implemented, our consultants' studies have shown that the consumptive use portion of the withdrawal from Fall River would be approximately 0.0067 percent of the Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Colonel Steven West District Engineer CORPS OF ENGINEERS March 9, 1987 Page three average annual flow on the South Platte River downstream from the point that Fall River water would enter the Platte. After receiving this information, it is our understanding that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has agreed that this is no longer an issue. 2. Streamflow Aesthetics. The issue of reduced flows in the Fall River within Rocky Mountain National Park and the possible impact that this reduction would have on Park visitors was raised by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Town has addressed this issue in a Consultant's Report ("Instream Flow Investigation - Fall River above Estes Park, Colorado", Enartech, October, 1986). This report is part of the Corps' file on this application. At a meeting called by the Town, held on February 4, 1987, this issue was dis- cussed. Representatives of your office, the National Park Service and, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service were in attendance. 3. Water Rights. Two (2) issues regarding water rights have been raised. First is the question of the Town's right to divert for the water treatment plant. This issue is not an appropriate issue for discussion in the 404 Permit process. Article XVI Section 5 of the Colorado Constitution provides that the water of every natural stream in Colorado is the property of the public and dedicated to the use of the people of the State and subject to appropriation. The Town appropri- ated water in Fall River in 1959 for beneficial use by the Town. The appropriation of the water by the Town is subject to the call of any senior water right on the river. Under appropriate statutory authority, the State Engineer through the Division Engineers has been vested with the exclusive administrative authority to administer, regulate and distribute the water of the State in accordance with the requirements of the relevant statutes and Court decrees. Second, during the meeting of February 4, 1987, the National Park Service raised the issue of their pending application in District Court, Water Division No. 1, Colorado, for a change in water rights for Jones Ditch on Fall River (Case No. 85CW380). Since this was an I. Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Colonel Steven West District Engineer CORPS OF ENGINEERS March 9, 1987 Page four issue that had never surfaced in the five (5) years of discussions proceding this meeting, the Town was not in a position to respond. We have subsequently investigated this filing. This application is for a change of water rights from an abandoned right to a U. S. Government right for in-stream flow purposes within Fall River between the point of diversion and the power plant. This consumptive use portion ranges between 0.256 and 0.107 cfs during the months of June through September only. Since the Town has proposed to release 4 cfs during this period, it would appear that this is not an issue, since there is no conflict. It should also be noted that this filing has been contested by the Colorado Water Conservation Board, thus the outcome of this filing is uncertain. 4. In-Stream Flow. Even though the Town during certain low flow conditions has historically been diverting all of the flow of Fall River, except seepage and subsur- face flow, for hydropower production for some 70 years without a complaint, in-stream flow surfaced as a major issue with the National Park Service after filing of the 404 Permit. In an attempt to reach some consensus regarding in-stream flow needs, a meeting was called by the Town on September 30, 1986. This meeting was attended by representatives of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Water Conservation Board, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Park Service. It became clear during that meeting that agency person- nel were not able (or willing) to reach any conclusions regarding in-stream flow needs without additional studies since no agencies had done any investigation of this stream reach. The Town, therefore, agreed to commission an in-stream flow study to provide baseline data as a basis for further discussion. This study was accomplished during October, 1986. Based upon this study, the Town proposed that one of the con- ditions of the 404 Permit would be that the Town release 0.5 cfs during the winter and 4.0 cfs from May 15th through September 15th each year. This was based upon the results of the study and the considerable economic impact that the loss of water for hydropower production has to the Town. In addition, this release would meet the aesthetic needs of the park visitors during times Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Colonel Steven West District Engineer CORPS OF ENGINEERS March 9, 1987 Page five of high park usage. Objections to this proposal were still raised by the National Park Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Hence, in an attempt to resolve this issue, the Town called the meeting of February 4, 1987. This meeting was attended by representatives of your office. It became clear, even though the Town represen- tatives were prepared for serious discussions that the position of National Park Service was unyielding. On February 9th, the Town received a letter from the National Park Service in which certain offers were made (a copy of this letter is in the C. 0. E. file). The Town is reviewing this letter. The Town antici- pates responding to the letter with an offer to the National Park Service. However, the Town does not wish to delay the 404 Permit review process any further at this time. My staff and our consultant have advised time is becoming crit- ical if we are to achieve in-stream construction prior to spring runoff which swells the river to the point where construction becomes very difficult. The construction documents and plans have been ready for a considerable amount of time. Therefore, the Town requests that the Corp review the large volume of information currently in your files and render your decision on the 404 Permit Application as expeditiously as possi- ble. Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES PARK H. B. Dannels Mayor HBD/vo CC: MF. John Spooner, Warzyn Engineering, Inc. i,419. Richard D. Widmer, Director, Public Works Department Mr. Robert L. Dekker, Director, Light and Power Department it /414, .f TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department , Richard D. Widmer Af'* - Director 4,Â¥.,g, 4 912 1/k- -flÂ©%'940 <f t. / Â·24.V:A....-_ la-I y .\ t 4Â·4:4 2 -.Â«--- ~03Â©1% 7:FA,7 11<:,ft'+~~~ <~/~14-~~1 $'A--2.--'7--3-â€¢Â£%,Â£--2- -- 1 V..' -1- --14 k. iÂ· A-=11..â€¢44Â·â€¢: F &-r..... 1 _.i Estes Park, Colorado 80517 March 9, 1987 Mr. James B. Thompson, Superintendent ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK Moraine Route Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Bulk Connector Rate Dear Sir: Enclosed is a copy of a letter from our water rate engineers. I believe it provides the information you requested in your letter of February 3, 1987. Please let me knowif I can provide further information. r Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department Richard D. Widmer, PE-LS Director RDW:cj Enclosure bcc: Dale Hill w/enclosures Dick Gerstberger w/enclosures T,Â·i/Â·i!!'(1:11., t il Ii..'<1,- â€¢4; '*RAIRRWr ~ MAR 0 91987 DMJM BY ,TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEFr. March 2, 1987 -Mr. Richard D. Widmer Director of Public Works P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Widmer: Subject: Bulk Water Rate This letter Is in response to the points raised in the February 3, 1987, letter from Mr. James B. Thompson, Superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park regarding the Town's bulk user water rate. If the surcharge fees were to be paid as a lump sum payment at the time of connection to the Town's system, then the total plant development and water rights fees should be based on the number of equivalent domestic taps which will be served by the bulk connector's system. The method for computing the number of equivalent taps is covered in the Town Code. This method requires counting the number of each type of plumbing fixture and then multiplying the total of each type of fixture by a numerical "fixture value" which takes into account the quantity and demand ( i.e., Eate of flow ) for that fixture. The fixture values for common fixtures are listed in the Code. An equivalent domestic tap is defined as a water user having 40 fixtures values or less. The total of all the fixture values on the connector's system, then, is divided by 40 to get the number of equivalent domestic taps. The total water rights fee and plant development fee is computed by multiply- ing the number of equivalent taps by the Town's current charge for a single family domestic tap. The water rights fee is currently $1,730.00 per equiva- lent tap and the plant development fee is $1,216.00 per equivalent tap. We have assumed that the fixture inventory for the RMNP Headquarters, dated 1986, lists the number and type of each plumbing fixture that would be served through a bulk rate connection. The total of the fixture values for all the fixtures listed is 2,170. Dividing by 40 and rounding to the next whole number gives 55 equivalent taps. The total lump sum connection fee then would be: Water rights fee .... .... 55 x $1,730.00/tap = $ 95,150 Plant development fee ..... 55 x $1,216.00/tap = 66,880 Total connection fee .... .............. $162,030 Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall Planning 3250 Wilshire Boulevard Architecture Los Angeles, California 90010 Engineering Telephone: 213/381-3663 Systems TWX: 910-321-3058 Telex: 4720019 Economics 311 . Mr. Richard D. Widmer March 2, 1987 Town of Estes Park Page 2 _ The surcharge method, on the other hand, spreads the water r ights fee and plant development fee for each single .residential tap over a 20-year period. Since the average rural residential tap currently uses about 60,000 gallons per year, the annual fee for water rights and plant development is divided by 60 to get the charge per thousand gallons to be added to the normal water use charge. Annual Charge Charge per 1,000 Gal. Total If Spread Over Based on Avg. Use Charge 20 years of 60.000 Gal./Yr. Water rights $1,730 + 20 = $ 86.50 *60= $1.44 Plant development _1...21& 60.80 -122 Total $2,946 $147.30 $2.46 Under this method, the bulk rate user pays the connection fees based on the number of equivalent taps as determined by the average annual water use of 60,000 gallons. The total connection fee paid under each of the two methods will probably not be identical, but the difference will not be known until the end of the 20-year period. The Town's water rights fee has been based on the Town's cost of purchasing sufficient shares of Colorado-Big Thompson Project water to meet the domestic requirements of one single family user. The water rights fee has been indexed upward periodically to reflect that the. cost of water has risen along with everything else. The Town's current rural residential metered water rate has a minimum monthly charge of $16.00 which includes an allowance of 2,500 gallons. Water used beyond the first 2,500 gallons is billed at $2.53 per thousand gallons. The breakdown of the monthly minimum is as fol lows: CQI.iZMA 1. Cost of producing, treating and delivering 2,500 gallons of water, 1.e., 2,500 gallons x $2.53 per thousand gallons $ 6.32 2. Fixed costs of operating the water department, including meter reading, billing, vehicle maintenance, management costs, meter and dis- tribution system maintenance, and other fixed overhead costs that are independent of the amount of water produced and used. This cost reduced to a per-tap monthly charge is 9.68 Monthly minimum $16.00 CMUM Mr. Richard D. Widmer ~ March 2, 1987 Town of Estes Park Fage 3 The bulk rate user pays only the costs of treating and producing finished_ water. The bulk rate user does not pay the $9.68 per equivalent tap per month for the fixed costs of operating the Town's water department including meter reading, billing and distribution system maintenance. This reflects the fact that the bulk rate connector has its own distribution system to operate and -.maintain. Those 0&M costs can be collected from the individual users in whatever way the bulk system operator chooses. Fire hydrant maintenance and the cost of standby capacity for fire protection over and above the capacity required for domestic and commercial demands are not covered by water rates. Fire protection is considered a municipal govern- ment obligation and is therefore an expense paid from the Town's general fund. In 1987, the Town will be transferring $64,430 from the general fund to the water department for standby fire protection service to the public including hydrant maintenance and hydraulic capacity in excess of normal consumer ~ demands. No water user, urban, rural or bulk user will be paying for fire hydrant maintenance as part of their water bill. That cost will be paid from tax revenue. We believe we have responded to the points raised in Mr. Thompson's letter and have explained the underlying principles behind the Town's bulk water rate. If you have any questions or wish to discuss any item further, please feel free to call me at (213) 381-3663, extension 530. Very truly yours, IJ, I. cr Robert K. Kemp RKK:nam CC: Dale G. Hill WA,rc R teH ni'rl- HAMMOND. CLARK AND WHITE Â¢2/4 LAW OFFICES FIRST NAnONAL BANK BUILDING. SUITE 418 LYNN A. HAMMOND 200 EAST SEVENTH STREET ' ALFRED P. DAVIS ROGER E. CLARK LOVELAND, COLORADO 80537 OF COUNSEL GREGORY A. WHITE . 303-667-1023 JENNIFER J. STOCKER Ck 03>, 10 3%6 fle February 17, 1987 . 4. ..4-/1. V. Mr. Larry D. ~impson Municipal Sybâ‚¬istrict Northern 96lorado Water Conservancy District 1250 Norâ‚¬h Wilson Avenue Loveladd, Colorado 80537 Dear Larry: This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of February 11, 1987. Estes Park has agreed to rent its 3,900 acre feet or 39 units of Windy Gap Water to Anheuser Busch for 1987. The terms of said rental would be that Anheuser Busch be responsible for all costs -incurred by Estes Park for the diversion, pumping, storage and delivery of the water and also pay Estes Park the sum of $5.00 per acre foot or $19,500.00 for the rental of the water. The payment of the above charges and $5.00 per acre foot rental fee would be due and payable whether or not Anheuser Busch actually. took delivery of the water. Estes Park would be responsible for its obligations on the bond payment for the water. You are authorized by the Town to convey the above proposal to Anheuser Busch. If you need anything further or any other information, please do not hesitate to give me a call. The Town and myself wish to thank you for your efforts in this matter. Very truly yours, Gregory A. White GAW:cas Lap.~ Mr. Dale Hill 51 .el WATER COMMITTEE ~~ AGENDA ,/~ , APRIL 9, 1987. 1. BULK CONNECTOR RATE - Discussion and recommendation of proposed ordinance adopting rate. 2. WATER ORDINANCES - Discussion of proposed changes. 3. RURAL WATER APPLICATION - Nancy Chamberlain for Tract 5 of the Cullinan property (south of Elkhorn Lodge). Reports: 1. February Water Reports 2. Cascade Diversion Structure 3. Streetscape 4. Employee Retirement '. 4 +4 . C ORDINANCE NO. - l ! 4 i AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE MUNICIPAL ; CODE OF THE Tam OF ESTES PARK, COLOW\DO, THE SAME : PERTAINING TO BULK RATE WATER USERS. : BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TRUSTEES OF THE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That Title 13 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado shall be amended by the addition of Chapter 13.38 to read as follows: Chapter 13.38 Bulk Rate Water Users. Section 13.38.010 Bulk Rate Water User. A Bulk Rate Water User is a person or an entity controlling or 0*ng and maintaining its own water distribution system, which system is connected to the Tbwn's water system by a single connection through a single meter. Only such systems in existence on April 1, 1987 shall be eligible for acceptance as a Bulk Rate Water User, unless otherwise approved by the Tbwn Board. This rate structure is not intended to apply to developments served by private service lines that are master metered in accordance with Section 13.28.030. Section 13.38.020 Application. Any person or entity desiring to receive water from the Town of Estes Park under the provisions of this chapter shall apply to the Town for approval. Such application shall designate the property to be served. The property to be served must be designated in the application by the description thereof as it appears on the tax roles in the offices of the Assessor of Larimer County, Colorado. Following submittal by the applicant the application shall be reviewed for approval by the Water Ccrmittee of the Town and also the Board of Trustees of the Tbwn of Estes Park. The applicant shall provide information as requested by the Public Works Director to provide adequate information to the Water Carinittee and the Board of Trustees to review the application. All accounts for water shall be kept in the name of the applicant. Section 13. 38. 030 Subdistrict Inclusion. All applications for water service for property not included within the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern . Colorado Water Conservacy District, must be accompanied by a Petition to include such property within said district. No water service shall be furnished to such property until it has been included within the subdistrict. Inclusion is the responsibility of the applicant, and the applicant is also responsible for all 1 \ . , , expenses of inclusion. Â· Section 13.38.040 Rates. The Bulk Water User rate shall be $5.00 per 1,000 gallans used acconding to the master meter. In the event one of the Pump-Flow Rates as more specifically set forth in Sections 13.32.110 and 13.32.130 of the Municipal Code is applicable, the rate shall be $5.10 per 1,000 gallans of water used. Section 13.38.050 Water Rights Surcharge. The rates set forth in Section 13.38.040, includes a water rights surcharge. In the event the applicant desires to transfer water rights to the Town in lieu of the water right surcharge, the applicant shall submit this proposal along with the - application. The applicant shall identify the water rights to be transferred to the Town including adequate information on the amount, priority, type, and value of said water rights. It shall be in the discretion of the Town whether or not the Town accepts said water rights in lieu of the water rights surcharge. In the event the water rights are transferred to the Town, but are not sufficient to give the Town enough water to take care of the entire water rights need, the water rights surcharge shall be prorated accordingly. In any event, the water rights surcharge shall be charged only for a period of 20 years fram the date of yfv- --- --------11--1-1- first year round service. -. Section 13.38.060 Connection Charge. The cost of physical connection including the master meter to the Towns water system shall be the responsibility of the applicant and shall be paid to the Town prior to the Town providing any water to the applicant. Also, the Town shall inspect and approve the connection prior to the providing of any water to the applicant. Section 13.38.070 Billing. The applicant shall provide at the time of application adequate assurance through covenants, contracts, or other agreements ; which are acceptable to the Town indicating the ability of applicant to pay for the water provided. Also, the Town may require a deposit, not to exceed 3 manths of anticipated billings, to secure payment of the water bill. - Section 13.38.080 Delinquent Water Charge. If, for any cause, any water charge shall became delinquent, the water service may be turned off and in no case shall be turned on to the same property until all delinquencies and 1 penalties shall have been paid in full. Change in ownership or occupancy shall not affect the application of this section. Section 13.38.090 Turn off Costs and Penalties. When water service .l has been turned off because o f a delinquency in payment of water rent, the water 1 --..... - 1 16' shall not be turned on until all water rent has been paid and all costs of labor material as determined by the Town, to turn the water on and off has also been paid. Section 13.38.100 Master Meter. The applicable provisions of Chapter 13.28 of the Municipal Code with regard to water meters and the use and installation thereof shall be applicable to the applicant as if the applicant was a consumer under the terms and conditions of said code provisions. ' Section 13.38.110 Distribution System. It is understood and agreed by the applicant and all persons receiving water through the master meter that the Town has no control or has not approved the distribution system from the master meter to the ultimate user of the water. The Town shall not be responsible for the repair or maintenance of the distribution system. No claim shall be made against the Tbwn on the account of the breaking of any part of the distribution system or for the failure of supply of water to same. The applicant and all others receiving water through the distribution system under the terms and conditions of this Chapter hereby understand that the Town does not warrant at any time an adequate supply of water to the system and/or the design and workmanship of the distribution system. Section 13.38.120 Use Outside Town Limits. Use of water outside the Town limits shall be sul*ject to the superior rights of users within the Town limits and in case|-611311 be insufficient water to provide for users both within A and without the Tbwn limits, the Board may reduce, curtail or shut-off users outside the Tbwn limits during such period of water shortage or scarcity. TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Mayor AT'IEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 1987, and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado on the day of , 1987. Town Clerk 0612 A-/ 1.a 44.-, Â« 4- Â»*02 gte-â‚¬. 74-_ 3- Â« : TOWN OF ESTES PARK i N 1 A**%4,0, Public Works Department Richard L. Gerstberger Assistant Director r a 14~1/76Â» - .s>-râ€¢*59â€¢ p -7'~,-- - *tJ-&~Â« 4 4 7*ftâ‚¬11, r .dy=43, U .2*mi - /0 _ee.WÂ¢44 2 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 MEMORANDUM TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Dick Gerst.]Derge]~~~0~~ DATE: April 6, 1987 SUBJECT: ordinance Changes - Attached is an outline of proposed changes to the town's water ordinances. The outline contains the section of the code under consideration, the proposed change, and a description of the proposed change. I have not attempted, at this time, to include specific language changes. After we have reached some consensus, I can develop some suggested language for Greg to consider. RLG:cj P (1 Hox ]200 1 elenhontÂ· C 30 3) 586-3 3 41 PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGES 13.20.010 CREATION OF WATER DEPARTMENT. Housekeeping changes , to reflect organizational changes. -1/2 /0 13.20.020 SUPERINTENDENT - P07ERS ~~,up.-p' P/Q< 1 Housekeeping changes to reflect organizational changes. 13.24.020 APPLICATION FOR SERVICE - REQUIREMENTS GENERALLY. Responsibility of applicant for water service to petition district. This is implied but not specifically stated. Housekeeping changes. Due to organizational changes. 13.24.030 SIZE OF SERVICE TAP. Change maximum tap size for single family from 5/8ths to 3/4. Industry standard is presently a 5/8" meter using a 3/4" line and an 11/16 tap. 13.24.050 SEPARATE CONNECTIONS REQUIRED. Inspection of service lines. All service lines must be constructed to town standards and be inspected and approved prior to backfill. Individual service lines. Each dwelling unit shall have an individual service line unless approved by PWD to master meter. Connection to Town water service when available. Discourage the drilling of new wells. . Proposed Ordinance Changes Page 2 13.24.060 SERVICE PIPE REGULATIONS. Depth of bury regulations. Minimum depth 5'. Additional depth may be required depending on elevation and location. All service lines must conform to Town specifications. Separation of property requires separation of service unless authorized by PWD. To reduce problems caused by sharing of service lines. Regulation of private distribution systems. (w) When a multiple unit service is master metered, the service lines within the development must conform to Town specifications. Construction standards for existing systems desiring to master meter may be waived by the PWD. 13.24.130 MAINS - EXTENSION AND REPAIR. Minimum line size 6" looped or 8" not looped. To conform to master plan. Construction and location according to specifications established by PWD. Add word specifications and change per reorganization. "As-build" requirements. "AS-builts" and transfer must be completed before service is provided and before the line is accepted by Town for maintenance. ' Proposed Ordinance Changes Page 3 Line extension reimbursement policy. Develop policy whereby Town can recover costs of line oversizing that specifically benefits development. There are several ways to approach this problem. The basic consideration is to insure funds for the capital improvement program on a long term basis. 13.24.140 USE - UNLAWFUL ACTS Unlawful to tamper with fire hydrants or other utility *appliances. Added for clarification. 13.24.190 METERS - INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE. In case of conflict, the meter head governs. The remote readout is susceptible to some inaccuracies. We have started a program to reconcile the readout with the meter head. This change provides support in cases of conflict. 13.28.010 DEFINITIONS. Multifamily. Townhouse. Hotel and motel. Dwelling unit. 13.28.030 METER REQUIREMENTS. Who should be metered? (w) All dwelling units individually metered unless provisions are made & approved for master meters. What should metering include? (w) Meter installations shall conform to Town specifications. Proposed Ordinance Changes Page 4 Master metering Vs. individual metering. (w) Master metering requires documentation that individual units are collectively responsible for payment. Billing of minimum charges for individual dwelling units. When units are mastered metered each dwelling unit within the complex will, at a minimum, be billed the minimum charge. This would cover the minimum usage times the number of units. Bypass of meter for fire protection purposes. Bypassing meter is allowed for fire protection purposes on commercial installations where specifically approved by PWD. 13.32.010 TAPPING CHARGE -- WATER RIGHTS FEE. Plant Development Fee. Distinguish between Plant Development Fee, Tapping Fee, and Water Resource Development Fee. Describe in separate chapters of the code. Plant Development Fee should be based on the number of living units for residential & multi-family service & tap size for commercial service. Present fee is based on the size of the tap. For example, we presently allow up to 5 units (40 FVU each) to be serviced by one 3/4" tap that the Town collects one $1,216 Plant Development Fee for. Yet, we are putting a greater demand on the water treatment, distribution, and storage system with 5 units than with a single dwelling unit on the same 3/4" tap. No cash payment or refund for credit. When Plant Development Fees or Water Resource Development Fees are not used within designated time period fees forfeited. , Proposed Ordinance Changes Page 5 No cash payment or refund for reduction or elimination of service or when fees are paid and not used. Non-cash credit runs with property unless tap for said property is abandoned and the abandoned tap is physically disconnected at the main at the owner's expense. No refunds of fees shall be made for removal or decrease of service connection. Dido. Water facilities expansion fund. Plant development and water resource fees placed in separate fund to be used only for capital construction. Eliminate 1 1/4" tap charge. Not a commonly used size. 13.32.040 DISCONTINUANCE, TERMINATION AND ABANDONMENT OF SERVICE. If a customer terminates water service, he must disconnect service at the main at his expense. 13.32.130 RURAL GRAVITY AND PUMPED-FLOW WATER RATES SCHEDULE. Rural fire hydrant charge. To recover cost of providing fire protection service to rural customers. Covers cost of treatment, distribution, and storage capacity and is similar to payment town makes to water utility. 'TOWN OF ESTES PARK - WATER DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE . Taken by /~4 tV/ Date 4)f)27 Name Nancy C. Chamberlain . Address 3646 Chevy Chase Houston, Texas 77019 Telephone 713-622-3371 1 Â·L Â· Location Tract 5 of the Cullinan Property, located in sections 25 & 26, 1 T5N, R73W of the 6th P.M. (See attached plat). Type of Unit Residential Number of Units 1 Number of Fixtures 59 1; 1 o The undersigned assumes responsibility for any and all engineering and 1 , ~ legal costs incurred by the Town in procesping this Request for Water i. Service. li Signatug~Of/446/Lu Apalicant or Abplicant's Authorized Representative U I , Is the property described above within the Northern Colorado Water Con- i servancy District? Yes No C 7) Mut+ fe-trf,4 Ar #)-,1, pa.p 2.-L 0,4..1 b Is the property described above below 7,850 feet in elevation? No Confirmed by 4-420- \ P ------------------------------------ i i Committee Action 1 2 Town Board Action 4 Superintendent' s Recommendation '1 , : Customer Notified Tap Number Expiration Date 1 . ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Customer Service Response Report March, 1987 ACTIVITY # OF RESPONSES MAN-HOURS Hydrant Flushing : 0 Â·- 0 Bleeder Maintenance 0 0 Utility Locations 10 8.4 Billing Questions 2 0.7 Water Shut-Off 0 0 Tap Requests 0 . 0 Water Quality 3 0.95 Pressure 1 0.40 Frozen Lines 0 0 Line Breaks . _- 5 5 Back Flow Prevention 0 0 Construction 5 45.2* Street Repair . 1 0.2 Snow Removal 5 2.4 Sign Repair 0 0 Storm Drainage 0 0 Other 6 5.2 TOTALS 38 68.45 WATER LOST TOTAL CALLS 38 7% Decrease over last month TOTAL MAN HOURS 68.45 94% Increase over last month *9 unplanned water outages due to EPSD's construction on Cleave Street. (37 hours) :'0 . - 6 T TOWN OF ESTES PARK ,R March & YTD Water Billed . 45 .. BM /- f 40 - 0 4.4 2 '14 '. . , --- M-- --*1#.t...34ftr.<RE,L,f,t~Â£22,pl:.5 - 4,53-l':, rt kilyÂ·i - , .i.Â·:35 7 6â‚¬i.,1.: ~f,)~, 4 + 'trk/*id le#/f . . 3, A-,.41.,r: .1/'> 1 . 0- Â·Â·:v :.: '. - 0.-C 1-Â·7;ft bi'.11.16.~~.;--~3.;42 :-1 .:f- ft .cylâ‚¬~.-4,r,-:f.19 4,4 ..#-, .-Â·'tit.?.f :--4:4xMN:4.. ,:'.Â·9; 4-i .'5,iÂ·U,G. 5 - 4 4 15- .- -; /~t*t:- - *dtif-lit*-3:c . Â·67-- t..f,Â·-3... S....e; .~'.PtitmE.'Â·21 45:D,41-Mit-*14Â·k,f''t:-::*42?'A ..:'P,Â· I. ' ..:. . .2 Tr*3 ~'~Â¥.3#27. I , -. m C 2 . 1 20 - 15 10 Â· â€¢ 1 5 - 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 0 6(arch + Year-lo-Dole 1 4.- .1 . . TOWN OF ESTES PARK - March & YTD Water Revenue 130 120 - 110 - 100 -- 90 - 80 - 0 3 / C 70 - 5: JJ 00 60 - O.C - 50 - 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 - 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 O March + Year-fo-Date .. GALLONS (T Â·Â· - TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT /ter Billing for_ March, 1987 (Net) 12,120,050 gal. Water Use for February 14, 1987 through March 13, 1987 February 14 to 28 Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,328,000) ( 15 days ) *Fall River 2,137,000 Glacier Creek 7,469,000 *Big Thompson 3,843,980 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (- 299,049) March 1 to 13 Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,219,000) )13 days ) - *Fall River 1,821,400 Gl aci er Creek 6,381,000 *Big Thompson 3,500,914 (Â·- 266,116) Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5 U '0 Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 22,041,129 Adjustment 5.003,472 TOTAL 17,037,657 Percent Accounted For: 71% . I . .-72Â· IN...1.1 : CAA.itÂ»It . ** m . ...4- . 7 Y '.:. -4//6,3 EtiP. ..Â·Â·Â£ I. Â·Â·: ; . ~ ADJUSTMENTS , h - . .. : r. =,f '*.â‚¬Ey4 . . . .. I t .4 ... -- ~ March, 1987 - .: . 4 . . 1 - I :%' ' d 7.V'-4.~â‚¬7%45/ ' .. I. :ill :'... 9.'- ' ''"1::fy t./.1:Z r. 1. 44.-,6..3.. tuie.::&3.~ 7 - i ~47 . Â· t. â€¢ 1. Dispenser Â·103,000 gal.?'*' 6Â£Â·-Af Â· . .. r 2. Bleeders - a. Stanley Heights/Fall River/Old Man Mountain 358,700 gal. b. Charles Heights - Mise (28 days @ 4,844 gal/day) 135,632 gal. c. Hondius Tank (28 days @ 10,000 gal/day) 280,000 gal. d. Fall River Estates Condos (28 days @ 25,000 gal/day) 700,000 gal. e. MacGregor Avenue (28 days @ 7,500 gal/day) 210,000 gal. f. Fall River Pit (28 days @ 75,000 gal/day) 2,100,000 gal. g. Ferguson Sub - Ed Rogers (28 days @ 4,320 gal/day 120,960 gal. h. Hill Road - Reeser (28 days @ 5,760 gal/day) 161,280 gal. i. Metered: Woods, Banker, Stanley Park Pool, Rogers, Baldwin/Cott 378,400 gal. TOTAL BLEEDERS 4,444,972 gal. 3. Flushing/Leaks a. Flush Fall River Estates (2/14) 3,000 gal. b. Flush Nicky's (2/15) 5,000 gal. c. Flush 8" Main (Elkhorn/Black Canyon Creek) (2/17) 17,500 gal. d. Fall River Treatment Plant-Flush sedimentation basin (2/15) 50,000 gal. - - e. Everitt Lumber Fire (3/7-81--- 75,000 gal. -- -- f. Fall River Treatment Plant-Flush/clean (3/6, 11,13) 305,000 gal. TOTAL FLUSHING 455,500 gal. TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 5,003,472 gal. ,.rp ,4 ' -4. ..7 3.11.- 4 . Â·-,1 K.. te ?'Ny,Â¥:5-4 .C Â·- 6,#ABL*%2 3.- ..:.,1 .. .....:.Â·Â«:.,.,Â« r. 267-f 8 ..39'2~9iefL;fj'Â·O;-Wt*0mi9tÂ·z'Â£'..fi'i*.Â£i'.1'4'/1 2 2~. U.:;~â€¢5q'ia Â·.Â· A-Â· 2 2 . - t.~~- -0, '~~~-~ ~Â·-~ ~ 2- ' ". i.. fi.fRU- ..L . :.47 . 4 4 2; -'if i:-Â·~Â· ~, .t{;; ' . f~L 1/2 13Â·...J,-t~ .,4.-4Â·4Â¥.33.Â· 73 3 0. . 1 : I . IN:g :rl f ....1 I. 4 f -Â¥'' ~;(' ~ * 2 y~ *TOilll OF ESTES PARK ~,: 2- :1,1 ~,5,64~ I: .55:shIC;f>s ,;9<:>k :1~t :4:#b~:f. .. 4.: -, r. .3.- ..1 4. L)<44Â·. .1 '.;20-~44.: :r- .3.r~fyÂ¥Â£ IM ;-AL:5-:Â· T WATER USE RECORD ''fÂ·C 1 -- 6 4.2. . . .. ..0 . Â· ..Â· Â·MARCH 1987 - 1.~ 34Â·.-" it .2..9...f " '.i.j .1.4.2;3.2-'7-pÂ·:p~:-2 y..2 Â·ti...:rÂ·.2- ..4..4 . ~t :44.'. 2?.. P (1~ 2..6.6)*f'. â‚¬ DATE : : BLACK :j: FALL -: GLACIER 21*SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL 4 BIG .- "SUBTOTAL SUBTOTALt?JOTAL liti,TOTAL .-**-3Â·~+#ij -t CANYON RIVER - 5 CREEK h (GAL) 7'(AC-FTi i (CFS) ;.THOMPSON (AC-FT) 7(CFS) **(SAL) : TAC-FT) lj:13 :'st<..'~ I ./-. 1. . ,-97 .. 1 - (69,000) 86,200 j. 503,000 2 520,208 - 1.60 0.80 251,020 0.77 Â·0.39 i.,- 771,220 i 2.37 .- tk ~ 2 (98,000) 99,200 486,000 487,200 1.50 0.75 . 260,800 0.80 1.40 3 748,000 1'2.30 . -~. '-t 3 (97,000) 102,700 - 493,000 498,700 1.53 0.77 '266,016 0.82 0.41 7.764,716 1-2.35 3 -- Â·*- 4 (101,000) 116,800 485,000 500,800 - 1.54 0.77 277,752 0.65 0.43 ~--778,552 f 2.39 1 4 5 (91,002) 114,200 488,000 511,200 1.57 0.79 257,540 0.79 0.40 768,740 - 2.36 7 6 (881000) 189,100 454,000 555,100 1.70 0.86 274,003 0.84 0.42 f 829,103 2.54 1. :. 7 (88,000) 119,000 495,000 526,000 1.61 0.81 274,003 0.84 0,42 - 800,003 2.46 B (89,000) 142,100 600,000 653,100 2.00 1.01 336,758 1.03 0.52 - 989,858 3. 04 .s_, Sm 9 (111,000) 132,320 397,000 418,300 1.28 0.65 269,928 0.83 0,42 688,228 2.11 81&) 10 (99,000) 108,600 497,000 506,800 1.56 0.78 236,676 0.73 0.37 743,476 2.28 11 (116,000) 279,202 502,200 665,200 2.04 1.03 275,470 0.85 0.43 940,670 2.89 12 (101,000) 148,620 500,000 547,600 1.68 0.65 249,390 0.77 0.39 796,990 2.45 13 (71,002) 183,200 481,000 593,200 1.82 0.92 271,558 0.83 0.42 664,758 2.65 14 (71,000) 131,400 497,000 557,400 1.71 0.86 271,558 0.83 0,42 628,958 2.54 15 (71,000) 128,620 478,000 535,600 1.64 0.83 271,558 0.83 0.42 807,158 2.48 16 (115,000) 162,900 534,000 581,900 1.79 0.90 246,130 0.76 0.38 828,030 2.54 17 (118,002) 139,000 522,000 543,000 1.67 0.84 212,552 0.65 0.33 755,552 2.32 - 18 (118,002) 119,000 491,000 492,000 1.51 0.76 234,720 0.72 0.36 726,720 2.23 ~ 19 (112,002) 96,700 495,000 479,700 1.47 0.74 228,200 0.70 0.35 707,900 2.17 -Â·-/ 20. (112,000) 147,000 470,000 505,000 1.55 0.78 262,104 0.80 0,41 767,104 2.35 el (112,000) 138,000 498,000 524,000 1.61 0.81 255,258 0.78 0.39 779,258 2.39 22 (112,003) 136,200 542,000 566,200 1.74 0.88 252,976 0.78 0.39 919,176 2.51 (115,000) 120,000 492,020 497,000 1.53 0.77 -252,650 .0.78 0.39 749,650 2.30 01 (111,000) 102,600 491,000 482,800 1.48 0.75 231,134 0.71 0.36 713,934 2.19 25 (122,000) 131,900 538,000 547,900 1.68 0.85 241,240 0.74 0.37 789,140 2.42 26 (110,000) 177,700 448,000 515,700 1.58 0.80 235,046 0.72 0.36 750,746 2.30 27 (109,002) 127,600 461,000 479,600 1.47 0.74 244,500 0.75 0.38 724,100 2.22 28 (109,000) 151,000 505,000 547,000 1.68 0.85 228,200 0.70 0.35 775,200 2.38 29 (109,000) 104,000 543,000 538,000 1.65 0.83 304,810 0.94 0.47 842,810 2.59 33 (109,000) 95,300 505,002 491,300 1.51 0.76 267,320 0.82 0.41 758,620 2.33 31 (115,002) 121,500 509,002 515,500 1.58 0.80 221,028 0.68 0.34 736,528 2.26 TOTAL (3,169,022) 4,152,020 15,400,000 16,383,000 7,961,898 24,3441898 (EAL) TOTAL -9.73 12.74 47,26 ************ 50.28 24.43 1*********** 74.71 (AC-FT) LEES 57. ****4******* (207,623) 0 (398,095) (605,695) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********41***14***16****4*******************i.*.****i***i*******************************i.**** (4,444,972) TOTAL GAL 3,944,402 15,400,002 16,383,000 ******** 7,563,803 ***************** 19,294,231 *****â€¢1* [FECAVE) 0.20 0.77 0.38 0.96 TOTAL AC-FT 12.10 47.26 59.37 23.21 59.21 59.21 . 'Â· . . 1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK '. WATER USE REPORT - 1. COMPARISON SHEET % Change Â· . 7 . % Change u Same Month <67 Â· I ..... <1985 , ... Â· 4.. .11986 2*,R--.Li f i ..39 ....1987 . 9.-:Last Month Last Year ..4;.43.:- ., .4 :...25 4. ...4 7 4:::14. 4.~r:.:i;. .t:.2 f.Â· Â·2 .. :>Â·Â·.12.4 ".YJ;.it 4''C Â·liti; diâ‚¬4TCft:Â¢.t~ff.34:64Â·,9it}*pie.4. =. '1 -1 91.28 ac. ft. .9. 97-60.06 ac. ft. 1 : . u.---- 57.54 6c.-'ft. n * 2 --- 4.- ,%*c 'Â·Fef-24:f.Â¢;2.15'-1.:Ae-::;5.22: in. 29,741,000 gal. -Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. +3.54% ; 1 4.20% 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac. ft. 51.91 ac. ft. :b. 33,488,000 gal. Feb. / 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 gal. -9.78% -19.36% 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. . 59.21 ac. ft. ir. 21,391,000 gal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar.. 19,294,231 gal Â· +14.07 -' - 7.72% 73.99 ac. ft. . .63.08 ac. ft.. )r. 24,110,504 gal. Apr.~I 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 98.53 ac. ft. .75..56 ac..ft. ty 32,106,550 gal. May - 25,-271,446 -gal. May ~ - .- . 131.24 ac. ft. 102.33 ac. ft. ln. 42,768,000 gal. Jun.- 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 154.52 ac. ft. .125.09 ac. .ft. : -~ 50,351,784 . Jul . ---40,760,736 -gal . Jul. I 167.68 ac. ft. 123.91 ac. ft. 19. 54,637,657 gal. Aug.-- 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 95.29 ac. ft. . 100.02 ac. ft. Ep. 31,051,965 gal. Sep. --32,590,405 gal. Sep. 78.78 ac. ft. 71.34 ac. ft. Zt. 25,672,598 gel. Oct. 23,247,152 gal. Oct... 67.97 ac. ft. 60.17 ac. ft. )v. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 57.25 ac. ft. . 55.57 ac. ft. EC. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. - TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 1,184,97 ac. ft. 965.65 ec. ft. 386,124,317 gal. 315,317,871 gal. I. \45 <0...Le TOWN OF ESTES PARK H. Bernerd Dannels a;Â»4 Â¥ y ,Mayor -60: 4/ANSÂ¥1.*216 --- '. 1-7.:2Nt?*.r'hill, 7 ~. rk: 1::tr_. - .37 4,44&~*AL-: .-.ir le FEJO , 1 r / Estes Park, Colorado 80517 April 1, 1987 Mr. James B. Thompson, Superintendent ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Moraine Route Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Mr. Thompson: This letter is being written in response to your letter of February 9, 1987, concerning minimum flows in Fall River. The Town has reviewed the letter, including economic analysis of the cost to the Town of allowing certain minimum flows. Also, the Town has determined that a negotiated settlement of the minimum flow issue is in the best interests of the Town, the Park Service and the Public. Therefore, the Town is willing to agree to the following: 1. The Town will not divert any water for hydro-electric generating purposes through the penstock from October 1 through March 31 of each year, except as set forth in Paragraph 3 below. 2. The Town will provide a minimum of 4 cfs in the river between April 1 and September 30 of each year when it is diverting for hydro-electric generating purposes. 3. The Town will be allowed to divert up to 1.5 efs for water treatment and/or hydro-electric generation through the penstock during the entire year. 4. The Park Service will withdraw any objection to the Town's application for its 404 Permit presently pending before the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. If the Park Service feels it is necessary, the Town is willing to stipulate to these minimum stream flows as part of the 404 Permit. P (1. 14'x 12{)0 Telephone 003) 581,-53.41 â€¢ 1 If . I own of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 I. . i' Mr. James B. Thompson, Superintendent ROCKY- MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK SERVICE April 1, 1987 Page two 0 5. If necessary, the Park Service will grant all required permits for the construction of the diversion structure and penstock. Said permits shall be granted to allow construction in September of 1987. By agreeing to give the Rocky Mountain National Park the flows in the stream above 1.5 efs from October 1 through March 31 of each year in lieu of asking for an option price, the Town is hopeful that a quick resolution of this matter may be obtained and that a "FONSI" can be issued by the Park in an expeditious manner. We would appreciate your prompt response to this offer. Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES PARK H. Bernerd Dannels Mayor HBD/vo CC: Colonel Steven West, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Gregory A. White, Town Attorney Robert L. Dekker, Director/Light and Power Department 0*Ychard D. Widmer, Director/Public Works Department FEB 1 8 1987 8., February 17, 1987 Estes Park Urban Renewal Authority P. O. Box 1200 r '3 4 4 A, Estes Park, Colofado 80517 4 Â· Â·Â·Â·= 1.) 2 ' .. Â·Â·Â·;,0 + . 6 ./ , I 4 0 IV. 0, .... ..W Dear Sirs: Shortly after the beginning of Street- scape construction in the 200 Block of East Elkhorn we have had water intrusion into the crawl space at 218 E. Elkhorn. Considerable time and expense has gone into the attempt to solve the problem. This is fresh water with no evidence of being sewer related. With a suspicion that our water service line might be the source we dug this up. The trench and pipe were dry. This is obviously not the source. After vacumning the water out it appears to be entering from the Elkhorn Ave side toward the easterly side of the building. A broken line must be feeding this from that area. Regardless of where it is off of this property. The presumption is held that construction in the street scape has contributed to the problem. Nine years past this building was constructed. We have never in all these years had such a problem. This really is not our problem. Yet we are the recip- ients. We urgently solicite your efforts with this problem. Progress has been outstanding this winter on the re-development. Hope you are way ahead of schedule. Sincerely 72 ~,Â£*u~ *.: 0 0 4 .22 1 , TOWN OF ESTES .PARK t,4'49 N Public Works Department Richard L. Gerstberger /9% 1 *p/ Assistant Director AU A. 42 24 - ,-,n-- /Prtf/-SM= . ;31 :9:.:lt. f 11:y -, f - 9*,4*:Â¢72*ditt.1,4 P. ri' 4,1. 1, 1-,4,/344229.F .be. Â»i..,093#1&827vf~~EILLLF--~20 .t- li:44~fil Nliff/4-1.. - Iâ€¢, . . '40:.tÂ· l 4. / 316/#f~:RÂ·g - Â·.. Estes Park, Colorado 80517 March 26, 1987 Mr. Art Anderson ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY P. O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Re: Water at Range Realty Dear Art: The Town has taken a number of steps in an attempt to identify the source of this problem. First, we checked adjacent services for possible indications that one may be leaking. Crawl spaces in the buildings to the east were checked for possible water but none was discovered. Second, the main on Elkhorn was excavated at a point down grade (east) of the Range Realty building, but the trench was dry. If the main was leaking, a substantial portion of the water would be expected to follow the gravel bedding around the pipe. Third, service lines were again checked (listened to) at 4:00 A.M. to avoid possible interferences and, again, no leaks were detected. An additional point is that there are two sewer lines between the Town's water line and the Range Realty building. Any water that did not follow the water line trench would most likely be intercepted by the sewer lines. On March 19, 1987 town staff contacted an employee at Range Realty who indicated that since the crawl space was pumped and some gravel placed inside, the problem had not reoccurred. At TiÂ·IiÂ·plione C <(i t) 68Â¢b -3 1 11 Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Art Anderson March 25, 1987 Page 2 this time, we are unable to determine the source of the water, but feel it is unlikely that it is from a leaking water line. Sincerely, TOWN OF ESTES *PARK Public Works Department /Ill Richard L. Gerstberger, P.E. Assistant Director RLG:cj r - .. I. ... r -/- I. â€¢â‚¬ Â· c I I .... /* I: , 4 r . -- . epura 13 E- â„¢dip--. PLANNED PROGRESS / - .... ' BOARD OF Â· , 1 - : ./ ... ?'P . I COMMISSIONERS - - - ..' , C~mus H. P,â€¢*â€¢is March 27, 1987 Â· L . . - ....r.. I. : 4- K Moss . ~ . VICEÂ·Câ€¢W-â€¢AN - Ec>...0 a Poll T.EA.U.E. M,cro. Emeso. L.1/ F..â€¢rrz Mr. Neil Rosener DAU G. Hu J. DOâ€¢â€¢ALD PAUUÂ¥ Realty World-Range Realty Ltd. . STAFF PO Box 1604 Aâ€¢â„¢uâ€¢ L A.oc-0. Estets Park, CO 80517 IXIC unvt Cwlic-rol Roein B. Jog- TECH-Ck -.AMMEâ€¢ Dear Neil: - The attached letter details the efforts expended by the Town's Water Department to locate the source of your basement water seepage. Â· It is possible that the source of the problem is ground water, which appears to be higher than normal for this time of year, according to Bob Goehring/Water Department. I realize this does not solve or relieve your problem but, at this time, I have no other suggestions. I do not feel that the streetscape work done by the Authority has caused your basement water seepage problem. Please keep us informed if the problem increases in severity. Thank you. Very truly yours, 3:X'' l./t .Arthuy L. Anderson Executive Director ALA/dh J cc: Richard L. Gerstberger, Assistant Director Public Works Department ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY 170 MACGREGOR AVENUE. ROOM 213 â€¢ POST OFFICE BOX 1200 0 ESTES PARK. COLORADO 80517 â€¢ 303/586-5331 0 303/586-2816 r Estes Park, Colo. April 2,1987 . ~| ~ APR 02 1987 Irm=11 Mr. Robert Goehring, Water Supt. Town Of Estes Park PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. TOWN OF ESTES PARK 170 MacGregor Ave. AY Estes Park, Colo. 80517 Dear Bob, This is to notify you of my intention to retire this year. My last day of work will be June 5, 1987. I have enjoyed working for the Town of Estes Park and would like to thank you, Rich Widmer, the administration, the board, and all my co-workers for the past seventeen years of my rewarding association with the town. Sincerely yours, Leander Gorache fi l:i ./0, . 22., , 7/ 1,0-.Culâ€žGE-,t, 996/Ld-taL . . TOWN OF ESTES PARK . April & YTD Water Billed 60 50 -- 40- C 2 30 - i 20 - 0 1-0 0 10 - 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 O April + Year-to-Date TOWN OF ESTES PARK April dc YTD Water Revenue 180 170 - 160 - 150 - 140 - 130 - 120 - 110 - 100 - 90 - 80 - 70 - 60 - 50 - 40- 0- - O. 0 30 - 20 - 10 - 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 O April + Year-to-Date GALLONS DOLLARS (Thouiands) TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT ~ater Billing for April, 1987 (Net) 14,695,790 gal. Water Use for March 14, 1987 through April 13, 1987 : March 14 to 31 Water Supplied: Black Canyon - (1,950,000) ( 18 days ) *Fall River 2,330,600 9,019,000 Glacier Creek 4,460,984 *Big Thompson Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% - ( 339,579) April 1 to 13 Water Supplied: - Black Canyon -(1,339,000) _ ~{ 13 days ) *Fall River 1,530,000 Glacier Creek 6,839,000 *Big Thompson 3,989,587 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% -( 275,979) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 24,264,613 galÂ· Adjustment 5,646,604 gal. TOTAL 18,618,009 gal. Percent Accounted For: 79% ADJUSTMENTS April, 1987 1. Dispenser 85,000 gal. 2. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights/Fall River/Old Man Mountain 481,500 gal. b. Charles Heights (Mise) (31 days @ 4844 gpd) 150,164 gal. c. Hondius Tank (28 days @ 10,000 gpd) 280,000 gal. d. Fall River Estates Condos (28 days @ 25,000 gpd) 700,000 gal. e. MacGregor Avenue (28 days @ 7,500 gpd) 210,000 gal. f. Fall River Pit (31 days @ 75,000 gpd) 2,325,000 gal. g. Ferguson Sub - Ed Rogers (28 days @ 4,320 gpd) 120,960 gal. h. Hill Road - Reeser (28 days @ 5,760 gpd) 161,280 gal. i. Metered: Woods, Banker, Stanley Park Pool, Rogers Baldwin/Colt 412,700 gal. TOTAL BLEEDERS 4,841,604 gal. 3. Flushing/Leaks a. Fall River Treatment Plant - flush/clean (3/16 & 3/26) 90,000 gal. b. Flush Thunder Mountain Pump House (4/1) 5,000 gal. c. Big Thompson overflow (4/5) 400,000 gal d. Flush 2" line - Acacia (4/8) 500 gal. e. Hydrant Flow Tests (4/9) 50,000 gal. f. Flushing Fall River Line (4/10) 174,500 gal. TOTAL FLUSHING Z20,000 gal. TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 5,646,604 gal. I) 3 , TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD APRIL 1987 DATE BLACK FALL 6LACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (GAL) (AC-FT) 1 (112,000) 110,200 515,000 513,200 1.57 0.79 281,990 0.87 0,44 795,190 2.44 2 (104,000) 135,900 529,000 560,900 1.72 0.87 251,998 0.77 0.39 812,898 2.49 3 (95,000) 117,300 496,000 518,300 1.59 0.80 257,540 0.79 0.40 775,840 2.38 4 (95,000) 129,300 526,000 560,300 1.72 0.87 371,640 1.14 0.58 931,940 2.86 5 (95,000) 102,200 560,000 567,200 1.74 0.88 684,926 2.10 1.06 1,252,126 3.84 6 {116,000) 141,300 506,000 531,300 1.63 0.82 211,248 0.65 0.33 742,548 2.28 7 (108,000) 122,300 513,000 527,300 1.62 0.82 255,258 0.78 0.39 782,558 2.40 8 (109,000) 138,700 591,000 620,700 1.90 0.96 274,492 0.84 0.42 895,192 2.75 9 (81,000) 67,400 478,000 464,400 1.43 0.72 253,954 0.78 0.39 718,354 2.20 10 (101,000) 128,900 658,000 685,900 2.10 1.06 309,591 0.95 0.48 995,491 3.06 11 (101,000) 130,000 489,000 518,000 1.59 0.80 309,591 0.95 0.48 827,591 2.54 12 (101,000) 87,000 508,000 494,000 1.52 0.76 309,591 0.95 0.48 803,591 2.47 13 (121,000) 119,500 470,000 468,500 1.44 0.72 217,768 0.67 0.34 686,268 2.11 14 (106,000) 90,100 463,000 447,100 1.37 0.69 262,104 0.80 0.41 709,204 2.18 15 (100,000) 83,700 490,000 473,700 1.45 0.73 271,884 0.83 0.42 745,584 2.29 16 (93,000) 93,900 489,000 489,900 1.50 0.76 253,954 0.78 0.39 743,854 2.28 1 17 (83,000) 230,900 46B,000 615,900 1.89 0.95 251,020 0.77 0.39 866,920 2.66 j) 18 (83,000) 190,200 522,000 629,200 1.93 0.97 341,322 1.05 0.53 970,522 2.98 19 (83,000) 195,200 520,000 632,200 1.94 0.98 341,322 1.05 0.53 973,522 2.99 20 (115,000) 171,500 518,000 574,500 1.76 0.89 308,722 0.95 0.48 883,222 2.71 21 (110,000) 69,500 518,000 477,500 1.47 0.74 247,108 0.76 0.38 724,608 2.22 22 (100,000) 88,800 473,000 461,800 1.42 0.71 275,144 0.84 0.43 736,944 2.26 23 (94,000) 66,400 469,000 441,400 1.35 0.68 293,400 0.90 0.45 734,800 2.26 24 (77,000) 65,200 473,000 461,200 1.42 0.71 238,055 0.73 0.37 699,255 2.15 25 (77,000) 72,300 553,000 548,300 1.68 0.85 232,700 0.71 0.36 781,000 2.40 26 (77,000) 75,900 534,000 532,900 1.64 0.82 367,076 1.13 0.57 899,976 2.76 27 (42,000) 71,200 491,000 - 520,200 1.60 0.80 352,080 1.08 0.54 872,280 2.68 2B (43,000) 82,100 524,000 563,100 1.73 0.87 370,010 1.14 0.57 933,110 2.86 29 (42,000) 170,500 537,000 665,500 2.04 1.03 312,634 0.96 0.48 978,134 3.00 30 (61,000) 414,400 500,000 853,400 2.62 1.32 341,322 1.05 0.53 1,194,722 3.87 31 0 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 TOTAL (2,725,000) 3,761,800 15,381,000 16,417,800 9,049,444 25,467,244 (GAL) TOTAL -8.36 11.54 47.20 ************ 50.38 27.77 ************ 78.16 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ (188,090) 0 (452,472) (640,562) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** (4,841,604) TOTAL GAL 3,573,710 15,381,000 16,417,800 ******** 8,596,972 ***************** 19,985,078 ******** Â»FS(AVE] 0.18 0.79 0.44 1.00 -LOTAL AC-FT 10.97 47.20 58.17 26.38 61.33 61.33 TOWN OF ESTES PARK r WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET w % Change # V - 7/ % Change Same Month 1985 1986 1987 Last Month last Year 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. lan. 29,741,000 gal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. +3.54% - 4.20% 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac. ft. 51.91 ac. ft. Ab. 33,488,000 gal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 qal -9.78% -19.36% 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. lar. 21,391,000 gal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar. 19,294,231 gal. +14.07% -7.72% 73.99 ac. ft. . .63.08 ac. ft.. 61.33 ac. ft. ~pr. 24,110,504 gal. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal. +3.58% -2.78% 98.53 ac. ft. 75.56 ac..ft. lay 32,106,550 gal. May 25,-271,446 gal . May 131.24 ac. ft. 102.33 ac. ft. un. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 154.52 ac. ft. .125.09 ac..ft. 1 -1 50,351,784 Jul. -40,760,736 gal. Jul. 167.68 ac. ft. .123.91 ac. ft. ug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug.- 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 95.29 ac. ft. . 100.02 ac. ft. ep. 31,051,965 gal. Sep. - 32,590,405 gal. Sep. 78.78 ac. ft. 71.34 ac. ft. Ct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 23,247,152 gal. Oct. 67.97 ac. ft. 60.17 ac. ft. OV. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 57.25 ac. ft. . 55.57 ac. ft. ec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec.- 18,107,824 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 1,184,97 ac. ft. 965.65 ac. ft. 386,124,317 gal. 315,317,871 gal. -3 tl WATER COMMITTEE AGENDA JULY 9, 1987 1. STREAMING CURRENT MONITOR - Request to purchase. 2. PRELIMINARY CORROSION STUDY - Request to hire consultant. 3. NORTH FRONT RANGE WATER QUALITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION - Review of Articles of Association. Reports: 1. June Water Reports 2. Cascade Diversion Structure 1 -4 11,,(9.> TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department Richard L. Gerstberger 9224 f '%49/ Assistant Director -'-72*.1#AitÂ· .- \ p.>-4,9,4416'W' ~Â«.. f'~ . x,7-, N, >r ,-/4.7:62 .mis. â€¢ eprhEAMP R .4 02Â»r .=U> ' t Â·4Â·.Â· Â·f Tit..t'; ffij, 2'af , ,& Â»i, . rei#%1442. 2...2-- Â·;iÂ·~-- *- .6. Â·29-2.) F //ti\~ re D * 1/+F-~Â·?ri:: 1 . -..; 1-- r ",0 '44 6.- Ar.t-- ... 2~â‚¬ -Â£ 3.9/~7*A#w*,+0* - --/ ADÂ¥ - 91.10*Â·:84 4. Estes Park, Colorado 80517 1-0 --Nt Memorandum TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Dick Gerstberge~l~ DATE: June 15, 1987 SUBJECT: Water Treatment Plant Operations - Chemical Feed Control System -- Treated water standards are undergoing a period of substantial change. The 1986 Amendments to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act will substantially impact municipalities across the country. Congress has mandated specific standards and required EPA to begin enforcing the new standards in 1987. The most critical changes for US involve increased testing requirements, a substantial increase in the number Of contaminants that we have to test for and a reduction in the allowable turbidity levels. Implementation of the law begins June 19 Of this year with certain contaminant testing requirements, but does not present a significant change for us. This first stage requires a testing program for 9 specific contaminants. The impact becomes significant, however, on the same date in 1988 and 1989, when we must have a program to monitor 49 and 84 specific contaminants respectively. We don't anticipate a problem with our treated water exceeding any of these contaminant levels with our present treatment P (1 BA,% 12(H) Telephone ( 30 3) 586-5331 Town of Estes Park , Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Widmer Memo June 15, 1987 Page 2 process. However, there are two interrelated areas of concern, turbidity and filter performance, that need to be addressed in addition to the increased testing requirements. The present State Health Department turbidity standard is 1 NTU. EPA originally proposed a standard of 0.1, but have apparently backed off to 0.5 NTU. This new standard is expected to go into effect Jan. 1, 1988. During spring runoff this year, raw water, turbidity, color and pH fluctuated wildly. At our Glacier Creek Plant, raw water turbidities have varied between .70 & 5.6 NTU and treated water turbidities as high as 0.91. In order to maintain effluent turbidities below 1.0, Glacier Creek was manned almost continuously during the day between April 21 and May 5th. Fluctuating color levels removed substantial amounts of the alum, leaving little coagulant to remove turbidity. Even with almost continuous manning of the plant, our operators had difficulty adjusting the chemical feeders rapidly enough to provide the proper feed rate. The second problem area occured at the Fall- -River Plant. Tests conducted in May at CSU indicated that coagulant was passing the filter, thereby invalidating the test. The proposed corrosion study (see separate memo) will assist us in looking at treatment processes, including water stability, and filtration efficiency. Other problems have come to light during our staff evaluation of the treatment plants prior to enforcement of the new standards. Some of the areas of concern are inadequate chemical mixing, undersized backwash ponds, and lack of influent metering at Glacier Creek, and chemical feeders that are not paced to influent flow at all of the plants. The new standards will also emphasize the need for remote monitoring and possibly control of plant operations. In addition to the corrosion study mentioned earlier, we propose purchasing a device, called a Streaming Current Monitor (SCM), for the Glacier Creek Plant. The SCM will pace the chemical feeder to the raw water turbidity. It Will also pace the chemical feed indirectly to the flow rate. Both Loveland and Ft. Collins have installed SCMs and are very pleased with their performance. Bob and I have spent several hours at both plants discussing the technology and manufacturers with their operations and lab personnel and have been favorably impressed. If the SCM works as well as indicated we will recommend installing them at the other plants. Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Widmer Memo June 15, 1987 Page 3 We have received prices from suppliers of the following three manufacturers. Milton-Roy $9,000 Neptune 7,600 Chemtrac 6,700 Based on our discussions with Loveland and Ft. Collins and the cost of the SCM, we recommend the Chemtrac. Adequate money was budgeted this year to cover this expenditure. TOWN OF ESTES PARK 4 +Nt' .9 Public Works Dephrtment Richard L. Gerstberger 11 Assistant Director C, 0 igN- f,ILÂ·-2- '4. 7 4 Â¥tte 'h#/11*3PW A f F / 9 5 2 1 . ,Â»y*2*(43,/B#34&Â¥41-vi-Â» -41 4'firj 44213 1 2 4:.0,--,\Â·FUMEh# $ /7 Â¥00<4&,2~4<5-y:Yle -1 -2354 4, r<3*-lu in-Â·. 0 1/11 / -,r I /-/4 2 4./4 F*35Â·hÂ·LGP~~~ : , Estes Park, Colorado 80517 MEMORANDUM TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Dick Gerstberge:~~~~~ DATE: June 15, 1987 - SUBJECT: Preliminary Corrosion Study Over the past few years, we have experienced a substantial increase in the number of rusty water complaints. In addition, operation of the system has become more susceptible to stirring up red water, particularly in the Fall River and Stanley Heights areas. In order to provide our customers with higher quality water and reduce crew time spent dealing with this problem, we have spent a considerable amount Of time researching both treatment and operational alternatives. SO far we have found several possible causes and no simple solutions. Between 1974 and 1978, the plants were converted to full chemical treatment to conform with State Health Department standards. Although the quality of the treated water has improved, its instability or corrosivity has also increased. There are many factors that impact water stability such as the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water, the pH (hydrogen-ion concentration), the concentration Of carbon dioxide, the concentration of certain inorganic ions such as calcium, bicarbonate, chloride, sulfate and silicate ions, temperature, and the velocity. To further complicate things, those factors usually work in combination with each other. For example , the rate at which dissolved oxygen strips protective hydrogen ions from potentially corrosive areas is dependent on the pH of the water. P {). Bin !20() 1-plephontÂ· ( 3(15) 586-5111 Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Widmer Memo June 15, 1987 Page 2 We have increased our flushing program substantially over the last few years in an effort to reduce red water complaints. Flushing removes the tubercles that develop inside the pipe as it rusts. These tuberculates can provide a habitat for bacteria and can also slough off and contribute to the red color in the customer's water. However, as flushing removes the tubercles, more metal is exposed to corrosion. Since over 50% of our distribution system is steel pipe, the problem can be severe. In order to improve the quality of the water delivered to our customers and increase the longevity of our distribution system we implemented the following program. First, we developed the Customer Service Report to track red water problems by occurrence and location. Second, we have begun a coupon testing program to test pipe coating chemicals. The first 24 hours of the test was very revealing in that a substantial buildup of corrosion had occurred on the base coupons exposed only to treated water. In addition, to the above, we would like to retain the services of Stewart Environmental Consultants (SEC) to assist town staff in conducting a preliminary corrosion study: - SEC specializes in environmental engineering and is experienced with this type of study. This preliminary study will involve evaluating the extent of corrosion occurring in the distribution system, collection and analysis of water samples, development of Caldwell-Lawrence diagrams and a water chemistry spreadsheet, review of the coupon testing program mentioned above, review of the water system master plan, and the evaluation of existing operational practices. The proposed study would consist of the following specific tasks: REVIEW OF CORROSION SYMPTOMS All information available regarding customer complaints and system leaks will be reviewed. Customer complaints and leaks Will be located by Estes Park personnel on a map of the distribution system. This information will allow the consultant to determine the severity and extent of the Town's corrosion problem. LOCATE SOURCES OF CORROSION SEC will analyze split samples collected by Estes Park personnel from various locations in the distribution system. Samples will be analyzed to determine the concentration of calcium, total dissolved solids, alkalinity, copper, lead & iron. In addition, the corrosivity or aggressiveness of these water samples will be determined To allow SEC to evaluate the internal corrosion potential throughout the Town's distribution system (in both the steel and cement lined piping). Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Widmer Memo June 15, 1987 Page 3 Samples will also be collected by Estes Park personnel at various points throughout the treatment process and analyzed by the Town. The results of this analyses will allow the consultant and Estes Park to determine how water chemistry is changing through the various treatment processes. SEC will then evaluate the impact of the various treatment processes on the corrosivity of the treated water. DEVELOP CALDWELL-LAWRENCE DIAGRAMS AND LAGALIER INDEX SPREADSHEET The consultant will develop Caldwell-Lawrence diagrams specific to the Town's water and a computer program that will allow Town personnel to track water chemistry in the future. This program will permit treatment plant personnel to quickly evaluate the stability of treated water and adjust the treatment process accordingly. REVIEW COUPON TESTING AND MARBLE TEST The coupon testing being performed by Estes Park personnel will be reviewed by SEC. This coupon testing is being performed in the portions of the system that were identified as having high corrosion potential. The consultant will estimate the rate of corrosion from the results of this testing and the results of water testing. SEC will also assist the Town conduct a marble test to estimate the rate of mortar loss from cement lined pipes in the system. PLOT WATER ANALYSES RESULTS ON MAP OF SYSTEM The consultant will review the results of the water analyses and the coupon testing results. Estes Park will plot these results on the map which was utilized in locating customer complaints. REVIEW SYSTEM ANALYSIS FROM MASTER PLAN SEC will review the water system master plan previously developed for the Town. Areas of high pipe stress will be identified in an effort to determine if corrosion problems are being intensified by this hydraulicly induced stress. Operational practices which are currently being utilized by Estes Park personnel will also be evaluated by the consultant. Alternative operating practices will be studied to replace any current operating practices which may be causing accelerated corrosion to occur. Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Widmer Memo June 15, 1987 Page 4 REPORT FINDINGS SEC will evaluate the findings from this project and summarize these findings in the form of a report. Areas with highly corrosive water Will be identified, as well as any treatment schemes which might be adding to the corrosivity of the Town's treated water. Results of laboratory analyses will be included in the report. User instructions for the water chemistry spreadsheet and for the Caldwell-Lawrence diagrams will also be included in the report. Operational practices will be evaluated along with flow conditions in the system to determine if corrosion problems may be remedied by simply altering current operational practices. Preliminary recommendations for eliminating or reducing corrosion of the water distribution system will be made in this report, including pipe replacement if necessary. ESTIMATED COST This study and laboratory analysis is estimated to cost between $6,000 and $8,000, depending on concerns that are identified as the study progresses. Adequate money was budgeted this year to cover this item. TIME OF COMPLETION The study will take approximately 120 days to complete. CITY OF FORT COLLINS - 450. 2/ 4 July 1, 1987 )04*'80 Dear Colleague: Attached for your review is the final draft of the Articles of Association of the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association. The Articles were reviewed by committee members who attended the meeting scheduled on Monday, June 15, in Windsor. The changes agreed upon at that meeting were made, and a subcommittee was formed to develop language where necessary to incorporate the remaining changes identified by the group. The Articles as written are intended to be the final version. The committee had set 9August 1 Ks the tentative deadline for member entities to have the Articles adopted by their governing bodies. It appears that the deadline is still attainable if the governing bodies can consider the Articles at their July meetings. Therefore, we are requesting that you review the Articles and submit them through the appropriate process for adoption by your agency. As soon as adequate representation of the region has submitted signed copies of the Articles, a submittal package will be sent to the State and the Environmental Protection Agency for their approval. This schedule will allow two months for the State and EPA to take action in order that the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association can be ready for business on October 1 when the Larimer-Weld COG is scheduled to close. In order for this process and timetable to work, it will not be possible for additional changes to be made to the Articles. It is necessary for all of the governing bodies to adopt the Articles in the same form. Associate members and new members can be considered any time after the Association begins meeting. It is very important that as many agencies as possible adopt the Articles and return them by August 1. One of the criterion for State and Federal approval is that the Association be representative of the various governments in the planning area. Please get your copy signed by the appropriate official and return it to Mike Smith as soon as possible. If you have any questions about the Articles, call Mike at 221-6681. The committee also agreed that a letter describing the process that is underway to develop the new Association should be sent to the State Water Quality Control Commission. A copy of the letter is attached for your information. .,., fi:#32<KIE48.1~AFAVat,Krl'.,-ptl# -Â·-- ,.'-4.,-4~ t:'::6- 0{ Â«4.-122 41*45%2.,1:. -2. .)#. .1. -- ,.A L,19'~~~~~76?,21@~90 ..r.*.7-â€¢' t '- 1*: .6|*b,L~.~.-*.H.*4MBE:'2-,fk~ff,I kÂ·Â·eÂ·t? ~ frk-12'h.'24;4''PH.,142~131.1-,4~<.i,Â£~Al/â‚¬:i:Â·?.~i:-*~ibl~d 94*24**C>~~ff.-~-~ 9 :.1458Â£::7.: -4.' ~ L<...~*Â·.Â»e' *,Ca E= Â· ..C;20'Â· t-~ C ~Â·'>~,Â·Nifilit41.+~1-'28.U Â£,4''Iâ€¢ Â·Â·1. ..A'; :~Ek:.,Â·'iriA=UJâ€¢:CLLIES;. -6-- 1/9.1&0*:6,illia-.IEUL-AdvitÂ£.A Ca~taL_-_____ OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL 300 LaPorte Ave.. P.O. Box 580 â€¢ Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 â€¢ (303] 221 -6505 July 1, 1987 Page 2 Thank you all very much for your hard work in developing a new organization and for your commitment to water quality planning in the area. Yours truly, 040.--A L+-1 Loren Maxey, Chairman 208 Water Quality Planning Organization Committee Attachments ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Customer Service Response Report June, 1987 ACTIVITY # OF RESPONSES MAN-HOURS Hydrant Flushing 0 0 Bleeder Maintenance 1 0.2 Utility Locations 24 28.6 Billing Questions 2 0.6 Water Shut-Off 0 0 Tap Requests 1 1.0 Water Quality 8 10.4 Pressure - 8 14.25 Frozen Lines 0 0 Line Breaks 0 0 Back Flow Prevention 0 0 Construction 1 Â· 0.5 Street Repair 5 13.0 Snow Removal 0 0 Sign Repair 2 13.5 Storm Drainage 1 63.5 Other 14 11.25 TOTALS 67 156.8 WATER LOST TOTAL CALLS 67 6% Increase over last month TOTAL MAN HOURS 156.80 44% Decrease over last month TOWN Or EaTEO PARK June & YTD Woler Billed 100 -- + 3,21 80 - 70 - 60 - C , 50 - - 40 - 30 - ~e------0 +3.97. 20 b--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 10 - 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 O June + Year-10-Date TOWN OF ESTES PARK June a YTD Water Revenue 300 280 - -+12.1,1 260 - 240 - 220 - 200 - 180 - 160 - 140 - 120 - 100 - 80 - e.--------El 4 13. 1 1 60 - 40 2 20 - 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 O June + Year-10-Date DOLLARS GALLONS (Thousandi) TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT - Water Billing for June, 1987 (Net) 25,140,940 gal. Water Use for May 14, 1987 through June 13, 1987 : May 14 to 31 Water Supplied: Black Canyon - (1,592,700) ( 18 days ) *Fall River Plant Off 13,322,000 Glacier Creek 6,060,340 *Big Thompson Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% -( 303,017) - June 1 to 13 Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(1,191,100) ( 13 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 15,455,000 *Big Thompson 5,037,900 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% - (251,895) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 36,536,528 Adjustment 2,278,932 TOTAL 34,257,596 Percent Accounted For: 73% ADJUSTMENTS June, 1987 1. Water Dispenser 120,000 gal. 2. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights/Fall River/Old Man Mtn. 302,300 gal. b. Charles Heights (Mise) (31 days @ 4844 gpd) 150,164 c. Fall River (Fire Plug Metered) 1,426,950 Total Bleeders 1,879,414 gal. 3. Park Watering (estimated) 102,018 gal. 4. Flushing/Leaks a. Flush Elkhorn Lodge (5/15) 1,500 gal. b. Flush Fall River Estates (5/15) 2,000 gal. c. Flush Fall River Esstates (5/22) 25,000 gal. d. Test/flush Thunder Mountain Line (5/29) 16,000 gal. e. Flush Devil's Gulch (5/29) Â· 8,500 gal. f. Big Thompson Overflow (6/2) 99,000 gal. g. Flush Fall River Estates (6/3) 6,000 gal. h. Flush Fall River 12" (6/10) Â· 12,000 gal. i. Flush Elkhorn Lodge (6/13) 7,500 gal. Total Flushing/Leaks 177,500 gal. Total Adjustments 2,278,932 gal. TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD JUNE 1987 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (6AL) (AC-FT] 1 (51,000) 0 889,000 83B,000 2.57 1.30 440,426 1.35 0.68 1,278,426 3.92 2 (57,000) 0 991,000 934,000 2.87 1.45 581,584 1.78 0.90 1,515,584 4.65 3 (65,000) 0 885,000 820,000 2.52 1.27 523,230 1.61 0.81 1,343,230 4.12 4 (89,000) 0 1,290,000 1,201,000 3.69 1.86 375,878 1.15 0.58 1,576,878 4.84 5 (93,700) 0 1,423,000 1,329,300 4.08 2.06 351,650 1.08 0.54 1,680,950 5.16 6 (93,700) 0 1,324,000 1,230,300 3.78 1.90 407,826 1.25 0.63 1,638,126 5.03 7 (93,700) 0 1,209,000 1,115,300 3.42 1.73 393,808 1.21 0.61 1,509,108 4.63 8 (148,000) 0 1,214,000 1,066,000 3.27 1.65 291,118 0.89 0.45 1,357,118 4.16 9 (167,000) 0 1,169,000 1,002,000 3.08 1.55 210,922 0.65 0.33 1,212,922 3.72 10 (136,000) 0 1,154,000 1,018,000 3.12 1.58 256,562 0.79 0.40 1,274,562 3.91 it (108,000) 0 1,232,000 1,124,000 3.45 1.74 378,812 1.16 0.59 1,502,812 4.61 12 (89,000) 0 1,382,000 1,293,000 3.97 2.00 420,214 1.29 0.65 1,713,214 5.26 13 0 0 1,293,000 1,293,000 3.97 2.00 405,870 1.25 0.63 1,698,870 5.21 14 0 0 1,125,000 1,125,000 3.45 1.74 492,260 1.51 0.76 1,617,260 4.96 15 0 0 1,223,000 1,223,000 3.75 1.89 453,792 1.39 0.70 1,676,792 5.15 16 (61,000) 0 1,288,000 1,227,000 3.77 1.90 456,400 1.40 0.71 1,6B3,400 5.17 17 (73,000) 0 1,306,000 1,233,000 3.78 1.91 444,664 1.36 0.69 1,677,664 5.15 18 (89,000) 0 1,304,000 1,215,000 3.73 1.88 465,202 1.43 0.72 1,680,202 5.16 19 (67,000) 0 1,431,000 1,364,000 4.19 2.11 407,826 1.25 0.63 1,771,826 5.44 20 (67,000) 0 1,408,000 1,341,000 4.12 2.07 505,300 1.55 0.78 1,846,300 5.67 21 (67,000) 0 1,202,000 1,135,000 3.48 1.76 459,660 1.41 0.71 1,594,660 4,89 22 (55,000) 0 1,480,000 1,425,000 4.37 2.20 527,468 1.62 0.82 1,952,468 5.99 23 (70,000) 0 1,425,000 1,355,000 4.16 2.10 428,038 1.31 0.66 1,783,038 5.47 24 (100,000) 0 1,461,000 1,361,000 4.18 2.11 425,756 1.31 0.66 1,786,756 5.48 25 (86,000) 0 1,515,000 1,429,000 4.39 2.21 450,532 1.38 0.70 1,879,532 5.77 26 (78,000) 0 1,592,000 1,514,000 4.65 2.34 461,616 1.42 0.71 1,975,616 6.06 4.- r,Â« 27 (78,000) 0 1,444,000 1,366,000 4.19 2.11 526,490 1.62 0.81 1,892,490 , 5.81 28 (78,000) 0 1,410,000 1,332,000 4.09 2.06 479,220 1.47 0.74 1,811,220 5.56 29 (157,000) 0 1,331,000 1,174,000 3.60 1.82 226,570 0.70 0.35 1,400,570 4.30 30 (143,000) 0 1,315,000 1,172,000 3.60 1.81 207,336 0.64 0,32 1,379,336 4.23 31 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 TOTAL (2,460,100) 0 38,715,000 36,254,900 12,456,030 48,710,930 (6AL) TOTAL -7.55 0.00 118.81 â€¢*********** 111.26 38.23 â€¢*********** 149.49 (AC-FT) LESS 51 ************ 0 0 (622,802) (622,802) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************18********************************************14****************15*********** (1,879,414) TOTAL GAL 0 38,715,000 36,254,900 ******** 11,833,229 ***â€¢************* 46,208,715 ******** CFS(AVE) 0.00 2.00 0.61 2.31 TOTAL AC-FT 0.00 118.81 118.81 36.31 141.81 141.Bl TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT- COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Month 1985 1986 1987 Last Month .Last Year 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. Jan. 29,741,000 gal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. +3.54% - 4.20% 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac. ft. 51.91 ac. ft. Feb. 33,488,000 gal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 qal -9.78% -19.36% 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. -- Mar. 21,391,000 gal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar.. 19,294,231 gal.- +14.07% - 7.72% 73.99 ac. ft. . .63.08 ac. ft.. 6-1.33-ad.-ft. Apr. 24,110,504 gal. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal. + 3.58% -2.78% 98.53 ac. ft. 75.56 ac..ft. 85.96 ac. ft. May 32,106,550 gal. May 25,-271,446 gal . May 28,009,040 gal. +40.15% +10.83% 131.24 ac. ft. 102.33 ac. ft. 141.81 ac. ft. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 46,208,715 gal. +64.98% +38.58% 154.52 ac. ft. .125.09 ac..ft. Jul. 50,351,784 Jul. 40,760,736 gal. Jul. 167.68 ac. ft. .123.91 ac. ft. Aug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug. 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 95.29 ac. ft. . 100.02 ac. ft. Sep. 31,051,965 gal. Sep. 32,590,405 gal. Sep. 78.78 ac. ft. 71.34 ac. ft. Oct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 23,247,152 gal. oct. 67.97 ac. ft. 60.17 ac. ft. Nov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 57.25 ac. ft. . 55.57 ac. ft. Dec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 1,184,97 ac. ft. 965.65 ac. ft. 386,124,317 gal. 315,317,871 gal. 44 WATER COMMITTEE /' AGENDA SEPTEMBER 9, 1987 1. DISSOLVED OXYGEN METER - Request to purchase. 2. TRENCH COMPACTOR - Request to purchase. 3. 1988 BUDGET - Review. Reports: 1. August Water Reports 2. Cascade Diversion Structure 3. Corrosion Study 4. Personnel Changes TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department Richard L. Gerstberger Assistant Director RA 510-<77 'f'>-4.1 .SM \-4~.1,4 4'4.12â€¢25!--Av >.%.- SKINVkv f,7,91%Rb#:Si<.-4- - -2619:214*41'329~4,53>- / .,442. Â» Â·:Â·:7?29-2~4. 1~ 14.34 1--77-51'.....t=Z-,1...6.-Z.1.â€¢Â·AN-7 -7--- 1"1,7f*-x a . 1. -- -Â¥.-7. A F .., 4,36â‚¬94 3.ilfÂ»/4., -4 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 \ MEMO TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Dick Gerstberger< ~~~ DATE: August 11, 1987 SUBJECT: Equipment Purchase As I indicated in my June 15 memo, treated water standards are undergoing a period of substantlal change. Two major areas of concern for US are turbidity and corrosion control. We are addressing these concerns initially by conducting a corrosion study and installing a Streaming Current Monitor (SCM) at the Glacier Creek Plant. Both projects have emphasized the need to improve our laboratory capability. Presently, pH and turbidity samples must be collected and taken to the plant where the equipment is or the equipment taken from plant to plant. This can present some real problems in emergency situations such as existed at Glacler Creek thls spring. In addition, the division does not have Dissolved Oxygen testing capability and DO appears to be a major contributor to our corrosion problem. For these reasons the Water Division recommends the purchase of the following lab equipment: pH Meter $ 725.00 Magnetic Stirrer $ 125.00 Turbidity Meter $ 1195.00 Dissolved Oxygen Meter S 720.00 Total Lab Equipment $ 2765.00 P. 0. Box 1200 Telephone (303) 586-5 01 In addition, the division would like to purchase a trench compactor for $ 2500.00. At the present time we are borrowing one from the Street Division when needed. However, this often creates a conflict either due to availability or mechanical operation of the equipment and the division has ended up renting a compactor. Funds are available in the budget f6r these purchases. TOWN OF ESTES PARK August & YTD Water Billed - -- 190 - 10.7% 185 - -- 170 - 160 - 160 - 140 -- 130 - 120 - 110 - 100 - 5 3 90 - 80 - 70 - 60 - 60 - -0 21.8% 40 - 30 -2 0 0- - 20 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 O AUGUST + YEAR-TO-DATE TOWN OF ESTES PARK August & YTD Water Revenue 500 4/r 167% 460 - - 400 - 350 -- 300 - 250 - 200 - tso - 100 - r~_,__-------0 24.396 O 09 50 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 O AUGUST + YEAR-TO-DATE 4-2 L DOLLARS (Thousands) . I TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for August, 1.987 (Net) 49,399,100 gal. July 14 1987 through August 13,1987 .. Water Use for July 14 to 31st Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(1,870,000) < 18 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 28,003,000 *Big Thompson 7,838,306 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% -(391,915) August 1 to 13 Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(1,570,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 18,412,000 *Big Thompson 4,401,512 Subtract _for: *Wash Water - 5% -(220,076) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 54,602,827 Adjustment 2,142,272 TOTAL 52,460,555 Percent Accounted For: 94% ADJUSTMENTS August 1987 1. Water Dispenser 242,000 Gal. 2. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights/Fall River/ Old Man Mountain 1,482,730 Gal. b. Charles Heights (Wise) 150,164 (31 days @ 4844 gpd) C. Lakefront (Saalfeld) 92,160 (16 days @ 5760 gpd) TOTAL BLEEDERS 1,725,054 3. Park Watering (Estimated) 102,018 Gal. 4. Flushing/Leaks a. Flush Elkhorn Lodge (7/16) 1,000 Gal. b. Flush 12" Fall River (7/21) 36,000 c. Flush Methodist Church (8/12) 1,200 d. Flush Fall River Estates (8/5) 35,000 TOTAL FLUSHING/LEAKS 73,200 Gal. TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 2,142 ,272 TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD AUGUST 1987 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (GAL) (AC-FT) 1 (133,000) 1 1,315,000 1,182,000 3.63 1.83 288,636 0.89 0.45 1,470,836 4.51 2 (133,000) 0 1,341,000 1,208,000 3.71 1.87 290,000 0.89 0.45 1,498,000 4.60 3 (169,000) 0 1,403,000 1,234,000 3.79 1.91 343,604 1.05 0.53 1,577,604 4.84 4 (97,000) 0 1,451,000 1,354,000 4.16 2.09 369,684 1.13 0.57 1,723,6B4 5.29 5 (76,000) 0 1,550,000 1,474,000 4.52 2.28 430,972 1.32 0.67 1,904,972 5.85 6 (79,000) 0 1,397,000 1,318,000 4.04 2.04 400,980 1.23 0.62 1,718,980 5.28 7 (124,000) 0 1,519,000 1,395,000 4.28 2.16 329,912 1.01 0.51 1,724,912 5.29 8 (124,000) 0 1,317,000 1,193,000 3.66 1.85 282,316 0.87 0.44 1,475,316 4.53 9 (124,000) 0 1,297,000 1,173,000 3.60 1.81 337,736 1.04 0.52 1,510,736 4.64 10 (120,000) 0 1,464,000 1,344,000 4.12 2.08 378,812 1.16 0.59 1,722,812 5.29 11 (120,000) 0 Â· 1,418,000 1,298,000 3.98 2.01 340,996 1.05 0.53 1,638,996 5.03 12 (145,000) 0 1,420,000 1,275,000 3.91 1.97 317,198 0.97 0.49 1,592,198 4.89 13 (126,000) 0 1,520,000 1,394,000 4.28 2.16 290,466 0.89 0.45 1,684,466 5.17 14 (101,000) 0 1,471,000 1,370,000 4.20 2.12 426,734 1.31 0.66 1,796,734 5.51 15 (100,000) 0 1,536,000 1,436,000 4.41 2.22 481,502 1.48 0.74 1,917,502 5.88 16 (100,000) 1 1,594,000 1,494,000 4.58 2.31 370,662 1.14 0.57 1,864,662 5.72 17 (81,000) 8 1,382,000 1,301,000 3.99 = 2.01 506,278 1.55 0.78 1,807,278 5.55 18 (117,830) 0 1,497,000 1,379,170 4.23 2.13 338,062 1.04 0.52 1,717,232 5.27 19 (117,830) 0 1,694,000 1,576,170 4.84 2.44 578,878 1.78 0.90 2,155,048 6.61 4- *lEI) 20 (117,830) 0 1,640,000 1,522,170 4.67 2.36 378,486 1.16 0.59 1,900,656 5.83 21 (117,830) 0 1,497,000 1,379,170 4.23 2.13 396,090 1.22 0.61 1,775,260 5.45 22 (117,830) 0 1,499,000 1,381,170 4.24 2.14 265,038 0.81 0.41 1,646,208 5.05 23 (117,830) 0 1,374,000 1,256,170 3.86 1.94 219,398 0.67 0.34 1,475,568 4.53 24 (142,000) 0 1,510,000 1,368,000 4.20 2.12 87,694 0.27 0.14 1,455,694 4.47 25 (134,000) 0 1,275,000 1,141,000 3.50 1.77 145,396 0.45 0.22 1,286,396 3.95 26 (166,000) 0 1,178,000 1,012,000 3.11 1.57 161,370 0.50 0.25 1,173,370 3.60 27 (145,000) 0 1,161,000 1,016,000 3.12 1.57 175,388 0.54 0.27 1,191,388 3.66 2B (130,888) 0 1,218,000 1,087,112 3.34 1.68 225,918 0.69 0.35 1,313,030 4.03 29 (130,888) 0 1,238,000 1,107,112 3.40 1.71 300,572 0.92 0.47 1,407,684 4.32 30 (130,888) 0 1,171,000 1,040,112 3.19 1.61 324,370 1.00 0.50 1,364,482 4.19 31 (98,000) 0 1,268,000 1,170,000 3.59 1.81 383,050 1.18 0.59 1,553,050 4.77 TOTAL (3,736,644) 0 43,615,000 39,878,356 10,166,398 50,044,754 (GAL) TOTAL -11.47 0.01 133.85 ************ 122.38 31.20 ************ 153.58 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ O 0 (508,320) (508,320) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ************************â€¢********************************************************************* (1,725,054) TOTAL GAL 0 43,615,000 39,878,356 ******** 9,658,078 ***************** 47,811,380 ******** CFS(AVE) 0.88 2.18 0.48 2.39 TOTAL AC-FT 0.00 133.85 133.85 29.64 146.73 146.73 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 6 .WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Month 1985 1986 1987 Last Month .Last Year 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. Jan. 29,741,000 gal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. +3.54% - 4.20% 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac. ft. 51.91 ac. ft. Feb. 33,488,000 gal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 qal -9.78% -19.36% 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. tar. 21,391,000 gal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar.. 19,294,231 gal. ' ~ +14.07% - 7.72% 73.99 ac. ft. . .63.08 ac. ft.. 61.33 ac. :Et. Apr. 24,110,504 gal. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal. + 3.58% -2.78% 98.53 ac. ft. 75.56 ac..ft. 85.96 ac. ft. Yay 32,106,550 gal. May 25,-271,446 gal . May 28,009,040 gal. +40.15% - +10.83% 131.24 ac. ft. 102.33 ac. ft. 141.81 ac. ft. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 46,208,715 gal. +64.98% +38.58% 154.52 ac. ft. .125.09 ac. .ft. 173.26 ac. ft. Jul. 50,351,784 Jul. 40,760,736 gal. Jul. 56,457,974 +22.18% +38.51% 167.68 ac. ft. .123.91 ac. ft. 146.73 ac. ft. Aug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug. 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 47,811,380 -15.32% +18.41% 95.29 ac. ft. . 100.02 ac. ft. Sep. 31,051,965 gal. Sep. 32,590,405 gal. Sep. 78.78 ac. ft. 71.34 ac. ft. )Ct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 23,247,152 gal. oct. 67.97 ac. ft. 60.17 ac. ft. Vov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 57.25 ac. ft. . 55.57 ac. ft. )ec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 1,184,97 ac. ft. 965.65 ac. ft. 386,124,317 gal. 315,317,871 gal. ' ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Customer Service Response Report August, 1987 ACTIVITY # OF RESPONSES MAN-HOURS Hydrant Flushing 0 0 Bleeder Maintenance 0 0 Utility Locations 24 37.5 Billing Questions 3 1.7 Inspections 1 0.3 Tap Requests 0 0 Gale Aud Water Quality(9; 4,/ 12 11.3 (*Â«ILT *b Pressure 5 5.2 Frozen Lines 0 0 Line Breaks 1 1.0 Back Flow Prevention 0 0 Construction 1 .5 Street Repair 1 10.5 Snow Removal 0 0 Sign Repair 1 3.0 Storm Drainage 0 0 Other 13 7.75 TOTALS 62 78.75 WATER LOST TOTAL CALLS 62 44% Increase over last month TOTAL MAN HOURS 78.75 82% Increase over last month I 'l WATER COMMITTEE d AGENDA OCTOBER 8, 1987 1. 2" PRIVATE LINE (UPPER BROADVIEW AREA) - Proposal for Town to assume maintenance. 2. THUNDER MOUNTAIN WATER AGREEMENT - Review. a. Thunder Mountain Rural Water Application 3. 1988 PROPOSED RATE INCREASE - Discussion. 4. RURAL WATER APPLICATION - a. James Ranglos, 2168 Moraine Route 6K. 1988 BUDGET - Review. Reports: 1. September Water Reports 2. Cascade Diversion Structure 3. AWWA Conference 4. Personnel Changes , .At , 4 .43*4 DV - 4 Richard L. Gerstberger TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department Â·g, 4 992/ Assistant Director . 0 . 9.0 e:ni.:4, ... btle , -.rirtli - I. - --*Â» ste,P f /96-.:Are,=.... :.atte* ' r - It-- re',trot,0,124 440.:Awy 42*HK.- U ' ..944Â« 1 m<: Y. 7 l-,-*40*54, 1/ r yâ„¢ 4 n . Estes Park, Colorado 80517 to - h MEMO DATE: October 1, 1987 TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Dick GerstbergerNÂ©0/ SUBJECT: Fenton and Switzer's 2 inch private service line Several years ago the town allowed two taps onto what turned out to be a 2" private service line off of Broadview. These connections were made without the permission of the owners of the line and they have objected to the use of their property. Bob Goehring has researched the problem and met with the property owners. The line presently has 7 taps (Fenton-4, Switzer-1, town allowed-2) on it with a fixture count of approximately 3000 FVUs. Capacity of the line is estimated to be close to 4000 fixture value units. Bob recommends the following: 1. The town take over maintenance of all of the 2" water line originally constructed by Mr. Switzer and Mrs. Fenton. 2. Mr. Switzer be allowed three taps in addition to the one tap he now has on the line. All costs, including the tap fee and water resource charges, would be his responsibility. Bob reviewed this proposal with Mr. Switzer and he has agreed. P O. Box 1200 Telâ‚¬'i)hone f.1031 386-3 131 \1\Anviv U -%28*--2-, hi --- 1Â» 1, 9 r))rpro\\-14 \914\4 --- \\ \1 1.V 16:46~ ~ ,~ .0/N \ \Â·F ~, ...' V F M 1 1 \\ \4 J \ 1 12)31 C rc &4 2 A, , c. 1 . S hel> -4 fv' \ ' / 0 11 2\1 \ ,\ '' i . 4 7 J. -3\ P f \ i \\) I <31 -El_ 1 11 1 1 1 C C -- 1 /, \\ r- 11 B /- - Service \,1 - - In - -1 N 1/ ( 7) 1 "1 '1 * 300 \ 3 8 1 101 / \ 19 / 4, - tiÂ¥,V /47 0 -- 4 \ p \,11 11 0 -7 f *44*35 /1, ~ att~lie T C 12 1 * / li -0- , 1 8 / / /Â§ Of- D/4. 0 -Af 'll 1 4 1% - f 1 1/ F -1 - 11 1 ..0..0-3...' 4 // 1 \ m . 09 -ED=24 ,/ 1 , 5 8 , 1 \1 2 1 3 \ ,1: , 1-=ps-_r-i XI N X A /, 111 \ 229Â· b - k \SÂ» /11.\ ill + ir-. - 1-P / 1 1, 04 V - /l - 1 j \,9/2 / - >1< U . (< CE' z - / C 2- x: .,, 11*) I A 1 Irl I \1 Ai /7 I 3 NN . -- ,01:, F. 1 1.Â· 2 f Â· 4- 0 <| 0 0 3 E il- 4 \ / / a (4211 13{ 1 /0 li / 6,1 -rg b U -- ~ J j) ;14 Jt~TJ,/ 8 1-L f -/4 // 7, l , 1 r /11 .,0\.4.02- b fl LM I.\ \ / ~ 1 A '64/44%39{ I 44 i imoirÂ° 0 HAMMOND, CLARK AND WHI-rE LAW OFFICES FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING, SUITE 418 LYNN A. HAMMOND 200 EAST SEVENTH STREET ALFRED P. DAVIS ROGER E. CLARK LOVELAND, COLORADO 80537 OF COUNSEL GREGORY A. WHITE JENNIFER J. STOCKER . 303-667-1023 October 7, 1987 Mr. Richard Gertsberger Assistant Public Works Director TOWN OF ESTES PARK Post Office Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Estes Park - Thunder Mountain Dear Dick: Enclosed is the proposed Thunder Mountain Agreement. Paragraph 3 refers to any real property upon which the system is located and any easements over private property that have been used by the developer in constructing the system. Also, I have used an exhibit for the amount of fees to be charged by the Town for reimbursement. This will allow some flexibility in negotiating those fees. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Vety truly yours, Y -6, U-f ~Grigory A. White GAW:dc Enclosure /8 r, AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1987, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, a Colorado Municipal Corporation, party of the first part (hereinafter referred to as "the Town"), and THUNDER MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Colorado Limited Partnership, party of the second part (hereinafter referred to as "Thunder Mountain"), WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Thunder Mountain has constructed at its sole expense a water system consisting of a six (6) inch water main, pump station, storage tank and distribution system, to serve the following described real property located in Larimer County, Colorado, with domestic water, to-wit: THUNDER MOUNTAIN PARK, P.U.D. and WHEREAS, Thunder Mountain is willing to convey all of its right, title and interest in and to said water system to the Town, and WHEREAS, the Town is willing, upon conveyance of the system, to collect certain sums from other parties to reimburse Thunder Mountain and also to maintain said water system. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants herein contained, it is agreed: 1. Thunder Mountain hereby grants, bargains, sells and conveys unto the Town, its successors and assigns forever, that certain water system consisting of a six (6) inch water main, pump station, storage tank and all appurtenances constructed by them to serve the above-described real property with domestic water. Thunder Mountain does covenant, grant, bargain and agree with the Town, its successors and assigns, that it is well seized of the premises above conveyed, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in the manner and form aforesaid, and that the same is free and clear from all liens, taxes, assessments and encumbrances of whatever kind or nature whatsoever, and Thunder Mountain shall and will warrant and forever defend the title to the same. 2. Thunder Mountain further covenants and warrants that the water system herein conveyed has been constructed in a good and workmanlike manner, is free from all defects, whether latent or apparent, including design defects, and is in good operating condition. 3. Thunder Mountain shall execute and deliver to the Town a general warranty deed, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, conveying the real property described therein to the Town, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. 4. The Town agrees to assume the operation and maintenance of said water system and to furnish water for domestic use to the above described properties. It is hereby expressly understood and agreed that the Town will lurni.shlater_ only to such_lands as -in its- opinion may be served by gravity from the storage tank, .7 being a part of said water system; that the use of such water shall be under such rules and regulations as are now or may hereafter be adopted by the Town for its water service; provided further, that the users shall pay the rates for water service which are now or which may hereafter be established by the Town; and provided, further, that the users shall pay the tap fee, water resource fee and plant investment fee which is now or may hereafter be established by the Town to connect the service lines to the main. It is understood and agreed that the Town is under no obligation to construct or maintain any service lines from the main; and that the Town may make any additions to said system or connect any service lines thereto without the consent of Thunder Mountain, other than as herein provided. 5. In addition to the established tap collected and to be retained by the Town, it shall collect, until the occurrence of the limitation hereafter provided, a fee of a fixed amount for each of the following described lots, parcels or tracts to be served by the above water main: All properties located in Sections 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and 15, inclusive, T4N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, excepting therefrom the lots located in Thunder Mountain Park, P.U.D. The Town shall refund any additional fees collected annually to Thunder Mountain until Thunder Mountain has received a total of $317,856.00, or until ten (10) years from the date hereof, whichever event occurs first. The Town shall not be liable to Thunder Mountain for such additional fees if it should inadvertently fail to collect the same when approving a water tap application, but it will cooperate with Thunder Mountain, in every reasonable way, to collect said fees. The amount of said fees shall be set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 6. The Town agrees to serve all lots in Thunder Mountain Park, P.U.D. with water in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, or any -2- 1 f. amendments thereto, and upon the payment of all fees and charges therein provided. 7. That all covenants and agreements herein contained shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto. 8. Any amendments to this Agreement must be set forth in writing and signed by the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands the day and year first above written. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk THUNDER MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Colorado Limited Partnership By: General Partner STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 1987, by as Mayor and as Town Clerk of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: Notary Public -3- '4(1 1 BRADFOROPUBLISHINGCO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 4 Water Committee August 9, 1984 ' Committee: Chairman Hix, Trustees Aldrich and Wood Attending: Chairman Hix, Trustees Aldrich and Wood Also Attending: Town Administrator Hill, Water Superintendent Richards, Public Works Director Widmer, i Finance Officer Vavra, Attorney White, Consulting Engineer Bob Kemp (DMJM Phillips Reister) RURAL WATER APPLICATIONS: KEIM - Wayne and Joyce Keim requested water service to their 1 property located at Lot 35 Charles Heights Addition. Following discussion, the Committee recommends approval of the application along with a 4" water line extension. THUNDER MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES, LTD. - Mr. Bob Kemp, Consulting Engineer - DMJM Phillips Reister, reviewed the July 30, 1984 .-...... letter received from Estes Park Surveyors. Discussion followed -...1-'. with the Committee favorably recommending the Town enter into an C agreement with Thunder Mountain Associates, Ltd. subject to -. in-depth engineering and legal studies. MUNCIIIANDO CONSTRUCTION: Mr. Bob Kemp and Attorney White advised the Committee on the final estimate balance due for Munchiando Construction. The Committee authorized Finance Officer Vavra to publish a "Final Notice of Settlement". MASTER PLAN- URBAN GROWTH STUDY: Acting upon the Committee's request, Public Works Director Widmer ' submitted the following firms qualified to update the water master plan: 1. Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers 2. DMJM Phillips- Reister Consulting Engineers 3. McLaughlin Water Engineers 4. Rocky Mountain Consultants, Inc. The Committee recommends Director Widmer be authorized to send the RFPs to the aforementioned firms using the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District boundary limit as the study area. RAW WATER SUPPLY: After considerable discussion and recommendation by Town Attorney White and staff, the Committee recommends the Town's raw water engineers (W. W. Wheeler and Associates) compare Windy Gap and Colorado Big Thompson for both short and long-range water supply. MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT - ALLOTMENT CONTRACT: The Ccmmittee reviewed a letter dated July 31, 1984 received from the Municipal Subdistrict - Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District regarding allotment contracts. The contracts require participants to provide the Subdistrict with an estimated demand and delivery schedule for the following year. Water DRUMPhillipsÂ·ReisterÂ·Haley,Inc. November 19, 1985 Mr. Robert L. Richards Water Superintendent P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Subject: Thunder Mountain Water System - Potential Growth Dear Bob: We have carefully examined the potential for future growth of the Thunder Mountain pumped water system to serve homes nearby and homes along the road leading to the east portal of the Adams Tunnel. We have estimated the number of future taps that might develop in the Wind River Valley and then have evaluated the ability of the Thunder Mountain water system to supply them. Our analysis was based on the following assumptions: 1. Most, if not all, of the future customers wishing to be served by the Thunder Mountain System would be southeast of the road leading to the east portal of the Adams Tunnel. Most of the land northwest of the road belongs to the YMCA and, therefore, any new buildings in that area would probably be supplied by extending the YMCA's present water system. 2. The minimum static design pressure would be 45 psi. Since the Thunder Mountain reservoir reportedly will have a maximum high water level of elevation 8493, the highest property that could be served with adequate pressure would be at elevation 8380. It appears some of the lots in Thunder Mountain may lie slightly above this elevation, but it appears that their minimum pressure will not be below 35 psi. This is adequate but marginal. 3. An average of three persons would be served per tap and the average per capita water consumption would be 85 gallons per person per day. 4. The overall average dwelling density would be 0.25 dwellings per gross acre below elevation 8380 and 0.20 dwelling per gross acre above elevation 8380. Potential Taps - We have estimated that there are approximately 690 acres of privately owned land in Sections 3, 4, 9 and 10, Township 4 North, Range 73 West, 6th P.M., lying below elevation 8380 and southeast of the tunnel road that are suitable for eventual residential development. Thunder Mountain Park PUD is included in this area. This reduces to a potential for 172 future taps including the 44 taps in Thunder Mountain and an indeterminate number in Windcliff Estates. A Subsidiary of Suite 700 Planning Daniel, Mann, Johnson, & Mendenhall 910 Fifteenth Street Architecture Denver, Colorado 80202 Engineering Telephone: 303/892-1300 Systems Cable: DIMJIM Denver Economics : t Mr. Robert L. Richards November 19, 1985 Page 2 Above elevation 8380, we estimate there are 214 acres of developable land or a potential for 43 future taps. Most would require a second stage of pumping to provide adequate pressure. The total number of potential taps is: Below 8380 172 Above 8380 43 TOTAL 215 Less Thunder Mountain 44 Additional Future TTr Water Use - Based on the water use factors mentioned earlier, the ultimate average water use in the valley is estimated to be approximately 55,000 gallons per day. This could be provided by operating one of the 50 gpm pumps in the Thunder Mountain Pump Station for about 18.3 hours per day. Since the full development in the valley may not occur for many years, the present pumps may be ready for replacement and at that time could be replaced with pumps having a capacity of 76 gpm and requiring only 12 hours of operation per day. In either case, the 6-inch pipeline from the pump station to the Thunder Mountain Reservoir would be adequate to serve the estimated ultimate demand. Recommendation - Based on our estimate of the potential future water customers in the Wind River Valleys we do not believe that any oversizing of the Thunder Mountain Pump Station, pipeline or reservoir is warranted at this time. The system as now designed has sufficient reserve capacity to accommodate the additional customers by altering the time cycle of the pumps. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, DMJM-PHILLIPS, REISTER, HALEY, INC. 11-jÂ« 04 Robert K. Kemp RKK/clf DMUM PhillipsÂ·ReisterÂ·Haley, line. I . ORDINANCE NO. 21-86 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13.32 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, THE SAME PERTAINING TO WATER RATES AND CHARGES BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: Section 1. That Section 13.32.010 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado is amended as follows: 13.32.010 Tapping charge--Water rights fee. The consumer shall pay the Town for each new water tap a fee which shall be the total sum of the following charges, and for each water tap reconnected after being disconnected from the Town's water system a reconnection fee which shall be the total sum of the following charges: the actual cost to the Town of the corporation cock, 2 expansion joint, curb box, tapping saddle, and water meter furnished by the Town, to make such tap, and the following sums for each connection to the Town's water system: ~20905 â‚¬D Connection Charge (in inches) 101. 1,4â‚¬*EALâ‚¬ 5/8 or 3/4" $ 1,-2.14-.40 /33% ' 1 " 27464.00 2 37 6- 1-4" 3,375.00 37/3 1-4" 47-06.1 0 5-352 - 2" 8,-6567Â·00 15/5- 3 " 11,-444-,-40 2/ 40Â£6- 4 " 3-4-rÂ·600=-00 370,0. 6" 71444-00 956.44- The size of all connections shall be determined by the Town. If the size of a connection is increased, the consumer shall pay the difference between the fee for the existing connection and the fee for the new connection. In addition to the foregoing water tap fee, the consumer shall pay to the Town a water rights fee in accordance with the following schedule: Water Rights Fee Single-family dwelling having Â¢ 190,0 forty fixture values or less . . . . . . . $ <,710-:-08 /903 -- All other water users, except those, special users provided for below, not less than $1Â·-rU-0-00--5-ha an /92 s additional $49-reâ‚¬-Ioreach fixture 47.57- value, above 40 fixture values, 41.51 roughed-in or installed after initial water rights fee has been paid Except those consumers applying for a tap to be used on property for which there has been furnished water, or its money equivalent paid, when the property was annexed to the Town. The consumer shall submit sufficient information, in the form of plans and/or specifications, when an application for a water tap is made for a new connection to enable the Town to determine the number or kind of water-using devices in accordance with the following table: 4. . PLUMBING FIXTURE VALUES Fixture Type Fixture Value Bathtub ..... 8 Drinking fountain (cooler). ....... 1 Drinking fountain (public). ....... 2 Kitchen sink, 4-inch connection . . . . . 3 Lavatory, 3/8-inch connection ...... 2 Laundry tray, 4-inch connection ..... 3 Shower head (shower only) . . . . . . . . 4 Service sink, 4-inch connection . . . . . 3 Urinal, pedestal flush valve. ...... 35 Wall or stall ... .......... 12 Trough (2-foot unit). .......... 2 Water closet, flush valve ........ 35 Tank type ....... ........ 3 Dishwasher, 4-inch connection ...... 4 Washing machine, 4-inch connection. ... 5 Hose bibs, 4-inch connection. ...... 6 At the time additional fixtures are installed, the consumer shall pay for such additional units at the above rate of fixture value charges. Should a consumer install a water-using device that is not defined above, or should special use of water be required, the consumer shall submit sufficient information thereon to enable the Town to determine the fixture value weight for such device or use. All necessary pipe, fittings, valves, shutoff, trenching, backfilling and installation of the tap, must be at the expense of the consumer and under the supervision of the water superin- tendent. All water service connections and all water service extensions, both within and without the Town limits, are subject to special fees as adopted by the Board of Trustees. Tapping must be accomplished by the Town, and a standard corporation cock and expansion joint, furnished by the Town, must be used. No water service shall be furnished to the consumer until all tap fees and water rights fees have been paid to the Town. All property for which a connection fee has been paid prior to January 20, 1966, must be connected to the Town's water system and put into service for the improvement it is to serve prior to January 20, 1986. After the expiration period, a new application for water service must be made and other connection fee paid at the rate then prevailing for such fees before water service will be furnished to the property for which the application pertains. "Water tap", as used in this chapter, means the physical connection to a Town water main so as to let out or draw water therefrom to furnish water service to a customer. In addition to the foregoing charges, the consumer shall pay to the Town any charges the Town has agreed to collect for property to be served by the water main to which the consumer's service line is to be connected. Section 2. That Section 13.32.090 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado be amended as follows: 13.32.090 Schedule of water rates and rate proration. There shall be no reduction in rates or charges or any rebates thereof for use for less than a one-month period; except the rates charged consumers making new connections to the Town's water system, which rates shall be prorated on the basis of the number of days remaining in the one-month billing period in which the new connection is made. -2- Section 3. That subsections (C), (D) and (G) of 13.32.110 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado are amended as follows: 13.32.110 Urban gravity and pumped-flow water rate. ~ / 10.1-1 C. Rates. Minimum charge for up to 2,500 gallons g,F'Gater used in each one-month billing period is $64007 Addi- tional charge for each 1,000 gallons over the first 2,500 gallons used in each one-month billing period is $ 6-66. 272 D. Payment. Bills for water service will be rendered by the Town to each water customer on or about February 1st of 1987 for the month of January, 1987 and every one-month thereafter. All bills shall be due and payable within fifteen (15) days from the date of the bill. Bills shall become delinquent thirty (30) days from the date of the bill. G. Additional Pumped-flow Rates. In addition to the above rates, all consumers within the Town limits who are connected to a Town-owned and Town-maintained ~ pumped-flow water system shall be charged the following- 6-,Do additional sums: a minimum charge of $.47Â·9+:-FEE-each one-month billing period plus $9..1-0-per--Â¤!rE~thousand = Â·// (1,000) gallons of water used in excess of the minimum usages provided for in subsection C of this section. Section 4. That subsections (C), (D) and (G) of Section 13.32.130 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado are amended as follows: 13.32.130 Rural gravity and pumped-flow water rates sched- ule. C. Rates. Minimum charge for up to 2,500 gallons of water ,-1.91 used in each one-month billing period is $ 14.49.- Additional charge for each 1,000 gallons over the first 2,500 gallons used in each one-month billing period is $ 2...93-Â· 2,7 7 D. Payment. Bills for water service will be rendered by the Town to each water customer on or about February 1st of 1987 for the month of January, 1987 and every one-month thereafter. All bills shall be due and payable within fifteen (15) days from the date of the bill. G. Additional Pumped-flow Rates. In addition to the rates provided for in subsections C and F of this section, all consumers outside the Town limits who are connected to a Town-owned and Town-maintained pumped-flow water system shall be charged the following additional- 5.00 minimum charge of $ A-5-0 -fmr-fach one-month billing period plus $.044Â·- pou- 1,000-de;Â·Leag--af....hater used_jn .,I excess of the minimum usages provided for in subsection C of this section. Section 5. That Section 13.32.140 be added to the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado to read as follows: 13.32.140 Effective date. The tapping charge and water rights fee set forth in Section 13.32.010 are effective as of January 1, 1987; the water rates set forth in Sections 13.32.090, 13.32.110 and 13.32.130 shall be effective as of the January 4-987- 19 By meter reading. -3- .f &/ Section 13.38.030 Subdistrict Inclusion. All applications f r for water service for property not included within the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, must be accompanied by a Petition to include such property within said District. No water service shall be furnished to such property until it has been included within the Subdistrict. Inclusion is the responsibility of the applicant, and the applicant is also responsible for all expenses of inclusion. Section 13.38.040 Rates. The Bulk Water User rate shall be r.gb 4- $50&# per 1,000 gallons of water used according to the master 44 meter. In the event one of the Pump-Flow Rates, as more specifically set forth in Sections 13.32.110 and 13.32.130 of the 5.Col Municipal Code is applicable, the rate shall be $Si#) per 1,000 gallons of water used. Section 13.38.050 Water Rights Surcharge. The rates set forth in Section 13.38.040, includes a water rights surcharge. In the event the applicant desires to transfer water rights to the Town in lieu of the water right surcharge, the applicant shall submit this proposal along with the application. The applicant shall identify the water rights to be transferred to the Town including adequate information on the amount, priority, type, and value of said water rights. It shall be in the dis- cretion of the Town whether or not the Town accepts said water rights in lieu of the water rights surcharge. In the event the water rights are transferred to the Town, but are not sufficient to give the Town enough water to take care of the entire water rights need, the water rights surcharge shall be prorated accord- ingly. Section 13.38.060 Connection Charge. The cost of physical connection including the master meter to the Town's water system shall be the responsibility of the applicant and shall be paid to the Town prior to the Town providing any water to the applicant. Also, the Town shall inspect and approve the connection prior to the providing of any water to the applicant. Section 13.38.070 Billing. The applicant shall provide at the time of application adequate assurance through covenants, or ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Customer Service Response Report September, 1987 ACTIVITY # OF RESPONSES MAN-HOURS Hydrant Flushing 0 0 Bleeder Maintenance 1 .25 Utility Locations 19 62.25 Billing Questions 2 6.0 Inspections 0 0 Tap Requests 5 30.0 Water Quality 9 10.0 Pressure 0 0 Frozen Lines 0 0 Line Breaks 6 9.7 Back Flow Prevention 0 0 Construction 5 4.85 Street Repair 2 15.0 Snow Removal 0 0 Sign Repair 0 0 Storm Drainage 0 0 Other 17 6.1 TOTALS 66 144.15 WATER LOST TOTAL CALLS 66 7% Increase over last month TOTAL MAN HOURS 144.15 83% Increase over last month TOWN OF ESTES PARK SEPTEMBER & YTD WATER BIUED 220 -- 11.0% 210 - 200 - 190 - 180 - 170 --- 160 - 150 - 140 - 130 - 0 120 - 110 - 100 - 90 - 80 - 70 - 60 - 50 - 40 - -0 -0 0 - 13.0% 20 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 O SEPTEMBER + YEAR-TO-DATE TOWN OF ESTES PARK SEPTEMBER & YTD WATER REVENUE 600 17.255 'na - / 400 - . 300 - 200 - 100 - --e-------{]20.1z El Â· 0 0. 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 O SEPTEMBER + YEAR-TO-DATE DOLLARS GALLONS (Thouionds) . TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for September 1987 (Net) 32,672,680 gal. Water Use for August 14, 1987 through September 13, 1987 : August 14th to 31st Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-2,166,644) ( 18 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 25,203,000 *Big Thompson 5,764,886 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (-288,244) September 1st to 13th Water Supplied: Black Canyon (-1,389,000) (13 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 15,425,000 *Big Thompson 4,581,930 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% (-229, 097) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 46,901,831 Adjustment 2,229,692 TOTAL 44,672,139 Percent Accounted For: 73% . ADJUSTMENTS September 1987 1. Water Dispenser 206,000 Gal. 2. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights/Fall River/Old Man Mtn. 1,348,700 Gal. b. Charles Heights (Mise): 31 days @ 4844 gpd 150,164 c. Lakefront (Saalfeld): 31 days @ 5760 gpd 178,560 Total Bleeders 1,677,424 Gal. 3. Park Watering (Estimated) 102,018 Gal. 4. Flushing/Leaks a. Flush 4 Seasons (8/15) 28,800 Gal. b. Flush Fall River Estates (8/21) 35,000 c. Flush Cedar Lane (8/24) 6,000 d. Flush West Lane (8/31) 10,000 e. Flush East Lane (9/1) 8,250 f. Flush Fall River (9/1) 35,000 g. Flush Fall River (9/8) 110,000 h. Flush Fall River (9/9) 7,500 i. Flush Courtney Lane (9/11) 2,700 j. Flush Davis Street (9/11) 1,000 244,250 Gal. Total Adjustments 2,229,692 Gal. TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD SEPTEMBER 1987 DATE BLACK FALL 6LACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (6AL) (AC-FT) 1 (79,000) 0 1,125,000 1,046,000 3.21 1.62 400,654 1.23 0.62 1,446,654 4.44 2 (108,000) 0 1,098,000 990,000 3.04 1.53 365,446 1.12 0,57 1,355,446 4.16 3 (98,000) 0 1,370,000 1,272,000 3.90 1.97 377,834 1.16 0.58 1,649,834 5.06 4 (97,500) 0 1,148,000 1,050,500 3.22 1.63 406,478 1.25 0.63 1,458,978 4.48 5 (97,500) 0 1,331,000 1,233,500 3.79 1.91 456,400 1.40 0.71 1,689,900 5,19 4-SAT 6 (97,500) 0 1,160,000 1,062,500 3.26 1.64 390,548 1.20 0.60 1,453,048 4.46 7 (97,500) 0 1,097,000 999,500 3.07 1.55 354,688 1.09 0.55 1,354,188 4.16 8 (97,500) 0 1,440,000 1,342,500 4.12 2.08 318,176 0.98 0,49 1,660,676 5.10 9 (97,500) 0 1,044,000 946,500 2.90 1.46 277,100 0.85 0.43 1,223,600 3.76 10 (137,000) 0 1,194,000 1,057,000 3.24 1.64 273,188 0.84 0.42 1,330,188 4.08 11 (1271000) 0 1,066,000 939,000 2.88 1.45 275,796 0.85 0.43 1,214,796 3.73 12 (127,000) 0 1,169,000 1,042,000 3.20 1.61 328,282 1.01 0.51 1,370,282 4.21 13 (128,000) 0 1,183,000 1,055,000 3.24 1.63 355,340 1.09 0.55 1,410,340 4.33 14 (137,000) 0 1,063,000 926,000 2.84 1.43 291,444 0.89 0.45 1,217,444 3.74 15 (150,000) 0 994,000 844,000 2.59 1.31 177,996 0.55 0.28 1,021,996 3,14 16 (141,000) 0 1,077,000 936,000 2.87 1.45 260,800 0.80 0.40 1,196,800 3.67 17 (126,000) 0 708,000 582,000 1.79 0.90 268,624 0.82 0.42 850,624 2.61 18 (95,000) 0 866,000 771,000 2.37 1.19 342,300 1.05 0.53 1,113,300 3.42 19 (95,000) 0 836,000 741,000 2.27 1.15 352,080 1.08 0.54 1,093,080 3.35 20 (96,000) 0 808,000 712,000 2.19 1.10 332,520 1.02 0.51 1,044,520 3.21 21 (87,000) 0 813,000 726,000 2.23 1.12 308,396 0.95 0.48 1,034,396 3.17 22 (97,000) 0 832,000 735,000 2.26 1.14 348,820 1.07 0.54 1,083,820 3.33 23 (125,000) 0 802,000 677,000 2.08 1.05 312,308 0.96 0.48 989,308 3.04 24 (91,300) 0 910,000 B18,700 2.51 1.27 417,280 1.28 0.65 1,235,980 3.79 25 (91,300) 0 879,000 787,700 2.42 1.22 322,088 0.99 0.50 1,109,788 3.41 26 (91,300) 0 989,000 897,700 2.75 1.39 294,052 0.90 0.45 1,191,752 3.66 27 (62,000) 0 993,000 931,000 2.86 1.44 344,908 1.06 0.53 1,275,908 3.92 28 (62,000) 0 996,000 934,000 2.87 1.45 154,524 0.47 0.24 1,088,524 3.34 29 (134,000) 0 1,144,000 1,010,000 3.10 1.56 216,464 0.66 0.33 1,226,464 3.76 30 (165,000) 0 857,000 692,000 2.12 1.07 82,804 0.25 0.13 774,804 2.38 31 0 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 TOTAL (3,234,900) 0 30,992,000 27,757,100 9,409,338 37,166,438 (6AL) TOTAL -9.93 0,00 95,11 ************ 85.18 28.8B ************ 114.06 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ 0 0 (470,467) (470,467) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** (1,677,424) TOTAL GAL 0 30,992,000 27,757,100 ******** 8,938,871 ***************** 35,018,547 ******** CFS(AVE) 0,00 1.60 0.46 1.75 TOTAL AC-FT 0,00 95.11 95.11 27.43 107.47 107.47 TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT ' COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Month 1985 1986 1987 Last Month Last Year 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. Jan. 29,741,000 gal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. +3.54% - 4.20% 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac. ft. 51.91 ac. ft. Feb. 33,488,000 gal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 qal -9.78% -19.36% 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. Mar. 21,391,000 gal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar. . 19,294,231 gal.-' - +14.07% - '4 7.72% 73.99 ac. ft. . .63.08 ac. ft.. 64.33 ad. it. Apr. 24,110,504 gal. Apr. - 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal. + 3.58% -2.78% 98.53 ac. ft. 75.56 ac..ft. 85.96 ac. ft. May 32,106,550 gal. May - 25,-271,446 gal. May 28,009,040 gal. +40.15% - +10.83% 131.24 ac. ft. 102.33 ac. ft. 141.81 ac. ft. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. * 46,208,715 gal. +64.98% +38.58% 154.52 ac. ft. .125.09 ac. .ft. 173.26 ac. ft. Jul. 50,351,784 Jul. 40,760,736 gal. Jul. - 56,457,974 +22.18% +38.51% 123.91 ac. ft. r46.73 ac. ft. 167.68 ac. ft. Aug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug. 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 47,811,380 -15.32% +18.41% 95.29 ac. ft. . 100.02 ac. ft. 107.47 ac. ft. Sep. 31,051,965 gal. Sep. --32,590,405 gal. Sep. 35,018,547 -26.76% +7.45% 78.78 ac. ft. 71.34 ac. ft. Oct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 23,247,152 gal. Oct. 67.97 ac. ft. 60.17 ac. ft. Nov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 57.25 ac. ft. . 55.57 ac. ft. Dec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 1,184,97 ac. ft. 965.65 ac. ft. 386,124,317 gal. 315,317,871 gal. 5\1 1 X./, C T 11 #4,4 -7 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department 44 947,%f-,7 Assistant Director Richard L. Gerstberger 41(42 *31 Â©/ I ' .;ruiG'.-1 : r.--' a,fle~~~riff#TA~%&#,4.+39 0 /1 - 1 4,â€¢20~ 22%~, 4 1-1 ' 314Â«1., . 9 ' ' 11 4 :. Â· Â· , ' ,~)-- ~--f>'Â¥~'Â·:13<w~&.''3}kij:.71 39*2 - e ~ 9''Ut~ .*44.00,9â‚¬4**A,*at pj 4-39-3.~ES ..?\ Ary//49\19< f .9;144<~f..f.~' -t.,21 Â»/. I. /0. - 8-*.. 44.1 NUL A (T ., MEMO Estes Park, Colorado 80517 DATE: October 2. 1987 TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Dick Gerstberger SUBJECT: Safe Drinking Water Act At the September 20th American Water Works Association regional meeting in Cheyenne, a workshop covering the Safe Drinking Water Act presented information that may be of importance to Estes Park. An implementation schedule for these changes has not been finalized. 1. Testing for organic and inorganic chemicals will be required for each source of water. Testing parameters and schedules are still not definite. 2. Turbidity sampling Will be required every 4 hours instead of the present daily requirement. We may want to consider in-line turbidity testing if this requirement comes out in the final regulations. 3. Viruses and glardia concerns will be addressed by minimum treatment process requirements such as filtration and chlorination. EPA is concerned about filter pass-through after backwash and is considering design requirements, such as. filter to waste or coagulant addition prior to filtration to address this concern. 4. EPA is concerned about possible by-products of polymers such as the polymer that we use as a filter aid. 5. They are considering increasing the coliform testing requirements although information was not available regarding the new requirements. P. O. Box ]200 relephone { 103) 586-33 11 8 e, k &1~k.- /" idÂ») Ul,j 9 j/1 ~ p 1 91 S-1"Â£31 4 4. c U TOWN OF ESTES PARK : 7.410,9 (N Public Works Department \4 47*7 Richard L. Gerstberger Assistant Director -neite, 40{0.\I y ..._ -~i='%~ ~ :4- ~ti ~ 43/3449 #ef,Vi e.Â»0.24 .-/07 -- ify.<.82<6 J~; *.liks/tÂ¥2 -71 *W-Â»ist e~-~--113 - 5&2~2 .~3~ U./SÂ»h.~169%12*3 Â»~;Fr-- # i .J: - Â»,/3.0.\3.Â¢#L-f* 3-j.~-,T.f-1./0 - Twlf#' A \ --. - y - . t Estes Park, Colorado 80517 \ MEMO TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Dick Gerstberge~~T~ DATE: September 16, 1987 SUBJECT: Cascade Diversion System Four bids were submitted for the Cascade Diversion System project bid opening on September 15. 1987. The low bid of $ 296,774.00 from Gavell Excavating and Cornerstone Concrete is 8% above the engineers estimate prepared December 24, 1986. The bids are detailed on the attached bid tabulation sheet and summarized below. Engineers Estimate $ 276,000.00 Gavell/Cornerstone 296,774.00 Western States 372,841.00 Tarco 381,544.48 Kitchen Excavating 391,153.50 I have reviewed the bids and the price extensions and flnd them in order. I recommend award of the contract to the low bl dder, Gavell Excavating. P. 0. Box 1200 Telephone (.10 3) 386-53 11 -0 1 tri CO o m co 000 r-1 CO 1.0 Cl CO 00 LA .... . M -cr cood Neo -MOON 1; a c, oc r r-- r-1 r- 000 0 u, 0 . -1 01 43 h M 4 Ch N -1- /1 Q * 0 0 00 0 .. ..... ..... :' â€¢ U} E. 40 --00 0-J- C Q <T .4 0 U w 4 n W ,-1 ro 01 LA 1-1 0 +J .4 0,0 , 1 1(Â£ W C cO 00 LO 00 C <1- OLA 00 3 + .... .. C h -4 0 00 01 r-1 4 J -a- .-1 O 0,1 0 0 O â€¢ 00 uOLAO 00 0 000 WO O 0 NO Un O O OCON an '00 -LA INLA \D OCD N 4 - 1 .-1 Ul 0 00 4 O, A U-'1(9 Cl O - m Or-1 r. 0 .4 0000 00 j 00 Lao 00 : O.0 01 /0 O %0 00 74 CO -t LA r-1 r-1 W I I - 1 ! -1 00, OLA LA 0 0 -1 00 0 4 bf re M h r-10 1% O -3- * 00 CD O 01 C -0 100 -4 La m La â€ž4 0000 0 ) -el 0 U E-4 4 cO .-4 0 4 1 r-1 N M 0, A JO r-10 113 .-1 CO i ,-1 O ro O O O 4 Ulo .... 114 h 00 r-1- ,-1 r-1 0 I 0, U 00 00 00 00 00 00 0. 00 00 00 00 00 00 1 .93 M M u,M o Moo GO MO UO N~ in ~D N N-y .D <f .-4 10 i 0 2-1 â€¢-1 0, N Or-1 W â€¢-4 - MO 00 :Ii ...4 h M O O C+~ 00 %ON 40 00 00 00 1 11 c. i i Nol 00 0-7 00 O 0 0 -4 (10 ... Â£11 N 0 N <r W in F--1 ON 0 .-1 - Co 01 >4 >4 >1 >4 U) [0 Ul CI-4 0Â©~ 9 .......... A A Co OUU A A â€¢-1 A M A 1 000 O 40 LA tr, O -1 -4 h M N h r-1 -1 -1 4 ~ -1 en W A , 9 01 â€¢rt O 0 1 Â·â€¢-1 60 04 0, al W -S x S r.-1 C (D O C p. 0 0) s g .0 0 0 -1 0 90 â€¢0 â€¢rl â€¢rl O k -1 U O > A.A. U Q 4) A [A U R Â·r-1 00 A N 2 W t E o 1. : 2.9 2 w 38 .Cl jâ€¢ (D -O W (11 0 En Â· â€¢ 0 .4 4 1-1 61 710 -1 9 29 <emk, UlA. 24 W 0 -1 N * p-1 N 77 4*LA 00 01 r' rl â€¢-4 & i TOTAL 276.000 296,774 372,841.00 381,544.48+ Qnty/Unit Uni Unit Price ~ U n ite ~ r~cne 1- ;'~Tltal Unit Price BID TABULATION - CASCADE DIVERSION SYSTEM vell Excava 90.00 sser 200.00 iversion t ructure rfacing ctrical Work Deduct Alt. A... ., OP Â¢ to i A Z 00 000 00 00 0 00 0 Ln O 00 00 0 U] ..... .. ... r-1 (,(VO Ir-Â·1 Irl h.O 00 0 00 0 N h LA r-1 CO DO CO 00 0 Ln O 4 COLA F--5 -A Cl N WN O -j .. S '~ S N <r R E #A M r-4 f o Co /O,0 00 O h 00 N 00 .. M 00 0 L 0,0 A M N <1- LA 0 CN i Â£ u 00 00 00 00 00 00 M r-4 0Â© 00 00 00 00 00 E m tn M M n oLA 00 00 kn O 2 M - 1 LA LN N <r W Â·Â·1- â€¢-4 LA ......... 00 r-1 Ch N O -1 'A 1 A LA 0 00 C' 8 FLA O0 ... ~I~ 00 W N .O 00 00 00 C 04 2 50 -,9 22 g.d Rg .... tz] 4' Nt 01 <r W Lfl 14 1-1, O t,0 t.0 >4 >4 >1 >4 U~ [,0 [00 ELI â€¢ 0 4 .4 ul Ouuma a ard H bio O O 4 0 M tri 0 -4 -1 h LA. 04 h r4 -1 -4 r-4 LA -1 e'll hir-1 9 D- ..410 F 4) m W â€¢r-1 1 3 1-4 Â¢ I O C Cl r--1 0 2 â€¢r-1 â€¢Aâ€¢el 74 U O , A W O ;14 CO U 34 4 ca e A. Ad = 4 6Â£ 0 0 O â€¢ri i (0 CA (D O A M A 1 W â€¢,4 4 &4 Â·rt W U U-0 kl a) 0 [0 Â·â€¢ O Ct A- U =1 g :8:8 3 2 I: 0 4 3,2 23 SA, 44 W Or-IN I # rl 01 m -<r M in h 00 m â€¢-~ * -1 scription Qnty/Unit Un Unit Price ~ li~ro Unit Price Total Unit Price Total Kitchen Excavating TOTAL 276.000 391,153.50 BID TABULATION - CASCADE DIVERSION SY TE iversion Structure Dresser obilization cal Work gregat S rfacing enstock Pip Deduct Alt. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department Richard L. Gerstberger Assistant Director 9 0 7.kt,1*â‚¬5 Â». R}3*z~c Â·612->SVJÂ¢**f~<~iff,.~..~<,~9 ~,~%~1.7 >I>Â·f~~ -Â» rf, . - - Â«.-- / 44 . -.h.~0~.....e,e~r VJT\2Â·44~5F-L._iÂ· 2.-4 - .....134,3. Estes Park, Colorado 80517 1 - 2---- 1 h MEMO TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Dick Gerstberger\392>f DATE: September 15, 1987 SUBJECT: Stanley Ave. Water Main Extension - Phase I Grand Estates Water- Main Extension This contract consists of two main extension projects designed to improve flow in areas where dead end lines are creating service problems within the distribution system. The original project consisted of approximately 220 linear feet of 12" ductile iron pipe connecting the existing 2" line that dead ends in Stanley Avenue near South St. Vrain to the 8" line on the east side of South St. Vrain. This segment is the beginning of the eastern side of the 12" line proposed in the Master Plan to cross Moccasin Saddle and connect to the 18" line in East Riverside. Prior to bidding the project, 850 lineal feet of 6" water line in Grand Estates was added to the bid package. The proposed line connects the 4" lines that dead end in Grand Estates Drive and Lakefront Street in an effort to improve water quality in the area. Bids for the combined projects were opened on September 9 with the following results: N.E. Kitchen Inc. S 28.681.50 Campbell-Kearney Excavating $ 28,877.60 Schmidt Earth Builders, Inc. $ 44.434.00 P O. Box 1200 Telephone (303) 586-5331 . After the bids were opened, we received our permit to cross Highway 7 (St. Vrain). The Highway Department initially required that the 12" line be bored under the highway. After negotiations with the department, the permit was modified to allow us to open cut the road if we agree to strict backfill requirements. We estimate that a change order of approxamately $ 1500 will be required to comply with the permit. I recomment award of these projects to N.E. Kitchen Inc. There are adequate funds in the 1987 budget to cover both the base bid and the anticipated change order. WATER COMMITTEE AGENDA JANUARY 14, 1988 I . 1. EPURA - Request for tap fee waiver for Confluence Park. 2. STREAMSIDE COTTAGES - Request to share main extension costs with developer. 3. PROSPECT MOUNTAIN PUD 7TH FILING - Request to allow power lines in same trench as water line. 4. A. CORROSION STUDY PRESENTATION - Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. 6 ~. ' PILOT PLANT - Request to prepare funding application. 5-,6rr WATER SYSTEM DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS UPDATE - Request to begin RFP process. 6 /'~ SELF INSURANCE FUND LOAN TO WATER DEPT - Opti ons for repayment. Reports: 1. Year end Water Reports 2. Cascade Diversion Structure 3. Glacier Creek Plant Filter Addition 4. Big Thompson Plant Filter Replacement 1 \\ f 11 Â» epura I PLANNED PROGRESS To: Dale G. Hill Town Administrator FROM: Art Anderson . EPURA Executive Director -~~--- DATE: January 7, 1988 RE: Water Tap Fee We have been billed by the Water Department for a 2 inch water tap for irrigation purposes in the Confluence Park/Plaza area. Credit has been given for two existing 3/4 inch water taps. This situation has not arisen before. Our previous projects had existing water taps, or the upgrade from 3/4 inch to 1 inch was not charged to us. Since this is a project performed by a governmental body, the EPURA Board respectfully requests the 2 inch water tap fee be waived. Thank you for your consideration. /dh Eofutt of listes *trk Phone : 586-5331 P. O. Box 1200 - (Area 303) ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 DEC 1 8 1987 r -1 Urban Renewal Authority Confluence Park L _1 4 December 18, 1987 STATEMENT t 2" Water Tap $8,650.00 Credit for 2 - 3/4" Water Taps 2,432.00 $6,218.00 AP?t-:Jv' L ----_ Due Upon Receipt 1 Payments Should Be Made to TOWN OF ESTES PARK , 0 1 ---'22 TOWN OF ESTES PARK :4'i k * 1/ C ry r 2 :.14 42 17. C Public Works Depanment Â£ I 434 27:y .UF Richard L. Gerstberger Assi.tant Director .teÂ¥* Pr â€¢e 9 r- *t i.> t#k i/ . rvt, glir v. 4,# Ao ;iÂ·J41; 0,2.-:r.*. ..._* c-Y#.F4B ' 24,~1~<45Â«~ --~ -*2.--- & iL...ErN.r... f :?"br .: .li\\1(,F# ff '.f~,f~i-00>Â·:-Â·:':~i-u:i,jÂ· Â· ~004*'i:li t~ Vt~~~~E~.-- C=S.r 9 141 * 1 4 ' . teld 74.k 1 4 .7- i - ' - -112 45,1 / - 24*t --11~23.7162~'~,%~..~Lf ~*'41+<c-- / 9,1 82*3 ., Estes Park, Colorado 80517 /P'< .44 t. MEMO DATE: January 12. 1987 TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Dick Gerstberger~~y~~~ RE: Streamside Cottages I met with Bill Van Horn this morning to discuss the waterllne extension for the expansion at Streamside Cottages (Bob Van Horn's property). Bill indicated that Mr. Van Horn believes that he can satisfy his fire protection responsibility by the extension of a 6" main to the south side of the river and the construction of a fire hydrant at that locatlon. They are willing to connect the 6" line with the existing 2" line but do not feel obligated for more than a 1" line since a 1" service is all that should be required of them. After some discussion concerning the advantages of extending the 6" line to the existing 20' line and moving the fire hydrant south approxamately 200', Bill proposed that lf the city supplied the 6" pipe from the south side of the river crossing to the existing 2" 1lne, they would provide the excavation and installation. He is going to discuss the proposal with Bob Van Horn, and lf he concurs. would-like_to-RE-ement--i--t-to-THE-Water ComEFFie. I recommend approval of this proposal with the condition that Van Horn also prepare and receive town approval on engineered design drawings of the waterllne project prior to construction and prepare complete "as-built" drawings when the project is constructed but prior to our acceptance. P (1 i<,1\ IRtHi I i ltÂ·i)hc inf, C :Â·, 7) 75793 STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC V'. 44 4/1 Consulting Engineers and Scientists .-4 -Â·Nd AZES,fA, Office & Laboratory: 214 North Howes Street P.O. Box 429 Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 (303) 482-1348 PRESENTATION ON THE PRELIMINARY CORROSION STUDY CONDUCTED FOR THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK ESTES PARK, COLORADO Presented to The Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado By Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Scientists . CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS * Increased since the implementation of full chemical treatment in 1978. * A Customer Service Report Program has been utilized to monitor the number and location of complaints. STEWART ENWRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC. m WATER CHEMISTRY Numerous water samples were collected both before and after treatment. * Finished water chemistry was uniform throughout the system. Lime addition Low in calcium, alkalinity Low temperature Negative saturation index (corrosive) 2*~NwJ * The calcium, total alkalinity, electrical conductivity, and pH values increase through the water treatment plants. * The raw water is corrosive, and water corrosivity increases with chemical treatment. 4 9, 9) + f f .f 90 X STEWART ENV/RONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC. CALDWELL-LAWRENCE WATER CONDITIONING DIAGRAMS * C-L Diagrams are charts which aid in solving CaC~3 equilibria problems. Different diagrams for various combinations of temperature and TDS. Six different diagrams provided to Estes Park based upon a review of water quality information. * Usage of C-L Diagrams by water treatment plant personnel will take some tutoring and practice. * C-L Diagram use will allow water treatment plant personnel to estimate the chemical dosages required to treat water such that the saturation index is positive, i.e. non-corrosive. j.tf, 4 ffy - Â« STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUUANTS. /NC. WATER QUALITY COMPUTER PROGRAMS * Two computer programs were developed: One program calculates the calcium carbonate precipitation potential (CCPP). The second program is a spreadsheet developed to assist Estes Park personnel monitor water quality. * The CCPP program is used to assess the ability of a water to deposit CaCO3 on a surface as a method of corrosion control. Iterative calculation. User can experiment with various treatment scenarios. * The water quality spreadsheet is an effective tool to: Compile water quality data. Relate chemical dosages to water quality. Calculate saturation indices. Get a "feel" for seasonal changes in raw and finished water quality. STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUITANTS.INC. MARBLE TESTS * Easy method for determining~ the saturation state of a water with respect to Cal(3Â· 0 Qualitative answer. * Should be utilized in future to occasionally verify C-L Diagram calculations. * Two marble tests were conducted on finished water. Big Thompson water treatment plant Glacier Creek water treatment plant * Both finished waters vvere still significantly undersaturated with respect to CaC~3 after lime addition. 't# \ V . STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC. C -WIT SODIUM SILICATE COUPON TESTING * Sodium Silicate has been used to reduce corrosion for over 50 years. If works best on iron, yellow brass and copper pipes. * Estes Park's distribution system is almost entirely cement-lined ductile iron pipe and bare steel pipe. * The addition of sodium should be carefully evaluated due to health concerns. * Field testing results: High dosages were required with only minor corrosion rate reduction. Low dosages accelerated the corrosion rate. * The cost of stabilizing Estes Park's water with sodium silicate appeared quite high. I \ STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, NC. PIPE COUPON MEASUREMENTS * All pipe coupons experienced significant material loss (18-30%) during 11 years to 27 years of service. * The Fall River 12" coupon experienced a 13% material loss in approximately one year. This is a corrosion rate of 22.1 mils/year which is unacceptable. The standards for corrosion rates are: Mils/Year Classification <3 Excellent 3-7 Acceptable >7 Unacceptable * Review of the Town's Water Master Plan indicates extremely high pressures are experienced by the svstem. The loss of pipe wall material poses a tfireat of a severe leak problem due to these high system pressures. High system pressures tend to accelerate the corrosion rate due to stress corrosion and high velocities which expose new areas for corrosion. 4Â¢ F -9 STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. /NC. SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT PROTECTION AT THE SOURCE PROTECTION AT THE TAP LEAD CONCERNS THIS RELATES TO CORROSION CONCERN FOR ESTES PARK GIARDIA LAMBLIA CORROSION BY PRODUCTS STEWART ENWRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS * Estes Park's water is extremely corrosive. The raw water is corrosive and becomes more corrosive with treatment. * The CCPP program and C-L Diagrams are tools which Will aid water treatment plant personnel in developing a chemical addition program which can reduce corrosion rates. The economics of any chemical addition program should be evaluated prior to implementation. * Sodium silicate does not appear to be a viable corrosion reduction alternative, but further study is required. * The distribution system is experiencing significant material loss - both steel and cement lining. * The Customer Service Reporting Program should be continued and encouraged. * The telephone survey should be considered to determine if customers are just "living" with the red water problern. * The water quality spreadsheet should be utilized to monitor the progress of any corrosion reduction programs. * A pilot plant should be constructed and operated to aid in the evaluation of chemicals and treatment schemes which could be implemented in the existing plants. The possibility exists that the pilot plant could be operated as a joint project between several mountain communities, CDR, and USEPA. .. Alternative treatment schemes include in-line filtration, direct filtration, and backwash recycling. * Giardia sampling should be continued on a regular basis to verify the effectiveness of the filtration process. * A dichotomy exists in treating the Town's water, 1.e. full chemical treatment rernoves Giardia but increases corrosivity. ~ ..1~ STEWART ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. INC. < TOWN OF EST EC I ) 11)1/ \ 2445 ' LJ E / .1 / 2 & Public Works Department Richard L. Gerstberger Assistant Dhet tor 24 * 9 V*. ~'- f--- - 05; .74 re x.0~i:- 6129#am** Â£8 '24*91!14:4~394,~4 9 M~Â·.444~;/*-:.--0-_-Lic.3?~Â·Ai"*AQ'Li,21: - <,A#'41,Â· 2-4, 3 ,,r Â·Â·,:,..~- Â·--36 . . ch-,5:..ip %44 4 4 1 314%*",4.1 1., 1 '.,4 r.. - 6 -.I-%* .....' ~ts: . L i c.,-:i. rfjbf~~~*-p ..,+4â‚¬tit: Estes Park, Colorado 80517 MEMO DATE: January 12. 199/K TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Dick Gerstberge~\\ Uf RE: Pilot Plant Funding Proposal The Corrosion Study recently completed by Stewart Environmental Consultants recommended, among others things. the development of a pilot plant to aid in the evaluation of different corrosion control techniques (primarily chemicals dosages and treatment schemes). There appears to be grant money available and a definite interest on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency in a project that would examine some of the issues that are of concern to us. i.e. that chemical treatment of mountain waters to remove Glardia increases corrosivity. On December 16, we requested that Stewart Environmental Consultants submit a proposal for the development of a work plan for the construction and operation of a pilot plant. The initial purpose of the work plan will be the application for federal funding. Enclosed ls a copy of thelr proposal. I recommend that we accept their proposal and request approval of an amount not to exceed $6.000 for the development of a work plan to be submitted to the EPA for funding. Once the work plan is funded. we may want to seek participation from other mountain communities 1n the project. I' C ) i< .... i.~ {I(j ItÂ·It,)rone C Â·') 9 386-53-31 ESTES PARK PROPOSAL PROJECT PLAN A A. INITIAL PROGRAM PROPOSAL MEETING (Note Applicable) B. SITE VISITS AND DATA COLLECTION (Not Applicable) C. PROGRAM PROPOSAL MEETING A second meeting will be held with the participants to present the results of the data collection program. SEC will give a formal presentation repeating the proposed program approach, present the data, identify problems, short- and long-term recommendations, and revised cost estimates. SEC will also identify its proposed team members, SEC staff, Colorado State University (CSU) staff, and agency staff (EPA -, Cincinnati). Also, SEC Will outline all other project members and their projected roles (EPA, State, AWWA, etc.). D. ASSEMBLE AGENCIES FOR PROPOSAL SEC will assemble all proposed agency participants and establish roles, potential funding, and prepare a funding plan. E. DETAILED WORK PLAN SEC will develop a detailed work plan, review it with the client, and submit it to the appropriate agencies for funding consideration. F. PROPOSAL PRESENTATION TO USEPA SEC proposes to send a trio to the Cincinnati, Ohio, USEPA office to present the total program plan and solicit their participation. E...-..M STEWART ENV/RONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. *** PLAN A *** COST ESTIMATE FOR PILOT PLANT WORK PLAN DEVELOPMENT NUMBER UNIT TOTAL TASK DESCRIPTION OF UNITS COST COST Part C - PILOT PLANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT Principal Engineer 6 $65.00/hour $ 390 Special Projects Coordinator 8 $55.00/hour $ 440 Project Manager 4 $52.00/hour $ 208 Typing 4 $25.00/hour $ 100 Drafting 4 $25.00/hour $ 100 Subtotal $1,238 Part D - PRESENTATION OF PILOT PLANT PROPOSAL TO AGENCIES Principal Engineer 4 $65.00/hour $ 260 Special Projects Coordinator 6 $55.00/hour $ 330 Project Manager 6 $52.00/hour $ 312 Drafting 8 $25.00/hour $ 200 Subtotal $1,102 Part E - WORK PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING APPLICATIONS Principal Engineer 6 $65.00/hour $ 390 Special Projects Coordinator 8 $55.00/hour $ 440 Project Manager 3 $52.00/hour $ 156 Typing 2 $25.00/hour $ 50 Drafting 2 $25.00/hour $ 50 Subtotal $1,086 Part F - PRESENTATION TO EPA IN CINCINNATI, OHIO $2,000 TOTAL ** $5,426 ** The cost shown is an estimate and does not include direct expenses such as mileage, computer time, long distance telephone calls, and reproduction. 7~1~V STEWART ENV/RONMENTAL CONSULTANTS. JNC. 244 e I 1 .9 1,1 ju ./ Â¢rt, tÂ·Â¢* TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department 6 6 1#,it Â·4' & V 1,1 : Richard L. Gerstberger Assistant Director "00 * 4 964" 1 -_ 71(34/Wii,TIF:-1f~t3 ~~. Â«~:Ca>+ /03*~-74 *1.24- 'c-49##Jw - -=* * *.. N .' ., ed L.1 4:4 '... T* 4,0,Â»44<tÂ« 0, 4% 44 9.Â©WOMA-..$&- 11.- ~,--: PORM/fs<314 *aÂ· 9 Â· 4- Â· 7 8 <"z~ 1,4,4. r.... d .N. I.-I-- I ..44 .,- Â·-- S .49* ..rs=â€¢27Â£4 ...24Mvt t-+ Estes Park, Colorado 80517 1 MEMO DATE: November 9, 1987 TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Dick Gerstberger\KAO( SUBJECT: Water System Design & Construction Standards The town's current standards for the design and construction of water distribution facilities were prepared by DMJM/Phillips- Reister-Haley in 1979. The document titled Water Main Extensions Requirements is out of date with regard both to the specifi- cations that we are presently using and accepted industry standards. The Water Division would like to update these standards and have those standards accepted by the Town Board before we begin the capital improvement program in mid 1988. I recommend that we request authorization from the Water Commit- tee to begin the Request for Proposal (REP) process. Consultant selection can probably be completed and a recommendation made at the January committee meeting. Although lt ls difficult to prepare a cost estimate at this time, I suspect that the project will be in the $6.000 to $10,000 range. P O Box 1200 +[plephoile ( 10 9 386-31 11 â€¢- TOWN OF ESTES PARK ESTES PARK, COLORADO WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS REQUIREMENTS JUNE 14, 1979 0 .... TABLE OF CONTENTS Title . Page Definition of General Terms . . ............. I-1 TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER MAIN EXPANSION POLICY A. WATER MAIN COST PARTICIPATION POLICY . . .... I-2 B. PRECONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS ... ....... I-2 C. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS ... ......... * I-3 D. POST-CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS ... ...... I-4 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 1- WATER MAIN DESIGN AND MATERIALS .... 1-1 thru 1-6 SECTION 2 - EXCAVATION - PIPE BEDDING AND BACKFILL . 2-1 thru 2-4 h SECTION 3- PIPELAYING .............. 3-1 thru 3-3 SECTION 4 - HYDROSTATIC TEST AND CHLORINATION OF MAINS ................ 4-1 thru 4-2 Prepared by DMJM/Phillips-Reister-Haley, Inc. 910 15th Street, Denver, Colorado Â· â€žn SCHEDULE FOR WATER DEPT. TO REPAY SELF INSURANCE FOR 1987 $370,000 WINDY GAP LOAN (A) Option 1: Loan Balance 12/31/87 $370,000 January Cash on hand 12/31/87-invested in CD $ 0 CD maturing during January (includes interest) 99,804 Estimate needed for excess exp./revenues Jan. (23,000) Cash on hand to repay Self Insurance 75,000(+/-) (75,000) Loan Balance 295,000 February - no scheduled payment unless there is excess cash the end of January. 7 March Cash on hand 02/29/88 $? CD's maturing during March (includes interest) 174,977 Estimate needed for excess exp./revenue March, (46,000) (includes pmt. of 4 units Windy Gap Water) Cash on hand to repay Self Insurance 125,000 (125,000) Loan Balance 170,000 April Cash on hand 03/31/88 $? CD's maturing during April (includes interest) 123,057 Estimate excess revenue/expense April 17,930 Cash on hand to repay Self Insurance 140,987 (140,000) Loan Balance 30,000 May Cash on hand 04/30/88 $? CD's maturing, May 11 78,783 Cash to repay Self Insurance (30,000) Loan Balance 0 (B) Option 2: 84Â£,' etÂ¢/ On March 23, 1987 purchase water departments CD's maturing in April & May by other funds and pay off loan in full prior to April 1, 1988 Windy Gap Assessment. (C) Option 3: Repay loan in full from proceeds of sale of Windy Gap water. This option puts the repayment on hold until actual cash is received. ~ Â»4 OÂ« TOWN OF ESTES PARK ; PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 01/12/88 CITIZEN SERVICE RESPONSE REPORT DECEMBER, 1987 PAGE 1 TYPE OF CALL NO.Â· OF CALLS HOURS UTILITY LOCATION - MAIN 3 6.75 UTILITY LOCATION - SERVICE 4 3.50 UTILITY BILLING QUESTION 7 3.30 TAP REQUEST 2 2.25 WATER QUALITY PROBLEM - COLOR 5 7.45 LOW PRESSURE PROBLEM 2 1.50 FROZEN SERVICE LINE 4 2.70 MAIN LINE BREAK 2 1.50 SERVICE LINE BREAK 3 0.45 METER REPAIR OR SERVICE 2 0.70 PROBLEM WITH OTHER TYPES OF 2 2.50 CONSTRUCTION SNOW REMOVAL CONCERN 8 6.90 OTHER TYPES OF CONCERNS 6 2.70 ======== TOTALS FOR DECEMBER, 1987 50 42.20 HISTORICAL DATA THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR TOTAL CALLS 50 44 - TOTAL MAN HOURS 42.20 52.85 - % CHANGE(CALLS/MHS) --- +14%/-20% - TOWN OF ESTES PARK DECEMBER & YEAR END WATER BLLED 280 - 10.6% - 260 - 240 - --- 220 - 1.- 200 - 180 - 160 - C 2 140 - f 120 - 100 - 80 - 60 - 40 - 20 - 016.1% O 0 0 0- 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 O DECEMBER + YEAR END TOWN OF ESTES PARK DECEMBER & YEAR END WATER REVENUE 800 700 - 16.8% 600 - 500 - 0 U 0, c 3% 400 - U/ 8: 300 - 200 - 100 - C 0 0 0 :a -17.9% 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 O DECEMBER + YEAR END GALLONS . TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for December, 1987 (Net) 13,903,620 gal. Water Use for November 14, 1987 through December 13, 1987 : November 14 to 30th Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(1,198,550 ( 17 days ) *Fall River Plant Off 7,998,000 Glacier Creek *Big Thompson 5,387,802 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% -( 269,390) December 1 to 13th Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(1,656,500) ( 13 days ) - *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 10,328,000 *Big Thompson 765,448 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% -(38,278) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 21,316,538 Adjustment 1,708,870 TOTAL 19,607.668 Percent Accounted For: 712 . ADJUSTMENTS December, 1987 1. Water Dispenser 47,000 gal. 2. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights/Fall River/Old Man Mountain 1,262,830 gal. (Estimated) b. Charles Heights (Mise) - 30 days at 4844 gpd 145,320 c. Lake front (Saalfeld) - 12 days at 5760 gpd 69,120 d. Metered (Woods, Stanley Park Pool) 98,200 e. Fall River Condos (6 days at 7200 gpd) 43,200 f. MacGregor Avenue (5 days at 8640 gpd) 43,200 TOTAL BLEEDERS 1,661,870 gal. 3. Flushing/leaks -0- TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 1,708,870 gal. I ./ TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD DECEMBER 19B7 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (6AL) (AC-FT) 1 (70,000) 0 464,000 394,000 1.21 0.61 301,550 0.93 0.47 695,550 2.13 2 (84,000) 0 522,000 438,000 1.34 0.68 463,898 1.42 0.72 901,898 2.77 3 (149,000) 0 815,000 666,000 2.04 1.03 . 0 0.00 0.00 666,000 2.04 4 (119,200) 0 794,000 674,800 2.07 1.04 0 0.00 0,00 674,800 2.07 5 (119,200) 0 899,000 779,800 2.39 1.21 0 0.00 0,00 779,800 2.39 6 (119,200) 0 817,000 697,800 2.14 1.08 0 0.00 0.00 697,800 2.14 7 (100,000) 0 888,000 788,000 2.42 1.22 0 0.00 0.00 788,000 2.42 8 (125,000) 0 826,000 701,000 2.15 1.08 0 0.00 0.00 701,000 2.15 9 (158,000) 0 858,000 700,000 2.15 1.08 0 0.00 0.00 700,000 2.15 10 (147,000) 0 834,000 687,000 2.11 1.06 0 0.00 0.00 687,000 2.11 11 (155,300) 0 900,000 744,700 2.29 1.15 0 0.00 0.00 744,700 2.29 12 (155,300) 0 868,000 712,700 2.19 1.10 0 0.00 0.00 712,700 2.19 13 (155,300) 0 843,000 687,700 2.11 1.06 0 0.00 0.00 687,700 2.11 14 (133,000) 0 902,000 769,000 2.36 1.19, 0 0.00 0.00 769,000 2.36 15 (159,000) 0 858,000 699,000 2.15 1.08 0 0.00 0.00 699,000 2.15 16 (118,000) 0 884,000 766,000 2.35 1.19 0 0.00 0.00 766,000 2.35 17 (140,000) 0 887,000 747,000 2.29 1.16 0 0.00 0.00 747,000 2.29 18 (140,000) 0 893,000 753,000 2.31 1.17 0 0.00 0.00 753,000 2.31 19 (140,000) 0 940,000 800,000 2.46 1.24 0 0.00 0.00 800,000 2.46 20 (140,000) 0 866,000 726,000 2.23 1.12 0 0.00 0.00 726,000 2.23 21 (150,000) 0 1,010,000 860,000 2.64 1.33 0 0.00 0.00 860,000 2.64 22 (150,000) 0 943,000 793,000 2.43 1.23 0 0.00 0,00 793,000 2.43 23 (150,000) 0 966,000 816,000 2.50 1.26 0 0.00 0.00 816,000 2.50 24 (150,000) 0 984,000 834,000 2.56 1.29 0 0.00 0.00 834,000 2.56 25 (150,000) 0 987,000 837,000 2.57 1.30 0 0.00 0.00 837,000 2.57 26 (150,000) 0 1,174,000 1,024,000 3.14 1.58 0 0.00 0.00- 1,024,000 3.14 -- SAT 27 (150,000) 0 873,000 723,000 2.22 1.12 0 0.00 0.00 723,000 2.22 28 (149,000) 0 1,061,000 912,000 2.80 1.41 0 0.00 0.00 912,000 2.80 29 (145,000) 0 951,000 806,000 2.47 1.25 0 0.00 0.00 806,000 2.47 30 (147,000) 0 1,011,000 864,000 2.65 1.34 0 0.00 0.00 864,000 2.65 31 (132,500) 0 1,097,000 964,500 2.96 1.49 0 0.00 0.00 964,500 2.96 TOTAL (4,250,000) 0 27,615,000 23,365,000 * 765,448 24,130,448 (6AL) TOTAL -13.04 0.00 84.75 ************ 71.70 2.35 ************ 74.05 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ 0 0 (38,272) (38,272) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ***************************************************************************************14****** ( 1,661,870) TOTAL GAL 0 27,615,000 23,365,000 ******** 727,176 ***************** 22,430,306 ******** CFS(AVE) 0.00 1.38 0.04 1.12 TOTAL AC-FT 0,00 84.75 84.75 2.23 68.84 68.84 . TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Month 1985 1986 1987 Last Month .Last Year 91.28 ac. ft. 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. Jan. 29,741,000 gal. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. +3.54% - 4.20% 102.77 ac. ft. 64.36 ac. ft. 51.91 ac. ft. Feb. 33,488,000 gal. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 qal -9.78% -19.36% 65.64 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. - I . Mar. 21,391,000 gal. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar.. 19,294,231 gal.-~ ~ +14.07% 7 7.72% 73.99 ac. ft. . .63.08 ac. ft.. 61.33"ad. it. -. Apr. 24,110,504 gal. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal. + 3.58% -2.78%Â· 98.53 ac. ft. 75.56 ac..ft. 85.96 ac. ft. lay 32,106,550 gal. May - 25,-271,446 gal. May 28,009,040 gal. +40.15% , +10.83% 131.24 ac. ft. 102.33 ac. ft. 141.81 ac. ft. Jun. 42,768,000 gal. Jun. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 46,208,715 gal. +64.98% +38.58% 154.52 ac. ft .125.09 ac. ft. 173.26 ac. ft. Jul. 50,351,784 Jul. 40,760,736 gal. Jul. - 56,457,974 +22.18% +38.51% 167.68 ac. ft .123.91 ac. ft. 546.73 ac. ft. lug. 54,637,657 gal. Aug.* 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 47,811,380 --15.32% +18.41% 95.29 ac. ft . 100.02 ac. ft. 107.47 ac. ft. lep. 31,051,965 gal. Sep. 32,590,405 gal. Sep. 35,018,547 * -26.76% +7.45% 78.78 ac. ft 71.34 ac. ft. 74.59 ac. ft. )Ct. 25,672,598 gal. Oct. 23,247,152 gal. Oct. 24,306,224 -30.59% +4.56% 67.97 ac. ft. 60.17 ac. ft. 60.95 a Â¥85ft lov. 22,149,174 gal. Nov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 19,862, -18.28% +1.30% 57.25 ac. ft. . 55.57 ac. ft. 68.84 ac. ft. lec. 18,656,085 gal. Dec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. 22,430,306 +12.93% +23.87% TOTAL: , TOTAL: TOTAL: c 1,184,97 ac. ft. 965.65 ac. ft. 1089.60 ac. ft. +12.60% 386,124,317 gal. 315,317,871 gal. 355,046,559 gal. // WATER COMMITTEE AGENDA FEBRUARY 17, 1988 1. METER TEST BENCH - Review of bids. 2. WEIR GATE REPLACEMENT - Review of estimate. 3. WATER PLANT TRUCK - Request authorization to take bids for budgeted item. 4. AWWA CONFERENCE - Request to send Assistant Public Works Director to conference June 19-23, 1988. Reports: p 1. January Water Reports . 2. Cascade Diversion Structure ' 3. Prospect Estates 7th Filing Water Line Trench 4. Water System Design and Construction Standards Proposals 5. West Elkhorn Streetscape 4,2 c ., TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department * 4 Â¥ 73 Richard D. Widmer Director /rn\Â» /4*Â«tkh e 11'.4 . .-6--4 &44% #447 -*r-- - 4/ -2. A. r .4- â€¢24'*:fL. .. -a=-:ff--Â· --Â·.. 73_,fi~~.'t.Slf ,;(i f kik'vE/41 ' 5'#41, 3'fy 14 4 , .1 , 0, -<1 7, X~ 40% 5 41025~~ 9- P.b I. 7 . - f iw -,1. 0Â»,Ful Estes Park, Colorado 80517 February 16, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: Water Committee I FROM: Richard Widmer r,lk) SUBJECT: Bids for Meter Test Bench The 1988 water budget contains a dapital expenditure of $6,000 for purchase of a meter test bench. This bench will enable up to eight water meters to be tested at the same time, thus speeding our existing manual, one-at-a-time system. Our meters are now approaching twelve years old and it is time the Town began an ongoing meter testing and calibration program. The budget also anticipated hiring a seasonalworker this summer to help speed this process. The meter test bench needs to be ordered, received, and installed prior to the summer. Three bids have been received for a test bench: 1. Dana Kempner (~14,250 D 2. Mountain States Pipe & Supply -,505 3. Water Works Sales 6,750 In addition to the above _prices, approximately Â¢i~8-0-~~~wil.1 need to be spent for a <REbrage tank, pumps, and plumbing fophook up the bench. I recommend the low bid in thB amount or $5,250 be accepted from Dana Kempner and that the water division be authorized an additional $750 for installation costs. RDW:cj 3 50 P. O. Box 1200 Telenhone (3031 586 -5331 . WATER DEPARTMENT CAPITAL 1988 1986 1987 1988 Actual Est. Budget CAPITAL 03-505-00-05-505-6219 1 Phase I Master Plan 0 . 0 2,808,000 lTotal/Windy Gap Sale $3,178,000 Less Loan - 370,000 $2,808,000 03-505-00-05-530-6002 Distribution 9,090 4342* 55,000 345,000 03-505-00-05-731-6002 Structures 576 24145' 85,0002 89,0003 2cascade $75,000 Other 10,000 $85,000 3cascade $75,000 Dll River Plant 4,000 ~Weir Gate (Fall - ~iver & Glacier) 10.000 D - $89,000 03-505-00-05-769-6002 Services 800 23. 50 2,000 03-505-00-05-770-6002 Meters 6,727 )/026, 10,000 16,0004 CIest bench $ 6,0007 4/-- ------ Meters - lU,UUU $16,000 03-506-00-05-739-6230 Tools 760 307/- 4,000 1,500 03-506-00-05-791-6230 Office Furniture/Equipment 0 2337- 2,700 1,500 03-506-00-05-792-6230 Transportation Equipment 13,759 i 0 SUBTOTAL 31,712 156,750 3,276,000 CONTINUED -6 2- * c TOWN OF ESTES PARK 4 14#<40 1 Public Works Department Richard D. Widmer ely 4-r/, Director '+AL,z, te ~<~~~~~~~ Al- -123RyÂ· <,bt~ e f .WO:51~> -. -~ApÂ»-\:i- Â¢899* -4%#* vt ~ >Â· 4 ~4. 04'44)kÂ» .*-&.fiÂ·f--f~33%<-,i.~Pk, *r'*Â·ifi,Pewip,1.V*,3: 8~.,+~A~~4- -412= . 231 -<Â«~zer- - --Â· - / I f /4,422 <4 0 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 ittiil iÂ«*VAL:4 February 16, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: Water Committee FROM: Richard Widmer AJ SUBJECT: Weir Replacement - Fall River Water Treatment Plant One of the capital improvement items budgeted for 1988 is replacement of the four wooden weirs, or baffles, at the Fall River Treatment Plant. These weirs force the water in the flocculation chambers to change flow direction and allow the chemicals to mix with the water properly. Estimated replacement costs, including material and labor by our own men, is $2,000. I recommend this replacement be approved so it may be completed before the plant is turned on in the spring. RDW:cj P, O. Box 1200 Trlrohone (3031 586-5331 TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 02/12/88 CITIZEN SERVICE RESPONSE REPORT JANUARY 1988 PAGE 1 TYPE OF CALL NO. OF CALLS HOURS BLEEDER MAINTENANCE 1 1.00 UTILITY LOCATION - MAIN 3 1.70 UTILITY LOCATION - SERVICE 11 8.40 UTILITY BILLING QUESTIONS 7 3.90 WATER QUALITY CONCERNS - COLOR 2 1.50 LOW PRESSURE PROBLEMS 1 0.20 FROZEN MAIN LINES 2 48.00 FROZEN SERVICE LINES 12 -,- 11.75 MAIN LINE BREAKS -=22 4.50 SERVICE LINE BREAKS . 1 0.50 SNOW REMOVAL PROBLEMS 4 1.50 SIGN REPA IR PROBLEMS . -- 1 1.50 STORM DRAINAGE PROBLEMS 2 14.25 OTHER TYPES OF CALLS 2 0.70 ======== TOTALS FOR JANUARY 1988 51 99.40 HISTORICAL DATA THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR TOTAL CALLS 51 50 40 TOTAL MAN HOURS 99.40 42.20 23.50 % CHANGE(CALLS/MHS) +2%/+136% +14%/-20% - TOWN OF ESTES PARK JANUARY WATER BILLED 20 4-1 , 19 - 18 - 17 - 16 - 11.856 15 13 12 11 - 10 - 9- 8- 7- 6- 5 - 4 - 3- 2- 1- 011111 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 0 - TOWN OF ESTES PARK JANUARY WATER REVENUE 50 ~019.8% 40 - 30 - 20 - 10 - J / 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 DOLLARS GALLONS (Millions) (Thousands) . Â· TOWN OF ESTES PARK ~ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT 3 Water Bill ing for January, 1988 (Net) 15,850,970 gal. Water Use for December 14, 1987 through January 13, 1988 : December 14th to 31st Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(2,593,500) ( 18 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 17,287,000 *Big Thompson Plant.Off Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% - 0 January 1st to 13th Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(2,013,000) 1( 13 days) . *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 13,173,000 *Big Thompson Plant Off Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% 0 Total Water Supplied in Billing Period _ 25,853,500 Adjustment 4,273,184 TOTAL 21,580,316 Percent Accounted For: 73% ADJUSTMENTS January, 1988 1. Water Dispenser 76,000 Gal. 2. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights,Â·-Fall River, Old Man Mtn. 2,873,000 Gal. b. Metered: Woods, Banker, Swimming Pool, Rogers/ ,Buster, Baldwin 302,000 c. Charles Heights (Mise) - 31 days @ 4844 Gal = 150,164 d. Fall River Condos - 31 days @ 7200 Gal = 223,200 e. MacGregor Avenue - 31 days @ 8640 Gal = 267,840 f. Hondius Tank - 14 days @ 7200 Gal = 100,800 g. Hill Road - 9 days @ 5760 Gal = 51,840 h. Ed Rogers - 9 days @ 5760 Gal = 51,840 TOTAL BLEEDERS 4,020,684 3. Flushing/Leaks a. 12/17: Flush Woodlands 2,000 Gal. b. 12/21: Devils Gulch/Chasm Leak ' 10,000 c. 12/28: Flush Davis Hill (Gaddy) 2,500 d. 12/28: Courtney Lane Leak 7,000 e. 1/3&4: Big T Overflow 75,000 f. 1/10: Big T Overflow 40,000 g. 1/12: Big T Backwash 20,000 h. 1/13: Big T Backwash 20,000 TOTAL FLUSHING/LEAKS 176,500 Gal. TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 4,273,184 Gal. TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD JANUARY 1988 DATE BLACK FALL 6LACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK ; (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (6AL) (AC-FT) 1 (150,000) 0 990,000 840,000 2.58 1.30 0 0.00 0.00 840,000 2.58 2 (150,000) 0 1,191,000 1,041,000 3.19 1.61 0 0.00 0,00 1,041,000 3.19 +-SAT 3 (150,000) 0 1,105,000 955,000 2.93 1.48 0 0.00 0.00 955,000 2.93 4 (167,000) 0 1,140,000 973,000 2.99 1.51 0 0.00 0.00 973,000 2.99 5 (146,000) 0 828,000 682,000 2.09 1.06 0 0.00 0.00 682,000 2.09 6 (132,000) 0 817,000 685,000 2.10 1.06 0 0.00 0.00 685,000 2.10 7 (150,000) 0 906,000 756,000 2.32 1.17 0 0.00 0.00 756,000 2.32 8 .(167,000) 0 1,096,000 929,000 2.85 1.44 0 0.00 0,00 929,000 2.85 9 (1671000) 0 1,031,000 864,000 2.65 1.34 0 0.00 0.00 864,000 2.65 10 (167,000) 0 992,000 825,000 2.53 1.28 0 0.00 0.00 825,000 2.53 11 (155,000) 0 1,058,000 903,000 2.77 1.40 0 0.00 0,00 903,000 2.77 12 (155,000) 0 1,019,000 864,000 2.65 1.34 0 0.00 0.00 - 864,000 2.65 13 (157,000) 0 1,000,000 843,000 2.59 1.30 0 0.00 0.00 843,000 2.59 14 (157,000) 0 1,010,000 853,000 2.62 1.32 0 0.00 0.00 853,000 2.62 15 (165,000) 0 1,023,000 858,000 2.63 1.33 0 0.00 0.00 858,000 2.63 16 (165,000) 0 1,032,000 867,000 .2.66 1.34 0 0.00 0.00 867,000 2.66 17 (165,000) 0 1,031,000 866,000 2.66 1.34 0 0.00 0.00 866,000 2.66 18 (167,000) 0 1,073,000 906,000 2.78 1.40 0 0.00 0.00 906,000 2.78 19 (167,000) 0 1,006,000 839,000 2.57 1.30 0 0.00 0.00 839,000 2.57 20 (148,000) 0 1,075,000 927,000 2.84 1.43 0 0.00 0.00 9271000 2.84 21 (175,000) 0 1,008,000 833,000 2.56 1.29 0 0.00 0.00 833,000 2.56 22 (165,000) 0 1,0391000 874,000 2.68 1.35 0 0.00 0.00 874,000 2.68 23 (165,000) 0 1,055,000 890,000 2.73 1.38 0 0.00 0.00 690,000 2.73 24 (165,000) 0 1,120,000 955,000 2.93 1.48 0 0.00 0,00 955,000 2.93 25 (84,000) 0 682,000 598,000 1.84 0.93 222,006 0.68 0.34 820,006 2.52 26 (72,000) 0 661,000 589,000 1.81 0.91 238,958 0.73 0.37 827,958 2.54 27 (111,000) 0 808,000 697,000 2.14 1.08 2421870 0.75 0.38 939,870 2.88 28 (99,000) 0 680,000 581,000 1.78 0.90 182,886 0.56 0.28 763,886 2.34 29 (57,000) 0 821,000 764,000 2.34 1.18 191,688 0.59 0.30 955,688 2.93 30 (57,000) 0 763,000 706,000 2.17 1.09 233,310 0.72 0.36 939,310 2.88 31 (57,000) 0 735,000 678,000 2.08 1.05 218,094 0.67 0.34 896,094 2.75 TOTAL (4,354,000) 0 29,795,000 25,441,000 1,529,812 26,970,812 (GAL) TOTAL -13.36 0.00 91.44 ************ 78.08 4.69 ************ 82.77 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ 0 0 (76,491) (76,491) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ******18****************3********************************46************************************ (4,273,184) TOTAL GAL 0 29,7951000 25,441,000 ******** 1,453,321 ***1************* 22,621,137 4******* ' CFS(AVE) 0.00 1.49 0.07 1.13 TOTAL AC-FT 0.00 91.44 91.44 4.46 69.42 69.42 , TOWN OF ESTES PARK . WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Mon Last Month Last Yea 1986 1987 1988 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. 69.42 ac. ft. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. Jan. 22,621,137 Gal +0.85% +20.65% 64.36 ac. ft. 51.91 ac. ft. Feb. =20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16.914.166 cal Feb. 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar. 19,294,231 gal. Mar. 63.02 ac. ft. 61.33 ac. ft. Apr. -20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal. Apr. .75.56 ac..ft. 85.96 ac. ft. gay -25,-271,446 gal. May 28,009,040 gal. May 102.33 ac. ft. - 141.81 ac: ft. Jun. Jun. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 46,208,715 gal. . .125.09 ac..ft. 173.26 ac. ft. Jul. Jul. --40,760,736 gal. Jul. 56,457;974 123.91. ac. ft. r46.73 ac. ft.Aug. Aug. 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 47,811,380 100.02 ac. ft. 107.47 ac. ft. Sep. 5ep. 32,590,405 gal. Sep. 35,018,547 71.34 ac. ft. ' -74.59 ac. ft. Oct. )ct. 23,247,152 gal. oct. 24,306,224 I . 60.17 ac. ft. 60.05 a ft. NOV. lov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 19.Â§62. i85 55.57 ac. ft. 68.84 ac. ft.Dec. lec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. 22.430,306 TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 965.65 ac. ft. 1089.60 ac. ft 315.317.871 gal. 355.046.559 pa: I. ' I REV\2\6180 ~Ar'PROveD er-Â¢HS TeÂ¥41 EtÂ·14â€¢, 4EE:FL Â·27% .-- Â· ~~f' .~~.~f Â· -f O=.THE Td:'144 Or 15â‚¬15,6 PARK, 6Â¢51-01240:3 ' ,- C ;~L~ 0 I ... 19/9 97# DAY Â®V /528,evARY 1 \432, r . g .- F:14AAPP P. KI#CM ER, TOWN ENâ€¢;'INEE[2- r. . . ... . 1 . r- Fl Al !614 6'RAP!3 0 96 Â· Â·~ croF' OP ASFHA WT . . i. 3 . 5.- 1: ..... . ''.7 j 4 8, 1 1 1 1 1 . 6.4. 9 61.011 , 3-51-1 1 , 1 ... 40> . uÂ»,6,9- 1 !'Al,1.. ./1-TE.LE: t ELES. 4*5&56 1 5 .14/ -- ..... .- ..nAÂ· f I ,/.g# 11 r g 11 0 1. P . Hz,0 Mhl LI ' Â· , A . - /'bÂ».1 2,00' 3 Â»I'j ~ TE<kNO# GeortoN - OF>Tiow *02 x'~ ck>) * ~ * GEL&2LS_[2 -- -29 ~ - ~1: ~1 c.- b r .......4.: - . , 6 '.:fr '1'- Â·9'1 0 , --r t i - .â‚¬73 .....' ./ f . 4- 71Â£>9.Mlâ€¢j. 5942. 1+t.F - kIA-raa- / t.' - ,, i /../ 7/ h '' fut: 3Vj. . WATER COMMITTEE ./<~~ AGENDA MARCH 16, 1988 1. TOWN ATTORNEY - Discussion of RMNP Reserve Water Rights Cases. 2. TOWN ATTORNEY - Discussion of Windy Gap water sale. 3. CONTINGENCY BUDGET REVISION - Discussion. 4. WATER SYSTEM DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS - Review of proposals. 5. WATER PLANT VEHICLE - Review of State bid. 6. AIR COMPRESSOR - Request to sell. Reports: 1. February Water Reports 2. Cascade Diversion Structure 3. Carriage Hills Homeowners Information Request -/1 D(cknisr-,1 . 69<5 HAMMOND, CLARK AND WHITE ,/Wf 61989 6.1 - LAW OFFICES ' 1 0 0 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING. SUITE 418 fi.,p LYNN A. HAMMOND 200 EAST SEVENTH STREET ROGER E. CLARK LOVELAND, COLORADO 80537 OF COUNSEL GREGORY A. WHITE JENNIFER J. STOCKER 303-667-1023 LFRED P. DAVIS February 24, 1988 ..0, S. 3 Mr. Dale Hill 'e 2/44 Town Administrator P.O. Box 1200 40 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK RESERVE WATER RIGHTS Dear Dale: This letter is written to bring you up tb date with regard to the present status of the United State Government's filings in Division I of the Water Court with regard to its instream reserve rights in Rocky Mountain National Park. On February 12, 1988, I reviewed the entire Court file with regard to this matter. The file shows that the original Federal filings for instream flow in the National Park were made in 1974. Following numerous hearings and other pre-trial matters, the entire case was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court for its decision. The Colorado Supreme Court in 1984 remanded the case back to the Water Court for trial on the merits. The case has not been set for trial at this time but may be set for trial as early as term day on March 1, 1988. The United States has claimed the right to maintain all streams, springs and seeps at their natural flows for the purpbse of providing water for future uses of the park such as campgrounds, picnic areas and entrance stations. Also, the flows are claimed to maintain adequate bank stability and conservation, including fisheries. The date of the claimed appropriation would be the founding of the park on January 26, 1915. At the present time, the Town has four direct flow rights from streams in the National Park which are subject to this filing. They are as follows: 1. Fall River - the tap on the penstock from Cascade Dam to the Fall River Treatment Plant. The date of appropriation would be approximately the Spring of 1954. This water right has not been adjudicated by the Town. However, the Town is in the .process of reconstructing Cascade Dam and the penstock under the terms and conditions of an agreement reached with the National Park Service. That agreement contains certain low flow requirements agreed to by the Town and the National Park Service; . Mr. Dale Hill Page Two February 24, 1988 2. Black Canyon Creek - 2.00 CFS, adjudication date November 14, 1939; 3. Black Canyon Creek - 1.73 CFS, adjudication date November 14, 1939; and 4. Glacier Creek - 2.00 CFS, adjudication date November 14, 1939. All of the above water rights would be subject to the instream claims by the United States if the United States is successful in this case. Although the Town is not presently using any of the Black Canyon water rights, those may be used in the future if the proposed master plan is not completed. The Town does extensively use the Glacier Creek Water Right and is in the process of reconstructing Cascade Dam to use the Fall River right. It is my opinion that the Town should consider moving to become a party in the lawsuit through the appropriate filings of opposition. Although the time for filing opposition has been passed for some years, it is my opinion that the Court would at least consider the Town's position and allow the filing. In December, I met with representatives of the opposition and the United States Attorneys handling this matter. The U.S. Attorneys indicated that they would be receptive to dealing with individual opposition parties to subordinate their instream claims to those of the opposition parties. It is my opinion that the Town has an opportunity to settle this matter in that fashion. For the Town not to consider action in this matter is to risk the aforementioned water rights. Although the Town does have an agreement with the National Park Service concerning Cascade Dam, I am not so sure that that would be validated by the Federal Government if in the future they were successful in this particular water matter. If you need anything further, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Y~urs very truly, 01 . / ~ 0. L' _ ~Gr~gory A. White GAW/dkc I ''2 / li 1j 4 HAMMOND, CLARK AND WHITE f LAW OFFICES FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING. SUITE 418 LYNN A. HAMMOND 200 EAST SEVENTH STREET Â· ALFRED P. DAVIS ROGER E. CLARK LOVELAND, COLORADO 80537 OF COUNSEL GREGORY A. WHITE JENNIFER J. STOCKER 303-667-1023 March 15, 1988 Board of Directors of the Municipal Subdistrict Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District 1250 N. Wilson Avenue Loveland, CO 80537 RE: Town of Estes Park Gentlemen: Recently it has come to the attention of the Town of Estes Park that the Municipal Subdistrict is requiring the MDC Land Corporation to post security of $3,000,000 in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit to be held by the Municipal Subdistrict to secure the payment of the principal and interest of the bonds. The basis for this request is that the Municipal Subdistrict contemplates entering into an allotment contract with the Superior Metropolitan District #1 allotting 35 units of Windy Gap Water to the District. It is the Subdistrict's opinion that the real property comprising the aforementioned District does not have sufficient assessed value to support an assessment for the payment of the bond obligation. The Municipal Subdistrict is requiring MDC Land Corporation to guarantee bond payment, which ~ Â· guarantee includes the aforementioned security arrangement. In June of 1987 the Town and MDC executed the contract to purchase Windy Gap Water. At that time the Town recognized that upon the transfer of the water, through an allotment contract with the District, the Town would be liable for any bond payments not made by the purchaser following the transfer in accordance with the various documents executed by the Town with regard to the series C and D Bonds and the appropriate statutes of the State of Colorado. Accordingly, the Town required in Paragraph 5.1 of the Purchase Contract that the purchaser secure its bond paymefit obligation with an annual irrevocable letter of credit for a period of five years. The purpose of requiring the letter of credit was the understanding and knowledge by the Town that in the event of default of MDC or its assigns, that the Town would be required to Page 2 March 15, 1988 make the annual assessment payment. The letter of credit would provide the Town with a one-year period in which to budget for the payment of the annual assessment. In addition, the Town will receive approximately $3,500,000 upon the closing of the sale of the water, along with the release of its obligation to make bond payments for each year that MDC makes the same. The Town was well aware at the time of execution of the contract of its potential liability upon default of MDC. The Town expressly requests that the Board of the Municipal Subdistrict require, as security for the transfer of the water, only that security as is provided in the present contract between the Town and MDC. u 4 1 a l i t.k . 1, . TOWN OF ESTES PARK 4 40 Monte L. Vavra Finance Officer 7265mut di,FF /7 't*:,-421 -~ 4 -Mi 69- & 41244* 0'jAWJV~.-~9-.w.M~f - 3: .776''.11~25. 01 110- , i##'1& 7,Â¥7, i.* l. - A.dk,--.~~~ -:.4 4:- . 4441 - . - â€ž i.flâ‚¬~4 , r / Estes Park, Colorado 80517 2,4Â¢-~r TW" -4 March 16, 1988 Water Department Windy Gap Assessment - April 1, 1988 $875,893.00 ALTERNATE NUMBER 1: Procedure pursuant to the 1988 Budget - Borrow ...... $734,050 $875,892 Water Dept .. 83,000 Anheuser-Busch 58,842 ALTERNATE NUMBER 2: Amend the Water Department 1988 Budget as follows: Do not repay 1987 loan from Self Insurance of $370,000 (Source of funds) Contingency (reduce to zero) .... ................ $100,000 Windy Gap Assessment (pursuant to budget) ....... 83,000 tp 1.St, #DO )446466 /43. Capital (from $434,000 to $195 000) .... ......... 239,000 2 4-511 0.0-6 P.6,~ Loan (from Insurance Reserve Fund) ..... ......... 395,050 ~4~ Prepaid from Anheuser-Busch ... .................. 58,842 $875,892 P. O. Box 1200 Telephone (303) 586-5331 15-Mar-88 TOWN OF ESTES PARK CONTINGENCY FINANCIAL PLAN TO PAY 1988 WINDY GAP ASSESSMENT Cash balance 02/29/88 ($19,559.00) Temporary investments 02/29/88 546,283.00 Vouchers payable 02/29/88 (38,799.00) ------------- Total Available 487,925.00 Estimated revenue, March (55,000) 55,000.00 Estimated expenditures, March (4OM operations + 45M Cascade Project) (85,000.00) ------------- Total estimated cash 03/31/88 457,925.00 Less repayment of 1987 loan from Self Insurance (370,000.00) ------------- Net cash available to pay 1988 assessment 87,925.00 Estimated 1988 Windy Gap Assessment (875,900.00) ------------- Cash deficit (787,975.00) Due from Anheuser-Busch for water leased 4,770.00 Due from FEMA-52% of Cascade project expense through December 15,600.00 ------------- Net cash shortage 04/01/88 (767,605.00) Estimated cash needed for operations: Operating surplus April (1,050) Operating surplus May 1,310 Operating surplus June 44,230 Operating surplus July 40,310 Operating surplus August 26,485 Operating surplus September 22,500 Operating deficit October (7,955) Operating deficit November (4,280) Operating surplus December 47,340 168,890.00 ------------- Total cash deficit 12/31/88 ($598,715.00) NCWCD MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT NORTHERN COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT February 19, 1988 RECEIVED FEB 2 2 1988 Mr. Dale G. Hill TO~1Ag,UNSTRATOR Town of Estes Park DIRECTO/45 Town Administrator Boulder Counly P. 0. Box 1200 Milton H. Nelson Everett C. L.ung Estes Park, CO 80517 G Ray mi,n J kiyce Larimer County Gordon C. Dyekman Dear Dale: john R. Moore Nancy P. Gray Your 1988 Windy Gap Project assessment is $875,892.84. This WeW County W. I). Farr assessment accounts for the following items: William E. Bohlender Samuel S. Trlep Washington ami a ) 1988 debt service requirements Morgan Counties b ) 1987 actual water orders based on 1987 actual cost E. L. Caneva c) 1988 estimated water orders based on 1988 estimated Ggan County William Condon costs. 50/swick County Wes Gerk Your 1987 estimated pumping assessment ( carriage and energy OFFlCER5 costs), collected in 1987, was placed in a pumping fund for W. D. Farr, Presitlent pumping costs in future years. Everett C. Long, Vice Prrsidnit Larry D. Simpson, 5,rritary Darell D. Zimbelman. Treasurer Your 1988 estimated water order and your 1987 actual acre-foot pumped are shown below: LEGAL COUNSEL Davis, Graham & Stubbs Estimated 1988 Acre-Feet order is 0. Repâ€¢blk Plaza Buililing P.O. Bol[ 185 Actual Acre-Feet pumped in 1987 was 1,800. Denper. Colorado 80102 Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr. Prinapal Counsel The components of the 1988 assessment are detailed below: Bennett W. Raley A.Aistant Counsel 1988 1987 Estimated Pumping Cost Cost Total Debt Service $817,050.65 $ 0.00 $817,050.65 Carriage Cost 0.00 47,908.97 47,908.97 Energy 0.00 10,933.22 10,933.22 Total $817,050.65 $ 58,842.19 $875,892.84 The 1988 assessment is due and payable April 1, 1988. If there are any questions, please give us a call. Very truly yours, Dale A. Mitchell 1250 North Wilson Avenue Head of Financial Services P. O. Box 670 Branch Loveland, Colorado 8053QAM: sca 303-667-2437 iÂ¢ *. c ~, TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department Richard L. Gerstberger Assistant Director 2.M .50- vie r 1-3///th<h F Na, 3.OU,i- _,â‚¬97/*TIL'ELLA'll-u.,ew -'I #f '':4. r,tyr~Â· - '.~*- /La i. , liflit#/fliIA- 4,-121 -903& Ii----5243'v7.~.80 ;*,~.Â©.Pt ~-'.A ifÂ·4~ ff xto:,-/.fjr Â·tÂ·:4347* ~-~~~~~~~~ 86 + - --~3 v-3 ~. ~ -.- - - I- -1 52. , J . \12 --IL...*........ MEMO ltEyÂ»9144,4 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 1 _fr -1 TO: Watbr Committee FROM: Dick GerstbergerÂ»g~~ DATE: March 14, 1988 SUBJECT: Consultant Selection - Water System Design & Construction Standards Requests for Proposals for the Water System Design and Construction Standards were sent to 12 consultants. Responses from 11 firms were reviewed by Rich Widmer. Bob Goehring, and myself based on the firms qualifications and experience. Interviews were then scheduled on March 3 with the top four firms: CH2M-Hill, Black & Veatch, Richard P. Arber & Associates, and McLaughlin Water Engineers. Each firm was evaluated during the interview based on the following: 1. Their experience in the design and construction of water systems. 2. Their experience in the preparation of design and construction standards. 3. Their approach to our project. 4. The experience and qualifications of the project team. Each consultant was asked to bring to the interview an estimated cost range based on their approach to the project. The estimates submitted varied from a low of $4,000 to a high of $9,700. The low estimate, submitted by McLaughlin Water Engineers, was based on a document that would contain primarily policies and design criteria, but did not include detailed specifications and standards to the extent that we feel is necessary. To expand their approach would involve additional project costs. Based on experience and qualifications, the committee recommends that Black & Veatch be retained to prepare design and construction standards at a not-to-exceed cost of $7,000. 1 . . ..--I.... . 1 1 I ... I. Il ... lilli. TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 03/15/88 CITIZEN SERVICE RESPONSE REPORT February 1988 PAGE 1 TYPE OF CALL NO. OF CALLS HOURS BLEEDER MAINTENANCE 2 0.45 UTILITY LOCATION - MAIN 10 5.50 UTILITY LOCATION - SERVICE 5 2.40 UTILITY BILLING QUESTIONS 2 0.30 TAP REQUESTS 1 2.00 LOW PRESSURE PROBLEMS 1 1.50 FROZEN MAIN LINES 1 4.50 FROZEN SERVICE LINES 2 0.30 MAIN LINE BREAKS 5 8.40 SERVICE LINE BREAKS 2 5.75 WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION 2 2.50 PROBLEMS STREET REPAIR PROBLEMS Â· 1 0.20 SNOW REMOVAL PROBLEMS 7 6.00 OTHER TYPES OF CALLS 4 1.65 I ======= ======== TOTALS FOR February 1988 45 41.45 HISTORICAL DATA THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR TOTAL CALLS 45 ' 51 41 TOTAL MAN HOURS 41.45 99.40 35.25 % CHANGE(CALLS/MHS) +12%/-58% +2%/+136% +10%/+18% TOWN OF ESTES PARK FEBRUARY & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER BILLED 30 r 10.4% r 29 - 28 - 27 - 26 - A-4 25 --x...x- 24 - \-*,/ 23 - 22 - 21 20 - 1i 19 - 18 - 17 - 16 - 15 - 14 - A-A 8.9% 13 - G. 12 - 11 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 O FEBRUARY + YEAR-TO-DATE TOWN OF ESTES PARK FEBRUARY & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER REVENUE 100 jT 1 6.4% l 90 - 80 - 0 6 70 - 82 C 5% M-% J3 8 & 60 - U 50 - 13.2% 40 - 30 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 0 FEBRUARY + YEAR-TO-DATE LLONS TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Mater Billing for February, 1988 . (Net) 13,859,198 '7s gal. - Water Use for January 14, 1988 through February 13, 1988 : January 14, to 31st. Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(2,341,000) ( 18 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 16,622,000 *Big Thompson 1,529,812 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% -(76,491) February 1 tb 13th Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(1,251,500) ( 13 days ) Â· *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 9,985,000 *Big Thompson 2,667,306 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% -(133,365) Total Water Supplied in B~lling Period 27,001,762 Adjustment 6,313,078 TOTAL 20,688,684 67% Percent Accounted For: ADJUSTMENTS February, 1988 . J - 1. Water Dispenser 54,000 gal. 2. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights, Fall River, Old Man Mountain 1,803,770 gal. b. Metered: Swimming Pool, Woods, Baldwin, Buster, Banker, Gavell Excavating, Sumner, Pederson, Spraguer, Priest, Keyser, Muncil, Jones, Burgess's 831,500 gal. c. Charles Heights (Mise) - 31 days @ 4844 gpd 150,164 gal. d. Fall River Condos - 31 days @ 7200 gpd 223,200 gal. e. MacGregor Avenue - 31 days @ 8640 gpd 267,840 gal. f. Hondius Tank - 31 days @ 7200 gpd 223,200 gal. g. Hill Road 31 days @ 5760 gpd 178,560 gal. h. Ed Rogers - 31 days @ 5760 gpd 178,560 gal. i. Landers Fire Hydrant - 17 days @ 7200 gpd 122,400 gal. g. Machin's Cottages - 13 days @ 8640 gp 112,320 gal. TOTAL BLEEDERS 4,091,514 gal. 3. Flushing/Leaks a. 1/15 - Backwash Big Thompson 40,000 gal. b. 1/16 " " 20,000 gal. c. 1/17 " " 20,000 gal. d. 1/19 20,000 gal. e. 1/20 " 20,000 gal. 1, f. 1/22 " " 30,000 gal. g. 1/19-22 - Filter Cleaning Waste 201,794 gal. h. 2/9 - Post Office Service Leak 12,000 gal. TOTAL FLUSHING/LEAKS 363,794 gal. TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 6,313,078 gal. I . TOWN OF ESTES PARK h WATER USE RECORD . FEBRUARY 1988 DATE BLACK FALL 6LACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BI6 SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (GAL) (AC-FT) 1 (109,?00) 0 803,000 694,000 2.13 1,07 229,830 0.71 0.36 923,830 2.84 2 (103,000) 0 709,000 606,000 1.86 0.94 196,252 0.60 0.30 802,252 2.46 3 (104,000) 0 762,000 658,002 2.02 1.02 2131856 0.66 0.33 871,856 2.68 4 (86,222) 0 785,000 699,000 2.15 1.08 215,160 0.66 0.33 914,160 2.81 5 (86,020) 0 758,000 672,020 2.06 1.04 Â· 146,374 0.45 0.23 818,374 2.51 6 (86,000) 0 776,000 690,020 2.12 1.07 244,520 0.75 0.38 934,520 2.87 7 (96,002) 0 788,000 702,000 2.15 1.09 225,592 0.69 0.35 9271592 2.85 B (126,020) 0 745,000 639,003 1.96 0.99 275,470 0.85 0,43 914,470 2. El 9 (97,020) 0 728,000 631,020 1.94 0.98 172,454 0.53 0.27 603,454 2.47 10 (120,020) 0 748,000 628,020 1.93 0.97 163,326 0.50 ' 0.25 791,326 2.43 11 (91,022) 0 898,000 807,000 2.48 1.25 154,850 0.48 0.24 961,850 2.95 12 (88,753) 0 681,000 592,250 1.82 0.92 206,066 2.63 0.32 798,256 2.45 23 (89,752) 0 804,020 715,250 2.20 1.11 223,866 0.69 0.35 938,886 2.88 14 (83,752) 0 7081000 619,253 1.90 0.96 185,168 0.57 0.29 804,413 2.47 .r 4--- "461 â€¢J (88,752) 0 784,000 695,250 2.13 1.08 273,514 0.84 0.42 968,764. 2.97 16 4101 ten) 0 714,000 613,000 1.88 0.95 137,898 0.42 0.21 750,898 2.30 17 (25,503) 0 409,000 383,500 1.18 0.59 356,970 1.10 0.55 740,470 2.27 18 (25,503) 0 366,000 340,500 1.24 0.53 431,950 1.33 0.67 772,450 2.37 1 .9 (43,022) 0 459,000 416,000 1.28 0.64 392,830 1.21 0.61 808,830 2.43 -0 (81,072) 0 617,000 536,000 1.64 0.83 375,552 1.15 0.58 911,552 2.20 .1 (90,022) 0 610,000 520,000 1.60 0.80 291,118 0.89 0.45 811,119 2.49 22 (105,000) 0 706,000 601,000 1.84 0.93 278,078 0.85 0,43 879,078 2.70 .7 (105,022) 0 645,000 540,000 1.66 0.84 319,154 0.98 0.49 859,154 2.64 24 (86,000) 0 652,000 568.000 1.74 0.38 301,876 0.93 0.47 867,876 2.66 (106,200) 0 612,000 506,000 1.55 0.78 282,316 0.87 0.44 789,316 2.42 26 (82,002) 0 5441000 462,000 1.42 0.71 346,212 1.06 0.54 808,212 2.48 (82,00Â·3) 0 629,000 547,000 _ 1.68 0.65 311,982 0.96 0.48 858,982 2.64 :1 (82,002) 0 622,000 540,000 1.66 0.84 363,816 1.12 0.56 903,816 2.77 29 (100,020) 0 672,000 572,000 1.76 0.89 272,862 0.84 0.42 844,862 2.59 30 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 31 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 TOTAL 12,543,0Â£0) 0 19,734,000 17,191,000 7,588,602 24,779,602 (GAL) TOTAL -7.80 0.00 60.56 ************ 52.76 23.29 *********6** 76.05 (AC-FT) LESS 51 46******1*** 0 0 (379,4301 (379,430) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS *********************************************************************************************â€¢ (4,091,514) TOTAL GAL 0 19,734,000, 17,191,000 ******4* 7,209,172 *******1********* 20,308,658 4*4***** CFS(AVE) 0.00 1.05 0.38 1.01 OTAL AC-FT 0.00 60.56 60.56 22.12 62.33 02.33 TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Mon Last Month Last Yeei 1 1986 1987 Â· 1988 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. 69.42 ac. ft. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. Jan. 22,621,137 Gal +0.85% +20.65% 64.36 ac. ft. 51.91 ac. ft. 62.33 ac. ft. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16.914,166 cal Feb. 20,308,658 Gal. -10.22% 20.07% .. 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. Har 20,907,694 gal. Mar. 19,294,231 gal. Mar. 63.02 ac. ft. 61.33 ac. ft. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal. Apr. .75.56 ac..ft. 85.96 ac. ft. lay 25,-271,446 gel. May 28,009,040-gal. May 102.33 ac. ft. . 141.El ac: ft. Jun. Jun. 33,345,089 gel. Jun. 46,208,715 gal. ..125.09 ac..ft. 173.26 ac. ft. Jul. Jul -40,760,736 gel. Jul. 56,457;974 123.91. ac. ft. 1-46.73 ac. ft. Aug. 4Ug. 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 47,811,3-80 100.02 ac. ft. 107.47 ac. ft. Sep. ep. 32,590,405 gal. Sep. 35,018,547 71.34 ac. ft. -74.59 ac. ft. oct. Ict. 23,247,152 gal. Oct. 24,306,224 60.17 ac. ft. 60.95 a ft. Nov. ov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 19.862.~85 55.57 ac. ft. 68.84 ac. ft.Dec. ec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. 22.430,306 TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 965.65 ec. ft. 1089.60 ac. ft 315.317.871 gal. 355,046.559 Ta: 11 %10,6- 64. ~uki~ apl* PL h A 04--t-1 - WATER COMMITTEE , AGENDA APRIL 14, 1988 1. CARRIAGE HILLS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION - Request to assist the town in acquiring Crystal Water Company. 2. 1988 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - Request to obtain RFPs for design work. Reports: 1. February Water Reports 2. Cascade Diversion Structure 3. Meter Test Bench 4. Pilot Plant Application \ Cafflag E cltiffi EA.O~aty Â©uiners dkdoclation fine. SPo t Office Box,047 Eate& SPad, Cofowdo 80517 March 30,1988 Mayor Bernie Dannels Town of Estes Park P 0 Box 1200 r Estes eark, -J.... ,-, .. '... ... . 1. 11 5.* rÂ·, 1 / Dear Mayor Dannells, The lap-owners of the Crystal Water Company have been offerec an opportunity to acquire the ass9ts and liabilities of thal company. We believe that we have several option open to usâ€ž We think that the most desirable approach is to asslst the lown of Estes Park to acquire it. If that option is not accomplished we have been advised that the most practical consideration at the lowest cost to our group would be the formation of a water discrict whicn would in turn operate the water systemâ€ž The C -,rriaae Property Owners Associacion currently represents an overwhelming percentage of the tap-owners. We have held a series oi conferences on the subject between our Association and the other property owner's associations affected by the Crystal Water Company. The opportunity to add over 400 water cuscomers with very little increase in overhead expense. to acquire high alticude storage tank (EL 8000'),plus other valuable assest the company is willing to relinquish seems very opportune for the Town at this time. We must underline the fact that time in this situation is of the essence since the Cryscal Water Company is claiming immediate financial problems because of negative casp flowâ€ž Those of us who serve on the boards of these aforementioned associa~.ions ofier our personal assistance to expedite matters. We hope that we can hear of your incerest in procedina with in the next week it possible. 41 L - . i ]C 6 1; T i le m 1 LO -j % 4 1 8 1 i 1 " - 0 3, I 9% 1 '' N : . 0.. 1 1 1 $.-4 Â· -Â·f -*--6 77;47 -- ---- ' 1 1 1 (3%*LE-42Â·Â·it' 64 1. 11 :ii\41Â«- 1:,\2. :l - 1 1 1 , 1 l ' 1 , . ' 1 1 : . 1 : I.. , I ihi ,- -. --- --- 1 / ., 1 VOL//99Â¥r[72/I, -Â· ! 1 -' r==4*fr.,\ A'DL.,Uti- i 'I 4.. tr----~ T 4-9-,9.Frrnâ€¢Id .. , -. . 3 i -------=,1,-5- 1 7-2 -7 4 2..1 tE. I ...1 ' .. . 04 K..â€¢\ *R' U/Â¥'t'! 1-~'â€¢~â€¢/â€¢/'~ 1,1-,.\,Blj '.'., -1? i. 1 =--2-121-1~ Â· --1 - --1 ' --Â·f-~~ ti 1" ff. (-494Â·Â·.,03' C .___~ 7. AfT 01' " Â·; j * 4' 1 . 112*h rue f..:-9 11 : 7'. . , . 11. 1 1 1)-1 -:-3 3%0 . . 0 - 1 Itt, 1 x " 1:I'll' \. ...:,12 ..ie I ' . I ..t<./ Â·Â· 9 'i B 'Tr Â£64+Z~ . '4=-1 N â€¢\ - 1,---// ./LI ' 11 2, 1 -1Â· i./ i l.Â·'L'1* . . 1.,1.1-11# 2,1. irt .1. 19 f /h -t . - - Â·Ii 7 .~.,4,1..,9*40,4 r =111:5,1".-/' 42'" + Â«LI* I. 32.7,Â·:,1. , ,-Â·#Â· 1 : b ill_ 2 211 - -, : . / : /:,6-4.'4:'OÂ· .~4. F A 31 \ *r:i\ i Y .1â€¢â€¢rÂ·\.1, A r + _ .~ --4 u ..'l- F ' 3- ~U-Tm - 1 ,-I ..1) 2 34*<-I-9Â£6.4.\.1\(Lp ,-4.v '1*f:~140) 71}i,9 ~ NI~N ~ I~li,< ~fiNfit i'>I. ki.4- 1\ D /1 -- ... . 1 \ 9 , h 1 .....1 1-1 . . . / 4-j-- 6 / V . 1 1 ./ & 1 tu O !2 A 1 1/1 1 4300 2 1: 64 *4Â¢ ~866 \ 44 ='ll ' ; J.. Sti, I ' , 08-- a:EM I {no= W , 31 *in-I:gmar---0 U VI-33Â¤0&0 .0/EF-m Nk UNt- t.-I- \34 fi:.. 4=4-- - ' 9 Â·&1: tiliziw - I , * .1- (4. 1. 1122 94 EK@Â¢ 1 1 j 1 .A :6. m 9 'i- 10--~-4 2/ . 1 \Â¥' . I . 1 2 f - 9- 11:, ' . - 0.0 i 1 l:\1 \LO ) - g ." 1 1 1 : ..r. R /. .1.- : B . -1. rÂ· 1 â€¢1~4 1 16 \IÂ·/ Un-:+6- ,44â€¢--4 . F. i .11>14.1.ill.:.1... 8 1 - 0 1 \ W, h Z J' I &~fi *,#9 1 \:j li .,#. fit, Fm. tz 1 1 1/ /4/1 ' 1 t.~~=Z>' Y\ h. 4 ff , 1 \* 04' 21< 2 : - 1 :t -"; , fl ' 1 1 9. , 1 0 ! )Â·4: t 1 14=za,j fl il 1 1 333 ' 1 14" w r ., d u ;J,~ ' ' 9 \..35 1 1 -Il , ........d - - * j-1.Ppit]. ... 2 \, 4 1 il 4 . 1-1 i. 1., i 1 4 -1.1 4 EXISTING 30-48 'ON GOP CREEK . ANVdMOO CLU~ TANKâ€žYATES E.T.,C., 4 9 -SPECT 1 WATER COMPAV..,~1 April 13, 1988 TO: Water Committee FROM: Rich Widmer 4 RE: Crystal Water Company The Water Division has been investigating the condition of the Crystal Water Company's system since the request was made to the town by the Carriage Hills Homeowners Association. This memo is a status report of that investigation. BACKGROUND Crystal water approached the town in November, 1985, with a proposal for the town to take over the company. Our response to that proposal indicated interest in taking the company over, but contained several terms and conditions. Those still applicable include a concern that the -4 takeover not subject the town to PUC oversight either on the Crystal system or on the rest of the town's rural customers; a de*ermination as -pto the cost of physically connecting the system to ours;"1721*re foot of water for each water resource agreement entered into by Crystal (CBT =7 water was acceptable at .7 acre foot per unit); and requiring any -,pre-sold tap not in service to pay a water tap fee when connected (this may not be legally possible according to Greg). No reply was ever received by thie town to this proposal. EXISTING CUSTOMERS According to documents filed with the PUC, and from other sources, Crystal water serves 417 customers located on 745 sites. 546 tap fees have been paid, leaving approximately 200 to be served in the future. Of the 129 lots which have paid tap fees but have not connected to the system, Greg advises 48 to 58 can perhaps still be required to pay a town tap fee upon connection. To serve 745 sites at 1/2 acre foot per year would require 372.5 acre feet of water, or 532 unit of CBT water. To serve the 546 presold taps would require 273 acre feet, or 390 units of CBT water, 24 units less than the 414 owned by Crystal Water. Average usage for the system is about 70,000 gallons per day, or 5,100 gallons per tap per month. EXISTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM The town staff is still investigating the condition of the distribution system and is not in a position yet to offer a conclusion as to its overall condition. There are, however, some things known at this time. The system is composed of the following line sizes and lengths: 1 4,1,MA LINE SIZE C. HILLS R'WOOD EST CENT HILLS TOTAL 8" Raw 6,250 6,250 8" Treated 4,400 4,400 611 11 21,700 5,150 3,700 30,550 4 11 11 35,600 35,600 21' 11 1,500 1,500 1" " 800 800 3/4" " 1,000 1,000 TOTALS 71,250 1f 5,150 1f 3,700 1f 80,100 1f This 15.2 miles of lines represents about a 20% increase in our existing distribution system of 75 miles. 96% of the Crystal system is 4" diameter or larger; over half the system is 6" and larger. The smaller lines serve a few houses at the ends of short cul-de-sacs and other areas where it was apparently not practical to extend larger lines. Most of the system appears to be cast iron or ductile iron pipe. The 2", 1", and 3/4" lines are probably galvanized steel or copper. There are three relatively short sections of plastic line. The Rockwood Estates and Centennial Hills lines were constructed in 1980-1981. The remainder of the lines were constructed over the period from the early 1960s on. There are 23 fire hydrants in Carriage Hills, with another 5 in Rockwood Estates and 3 in Centennial Hills. Existing spacing of hydrants could be improved in some areas. The fire department has been requested to test the hydrant flows, but will not have this work completed for about two weeks. ifhe system has been metered for over ten years. Meters are Rockwell, with readouts located either on the houses or on posts next to the meter pits in about 350 of the 417 customers. The remainder, about 50, are in --Â» pits with no readouts. Since we would be reading these meters monthly instead of quarterly, conversion of these to readouts should be done, at a probable cost in the vicinity of $400 per meter, or $20,000. Approximately 12 bleeders are used in the winter to keep lines from freezing. One bl eeder is run year around, apparently for system hydraulic reasons. One section of pipe located on Whispering Pines may still be subject to freezing in a hard winter, but other previous trouble spots have apparently been replaced. The 500,000 gallon storage tank will need to be cleaned and painted in the near future, but this may not be feasible until the Mary's Lake Plant is built. TREATMENT PLANT The existing treatment plant has been upgraded with Culligan filters and is apparently producing acceptable water. Long range plans would include discontinuing operation of this plant, and serving Carriage Hills from dur existing system, if feasible, or, in the long run, from the new Mary's Lake plant when constructed. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS 2 Town Attorney White has prepared a working memorandum outlining the legal considerations as they can be determined at this time. This memo is attached. MASTER PLAN The town's water master plan, adopted in 1985, determined the need for a water storage tank at the approximate elevation of the existing Crystal .5MG tank. The various pressure zones developed by the master plan function very effectively with a tank at this elevation and general location. TOWN CONNECTION In order to evaluate the economic feasiblilty of connecting Crystal to the existing town's system, the staff needs technical assistance. We have contacted McLaughlin Engineers, who are familiar with both systems, and they estimate a not-to-exceed cost of $2,000 to perform such a _--2>study. We recommend the town hire McLaughlin to perform the study. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS It is very difficult to estimate the financial feasibility of such a takeover at the present time. A very preliminary estimate based on past - costs with our existing system indicates that the increase in revenue to our system would exceed the annual costs, including operations and maintenance, of taking over the Crystal system. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Further analysis is necessary before final conclusions can be made. It should be possible to complete the necessary work before the next water committee meeting is held. 3 MEMO TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Gregory A. White DATE: April 13, 1988 RE: Crystal Water Company This memo is written for the purpose of informing you as to my preliminary review of some matters of interest and concern with regard to possible acquisition by the Town of assets of the Crystal Water Company. I believe that the information contained in this memo will clarify some concerns and allow for further review of pertinent issues. 1. Present litigation involving Crystal Water Company: There are three (3) current cases involving the Crystal Water Company that are of interest: a. The present pending rate case before the Public Utilities Commission. That matter is set for public hearing on April 11, 1988, in Estes Park concerning Crystal Water's request to modify the present rates. I believe this case is self-explanatory. However, it should be noted that it will probably be several weeks and maybe months prior to a decision by the P.U.C. with regard to this rate case. Also, Mr. Lyons did 1. not feel that the decision would sway Crystal Water' s decision to seek purchase of the company or its assets by an outside group. ~44 ~ However, it is my opinion that a decision adverse to Crystal Water would accelerate its attempts to sell the company. It is obvious that the present rate approved by the P.U.C. is p insufficient to continue the operations of the Crystal Water Company. Obviously, a decision favorable to Crystal Water may strengthen their approach to selling Crystal Water's assets. b. Crystal Water Company has appealed the decision of the P.U.C. with regard to the refund of approximately $101,000.00. That appeal was first taken to the District Court in Denver. The District Court affirmed the decision of the P.U.C. Crystal Water Company has appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme Court. C. There is a present appeal pending in the Denver District Court of a P.U.C. decision concerning potential excess fees charged to the developers of Rockwood Estates and Centennial Subdivisions. The P.U.C. ruled in the favor of Crystal Water Company that the contractural provisions of the agreement between Crystal Water and the developers of those two particular pieces of ground would not be overturned by the P.U.C. It is my understanding that any person asking to be furnished \02 water with regard to those particular pieces of property will ~~.< ~ have to pay a further water resource or tap fee to receive service. This is in addition to a water resource fee previously <2Â·f r-k paid to Crystal Water Company. The amount of the dispute ranges #p- Â¥ between $16,000.00 and $80,000.00. AWY 4/7 + 1 - 41 trf-oft 2. Number of taps: Mr. Lyons informed me that there / are 546 present water resource fee contracts. Of those 546, (323 active taps are presently in service. That leaves a total of 129 water resource fees already paid in which no service has been requested. Those 129 fees breakdown as follows: a. 40-50 fees paid by Rockwood Estates and Centennial. Those contracts call for an additional fee at the time of service. Mr. Lyons felt that there were approximately 40 of these taps which were still subject to additional tap fees prior to service. Peter Stapp, Attorney for the P.U.C., was of the opinion that most of these taps were already in service. b. There are 12 tap fees held by individual shareholders which were not allocated to individual lots. The shareholders may have paid these fees in lieu of contributing other monies for expenses either operational or capital of the corporation. The agreement called for those unallocated taps to be allocated at the time of the sale of a lot. There appear to be 10 of those taps still floating about. C. The remaining taps appear to be obligations of the company to those holding those water resource agreements 40 for service. The only fee that could be charged for those taps #) would be a hook up, actual cost of the hook up to the system. d. The 36 prepaid taps to go to the shareholders under the proposal of the letter of February 19, 1988, are in addition to the tap fees for taps already issued. This was a e>y ,4 method of compensating the present shareholders for their h W interest in the company. I do not know the basis upon which the number 36 was derived. 3. Encumbrances: Mr. Lyons stated that presently the office site is encumbered by $12,000.00 owed to the shareholders secured by a deed of trust on that parcel. Also, the $115,200.00 loaned to the company by the shareholders are secured by deeds of trust on the 5 parcels owned by the company and the water rights. 4. P.U.C. jurisdiction: Since the last time in 1985 that the Town reviewed the situation concerning the Crystal Water Company, there has been a decision by the Colorado Supreme Court clarifying the P.U.C.'s jurisdiction. In the case of The Board of County Commissioners of the County of Arapahoe v. The Denver Board of Water Commissioners, 718 P.2d 235, 1986, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that it is the public policy of the State of Colorado that municipal utilities have total authority over the -2- provision of water service to users inside and outside municipal boundaries. Also, the Court ruled that although -the Denver Water Board was a public utility under Colorado Law, that there was no basis or reason for the P.U.C. to regulate the extraterritorial water service. This ruling means that Estes Park may serve water outside its municipal boundaries without fear of regulation from the P.U.C. However, in the case of Crystal Water, which is an entity holding ;a certificate from the P.U.C. for water service, the acquisition of the assets of the water company and service to the certificated area may impose certain problems for the Town. In talking to Mr. Stapp it appears that if an agreement is reached with Crystal Water, that Crystal Water would apply to the P.U.C. for abandonment of its certificate of public convenience and necessity. That abandonment would be based upon the Town providing service to the certificated area. The P.U.C. would have to conduct the requisite hearings to approve this arrangement. It is my opinion that the P.U.C. would be quite favorable to the Town providing service to the area. -3- t TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department Richard D. Widmer Ilirectot kir -9.74/,5/Adjk Â«Â·jj-Â« imÂ»j *~ent,jit~>{~24Â»*.. 14 -f _Â»-443%*l.4 &13â‚¬*F.*,Le *rÂ· . / -:42=Â· : 4 - 1 ..3. 4 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 April 14, 1988 MEMORANDUM TO: Water Committee FROM: Rich Widmer ~~ SUBJECT: Proposed 1988 Water Capital Improvements The 1988 budget contained $345,000=for distribution imerovements (assuming Windy Gap sold). Approximately$253,-GO is estimated to be needed for the following projects: 1' Creek line. tÂ«- ~uÂ»*-0.*04 .300-:4#wÂ£, $35, 000 >/1 f B* Pressure Reducing Station on Â£18" Glacier 2. Moccasin Saddle 12" line r M Â«1*-13 $80,000 1 I 3. Stanley Avenue 12" line t â€ž,01- dlyx,Cup, $62,000 'c 4. Cleave Street 12" line 10 Â§0 9/V-,- 1 11 $56,000 5. Lexington Lane 8"/) ~*2 $20,000 - TOTAL $253,000 The first four items are part of the master plan and are necessary to allow street projects to go forward or because of deteriorating lines. Lexington Lane is not a master plan project but will improve flows to the south end of the system. If these projects are to be completed this year or early next year, design work must start immediately. We request authorization to obtain RFP's for the design work. RDW:cj P. O. Box 1200 Telephone (30:3) 586 -5 1 31 TOWN OF ESTES PARK - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 04/14/88 CITIZEN SERVICE RESPONSE REPORT Â· - March 1988 PAGE 1 TYPE OF CALL NO. OF CALLS HOURS UTILITY LOCATION - MAIN 5 4.80 UTILITY LOCATION - SERVICE 5 6.00 UTILITY BILLING QUESTIONS 2 0.95 TAP REQUESTS 1 0.50 WATER QUALITY CONCERNS - COLOR 1 - 0.80 FROZEN SERVICE LINES 1 1.50 MAIN LINE BREAKS 1 11.00 SERVICE LINE BREAKS 2 2.50 METER REPAIR OR SERVICE CALLS 3 3.50 WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION 1 2.00 PROBLEMS STREET CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS 1 0.20 STREET SWEEPING CONCERNS 1 0.50 SNOW REMOVAL PROBLEMS 8 3.75 OTHER TYPES OF CALLS 7 6.40 ======== TOTALS FOR March 1988 39 44.40 HISTORICAL DATA THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR TOTAL CALLS Oct 45 91 00 TOTAL MAN HOURS 44.40 41.45 4W.43 % CHANGE(CALLS/MHS) -13%/+07% +12%/-58% +03%/-85% TOWN OF ESTES PARK MARCH & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER BILLED 50 - 10.6% 40 30 20 11.2% 011111 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 Â¤ MARCH + YEAR-TO -DATE TOWN OF ESTES PARK MARCH & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER REVENUE 150 ~-16.3% 140 l 130 120 110 100 - --* 90 4, O 80 J O 70 Â£ 60 50 .~~~--El 16.1 Z 40 - --O 0- 20 10 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 0 MARCH 4 YEAR-TO-DATE DOLLARS GALLONS (Millions) TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLEÂ·WATER REPORT Water Billing for March, 1988 (Net) 13,471,890 gal. Water Use for February 14, 1988 through March 13, 1988 : February 14 to 29 Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(1,291,500) ( 16 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 9,749,000 *Big Thompson 4,921,296 -(246,065) Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% March 1 to 13 Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(793,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River Plant Off 7,716,000 Glacier Creek 3,764,322 *Big Thompson -(188,216) Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 23,631,837 Adjustment 3,835,363 M. TOTAL 19,796,474 Percent Accounted For: 68% ADJUSTMENTS March, 1988 1. Water Dispenser 61,000 gal. 2. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights, Fall River, Old Man Mtn. 954,587 gal. b. Metered - Same as February 956,700 gal. c. Charles Heights (Mise) 29 days @ 4844 gpd 140,476 gal. d. Fall River Condos 29 days @ 7200 gpd 208,800 gal. e. MacGregor Avenue 29 days @ 8640 gpd 250,560 gal. f. Hondius Tank 29 days @ 7200 gpd 208,800 gal. g. Hill Road 29 days @ 5760 gpd 167,040 gal. h. Ed Rogers 29 days @ 5760 gpd 167,040 gal. i. Landers Fire Hydrant 29 days @ 7200 gpd 208,800 gal. j. Machin's Cottages 29 days @ 8640 gpd 250,560 gal. TOTAL BLEEDERS 3,513,363 gal. 3. Flushing/Leaks a. 2/24 - 4" Leak, U.S.36 @ 7 Intersection 16,000 gal. b. 2/29 - Mocassin Circle 5,000 gal. c. 3/1 - North Lane 40,000 gal. d. 3/12 - Museum 200,000 gal. TOTAL FLUSHING/LEAKS 261,000 gal. TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 3,835,363 gal. TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD MARCH 1988 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (GAL) (AC-FT) 1 (38,000) 0 522,000 484,000 1.49 0.75 336,432 1.03 0.52 820,432 2.52 2 (47,000) 0 623,000 576,000 1.77 0.89 269,602 0.83 0.42 845,602 2.60 3 (45,000) 0 538,000 493,000 1.51 0.76 289,814 0.89 0,45 782,814 2.40 4 (39,000) 0 657,000 618,000 1.90 0.96 260,474 0.80 0.40 878,474 2.70 5 (39,000) 0 617,000 578,000 1.77 0.89 321,436 0.99 0.50 899,436 2.76 6 (39,000) 0 570,000 531,000 1.63 0.82 331,868 1.02 0.51 862,868 2.65 7 (86,000) 0 609,000 523,000 1.61 0.81 259,170 0.80 0,40 782,170 2.40 8 (74,000) 0 566,000 492,000 1.51 0.76 302,528 0.93 0.47 794,528 2.44 9 (70,000) 0 588,000 518,000 1.59 0.80 273,514 0.84 0.42 791,514 2.43 10 (81,000) 0 598,000 517,000 1.59 0.80 272,536 0.84 0.42 789,536 2.42 11 (80,000) 0 699,000 619,000 1.90 0.96 264,712 0.81 0.41 883,712 2,71 12 (69,000) 0 536,000 467,000 1.43 0.72 281,990 0.87 0.44 748,990 2.30 13 (86,000) 0 593,000 507,000 1.56 0.78 300,246 0.92 0.46 807,246 2.48 14 (72,000) 0 650,000 578,000 1.77 0.89 285,250 0.88 0.44 863,250 2,65 15 (74,000) 0 592,000 518,000 1.59 0.80 268,624 0.82 0.42 786,624 2.41 16 (68,000) 0 720,000 652,000 2.00 1.01 289,488 0.89 0.45 941,488 2.89 17 (59,000) 0 520,000 461,000 1.41 0.71 274,166 0.84 0.42 735,166 2.26 18 (55,000) 0 648,000 593,000 1.82 0.92 271,232 0.83 0.42 864,232 2.65 19 (67,000) 0 597,000 530,000 1.63 0.82 309,374 0.95 0.48 839,374 2.58 20 (49,000) 0 600,000 551,000 1.69 0.85 312,960 0.96 0.48 863,960 2.65 21 (37,000) 0 635,000 598,000 1.84 0.93 401,306 1.23 0.62 999,306 3.07 +- *low 22 (33,000) 0 584,000 551,000 1.69 0.85 390,222 1.20 0.60 941,222 2.89 23 (36,000) 0 599,000 563,000 1.73 0.87 276,448 0.85 0.43 839,448 2.58 24 (39,000) 0 592,000 553,000 1.70 0.86 217,442 0.67 0.34 770,442 2.36 25 (38,000) 0 630,000 592,000 1.B2 0.92 355,992 1.09 0.55 947,992 2.91 26 (42,000) 0 637,000 595,000 1.83 0.92 326,978 1.00 0.51 921,978 2.83 27 (35,000) 0 580,000 545,000 1.67 0.84 298,942 0.92 0.46 843,942 2.59 28 (37,000) 0 612,000 575,000 1.76 0.89 292,422 0.90 0.45 867,422 2.66 29 (32,000) 0 543,000 511,000 1.57 0.79 273,840 0.84 0.42 784,840 2.41 30 (41,000) 0 580,000 539,000 1.65 0.83 274,492 0.84 0.42 813,492 2.50 31 (51,000) 0 600,000 549,000 1.68 0.85 272,536 0.84 0.42 821,536 2.52 TOTAL (1,658,000) 0 18,635,000 16,977,000 9,156,036 26,133,036 (GAL) TOTAL -5.09 0.00 57.19 ************ 52.10 28.10 ************ 80.20 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ 0 0 (457,802) (457,802) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** (3,513,363) TOTAL GAL 0 18,635,000 16,977,000 ******** 8,698,234 ***************** 22,161,871 ******** CFS(AVE) 0.00 0.93 0.43 1.11 TOTAL AC-FT 0.00 57.19 57.19 26.69 68.01 68.01 , , TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Month Last Month Last Year 1986 1987 1988 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. 69.42 ac. ft. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. Jan. 22,621,137 Gal +0.85% +20.65% 64.36 ac. ft. 51.91 ac. ft. 62.33 ac. ft. reb. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 oal Feb. 20,308,658 Gal. -10.22% 20.07% 68.01 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. lar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar. 19,294,231 gal. Mar. 22,161,871 Gal. + 9.13% +14.86% 63.08 ac. ft. 61.33 ac. ft. \Pr. 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal. Apr. 75.56 ac..ft. 85.96 ac. ft. lay 25,-271,446 gal. May 28,009,040 gal. May 102.33 ac. ft. . 141.81 ac: ft. Jun. Jun. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 46,208,715 gal. .125.09 ac..ft. 173.26 ac. ft. Jul. lul. -40,760,736 gal. Jul. 56,457;974 123.91 ac. ft. 146.73 ac. ft.Aug Â· Aug. 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 47,811,380 100.02 ac. ft. 107.47 ac. ft. Sep. ep. 32,590,405 gal. Sep. *35,018,547 71.34 ac. ft. 74.59 ac. ft. Oct. Ict. 23,247,152 gal. Oct. 24,306,224 60.17 ac. ft. 60.05 a~85ft. Nov. ov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 19,662, 55.57 ac. ft. 68.84 ac. ft.Dec. lec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. 22,430,306 TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 965.65 ac. ft. 1089.60 ac. ft 315,317,871 gal. 355,046,559 ga: 1. WATER COMMITTEE AGENDA MAY 12, 1988 1. MOENNING'S ASPENBROOK DEVELOPMENT - Appeal of tap fee determination by town staff. 2. SUMMERSET CONDOMINIUMS - Request by staff for town to pay for line oversizing. 3. THUNDER MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT - Water Service Agreement. 4. CRYSTAL WATER COMPANY - Review of negotiations (May be in Executive Session). Reports: 1. April Water Reports 2. Cascade Diversion Structure 3. Pilot Plant Application 4. Flushing Program f. t ''.- 1 .Â·.ti.f,J{.. . . , I , â€¢14 3/1 AR#Â·,: V , UTILITY PLAN 1. 1.\ J '1: 4 1.< : FEB. 17,1988 rev MARCH 8, 1988 bi i '. =Â·'Â· 1.i.,4111KA 1 61 Â· ' A ' 5-#AY 2-0~Aa,(04 /5711,#41/ ~ ~~~f_ -- . M. 9.98 ., 14'VE 4 3-*v P it \Dy %*i.p bâ‚¬ Appe 7-31 t /Â«st 19 1 /1 ID' FroAA 61~*A-VF- c f r *99 ', * cpossilg 3' uujuÂ¥ (â‚¬' 1 4 . 7(0 1 n,e (1 Â·1 Ch 7.. 2)(.07*Â·rU' 14=oppe - DI, R , 1 1 $ 1 / 22* i ' o F .~ Q , -7-If 0 W / ---Â· / 6 112%1.1.2 -+46. // i t ' LODGE K 4 4 /.3.../ f /:> /2 -Ilik.8:.4\.7 / 1 irt /.R / 1 ,if \ 0%54- / G i , FV ... / 47.,?, . 4/400 %J * 9940 1 --./ :jttl~ b/) 4 + ,j ~,0.0 : A.A ,Â· 4" .T . V / f 1 9. $ 35 / 47 - . hk,# / 1 . 11 1 1 / .,1, .6 f/,1./>Â« /1 A \2*Â· .7.,i X>XX4 \1/ 1 ..1, r \Il 1, / ./11 4. "OPTION A" 1 j 1 1 Entry lo a,DO Â·Found e. C. 6499 2060 TUNNEL RD (Ref. ACCESS PLAN) ,2 \3/~41 / 1 , / I -- â‚¬ I 0 ././.lul.=----Ii-----~797 1"lifrEth.a.,9. i :' Â·' : 1 >-+004:ir?le,1.,t.. 2 ..'.' . .. /1 ...... .-./ r - 1 qÂ¥* /4:-tr 4/00425(44/15&corder. - f / 1 i 1 1. D 1 1 1 Tms DIED, Mid. thiâ€¢ 20 day of October in the year of our Lord , one thouâ€¢and nine hundred and forty between Helen Jane Woodley and'Ruth Anne Carman i 1 1 1. 1 pf tile : County of ami State of Colorn,lo. of thi, firwl part. and The Town of Estes Park, a municipal corporation ~' 1 1 of the County of Larimer and Slate of Colon,lo, of the viÂ·imil part 1: WITNESSETH, Thâ€¢t the lunid part ies of Ili,Â· lint Zinrt, for and i A e,ilinicleratiâ€ž11 i,r the Rum of ---One-------- Doll /1 r.. 1â€ž the allid purt les of the Ant part ili hand pHid by the Maid part y of tile griÂ·on,1 twirt. the rpeript . 1 â€¢-1,Â·iÂ·rof i, 11,Â·reby ronfeÂ»ed lind acknowledged, ha Ve rembted, relrnied. Mold, coilvey,Â·,1 11,1,1 01,i,Â·r/i,imri ami li>Â· 1 11,Â·Me prenentl do reminr. rellÂ·al;e. sell. i.onÂ·,Â·y and QuitÂ·Claim nAto Ih,Â· 'Ini,1 pnr, y I,f tile successors 1 1 1 Reconil pnrt. i ts ~1=<and a*p* forever, all thiÂ· 1Â·,ght. lilli'. ill terr,11. clnim lind ileman,1 whi,Â·11 11,e ' maid parties of the fir.t part have in al,il t,â€¢ thâ€žâ€¢ 6,Itâ€žwing ile.tril,ed ~ land 11, 1 1 Rillinir. 1.,Â·ing and being iii the CountjÂ· n f Lariner'!., lind Minte of Colorado. to-wit: i i an easement for a richt of way as now 'std:ed out i! for the construction, layine, maint;,ining, reprdrin: i.nd re- P placing a water main over, tbroutÂ·h und acro.:.3 the following described premises to-V,it: ben:ining at a point 2.Â·hence the Northeait Corner of . 1, Sec. 4, Twp. 4 N. H. 73 9. Oth P.1.4 bears E. 842 ft. thence W. 610 ft. to a point in conter of Big Thompson River; thence SWesterly along center of sujd river to the intersection Â· !( Â·*ith Wind River Road; Thence S. 23 42' E. alonr cen~er of said i road 79.5 ft: thence S. 24' 14' W..260 ft; th R. 65 E, 385 ft thence N. 54a 281, E. 1198 ft;. thence North 225 ft. to the i place of Â·beginning;Â·being a portion of Lot 1&2 Sec. 4, T.4!;., R. 73 W. & contains 13 acres'more or less. Note: The, line ~etween'the N.E. colÂ· & N center cor of Sec. 4-4-73 was assumed 2. & W. and all bearings were tc,ken relative 1 . 11. A SIU . EXCEPT the following described property; A tract of land lying in Sec. 4, Twp. 4 N.R.73 W. Gth Â·~ i ' P.M. more particularly described as follows; Beginning at point 1 in the center of the present Wind River Road and on the E. right of way line of a proposed road to the E. Portal of the Continental Divide tunnel and 66.0 ft. distant from center line; ~ whence the N,E. cor of Sec, 4 twp. 4 N., R. 73 W. 6th P.M. bears I N. 612 620 10' E. 1778.3 ft. thence with the meanders of the said ! center of the Wind r,~ver Road N. 040 42' W. 22.3 ft. to point : 1 No. 2} thence N. 27 001 W. 35.7 ft. to Point 3, said point : I being in the Center line of the Big Thompson River; thence with i the said center line of the said river N. 49' 55' E. 89.1 ft. to pRAnt 4, said 'point being on' the East right of way 1lne of the No. 754. QIÂ·ITÂ·CLAIM BEE.D. --rbi D-iont.R.bir.on IN.. C., Min. Robl.ion'i L..1 Bt..6.. 1124 0%.ut St., D....i, r.Â·6. ; i . . ViSfli #Â· 7~ t. 1 Â·fil...:;-~Â· 1.Af , ......fl'..4,0. i }444 _-_ 1. '.. . 1 14441.1 .. -,4.Â·- @*1%*Â®ili*WFitterÂ· -2 ..1......4,4 .Ll 4 Â· . 7 1 4. , d , ..1.*p#kl44%**01'***ifi~'94â‚¬4 iindgiEbenie T UMpt jot 'Py 1,111~ 25 094$4,044,.:#/240.14!Â· W. .122.2 toge ttg,fim*Fikt-Â»iwi;?M:~23:;.e~tfi*â€¢aid right of wly';'fqr,ittiâ€¢7purpgae o*&,dch' cgnitrudtion, layÂ£id, maintenance , r,pair andâ€žreblacement tof,said tator main. 'daid'right,Of . Wiy ,teijbq,0.tq]NH,10) 'fe,tir.,width and trench to be back *filldd 'to conform with natural elevation of ground. .Ad conside]Bation for said Lright of.way, the Town of ,Estes Â· Park adrees .td:give the grantor, 0.thelr heirs and assigns , , ' four taps, without charge, time and Â·ilace of taps made to be named i --2' by the grantor, on the pipe for Water far; domestic purposes, upon the same terms and conditions, and subject to the same rules and regulations as may now be,,on may hereafter.be, established i ; for the usq of domestio water outside of the corporate limits i ' of.the Town of Estes Park. All water taps.for such use of water .and all service lines and water fixtures to be installed Â·and used according to the rules and regulations set up by the Town j 1, of Estes.Park for other users without the corporate limits 1 ' of the Town of Estes Park.The Town of Estes Park reserves the ) right to make additional taps on said pipe line, the location i I of said taps to be named by the grantor. 1 . . i 1 . 1 , 1 4 I 1 4 . 1 TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, Together with all and mingular the appurteninceâ€¢ and priv- ~ i 1 Q.. 1 ilege, thereunto belonging or in enywime thereunto appertaining, and atl the e,tate, right, title, interest and ; claim whatâ€¢oever of the â€¢aid part le Of the drit part, either in law or equity, to the only proper use, ben- successors dt and behoof of the uid part' 7 of the lecond part, 11:9 11* and ~igns, forever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The uid part iesf the Ant part ha ve hereunto Bet their hand ~ and Beaig the day and year fint above written. 1: , i Â·! 1 . ....1 ...3...OKU-~.#4119<-(SEAL) ,1 Signed, Sealed and Delivered in Premence of K.. ..+ --..... -1 i! . .....,~.~Zet_. ......................:.....................(SEAL) (SEAL) ! .............................................-............................................. (BEAL) .0:.., 4,2.:4': ,.I | . .. ...4 1. .1 , 1 .11Â· 1 m t. ) i & ,#LU,4 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department Richard L. Gerstberger Assistant Director JRJ.'9Af *27'i:%*64#47. 4 -b)/ . Â»2 _ 2Â»-Stra Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Gfy-,hel .1 -\ April 20~, 1988 Mr. Bill Van Horn Van Horn Engineering P.O. Box 456 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Meonning Development Dear Bill: As a follow up to this afternoon's phone conversation concerning the Meonning development, it is staff's position that the 4 taps granted in the deed were intended to be residential or 3/4" taps. Since water resource charges were not part of the Water Departments fee structure at that time. they are not mentioned in the deed. For this reason we are willing to include the minimum 40 fixture value units for each of the four taps. We are also willing to allow the taps and fixture value units to be combined so that the total credit in each area, based on the 1988 rate schedule. would be: 4 - 3/4" taps @ $1338 $5352.00 40 FVU x 4 taps x $47.50 7600.00 If you or the developer wish to object to this interpretation, I would suggest that you present your position to the next Water Committee meeting. That meeting is presently scheduled for May 12th at 2:00 pm. Sincerely, .L Richard L. Gerstberger, P.E. Asslstant Director To: Dick Gerstberger FROM: Phil Moenning SUBJECT: Positlon Statement on Water Servlce Granted by 1940 Easement There is no reason to believe that if the owners of this property at the time the easement was granted had wished to build 30 cottages, that the town would have refused to provide water service at no charge. There were numerous resort developments in the area that had large taps serving multiple cabins. The Stanley Hotel, for example, had one 4 inch tap. The language in the easement clearly does not liinit the taps to a single family house, not to a particular size. The passage of time cannot have diminished the rights to water service granted under the terms of this easement. . KATHARINE W. CARMAN GEOLOGIST P. 0. Box 1424 ESTES PARK, COLORADO August 30, 1956 Mr. Lee Tallant Water Department Town of Estes Park Estes Park, Colorado Dear Lee: I have the Water Department's tap reciept dated 6/29/56 showing four original units, one used previously, and two used 6/28/56, with one left as af 6/29/56, Becker plumber, and Carman, owher. For the sake of the record I would like it understood that the two new "taps" were simply a hook-up from my residence to the two other guest houses, using our old existing pipeline system, the hook-up being made in the basement of my residence. No new digging was done, and we did not connect the two new taps in the usual way. We did not make two new entries into the town water main. In the future, either I, or my heirs and assigns, might wish to connect the two guest houses directly to the town water line with the conventional type of tap. Therefore, I would like a statement from the Town Water Department to the effect that this could be done without counting as two more taps. If this is agreeable with you, will you kindly write your signature , below on the spot where I have written " agreed and understoodu, and return to me one of the enclosed copies of this letter. Sincerely, | \ allittle W. La,0 Pla c- Katharine W. Carman Agreed and understqod; Tpwn of Este0-Park Â£60' Tall ant 'V )\ 4; 3 Â«2 / Dale Hill C 1 I TOWN OF ESTES PARI< Public Works Department Richard L. Gerstberger Assistant Director N/ Vga. .- *AkÂ·=31 R Â«7~ ~0*282Â» . 'Afr ti *.41... .4 vow/'Abh' $ - / 62 *,4*142 $70/Â»42 - -91:2.. Estes Park, Colorado 80517 May 11, 11988 Mr. Bill Van Horn Van Horn Engineering P.O. Box 456 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Meonning Development Dear Bill: After a meeting with Mr. Meonning concerning his building permit and more extensive investigation of our records, I have determined that three 5/8" taps were given to Katharine W. Carman in 1956 to serve the property referenced in my April 20, 1988 letter. Enclosed is a copy of a letter from Ms. Carman, dated August 30, 1956, that clearly indicates that only one tap remains of the four free taps. Since the three existing taps are residential taps (5/8"), the size also is clearly established. If Mr. Moenning wants to proceed with his first set of building permits, we will have to bill him for the fixture value units (FVUs) above the forty remaining for the unused tap. If you have any questions before I return on May 17, please contact Rich. Sincerely, --221- Richard L. Gerstberger, P.E. Assistant Director \ /0. 0'41'14.. h. 1 . , -*/ -4,4* *4 1 .(24'p~>f/74*1~,- f k. :t, 4/9 , 9.-1 1 K{,2.j AB :V . iÂ»24' 1Â¢~ ...... 4'r'UF~: " #t.'1Â·Â· r. .f.'. a T. ----- -<mal_12?91*~ 0- 1 - - 2.7- * -~36 . - LAND SURVEYS U: 1 -0 ... 4.- - Â·2Â·. 7.-, SUBDIVISIONS - -- DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENT PLATS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING /4 VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SANITARYENGINEERING MUNICIPALENGINEERING ill J Ill' 1.4 I'l POSITION SUMMARY - MOENNING WATER Facts: 1. In 1940 an easement was granted to the Town by instrument recorded in Book 721, Page 161 & 162 for a water main across 13 acres now owned by Moenning. 2. In consideration of the easement, the Town gave without charge the then owners., their heirs and assigns, four water taps not specified as to size, the time and place of such taps to be determined by the grantor, subject to the rules of the Town. 3. The rules governing water taps and us.age in 1940 were in ordinance #50 adopted in 1929. 4. In 1940 the then owner could have built exactly what Moenning is now, and such development would have required the same water service then as now. 5. Ordinance #50 allows a 2" tap for the same price as a 3/4" tap. 6. If Hoenning's development would have been built in 1940 as it could have been, his required 14" or 2" taps would have been part of the consideration of the easement. Moenning's Position: 1. Due to the language of the deed, Moenning now has the same rights asi if he was the owner in 1940. . 2. The Town cannot now diminish Moenning's position by adding limitations not in the original deed. 3. The Town's position that the taps were intended to be single family 3/4" taps is not supported for the following reasons: a) The deed has no such limitations and the Town had the opportunity to limit it if it had those intentions; and 1043 Fish Creek Road â€¢ P.O. Box 456 â€¢ Estes Park, Colorado 80517 â€¢ 303-586-9388 - 1. : A Moenning Water Page Two b) In 1940 it was not reasonable to assume that this 13 acres would be single family then as Spur 66 was then the main entrance to the National Park and numerous accommodation uses had and were being developed throughout this area. 4. The presence of the water line on the property has cost at least five building sites. The per building site value to the current development is at least $20,000. If the situation could be returned to "zero", i.e. the water line on public property and the developer paying current tap fees, it would be in the owner's interest to do so. The point being that the consideration of free taps for the amount of land used by the water line is still as reasonable in terms of 1988 dollars as it was in 1940. 5. The Town has had virtually free use of the land for almost 50 years. ' I 1 1111 1 7 'Cre TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER FUND 41*4 â€¢J -07..4 39 -265 (~~) 1 -Â·4â‚¬-A.tÂ»4 1--&-----~-- 4-14-56 TAP RECEIPT 1 ., 4.4...' C / 6/('p $/S4, DATE ~ ~ -~7 3~Ep ,%:/op Owner .Â·t Â£ /2 jilrue: mr W, 08.1211 F/) Home Address (flei i45.4 L.1, ./- / 0 77 Ikcation Â¢*F- SUM OF QO#06 - AS DEK. A' Â·i.*35'ti â‚¬ i,ir 1* t. Fixtures .. .2--1 AU.U.* .... .4 - Ff---422.2-,1 Date of Servirâ€¢ 6 V TOWN OF ESTES PARK Comments Ok 3-0-4 10,7 n , ..0 1. 1 i â€¢ , 1 1.:, ~ : jtilif j:ii:, ~ c n! Cg 1 /' 11 1 1 411 P Y ./ 11* :13.1 lili 14 k: $ 1,1 3 f'kl Â·e_ f.-c-u ) TA %-3 4- 26 60 7-1/7/LA c-' 671 Pl ; 4-~ 1 -1 094- ,~ " L Â¢3 L, s r.,1 7 Â· j U.0 M A KA 26,<Scnn. 1/ I. ..:2 Â»ilt'~P, 2 1 .\ '34'931.- 1-1 ,- - '>AN:,8*12 'f. e,'?a LAAJZ.'44Â· 91,764<47& :0< 1 f{,fÂ»~ A~Are. :.*Vt//1, L 1 -m-:~:4~1 p~4,36~1~.Ai,/)'Ittific YRMS,4,141,2 J:*.* W -- i.-9-<-1.*St- " -r= . -1 = =.1-17 /. -3 LANDSURVEYS aÂ«2-,r SUBDIVISIONS - DEVELOPMENT PLANNING IMPROVEMENTPLATS ' STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / VAN HORN ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SANITARYENGINEERING MUNICIPALENGINEERING 111 POSITION SUMMARY - MOENNING WATER Facts: 1. In 1940 an easement was granted to the Town by instrument recorded in Book 721, Page 161 & 162 for a water main across 13 acres now owned by Moenning. 2. In consideration of the easement, the Town gave without charge the then owners, their heirs and alssigns, four water taps not specified as to size, the time and pl.ace of such taps to be determined by the grantor, subject to the rules of the Town. 3. The rules governing water taps and us.age in 1940 were in ordinance #50 adopted in 1929. 4. In 1940 the then owner could have built exactly what Moenhing is now, and such development would have required the same water service then as now. 5. Ordinance #50 allows a 2" tap for the same price as a 3/4" tap. 6. If Hoenning's development would have been built in 1940 as it could have been, his required 14" or 2" taps would have been part of the consideration of the easement. Moenning's Position: 1. Due to the language of the deeds Moenning now has. the same rights as if he was the owner in 1940. 2. The Town cannot now diminish Moenningk position by adding limitations not in the original deed. 3. The Town's position that the taps were intended to be single family 3/4" taps is not supported for the following reasons: a) The deed has no such limitations and the Town had the opportunity to limit it if it had those intentions; and 1043 Fish Creek Road â€¢ P.O. Box 456 â€¢ Estes Park, Colorado 80517 â€¢ 303-586-9388 . Moenning Water Page Two b) In 1940 it was not reasonable to assume that this 13 acres would be single family then as Spur 66 was then the main entrance to the National Park and numerous accommodation uses had and were being developed throughout this area. 4. The presence of the water line on the property has cost at least five building sites. The per building site value to the current development is at least $20,000. If the situation could be returned to "zero", i.e. the water line on public property and the developer paying current tap fees, it would be in the owner's interest to do so. The point being that the consideration of free taps for the amount of land used by the water line is still as reasonable in terms of 1988 dollars as it was in 1940. 5. The Town has had virtually free use of the land for almost 50 years. ./-1 i .j I 33 :1 / i 1 41 1 /6, ~ Â·jf\3# 'r, f / . p..11? , 71 8 3.1 1//1-11 11 1 19 / /9,1 :t liA - 1 PÂ·' ry#I K 1 .jÂ¢* / i Â·rÂ·â€¢' f.Â·â€¢741 i f t.': Je?-1 4 ir- "./.1':. 15,Â¢1;5'44 i 1~i .,;bb, g-~ f ''.f~,1~ ~ C , 9 BJÂ· 44# Â·Â· 3 1 {1 1 /\ 11 .1 1 1 4,3 'trl}iÂ·i-~ 1 4_- 2 HJ.~~,6 -Il.i-- .-p#t).1~34.fs~.~213~ < I =.4 C C 1 (1 1 ' , i Â·li.~.1, l:411,1 -f 1 1 -/ 4*- -~:*VT'Ii;,th~fifi?14 1/ - 1 1 1 '1 4 r +T I Â«"t lili . 1, t , . ' I V 4 , Â¥., ' .< , 3 , 1 1 $ A / 1. * 44' th - c & E :- < i. -> 1 1 4 1 3 j Ul JI. ' ' ,./-1 1 1 1 1. Â¢ 5, h 9%. J 2 1 3'P / 4 1 I c: 1/;3*,Li idic/- 1.._ f Vvil JR A < 3 ) 4 ,;.t~ ~Â·.t*,tr*~ -it: / . -7 1 , 1 1Â»' +77*-4*b f,, 1 t , a.,rt..61 1 *'- Â· I, , 0 .%. b Â·fi Ill t- 1 . {,1 21 4 4,410 1.Li , t. i tj...>: 1, 1 i 134 1 ; J J a ) i ) UN= p -, 1 7 1 i.-1-,lul: , :\ , 1 1/ * 47 -4 /~;- 6~{j \9 + 4 6 1 i/ EXIJTING 1 '- Â·Â· ~W; t# ~' , 1- ~~~~ti 1 4 9,0 -'#4 4 . 4<~.~:*'1 't ~2'~~ P ,; '6444:â‚¬;fâ€¢!'$1.4 Â· \ Nt-? F.. 2 13Â·Â¢1: ;01% 0..gwt , / / / 1 : :vt 41 J. t , 1 1-9 ... 21 1.11:16.4 1 1 Â·\,t,;â€¢1'3â€¢ 1 1 i KE'...#*.,1,Â·f:"12 " 'Frf.:.I r.t-"F-1 2;~_*pÂ¢*-~13*~f~vi.jij*itt't~~.E'-1~,i( , f ~( -~~ } li:,~~~;~44,2,~#-*Â·tâ‚¬:,~4'.:-4/ pt...L.?1174; ci,- 1 - ' 3..f-*41 4.21 1 c 9% 1 I . , 1 1- , 1,/ 93Â·Â· \: 4 . . 1 - .1 7 I,t t D . '' j ' . EXISTING 8- SANITARY SEWERÂ· END EXISTING 66-4 ~ \ ASPHACT EXIST~NG ASPHAU 7 DRIVE 8 PARKING ~Â·' 1- A -1 /1 MATCH LINE MATCH LINE 2 1 1 4 1 EXISTING UNIT - -: 1 4 / 2O 70 -- R (/Ate S /7.32'23. W /27.03, May 3, 1988 4 1.0 6, l.~ 2-05 a, 1 9 Mr. Dick Gertsberger Z â‚¬ 18 Town of Estes Park 0 5 a P.O. Box 1200 g g Estes Park, CO 80517 Z- if RE: Summerset Condominiums Amended Development Plan Dear Mr. Gertsberger: The development plan submitted for Town review last week indicates the method proposed to provide water service in the area north of Homestead Lane. The plan shows the existence of a 6 inch line from the Town's 12 inch main to a fire hydrant adjacent to Homestead Lane. From the fire hydrant, we propose to install a 4 inch line that will loop back to the Town's 12 inch main. The sizing, as indicated on this amended develop- ment plan, was approved by the Town when the original develop- ment plan was reviewed in 1983. You have indicated that a 6 inch line is required in this area, even though a 4 inch line was previously approved. We res- pectfully request that the original approval remain unchanged if the Town cannot show conditions have changed in such a manner so as to warrant a modi fication to the original Â·proposal. Respectfully yours, ESTES PARK SURVEYORS & ENGINEERS, Inc. 2Â«41 8 - Paul M. Kochevar, P.E. & P.L.S. President CC: Richard Widmer PMK:kk Esmsi~k,0407lorado 80517 , BRADFORDPUBLISHING CO. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Water Committee October 8, 1987 Committee: Chairman Dickinson, Trustees Aldrich and Barker Attending: All Also attending: Mayor Dannels, Town Administrator Hill, Public Works Director Widmer, Assistant Public Works Director Gerstberger, Paul Kochevar, Clerk O'Connor Absent: Finance Officer Vavra PRIVATE WATER LINE: PROPOSAL FOR TOWN TO ASSUME MAINTENANCE. The committee reviewed a memorandum dated October 1, 1987, submitted by Assistant Director Gerstberger. The memo addressed a 2" private water line located in the Upper Broadview area. The town allowed two (2) water taps on the line without prior knowl- edge the water line was not owned by the town. Staff has re- searched and verified construction and ownership of the water line. Discussions were held with affected property owners in an effort to resolve this matter. Following discussion, the commit- tee recommends: (1) the town assume maintenance of the entire 2" water line, and, if possible, obtain an easement describing the right-of-way; and (2) three water taps, in addition to the one tap now on line, be allowed to adjacent property owner Phil Switzer. Mr. Switzer will assume all costs, including the tap fee and water resource charges. THUNDER MOUNTAIN WATER AGREEMENT AND APPLICATION: DISCUSSION. Agreement. Director Widmer reported on progress to date with the Thunder Mountain Subdivision. Larimer County has approved the subdivision; utility construction, including a 100,000 gallon water storage tank, has been completed; and the developer is in the process of selling individual lots. Director Widmer submit- ted the water agreement which had been prepared by Town Attorney White. The committee also reviewed a letter dated November 19, 1985 submitted by the town's water consultant--DMJM. Under town policy, 75% of the total cost of water facilities may be recoved by the developer for a period of up to ten (10) years. Paul Kochevar/Estes Park Surveyors, appeared before the committee stating he was representing the applicant. Mr. Kochevar stated he had reviewed the proposed agreement and was in favor of its execution. Director Widmer stated that prior to proceding with an agreement, the Municipal Code requires the applicant to submit water line easements and rights-of-way; a deed to the water line; and "as built" drawings. Mr. Kochevar stated "as-built" drawings and all required documents would be submitted in the near future. Discussion followed, with the committee recommending no further action be taken until such time as complete documentation is submitted. Director Widmer was directed to clarify, with Town Attorney White, certain issues in the agreement relating to furnishing water by gravity from the storage tank, and Exhibit B which contains the fees which will be assessed. Application. The developer has submitted a Rural Water Applica- tion for all lots (44) in Thunder Mountain Park. The appli- cant/developer has sold several lots and is in the process of obtaining one building permit; he cannot procede without a fully-executed water application. The committee recommends approval of the application for one (1) tap for Lot 3 (Paula Garris). The committee will conside-r approval of the remaining 43 water taps upon submittal of the application as referenced in paragraph one--Agreement. I. . . AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 23 rd day of .NovaMBEEK , 1987, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, a Colorado Municipal Corporation, party of the first . part (hereinafter referred to as "the Town"), and THUNDER MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Colorado Limited Partnership, party of the second part (hereinafter referred to as "Thunder Mountain"), WITNESSETH: . WHEREAS, Thunder Mountain has constructed at its sole expense a water system consisting of a six (6) inch water main, pump station, storage tank and distribution system, to serve the following described real property located in Larimer County, Colorado, with domestic water, to-wit: THUNDER MOUNTAIN PARK, P.U.D. and WHEREAS, Thunder Mountain is willing to convey Â·all of its right, title and interest in and to said water system to the Town, and -. WHEREAS, the Town is willing, upon conveyance of the system, to collect certain sums from other parties to reimburse Thunder Mountain and also to maintain said water system. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants herein contained, it is agreed: 1. Thunder Mountain hereby grants, bargains, sells and conveys unto the Town, its successors and assigns forever, that certain water system consisting of a six (6) inch water main, pump station, storage tank and all appurtenances constructed by them to serve the above-described real property with domestic water. Thunder Mountain does covenant, grant, bargain,and agree with the Town, its successors and assigns, that it is well seized of the premises above conveyed, and has good right, full power and lawful authority to grant, bargain, sell and convey the same in the manner and form aforesaid, and that the same is free and clear from all liens, taxes, assessments and encumbrances of whatever kind or nature whatsoever, and Thunder Mountain shall and will warrant and forever defend the title to the same. 2. Thunder Mountain further covenants and warrants that the water system herein conveyed has been constructed in a good and workmanlike manner, is free from all defects, whether latent 3. or apparent, including design defects, and is in good operating condition. 3. Thunder Mountain shall execute and deliver to the Town a Grant of Easement, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this. reference. 4. The Town agrees to assume the operation and maintenance of said water system and to furnish water for domestic use to the above described properties. It is hereby expressly understood and agreed that the Town will furnish water only to Buch lands as in its opinion may be served by the system; that the use of such water shall be under such rules and regulations as are now or may hereafter be adopted by the Town for its water service; provided further, that the users shall pay the rates for water service which are now or which may hereafter be established by the Town; and provided, further, that the users shall pay the tap fee, water resource fee and plant investment fee which is now or may hereafter be established by the Town to .connect the service lines to the main. It is understood and agreed that the Town is under no obligation to construct or maintain any service lines from the main; and that the Town may make any additions to said system or connect any service lines thereto without the consent of Thunder Mountain, other than as herein provided. 5. In addition to the established fees collected and to be retained by the Town, it shall collect, until the occurrence of the limitation hereafter provided, a .fee of a fixed amount for each of the following described lots, parcels or tracts to be served by-the -above water main: All properties located in Sections 3, 4, 5, 9, 10 and' 15, inclusive, T4N, R73W of the 6th P.M., Larimer County, Colorado, excepting therefrom the lots located in Thunder Mountain Park, P.U.D. The Town shall refund any additional fees collected annually to Thunder Mountain until Thunder Mountain has received a total of $367,567.00, or until ten (10) years from the date hereof, whichever event occurs first. The Town shall not be liable to Thunder Mountain for such additional fees if it should inadvertently fail to collect the same when approving a water tap application, but it will cooperate with Thunder Mountain, in every reasonable way, to collect said fees. The amount of said fees shall be set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 6. The Town agrees to serve all lots in Thunder Mountain Park, P.U.D. with water in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, or any amendments thereto, and upon the payment of all fees and charges therein provided. -2- - 7. Thunder Mountain hereby agrees to immediately petition the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, for inclusion of all of Thunder Mountain Park, P.U.D., within said District and Subdistrict. Thunder Mountain shall use its best efforts to have all of Thunder Mountain Park, P.U.D. included within the District and Subdistrict. All costs associated with the inclusion of the property shall be the responsibility of Thunder Mountain. 8. That all covenants and agreements herein. contained shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto. 9. Any amendments to this Agreement must be set forth in writing and signed by the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands the day and year first above written. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk THUNDER MOUNTAIN ASSOCIATES, LTD., a Colorado Limited Partnership By 4~ ,Â»â€¢le,t// /uener*. partner U STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 1987, by as Mayor and as Town Clerk of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: Notary Public -3- , STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF LARIMER ) T]~e foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this 131, day of 1/Uu-p--Lt..i,> , 1987, by 0 -1&17 6< 9 as General Partner of Thunder MountaiN Associates, Ltd., a Colorado Limited Partnership. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires: 4-/4,2 2 Â«ta a,2 4.441ct Notary 1-,Â©#lic 23 -4- bli o 0. 4 ; 1 j )11( JONES, MEIKLEJOHN, KEHL & LYONS, R C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1625 BROADWAY 1.64'fy](Flq.@Pgi77ar=> SUITE 1600 . 1...f , ... 7 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 ~; FEB 191Â¥~ i EDWARD T. LYONS, JR. TELEPHUREW303 E E ./.550 dL.... 75Â£â‚¬â‚¬ OPIERÂ·+a=-4.0 -, 506 February 19, 1988 OFFICE l}F THE ATTORNEY GENERAL i HAND DELIVERED CONFIDENTIAL Peter J. Stapp, Esq. Assistant Attorney General 1525 Sherman Street 3rd Floor Denver, CO 80203 RE: Crystal Water Company Dear Mr. Stapp: I have been authorized by Crystal Water Company to submit a proposal to settle the pending litigation involving the PUC's order in Case No. 6502, which was recently affirmed by the Denver District Court, and as to which we have filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. In essence, this settlement proposal would involve transferring stock ownership of Crystal Water Company to its ratepayers (including lot owners not yet receiving service who have paid tap fees). The present shareholders would surrender their stock in the Company, which would be redeemed in exchange for 36 prepaid water taps. The existing shareholders would receive nothing else for their equity ownership of the Company. As an integral part of the settlement, however, a specialsurchare-rate would_be.imglemented to provide a source of funds to amortize loans that tlie existing shareholders have made to the Company for the purpose of acquiring and installing urgently needed water filtration equipment and to enable the Company to meet other costs and expenses of providing service. The proposed settlement is more fully outlined as follows: 1. In lieu of the refund order that was entered by the PUC and which is being appealed from in this case (and which Crystal is in any event financially unable to comply with), the ownership of the water company would be effectively transferred from the present shareholders to Crystal's present customers who are owners of water taps and are receiving water service as well as all persons who have paid water resource or tap fees for sites not yet receiving service. .In-othen-]ALords, the owneufeverlot-for which._a. tap fee.-has-been-paid,_whetheur_npt_metered service is being supigiat this limel--1MQuld _r@geive. one.-fulk-paid share of voting_cammgn .Rtock in Crystal. This stock woiild not be transferrable except to subsequent lot purchasers:Immediately prior to the issuance of such new shares, the stock of the shareholders, consisting of 3,000 shares held by four individuals and two estates, would be redeemed in exchange for Crystal's issuance of 36 prepaid water taps. These water taps would be assigned to lots presently owned by the -la L 411 . Peter J. Stapp, Esq. 131 - 4Hla flaÂ« -4 -9~ fu/3 February 19, 1988 ' Page 2 1-G' - 40 QN- U GLL,62 24 34:u former shareholders, and they would receive one share of the new stock-for each water tap so assigned to a lot. This is the only consideration that the existing shareholders would receive for their stock in the corporation. All assets currently owned by Crystal would remain in the corporation, including, but not limited to, such tangible assets and properties as the old and new water plant facilities and equipment, all of the main water transmission pipelines, the reservoir and spring sites, water rights (including 414 acre feet units of Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District water), and the office site with improvements, subject to existing encumbmilces. 2. Upon completion of the redemption of the shares of the present shareholders and the issuance of new shares to the customers of the company, the existing officers and directors would resign and new officers and directors would be elected by the new shareholders. Present officers would cooperate with the new officers to achieve a smooth transition of managerial and operational control. 3. The present shareholders of Crystal have loaned and are continuing to loan money to Crystal to pay necessary costs and expenses, including all of the costs associated with the acquisition and installation of the new filtration equipment which the Colorado Department of Health has ordered the company to install. If the present shareholders had not agreed to make these loans, Crystal would not have been able to continue to meet its financial obligations, much less to raise the capital to install the necessary water filtration equipmen-6.-88-d bankruptcy would have been the only alternative. The total of ti,6-inonies loan@8 or-to.-be loaned by the present shareholders is estimated to be approximq/tely $110,000 to $120&000.#Tbq notes evidencing these loans will bear interest at the rke of 9 1/2 percent per annum>1The funds necessary to repay these loans will be generate#-by_a-illrcharge rate to be i~mbrporated in Crystal's tariff which will be designed to amortize the principalanE!-interest through equal quarterly charges over a five-year period commencing as soon as the tariff can be placed into effect. All funds collected by Crystal through this surcharge will be placed in a separate escrow account to be utilized solely for payment of the notes to the former shareholders. Principal and interest will be paid to the noteholders quarterly from this escrow account. The loans will be secured by deeds of trust and security interests in the assets and properties of the corporation. 4. Crystal and the PUC will enter into a written stipulation, by their respective attorneys of record, providing for the entry of an order by the Supreme Court setting aside the PUC's final orders in Case No. 6502 and remanding the matter to the PUC for further consideration. 5. On remand of the case from the Supreme Court, the PUC will reopen Case No. 6502 for the purposes of approving the issuance of stock to the ratepayers in lieu of the refund previously ordered and implementing the other requirements of the settlement. Appropriate notice will be given of the reopened proceeding. The PUC will determine whether a hearing is required in accordance with its usual procedures. Peter J. Stapp, Esq. February 19, 1988 Page 3 This settlement proposal is being communicated to you with the understanding that you are willing to assist in setting up discussions with the representatives of the ratepayers and acting as a mediator of sorts in the matter. I believe that the best way to proceed will be to arrange for initial discussions with a limited number of representatives of the ratepayers, such as officials or representatives of the homeowners' associations which have intervened in the pending rate case O & S No. 1761). I think that at least initially these discussions should take place on a confidential basis. Premature publicity will only complicate the process and may in fact diminish the possibilities of reaching a settlement. If on the basis of preliminary discussions the prospect of a settlement appears reasonably good, a procedure can then be worked out to give the matter appropriate publicity and provide for public participation. Consistent with these observations, therefore, I would suggest that the first step would be.simply to arrange a private meeting with representatives of the intervenors in 1&S No. 1761. In setting up this meeting I would request that the purpose be only generally described as a meeting to discuss issues pertaining to Crystal Water Company. I would like to reserve any information about the details of the settlement proposal, as outlined herein, until the time of the meeting. This would-avoid-the-problem_-of_pfemattlre diEJOEIAnd. the confusion that I am afraid would otherwiSA_[2*ult. I also think thisettlement plan can be more effectively presented and discussed in such a context. I would in any event like to discuss the matter with you further before anyone else outside the PUC Staff is brought into the picture. I would be available to meet with you sometime next week if that will be convenient. Yours very truly, 4 - 3Woss, jr,01 Attorney fol~ Crystal~Rater Company ETL/la ec: Crystal Water Company Melvin Dinner, Esq. / I I TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 05/11/88 CITIZEN SERVICE RESPONSE REPORT April 1988 PAGE 1 TYPE OF CALL NO. OF CALLS HOURS UTILITY LOCATION - MAIN 12 8.30 UTILITY LOCATION - SERVICE 22 15.45 UTILITY BILLING QUESTIONS 1 0.30 SERVICE LINE INSPECTIONS 1 3.00 WATER QUALITY CONCERNS - COLOR 13 7.60 LOW PRESSURE PROBLEMS 2 0.70 MAIN LINE BREAKS 1 3.00 SERVICE LINE BREAKS 2 1.50 . METER REPAIR OR SERVICE CALLS 4 2.50 STREET REPAIR PROBLEMS - 3 35.50 SIGN REPAIR PROBLEMS 1 1.00 STORM DRAINAGE PROBLEMS 1 6.00 OTHER TYPES OF CALLS 8 11.45 ======== TOTALS FOR April 1988 71 96.30 HISTORICAL DATA THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR TOTAL CALLS 71 39 64 TOTAL MAN HOURS 96.30 44.40 90.48 % CHANGE(CALLS/MHS) +82%/+117% -13%/+07% +11%/+06% TOWN OF ESTES PARK APRIL & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER BILLED 60 ,- 7.9% 50 -- 40 7 C 2 30 i 20 O- 0 3 --1 0 0.7% 10 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 O APRIL + YEAR-TO-DATE TOWN OF ESTES PARK APRIL & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER REVENUE 200 ~- 1 4.51 190 180 1 170 160 150 140 130 --< 1- 120 c 110 100 gi 90 . 80 70 60 50 0 9.7% 40 30 20 10 011111 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 O APRIL + YEAR-TO-DATE LLARS GALLONS TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for April, 1988 (Net) 14,799,920 gal. Water Use for March 14, 1988 through April 13, 1988 : March 14th to 31st Water Supplied: Black Canyon - (865,000) ( 18 days ) *Fall River Plant Off 10,919,000 Glacier Creek 5,391,714 *Big Thompson - (269,586) Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% April 1st toÂ· Â·13th Water Supplied: Black Canyon - (826,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River Plant Off 8,625,000 Glacier Creek *Big Thompson 3,075,810 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% - (153,791) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 25,897,147 gal. Adjustment 3,548,798 gal. TOTAL 22,348,349 gal. Percent Accounted For: 66% . ' ADJUSTMENTS April, 1988 1. Water Dispenser 47,000 gal. 2. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights, Fall River, Old Man Mtn. 982,530 gal. b. Metered 776,100 gal. c. Mise (22 days @ 4844 gpd) 106,568 gal. d. Fall River Condos (22 days @ 7200 gpd) 158,400 gal. e. MacGregor Ave. (22 days @ 8640 gpd) 190,080 gal. f. Hondius Tank (31 days @ 7200 gpd) 223,200 gal. g. Hill Road (22 days @ 5760 gpd) 126,720 gal. h. Ed Rogers (22 days @ 5760 gpd) 126,720 gal. i Landers Fire Hydrant (22 days @ 7200 gpd) 158,400 gal. j Machin's Cottages (22 days @ 8640 gpd) 190,080 gal. Total Bleeders 3,038,798 gal. 3. Flushing/Leaks a. 4/8 - Flush hydrant top of Moccasin 2,000 gal. b. 4/11 - Flush Nickies 21,000 gal. c. 4/11 - Flush Fall River 40,000 gal. d. 4/11 - Fill Fall River Tank 400,000 gal. Total Flushing 463,000 gal. Total Adjustments 3,548,798 gal. TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD APRIL 1988 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (GAL) (AC-FT) 1 (29,000) 0 5B5,000 556,000 1.71 0.86 334,476 1.03 0.52 890,476 2.73 2 (29,000) 0 620,000 591,000 1.81 . 0.91 261,126 0.80 0.40 852,126 2.62 3 (29,000) 0 583,000 554,000 1.70 0.86 334,B02 1.03 0.52 888,802 2.73 4 (48,000) 0 595,000 547,000 1.68 0.85 263,408 0.81 0,41 810,408 2.49 5 (57,000) 0 520,000 463,000 1.42 0.72 305,788 0.94 0.47 768,788 2.36 6 (48,000) 0 538,000 490,000 1.50 0.76 265,364 0.81 0.41 755,364 2.32 7 (67,000) 0 573,000 506,000 1.55 0.78 254,280 0.78 0.39 760,280 2.33 8 (99,000) 0 832,000 733,000 2.25 1.13 120,620 0.37 0.19 853,620 2.62 9 (99,000) 0 734,000 635,000 1.95 0.98 132,356 0.41 0.20 767,356 2.35 10 (99,000) 0 735,000 636,000 1.95 0.98 151,590 0.47 0.23 787,590 2.42 11 (69,000) 0 792,000 723,000 2.22 1.12 216,790 0.67 0.34 939,790 2.68 12 (70,000) 0 732,000 662,000 2.03 1.02 263,082 0.81 0.41 925,082 2.84 13 (83,000) 0 786,000 703,000 2.16 1.09 172,128 0.53 0.27 875,128 2.69 14 (77,000) 0 780,000 703,000 2.16 1.09 129,748 0.40 0.20 832,748 2.56 15 (91,000) 0 796,000 705,000 2.16 1.09 178,648 0.55 0.28 883,648 2.71 16 (102,000) 0 816,000 714,000 2.19 1.10 196,578 0.60 0.30 910,578 2.79 17 (97,000) 0 716,000 619,000 1.90 0.96 125,184 0.38 0.19 744,184 2.28 18 (103,000) 0 795,000 692,000 2.12 1.07 233,416 0.72 0.36 925,416 2.84 19 (117,000) 0 789,000 672,000 2.06 1.04 166,586 0.51 0.26 838,586 2.57 ' 20 (82,000) 0 758,000 676,000 2.07 1.05 182,560 0.56 0.28 858,560 2.63 21 (82,000) 0 695,000 613,000 1.88 0.95 78,240 0.24 0.12 691,240 2.12 22 (93,000) 0 726,000 633,000 1.94 0.98 210,992 0.65 0.33 843,992 2.59 23 (93,000) 0 770,000 677,000 2.08 1.05 180,550 0.55 0.28 857,550 2.63 24 (93,000) 0 733,000 640,000 1.96 0.99 180,278 0.55 0.28 820,278 2.52 25 (86,000) 0 805,000 719,000 2.21 1.11 200,164 0.61 0.31 919,164 2.82 26 (47,000) 0 580,000 533,000 1.64 0.82 274,166 0.84 0.42 807,166 2.48 27 (50,000) 0 563,000 513,000 1.57 0.79 277,100 0.85 0.43 790,100 2.42 28 (38,000) 0 555,000 517,000 1.59 0.80 481,828 1.4B 0.75 998,828 3.07 29 (52,000) 0 841,000 789,000 2.42 1.22 309,700 0.95 0.48 1,098,700 3.37 30 (52,000) 0 734,000 682,000 2.09 1.06 431,950 1.33 0.67 1,113,950 3.42 e .gy 31 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0,00 TOTAL (2,181,000) 0 21,077,000 18,896,000 6,913,498 25,809,498 (GAL) TOTAL -6.69 0.00 64.68 ************ 57.99 21.22 ************ 79,21 (AC-FT] LESS 5% ************ 0 0 (345,675) (345,675) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** (3,038,798) TOTAL GAL 0 21,077,000 18,896,000 ******** 6,567,823 ***************** 22,425,025 ******** CFS(AVE) 0.00 1.09 0.34 1,12 TOTAL AC-FT 0.00 64.68 64.68 20.16 68.82 68.82 WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change Same Mont % Change Last Month Last Year 1986 1987 1988 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. 69.42 ac. ft. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. Jan. 22,621,137 Gal +0.85% +20.65% .' 64.36 ac. ft. 51.91 ac. ft. 62.33 ac. ft. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 oal Feb. 20,308,658 Gal. -10.22% 20.07% 68.01 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar. 19,294,231 gal. Mar. 22,161,871 Gal. + 9.13% +14.86% i 63.08 ac. ft. 61.33 ic. ft. 68.82 ac. ft. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal. Apr. 22,425,025 Gal. + 1.19% + 12.21% 75.56 ac..ft. 85.96 ac. ft. May -25,-271,446 gal. May 28,009,040 gal. May 102.33 ac. ft. . 141.81 ac: ft. Jun. Jun. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 46,208,715 gal. ; .125.09 ac..ft. 173.26 ac. ft. Jul. Jul. 40,760,736 gal. Jul. ' 56,457;974 . .123.91 ac. ft. 546.73 ac. f t. Aug. Aug. _ 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 47,811,380 100.02 ac. ft. 107.47 ac. ft. Sep. Sep. 32,590,405 gal. Sep. *35,018 ,547 71.34 ac. ft. 74.59 ac. ft. Oct. )ct. - 23,247,152 gal. Oct. 24,306,224 60.17 ac. ft. 60.05 a~85ft. Nov. lov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 19,Â§62, 55.57 ac. ft. 68.84 ac. ft.Dec. )ec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. 22,430,306 1 TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 965.65 ac. ft. 1089.60 ac. ft 315,317,871 gal. 355,046,559 ga: yslED sl>143'. w UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 44Â£ PROT.sp WATER ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268 April 19, 1988 Richard L. Gerstberger Town of Estes Park Public Works Department Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Gerstberger: I want to apologize for the delay in res ponding to your letter re- garding the potential funding of a corrosion project. Your letter and report was reviewed by several members of the DWRD, including myself. You are correct in stating that there are many water systems across the country wi th corrosion problems similar to Estes Park. Furthermore, we are interested in supporting several projects that would provide good scientific information on the effectiveness of various corrosion control methods to help solve these problems. Presently, however, we do not have funds to support these research needs. If funds become available in FY89, I hope to fund one or two pro- jects to develop info rmation on the effectivenss of corrosion control methods. Over the past years, we have supported several pilot plant projects and thus are looking to fund full-scale efforts with a commun- ity(s) ready to proceed to full-scale treatment. An important part of the project is monitoring data (lead and copper) before and after treatment. As you know, I talked to Mark Speed last week and he explained in more detail your immediate plans for a pilot plant study. Although we do not have financial support available for this effort, we are available to provide technical assistance in the form of advice or review of the pro- posed plan and project results. sincArely, 9 h-Lu j. Thomas J. Sorg Y Drinking Water Residrch Division TJS/ss A' ~/ WATER COMMITTEE AGENDA JUNE 9, 1988 + 0-~ 1. 1988 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - Review of proposals and selection of consultant(s). 2. BIG THOMPSON WATER TREATMENT PLANT - Request to purchase streaming current monitor. 3. RURAL WATER APPLICATIONS - A. Melvin J. & Evelyn B. Stoecklein Lot 40, Charles Heights Addition 4. PHIL MOENNING - Appeal of tap fee determination. 5. CRYSTAL WATER COMPANY - Review of negoti ations (May be in Executive Session). .- 5,< CASCADE DIVERSION STRUCTURE d~~Midication ceremony at Cascade site. 0( Â«.L) . Reports: 1. May Water Reports 2. Lead Memo Note: The Water Committee reserves the right to add or delete items to the agenda as necessary. r . Ati. c .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Works Department Richard L. Gerslberger Assistant Directot 44<kir-aÂ¥. 11"i jl _,â‚¬1Iffisit Y #TriÂ©- -1\ ,Â¢13*12Â¥F .1=.01 - -tiFBAR1#Bin'Ev:Â»-~71</7/4/21/FAMM 1,+4941.. 22. 0114 . 7 Â»3.~C,&0//#ME*Im,~~6~Ii,E)'46/-*J ~~,1. -3~3903*~13*~' "I~ MÂ¥1~'f~Ame!4-;0'i~ Â· ./1./ 6. . .lf--Â«sivÂ«.4 (1,-(~2*V~9~~~1-c :-t -:8342. ~ /44 .: .. . / -Â» 7,42 0.- \ 4125=1~411 - - - ..4,9 1.t>,4.m~ - 42'Nk,Â».4 _~,2-2--4/- 2 Estes Park, Colorado 8()517 A -N -1 . MEMO TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Dick Gerstberger ViÂ¢7962( DATE: June 8, 1988 SUBJECT: 1988 Water System Improvements Consultant Selection Eight consultants submitted proposals to provide design services for the five projects identified as the 1988 Water System Improvements discussed during the April. 14 Committee meeting. Staff has reviewed those proposals and find that all eight firms all fully qualified to design water line projects of this nature. Anticipating that a selection based strictly on qualifications would be difficult, we asked for cost information for each -9 project individually and total project costs. Estimates ranged from $21,200 to 72,500 for the sum Of the projects priced individually. Most consultants offered substantial reductions if awarded all 5 projects. Proposals ranged from $18,130 to $ 39,600 for the entire design. We also asked for proposals for construction management from each consultant and received estimates ranging from $8,000 to 15,900. In both cases the low proposal was submitted by HDR Engineering Company of Denver. Their total of $26,000 for design and - construction management is 10% of the estimated construction cost: a-Veiy yuud-percEntage.-- Their approach to the project is to use one of the local firms to provide surveying and daily construction inspection services. This approach also provides a local contact for the project in addition to their project manager and engineer. ,-. h n r.' r In addition to contacting their references on similar projects, I have had personal experience with HDR at another city. Staff recommends that we accept HDR's proposal for design services for a not to exceed amount of $18,130 plus construction management on an hourly basis (not to exceed $8,000) and soils testing to be - done by the town. Funds were included in the 1988 capital budget for this design. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Jty:.Â£4}0. Public Works Department Richard L. Gerstberger Assistant Direclor iNi.V . 4, Wte F I b.ttt=Â» 4-=Mag' 1 gr &29Â§1$ Arivt -,7*4&*323- ~qi-~~~~~,14[,i'A- . - A. '3't ~40 Â·uN <*Njtill ... 41,3 V Estes Park, Colorado 80517 MEMO TO: Rich Widmer FROM: Dick Gerstberge~~,6/ DATE: June 7, 1988 SUBJECT: Streaming Current Monitor Because of the success of our streaming current monitor at the Glacier Creek Water Treatment plant, the water department would like to purchase one for the Big Thompson plant. We are proposing the purchase of the same Chemtrac unit as we have at Glacier for compatibllity reasons and because they gave us the best price when we purchased the first unit. When the Mary's Lake plant is taken out of service, all of this equipment can be relocated to either Fall River or the new Mary's Lake plant. Estimated cost for purchase of the SCM and upgrading the Alum feed equipment is as follows: Chemtrac SCM $ 6800.00 Controller & recorder 1300.00 Chemical feed equipment 600.00 $ 8700.00 Funds were budgeted in 1988 for this expenditure. 1, 1)... , "1" , },1 '.1 r{" t- , 11 I I. TOWN OF ESTES PARK - WATER DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE . Taken by~ 3.itf-~h Date ~Â¥1Â».Â« 1 0 t ll. 8 2 U Name-trl-,P'~,- _,) t\-4 givi~ R 244-0//AL) Address R 4 / / /3-1,-e/ il,(1 - w,6 l'lti, i Ectd ,Â§?664 1 Telephone 6.59- AgEE V f . Lotaxon Let 9-0 1 010-~lp.v 41 pu.tL 0,1,11-ADÂ·.1. Type of Unit - 6 6,1 470 40,04 14 ..UP-". ,-4 Number of Units 0 1 Number of Fixtures 4 40 The undersigned assumes responsibility for any and all engineering and legal costs incurred by the Town in processing this Request for Water Service. Signature 9-;d#UL. ~~~fi~2Gl~~/r 'Applicant' s Authorized Representative ------------ - - - _ _ _ - _ - - _ _353 SU 0 2 0340_ _ Is the property described above within the Northern Colorado Water Con- servancy District? Yes t,/ No Is the property described a4ove below 7,850 feet in elevation? Yes - No spa*LIL 8 +'M _12 Confirmed by~k,-4-~Aoi.,r 0. ~24Â£.A#k-~- Date <~g~~~~ ----------------------------------- Committee Action Town Board Action Superintendent's Recommendation Customer Notified Tap Number Expiration Date ~~-: 1-';-~j~~1~-\ ' , 11A KECIEOti-1-i JP,L-~~~9142~L:~ ~ .. 1~ \1 4 .1 SHOPS I -,951. 1 1"1 1 1 .t-)-3 -AÂ·h-* 4 ~ ~~;12333/34~ 1 TO.N 1 1 1\ qu,OSJ. 1- ' / 4.4 .â€ž 41; | 1 4'./. poilyr,akISE- riZE-. Lâ€¢40 ~ILL , / # ~41 7 â€ž 4 0% , ~ ,~0~" ENTA NCE _4~~ ,* ~ -fl- F :,~ 17/ '3 1.'.-7 -9,4 H 7 2 ---1. p Ke . , 04 ' l 1.l '13 P 00 â€¢ --- 0/ PINEâ€¢: il 5 8 . 1.-7 , -4 - e â€¢ _,orâ€ž.1_ - i I - f C 1 to V . ... -- dÂ·e--1 1 STATES W 1 1/0 r H , 1 28 . 34/ - j, /'.lai -'-32 1 3 1 4 0 . 1,16. 10, 3,1"1" 1 1 26 25.- 2-3- / 1 I & U - - 6 dr L -f - /' . ' It I, 8 W f. f. 1- --ILL- --2.- , 0--Â£ 1 19 235. 36 9 "Â°3,-ry '4 , J SECOND Â· so H i g j , 14387 - _. 20 1 \Â®/Avf.â€¢-2-1. 2 , 1 E-TH/,GHTS, 1- . L-1 / BEAVER P\ ADDITION <S ERVILLA kt 2' 1 1, \% POINT 3 /\\ 36 1 4 > , f:. 4 1.12 . -4 1 $ 11. :~ N U- i ,-fLO Rb 5.- , -1 1 ---- GA- . \ 1 . /,3 ,--- - m C 11 . \ 0 --t, lldl 44 VI j ,~ T--L--~. - 10[ 4,1501 1, 52 . 3 2 , 79-5--- --7--T-77- 77-T--7-' --r--~ --4 -1 ... - -- - ' 4 112*3 , iiuh---- - -40/ EL9 -iÂ·--Â·3 - \ . 7 4.1 4 14.L--/1 ---1 ~0 '0~, 0~7 ,~8~0 m C 'A-Rt E 0 ---- 1---/ -1-- 'O 5/, 1 REED'S \ /.1 â€ž 1 n.~r.-_ ~ZZL â€ž o ~. â€ž 13 1 " h -'40011-- .AUâ€¢â‚¬*2r -f , /5 lic.4 -26.:- r \ 14 1 + 1 -- 1'. 42\ 439A-H AYDE, 5 . i . I. 1, 1 20 1+**Â¥ 49 41 1 11 23 - 2 _I .*oe.2.K JI-~EAI-it:iâ€ž ,4/1--L-j'~t- -0-.-1~2-U -r;-8--,3 2â€¢ , 28 1, FED=0#7-2-. -- IHEI G-H S_ 3._ Pkh 1 - 30 ~ ;~ [--=2:'=i:I==3.-~:j[L=~_Jifizz~--77- 14 1 , '. '3. 14 24& 27.10.29 a i. 15 - L /â€¢I. 1 , GLACIER ,| 33 ---*-- 1 31,1 35 1 -Ii --- , --2 /2 Lf s | " ' CHARLE o HEIGMIL I 30 37 3. \ 4. , . v;â‚¬-1, 3 1 -I -I . 4 r - 52 ' 9 1 10 , 'O I. ST 'AD_ 45 /2 1, '0 1 , 02 **,1 2 1~ 3 2- .. 1 L_L_.1 L___- --1 -- 4. 46 4 50 51 -1 2 1 + 4- 17 -- P 4 4 S S 53 - '- 1. - -13 , b>r., 44-7-1 0 1 --- r. 2---C-=S - .. 0 - - . -70-1 ~ 10 OS E T MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY-*r . 0 . L,- 1-- 7 f.=/ 1 1 . /'1Ll... WA7ER SER â€¢#CE _ -- , 1% r , , 40: Â£690&,A .7 94 ;1395::00 ..52.-1-212-4- ..7 / \RANCH / ~ s ~ --- 11 35 36 32 1-,4.i ./71 1_ I '.1 1 4 1 1 1 i: // 1 1 K: t. 0 HAMMOND, CLARK AND WHITE LAW OFFICES FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING, SUITE 418 LYNN A. HAMMOND 200 EAST SEVENTH STREET ALFRED P. DAVIS ROGER E. CLARK LOVELAND, COLORADO a0537 OF COUNSEL GREGORY A. WHITE JENNIFER J. STOCKER 303-667-1023 May 27, 1988 Mr. John Phipps First National Bank Bldg. 255 Park Lane Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Moenning Water Dear John: Pursuant to your request to the Town, I am writing this letter to confirm the Town's position with regard to your client, Phil Moenning, and his request for a water tap or taps. On April 20, 1988, Dick Gerstberger sent a letter to Bill Van Horn concerning the Moenning development. The letter stated the Town's position that the provisions of the Deed of October 2, 1940 allowed Mr. Moenning to receive credit for four residential 3/4" water taps without charge. Following transmittal of that letter, the Town discovered that Katharine W. Carman had previously received three of the four taps. Mr. Gerstberger amended his letter of April 20, 1988 to Mr. Van Horn on May 11, 1988. Mr. Van Horn and Mr. Moenning met with the Water Committee on May 12, 1988. Following their presentation and review by the Committee of the entire situation including a review of the legal ramifications, the Committee authorized a compromise settlement to Mr. Moenning. The Committee offered to allow Mr. Moenning to receive one 2" tap in consideration for all of Mr. Moenning' s rights pursuant to the Deed. In the event Mr. Moenning wished to increase the size of the tap or receive additional taps, he would be entitled to $9,515.00 of credit. Mr. Moenning would also have Mr. John Phipps Page 2 May 27, 1988 to pay all water right fees for all the fixture values in the development. At the Town Board Meeting of May 24, 1988, the Town Board approved the Water Committee's recommendation. Also, there was some discussion about credits for the three current 3/4" taps on the property. Based upon the above, the Town's position is as follows: 1. In consideration of complete settlement of all obligations of the Town for water taps under the terms and conditions of the October 2, 1940 Deed, the Town will provide Mr. Moenning a 2" tap for water service to his development. Included in that tap are all plant development fees, the value being $9,515.00. Mr. Moenning will be responsible for all water rights fees payable according to the total amount of fixture values served by the tap. Also, Mr. Moenning shall pay for all service line installation and materials including, but not limited to, meter, remote meter readout, pressure reducer and backflow preventer. 2. In the event Mr. Moenning wishes to increase the size of the tap, he can receive a credit of $9,515.00 towards the purchase of a larger tap. 3. In the event Mr. Moenning wishes to surrender and abandon the three 3/4" taps or any one of them, he will also be entitled to a credit of $3,238.00 for each surrendered tap. 4. Acceptance of this proposal of the Town is conditioned upon Mr. Moenning waiving all claims for any other water taps or rights pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Deed. Please be advised that the above is an offer by the Town to settle all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of the Deed. In the event Mr. Moenning decides to litigate this matter, this offer is immediately terminated and the Town will adopt the position as stated in Dick Gerstberger's letter of May 11, 1988. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to give me a call. Ver~ truly yours, / i CO, 41+ ~Grectory A. White GAW:jc 1 M- CC: Dick Gerstberger 244 â‚¬0*11 Of (StÂ£% 100tk, Larimer County, Colorado,...........9.9.4.9....2..................., 19..4.9.. Minutes of a........22*Ri.9.1....meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer 2 County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the........................... 8 0'clock A.M. day of Oct. , A. D. 1 9-1-0... at r**ild)( meeting hour. Meeting called to order by Mayor C.N. Rockwell Present: Mayor CÂ·.N. Rockwell Trustees: Ronald C. Brodie, R.H. Lindley, Glen II. Preston, Geo. W. Watson. Absent: Guy W. Albright, G.E. Casey. This meeting called for the burpose of re-considering the location of the Glacier Creek Pipe Line. After considerable discussion, Trustee Brodie moved and trustee Lindley seconded the motion that the location of the Glacier Creek Pipe Line be placed on the South side of the Big Thompson river and that the decision made by the board at the previou.s meeting be, and is hereby reversed providing; that negotiations for right of way with 6eo. w, Carman be completed ar'b- once. Otherwise, this action to be null and void. Upon roll cal said motion was carried by the following vote: Yes, trustees Brodie, Lindley and Preston. No, trustee, Watson. There being no further business to come before the meeting it was regularly moved, seconded, and carried that the meeting adjorn. '47 21/1 Â¥) o . 00. C I.4/ l iM.ao/Â·ji,W-Og Mayor 4 Attest: 4.2.426-K~-:', --0 Clerk AÂ·It 5MCEV 38 4 c. 2 c.4 i A 19 1 A Q ..' i EOWn of (EstÂ£0 park, Larimer County, Colorado-............................................., 19......... Minutes of a................................meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town of Estes Park on the. day of , A. D. 19........ at regular meeting hour. Meeting called to order by Mayor Present: Mayor Trustees: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REBOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, that for and in consider- ation of the easement and right of way for said pipe line across the lands of The Boulder-Greeley Company, the Town does here- by Five unto The Boulder-Greeley Company, the right to one tap on said pipe line for the purpose of obtaining water for the use of The Boulder-Greeley Company or its members, and no charge shall be made for said tap; provided, however, that The Boulder-Greeley Company shall pay for the water used from said tap at the same rates as are now established or which may be hereafter established by the Town for the use of water L outside of the corporate limits of the Town of Estes Park, and that said water so used shall be used under the same terms and conditions and under the same refulations as are now or may hereafter established by the Town for the use of such water. Whereupon Trustee Watson moved and Trustee Preston seconded the motion that said resolution be passed and adopted. Upon roll call said motion was darried by the following vote: Yes, trustees, Brodie, Casey, Lindley, Preston and Watson. No, None. There being no further business to come before the meeting it was regularly moved, seconded and carried that the meeting I adjourn. -j Ul l~LL-- ...... r........................... Mayor Attest: - ..... Clerk 5MCEV ut -fi44:iâ€¢â€¢3*%41#83~ Recordil at 4.2619, 2 . 4 . / Reeeption Ne,~~. 839 i THIS DIED, Made thiâ€¢ 20 ' day of October in the year of our I#rd A I ene thounand nino hundred and forty bet-,m \ Helen Jane Woodley and Ruth Anne Carman - ('f the County of and Rtate of Colorado, of the firwt part, and The Town of Estes Park, a municipal corporation r, 1 of the County of Larimer and State of Colorâ€¢,10, of,the *A,ndlf,AA, I ......./ I WITNESSETH, That the said parties or the liâ„¢t part, for aud in em,Ricleraticid.-â€žf..th*0,0* 'of i ' ---One-------- 4*0Â· ' ~Â·14. 4,(t:bAIIAr. to t he Haid part le S of the first part in hand paid by the laid part y of the stÂ·(Â·on,1 part. the re<Â·Art ~. 09 wh,Â·reof ia hereby ronfeMMed and acknowledged, ha Ve remiaed, rrleazed. Rold, eonveyed M,1,1 Owit-r/,umrd,,. ..1,24.1 .0 1 84> anti by theme prments do remise, releaâ€¢e. Rell. convey and 9,1,7-Claim unto the vid part y Of the ': successors second part, lt S jil=CÂ»nd ammigi,11 forever, all the right. title, interent. claim Hnd dem,unl whicÂ·h the said parties of the firmt par: have in and ti, t he fallowing dr*,Â·ribed land Rituate, lying and bring in the County of Lariner anâ‚¬1 Stnte of Colorado, towit: an easement for a richt of way as now stated out for the construction, layint, maintaining, repairing andÂ¢ re- placing a water r.ain over, throuch and across the fello?,Â·,inc described 'premises to-v.-it: beginning at a point whence the Northeast Corner of Sec. 4, Twp. 4 N. R. 73 W. Oth P.M. bears E. 342 ft. thence W. 610 ft. to a point in center of Big Thor.irson River; thence SWesterly along center of sa~d river to the litersection with Wind River Road; Thence S 27 42' E. alont center of suid road 79.5 ftÂ· thence S. 249 14; W.' 260 ft; th R. 659 E. 385 ft, thence N. 548 28' E. 1198 ft; thence North 225 ft. to the place of beginning ; being a portion of Lot 1 & 2 Sec. 4, T. 4!:., R. 73 W. & contains 13 acres'more or less. Note: The line between the N.E. cor & N center cor of Sec. 4-4-73 was assumed Z. & W. and all bearings were taken relative thereto. EXCEPT the following described property; A tract of land lying in Sec. 4, Twp. 4 K. R. 73 W. 6th P.M. more particularly described as follows; Beginning at point 1 in the center of the present Wind River Road and on the E. richt of way line of a proposed road to the E. Portal of the Continental Divide tunnel and 66.0 ft. distant from center line; N. *21 620 10' E. 1778.3 ft. thence with the meanders of the sald whence the N.E. cor of Sec. 4 twp. 4 N., R. 73 W. 6th P.M. bears - center of the Wind R~ver Road N. 04' 42' W. 22.3 ft. to point No. 2* thence N. 27 00' W. 35.7 ft. to Point 3, said point being in the Center line of the Blg Thompson River; thence with the said center line of the said river N. 490 55' E. 89.1 ft. to p*int 4, said point being on the East right of way 1lne of the No. 756. QUIT.CLAng DEED. -ne Â»-e.-80/=.. '4Â· 0~ Mhal/*=Ilâ€¢ !â€¢-I DIâ€¢U* 1184 81- 01.. D...... r.~ 4 2.... / 1 I â€¢*I .. ;40 i . 4...1 4 i . # '.,14' I . ./1.21 T.Wl . 4: 9. 46 ; ... 4 A :' : uÂ» 4 3 6,-4 7 7 - , .,P. .7. aby.. ,/0 4. proposed road and 66.0 ft. distant'from its center line; thence with the0said,rightof way linâ‚¬of said road, 3/240 15' W. 122.2 r ft. to the point of beginning.. LContains 2207 sq.ft.; . together with the right.of ingress 16 and egress f*QI.said right of way for the purpose of...such censtructior, laying, maintenance repair and replacement ofisaid Viter main. Said right of way to ?be, tqi (10) feet in width and trench to be back filled to confdrm with natural elevation of ground. As consideration for said.right of way, the Town of Estes Park agrees to give the grantor, thelr helrs and assigns, four taps, without charge, time and place of taps made to be named by the grantor, on the pipe for water for domestic purposes, upon the same terms and conditions, and subject to the same rules and regulations as may now be, or may hereafter be, established for the use of domestic water outside of the corporate limits of the Town of Estes Park. All water taps for such use of water and all service 1lnes and water fixtures to be installed and used accordinr to the rules and regulations set up by the Town of Estes.Park for other users without the corporate limits 1 of the Town of Estes Park.The Town of Estes Park reserves the I right to make additional taps on said pipe line, the location of said taps to be named by the grantor. . , 1 .4 4 ! i TO HAVE .AND TO HOLD THE SAME, Together with all and singular the appurtenaneN and priv- ilegeR thereunto belonging or in anywiae thereunto appartaining. and all the estate, right, title, interrst and claim whateoever of the said part le Sf the first part, either in law or equity, to the only proper tz,le, ben- successors efit and behoof of the said part y of the second part, 1ts ~Ein and imaigns. forever, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The said part iesf the Aret part ha ve hereunto set their hand and Heaks the day and year Brit above written. Sig,tec], Sealed ind Delivered in Pre,ence of K.-litlANU-JIGIÂ¢Â¥WL---C) 2/4.~. (sEAL) 9/17 r % ........(SEAL) ....(SEAL) ...............-.r..........--....-------............................ (SEAL) ! , . 1,1.2 ..: 1 . 4 , 0./ 4 - C t. i: 4 I ' 1/4 tb~4*2/:c... . 0 ~ 'IJ Â·3418 - - A ..1 Agb%*11 74%9,9487 1 ... ............... ... ...... t , 721 49475 Râ€¢fordâ€¢r. Â· j ; . '~'.:â€¢., 1.~~Â· v.:t!' 03;i:%, ty*)t-h#f,4f.Htli:>:'~?'PiÂ·fi; e .:h 1 Tms DIED, Mâ€¢16 1110'0''t267/:3., 1 ~ dÂ¥ of /#P-Vt'**Â£44- in the yeâ€¢r of our Lord one thonâ€¢and nln, hundrâ€¢d and forty .. bet,reen I. Orover L. Voelkel and Cork Voilk.l â€žf It,r ' i County of Larimer And MIM|f â€žf Celâ€¢,rn{10, nf the find part. Rn,1 i i The. Town of Estes Park, a municipal corporation 1 ' 9 c, f lhe ; . County of Larimer lind SIRte of Cli|Â¢,rnitn, nf thiÂ· AriÂ·â€žnit p,irt. i 1 1 -1 ..1 WlTNESSETH, Thal the â€¢aill I,Rrl ies i,f the :i,Â·.1 Ii,irt. fâ€žr al,il il, rfi,â€ži,trr;,lic,n ,Â·r the Kilm n[ 1 C 1 , 1, j One ahd no/100--------- I)oIl:U:. ! 00' Ici 1111â€¢ p,ill Pn|rt:ies "f lhe fir,st part ii, 1,1:,1,1 1,Hill liy Ili,Â· Kni,1 1,Hrl y i,f -Ili,Â· wâ€¢,Â·i,Ii,1 1,;1,1. 11â€žÂ· rrerip' 1 wli,Â·ri.,â€¢f i,4 lirrehy e,1,1fe.Ned an,1 81Â·kni,wl,Â·ilged, 1,8 VelÂ·,Â·tâ€ži.,Â·,1, 1Â·,Â·1,Â·it .iÂ·,1. Nâ€ž1,1. 1.â€ž,1 iÂ·,Â·,Â·,Â·rl â€ž, 1,1 9,i ,/Â·r'/,f unr,1 Â· ! ' 4% an,1 11>Â· thr,le 'prenintâ€¢ 11,1 rrmillp, rel,Â·Alle. s.ell. ,Â·i,n ,Â·Â·Â·v H ,â€ž1 (71*fi,Â·/'/4 im u,itâ€ž th,Â· â€¢wi iiI plitÂ·t y "f Z hr succes-ors irtÂ·â€žmt Ii,irl. i tS ),rirâ€¢ 11â€ž,1 Mvitri,M fortÂ·ver, All 111,Â· iÂ·;trlit, lill,Â·. inter,Â·Mt. ,Â·111,1â€ž i,i,â€¢I,Irâ€ž,;â€ž,Â·I â€žÂ·1,;, 1, the t I Mid pnrt i e S â€žf Ihr fir., pnrt ha' ve it, mit,1 1,â€¢ 11â€žÂ· fâ€ž1:,Â·wing ,1,Â·.,Â·ril,r,1 l:.nd . 1 1 nâ€ž/I ' 0111.1â€¢.hÂ·ing nn,1 1,1Â·ing in the (,nunly .r La:lmer ; 11 S t:.i'. cd St litr (,f (11,1â€žAn,10, trÂ»wit : an easement for & rirht of way us liu â€ž 1 out for the constru Â·tion ' a 'nin and replacing L wt:dr main oUR' t)#injhi:.nd/,cER; 8,7, ,a. fbllowing d*scribed premises to-wit: 8 .M Lots 1 and 2 of the Greeley-Joulder Subulvision & of a p~rt of the SWÂ·t of the SE< und the SE1 of the 374 of Loc. 5 K' *34, Township 5 North, Range 73 West of the 6th P.1.:. and 4 Begining at a point on the South CO rod line of t.he 17.4 of the v SEt of Sec. 34, Township 5 North, Rein, e 73 tiest of the (,t.h P.M. 1 20 feet West from the NW corner of the house kno.:n as " L 1,1/I -.1 0 thence North 20feetÂ· thence East 90 fect and ;art.1101 vilth U.e k 80 r'od line thence South 20 feet to the (Â·0 rod line of LLe 4 NWi thence West on the 80 rod line to the point of becinnin. : 'And,'That part of Section 34, Tot,Â·nship r i:orth, Ran r 7 ' .;. 3 6 1,1 j the Gth P.C., more particult.rly descritcd t.2 follows: Cornenclng lit the SE. corner of the li'07Â·i of the SEÂ·4 of suld Section, i thence North 100 feet; tki,uRXN*riXIXX121XXKRAX.XXXmfXXX101XX1.XIX 1,1xxx*mbil.xmxxkkxxibumixib:*3 thence lest parallel with the , 80-rod line to a point in center of'312 Thompson River; thence Surly. along center of said river to , point on the CO-rod line i thence East along 80-rod line to a point 20 feet West of house known as "The Cables"; thence North 20 feet; thence East 50 fect; thence South 20 feet to 80-rod linc; thence East on 80-rod line to point of beginning, together with the right of ingress to land egress from said right of way for the Furpose of such, ; construction, laying, mainten: nce, repair and N replacement I of said water main. Said right of wE,y to be ten (10) feet in width ' ' ond 'trench to be back-filled to conform with natural elevation of cround. . Na. 766. QuIT.CLAIM DErÂ·.n. --Tk Mrdford-RAI-1 rw. Ca. M f n. Ra-â€¢00Â·â€¢ 1-â€¢1 11â€¢ahâ€¢. ll, Bic.ut 61.. tÂ»â€žer. Cok. , ii . 1 ': 1 1 1 1 1 Â£Â·22:- -I-.Ati. . . 1 ..r ,~99â€¢41:4: iff-~.4 I. 1 1 - 00= 721.476 1 .. 1 . Â· '99Â·'ir' - As consideration fortraaid right of way, the Town , of Estes Park agrees to give thâ€¢Â·grantorâ€žtheir heirs and assigns, two taps on th, pipe for water for domestic ~ purposes upon the same terms ana conditiohh, and subject to the same rules and regulationaradÂ· may now be, or, may hereaft~r !. be, established for the use of domestic water outside of the . corporate limits of the Town. ofÂ·Estes Park. All water taps I for such use of water and all.service lines and water fixtllrus to be installed and used according to the rules and i regulations set up by the Town of Estes Park for other users ulthout the corporate limits of the Town of Estes Park. i Â· , 1 1 11 , 1 / 1 i , . 1 1 1! TO HAVE AND TO HOLD THE SAME, Together with â€¢11 and mingular the apportenanoes and priv- ileÂ«en thereunto belonging or in anywile thereunto appertaining, and all the estate, right, title, interest and claim what,oever of the maid part ud of the flrit part, either in law or equity, to the only proper uN, benÂ· ) efit and behoof of the Raid part 94 of the lecond part, ~>-0~Â»i-/ bain and uaigns, forever. 11' , INWITXESSWHEREOF, The â€¢aid part,w ofthe fint partha#L hereunto Det/144. hand â€¢od ileal the day and year Ant above written. 0Â»44-f signed, Sealed and Delivered in Pre,ence of â€¢â€¢ â€¢-'.*...,. -...~........-...47~7~.... ~-.2 ~~25E ALI ~ , ~ AD Â»- a- 9 --..~-if.*....~~J..... C SEAL) 1.. (REALI ;1 1 .1 (REALI 1 i + 1 1 1- I 1-~1- 1 -1 â€¢ I .F 0. I i-, Â· i 1, ., Â· Â· i TOWN OF ESTES PARK MAY & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER BILLED 80 --- 9.4% 60 50 0 9 40 i 1 30 20 -014.2% 10 011111 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 O MAY + YEAR-TO-DATE TOWN OF ESTES PARK MAY & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER REVENUE 280 260 T 16.4% l "*4 1 220 200 --/ 180 - 160 140 120 100 8D 60 _.~ El 23.0% 40 Â£-1-- 0 cr-' 20 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 O MAY + YEAR-TO-DATE GALLONS DOLLARS (Thousands) TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for MaY 1980 (Net) 18,415,270 gal. Water Use for April 14, 1988 through May 13, 1988 : April 14 to 30th Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(1,355,000) ( 17 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 12,452,000 *Big Thompson 3,837,688 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% -(191,884) May lto 13th ~~ *- Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(754,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 9,545,000 *Big Thompson 4,049,898 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% -(202,495) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 27,381,207 Adjustment 2,636,250 TOTAL 24,744,957 4 Percent Accounted For: 74% ADJUSTMENTS May, 1988 1. Water Dispenser 66,000 Gal 2. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights, Fall River, Old Man Mtn 933, 730 Gal b. Metered 169,000 C. Hondius Tank (30 days @ 7200 Gal) 216,000 1,318,730 Gal 3. Flushing Leaks a. 4/15: Leak @ Stanley Ave. 5,000 Gal b. 4/19: Leak @ Eagle Cliff Rd. 1,000 c. 4/21: Flush Dry Gulch 40,000 d. 4/21: Flush Grand Estates 5,000 e. 4/22: Flush Fall River 25,000 f. 4/22: Clean Big Thompson clarifier 180,000 g. 4/26-29: Flush System Hydrants 840,000 h. 5/10: Leak, West Elkhorn (27 days @ 5760) 155,520 1,251,520 Gal TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 2,636, 250 Gal TOWN OF ESTES PARK ' WATER USE RECORD MAY 1988 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK [GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (GAL) (AC-FT) 1 (52,000) 0 714,000 662,000 2.03 1.02 302,202 0.93 0.47 964,202 2.96 2 (52,000) 0 577,000 525,000 1.61 0.81 377,834 1.16 0.58 902,834 2.77 3 (59,000) 0 669,000 610,000 1.87 0.94 188,428 0.58 0.29 798,428 2.45 4 (60,000) 0 684,000 624,000 1.91 0.97 226,244 0.69 0.35 850,244 2.61 5 (53,000) 0 787,000 734,000 2.25 1.14 343,604 1.05 0.53 1,077,604 3.31 6 (77,000) 0 . 669,000 592,000 1.82 0.92 188,428 0.58 0.29 780,428 2.40 7 (77,000) 0 745,000 668,000 2.05 1.03 473,352 1.45 0,73 1,141,352 3.50 8 (77,000) 0 699,000 622,000 1.91 0.96 202,446 0.62 0.31 824,446 2.53 9 (52,000) 0 813,000 761,000 2.34 1.18 331,216 1.02 0.51 1,092,216 3,35 10 (68,000) 0 699,000 631,000 1.94 0.98 201,794 0.62 0.31 832,794 2.56 11 (42,000) 0 766,000 724,000 2.22 1.12 385,658 1.18 0,60 1,109,658 3.41 12 (34,000) 0 803,000 769,000 2.36 1.19 599,840 1.84 0.93 1,368,840 4.20 13 (51,000) 0 920,000 869,000 2.67 1.34 228,852 0.70 0.35 1,097,852 3.37 14 (51,000) 0 1,062,000 1,011,000 3.10 1.56 528,772 1.62 0.82 1,539,772 4.73 15 (51,000) 0 1,213,000 1,162,000 3.57 1.80 300,246 0.92 0.46 1,462,246 4.49 16 (58,000) 0 1,205,000 1,147,000 3.52 1.77 366,424 1.12 0.57 1,513,424 4.64 17 (67,000) 0 980,000 913,000 2.80 1.41 276,122 0.85 0.43 1,189,122 3.65 18 (89,000) 0 1,046,000 957,000 2.94 1.48 219,724 0.67 0.34 1,176,724 3.61 19 (107,000) 0 944,000 837,000 2.57 1.30 76,284 0.23 0.12 913,284 2.80 20 (94,000) 0 947,000 853,000 2.62 1.32 193,318 0.59 0.30 1,046,318 3.21 21 (94,000) 0 823,000 729,000 2.24 1.13 275,144 0.84 0.43 1,004,144 3.08 22 (94,000) 0 740,000 646,000 1.98 1.00 257,866 0.79 0.40 903,866 2.77 23 (72,000) 0 881,000 809,000 2.48 1.25 313,286 0.96 0.48 1,122,286 3.44 24 (67,500) 0 815,000 747,500 2.29 1.16 332,846 1.02 0.51 1,080,346 3.32 25 (67,500) 0 1,048,000 980,500 3.01 1.52 288,510 0.89 0.45 1,269,010 3.89 26 (59,000) 0 925,000 866,000 2.66 1.34 453,792 1.39 0.70 1,319,792 4.05 27 (24,000) 0 1,093,000 1,069,000 3.28 1.65 405,544 1.24 0.63 1,474,544 4.53 28 (24,000) 0 1,119,000 1,095,000 3.36 1.69 505,626 1.55 0.78 1,6001626 4.91 29 (24,000) 0 1,233,000 1,209,000 3.71 1.87 449,228 1.38 0.70 1,658,228 5.09 4- 504 30 (25,000) 0 964,000 939,000 2.88 1.45 596,580 1.83 0.92 1,535,580 4.71 31 (49,000) 0 938,000 889,000 2.73 1.38 344,256 1.06 0.53 1,233,256 3.78 TOTAL (1,871,000) 0 27,521,000 25,650,000 10,233,466 35,883,466 (BAL) TOTAL -5.74 0.00 84.46 ************ 78.72 31.41 ************ 110.12 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ 0 0 (511,673) (511,673) [WASH WTR] BLEEDERS *****************************************â€¢**************************************************** (1,318,730) TOTAL GAL 0 27,521,000 25,650,000 ******** 9,721,793 ***************** 34,053,063 ******** CFS(AVE) 0.00 1.37 0.49 1.70 ~ TOTAL AC-FT 0,00 84.46 84.46 29.84 104.51 104.51 TOWN OF ESTES PARK . WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Month 1986 1987 Last Month Last Year 1988 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. 69.42 ac. ft. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. Jan. 22,621,137 Gal +0.85% +20.65% 64.36 ac. ft. 51.91 ac. ft. 62.33 ac. ft. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 cal Feb. 20,308,658 Gal. -10.22% 20.07% 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. 68.01 ac. ft. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar. 19,294,231 gal. Mar. 22,161,871 Gal. + 9.13% +14.86% 68.82 ac. ft. 63.02 ac. ft. 61.33*ac. ft. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal. Apr. 22,425,025 Gal. + 1.19% + 12.21% 104.51 ac.ft. 75.56 ac..ft. 85.96 ac. ft. May 25,-271,446 gal . May 28,009,040 gal. May 34,053,063 Gal. + 51.85% + 21.58% 102.33 ac. ft. . 141.81 ac: ft. Jun. Jun. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 46,208,715 gal. .125.09 ac..ft. 173.26 ac. ft. Jul. Jul 40,760,736 gal. Jul. ' 56,457;974 .123.91 ac. ft. 146.73 ac. ft. Aug. Aug. 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 47,811,380 100.02 ac. ft. 107.47 ac. ft. Sep. Sep. 32,590,405 gal. Sep. 35,018,547 71.34 ac. ft. 74.59 ac. ft. Oct. oct. 23,247,152 gal. Oct. 24,306,224 60.17 ac. ft. 60.05 ai85ft. Nov. Nov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 19,Â§62, 55.57 ac. ft. 68.84 ac. ft.Dec. Dec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. 22,430,306 TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 965.65 ac. ft. 1089.60 ac. ft 315,317,871 gal. 355,046,559 ga: .. Richard Gerstberger Assistant Director of Public Works June 1, 1988 MUNICIPAL MEMO Recent legislation passed by congress has directed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to write new regulations concerning the lead content of drinking water supplies in this country. As a result of this increased national concern, the town's Water Division has also increased its testing for lead both in the distribution system and at the customer's tap. Test results continue to indicate levels well below EPA requirements. However, lead in our environment is a public health issue that we should all be concerned about. It is a soft metal that is now known to be harmful to human health if consumed or inhaled. Since lead accumulates in the body, its potential for harm depends Â·upon the level of exposure from all sources. There are three potential sources for lead to accumulate in the body. The major source of lead is from food. Lead is also present in very small quantities in the air that we breathe and to some extent in the water that we drink. To protect the public's health, drinking water supplies are governed by the Safe Drinking Water Act. This legislation requires EPA to set specific minimum standards for a large number of potential contaminants. Since the agency has determined that lead is a health concern at certain levels it currently maintains a standard of 0.050 parts per million (ppm) for lead. Based on new health information. EPA is likely to lower (tighten) this standard significantly. Typicall y, if lead is present in the drinking water, it enters after the water leaves the water treatment plant. The most likely source for lead contamination is in the home and the most common cause of lead entering drinking water is corrosion of the lead pipes or the lead-based solder used in the house's plumbing. Lead levels in your drinking water may be of concern if: 1) your home has lead water pipes, or 2) your home has copper pipes with lead solder, and 3) if the home is less than five years old, or 4) if water sits in the pipes for several hours. A . Even though copper pipes have been installed in homes instead of lead pipes sihce the 1930's, lead-based solder has been widely used to join the copper pipes. Lead-free solder and lead-free materials are now required by federal law for use in new household plumbing and for plumbing repairs. To find out if the plumbing in a residence contains lead , try scratching the pipe with a key or screwdriver. Lead is a soft metal and is dull gray in color. If lead pipes are present they will scratch easily and will be shiny when scratched. Dissolved lead cannot be seen in water. Testing by a state- approved laboratory is the only way to determine if drinking water has high levels of dissolved lead. Samples are taken by the town's Water Division in homes at various locations throughout the system on a regular basis and sent to an approved laboratory for testing. The results are provided to the home owner where the sample was obtained. If a home owner or resident has a concern about high levels of dissolved lead or of the possibility of lead contamination because of the presence of lead pipes, or lead solder and other lead-based plumbing materials, please contact the town's Water Division or Dick Gerstberger, Assistant Public Works Director at 586-5331, extension 205. . June 2, 1988 PUBLIC NOTICE Because the softness of the Town of Estes Park's raw water supply may result in the possibility of lead and other corrosion by- products at the customers tap. the town attempts to eliminate this problem through the adjustment of pH in the treatment process. Please refer to the Colorado Department of Health's public notice of June 5, 1988 in the Denver Post or Rocky Mountain News for additional information. , WATER COMMITTEE .. 1 AGENDA AUGUST 11, 1988 1. DON SPOMER - Request to review fee provisions of Prospect Estates Addition water agreement. 2. WINDY GAP - Discussion of MDC request to spread Windy Gap payment over several years. 3. WATER TREATMENT PLANTS - Report and discussion concerning RFPs for corrosion control and treatment plant predesign work. 4. RURAL WATER APPLICATIONS - a. Jasim & Linda Al-Rijab - 1885 Spur 66 b. MacGregor Ranch - 903 MacGregor Avenue 5. 1988 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS - Request to advertise for bids. 6. CRYSTAL WATER - Request for emergency connection for bulk rate water. 7. CRYSTAL WATER NEGOTIATIONS - Discussion of negotiations. (May be in Executive Session) Reports: 1. July Water Reports 2. Fawn Lane Water Line Construction Note: The Water Committee reserves the right to add or delete items to the agenda as necessary. 4 / MEMORANDUM TOWN OF ESTES PARK 1/ 1 Date ~A< ~ g K TO: L/2 Ejudu ~,AU ~ - 42 ./a-Â·; f.40 Â£:021~-<- %71 9 -lar Â»Â©. ja-- -t.,UhL 4 1 /1 / 4 11 /. /614 Â»teD' jl ///-11 ; At-) W /4 0 (-3 Ez) ' I .. 498810 1983 MAR 25 AM It: 1 5 -* B 2 212 PO 9 6 8 COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 22 day of March , 1983, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Town", and Prospect Mountain Development Company , hereinafter referred to as "Applicant", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Applicant is constructing a water distribution and pumping system to distribute water from the Town; and WHEREAS, the Applicant desires to obtain the use of water for domestic purposes from the Town, which water is to be used on the following described real property located inside the cor- porate limits of the Town in Larimer County, Colorado, to-wit: PROSPECT ESTATES ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK. and , WHEREAS, the Town is willing to furnish such water to the Applicant upon certain terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premise and the covenants and agreements herein contained, it is agreed as follows: 1. The Applicant has begun construction and will complete a water distribution system including any necessary pumping facilities for distribution of water throughout the aforementioned property. During the construction of the distribution system, the Applicant shall obtain approval of the Town of the plans and specifications of the entire system. Following the construction of said system, the Applicant shall convey the system to the Town subject to the Town's acceptance of the same. After said acceptance, the Town will furnish water from its water system, to be used on the above-described real property for domestic purposes as hereinafter provided, and upon proper application crt i â‚¬ 7 1 17 therefor as hereafter provided. Domestic, as used herein, includes both residential and commercial usesÂ·. . -/-/ cor, (Et.Â·- C 02 ) i . . B22I 2 Po969 2. To obtain the water service herein provided for, an application shall be made for each water tap desired by the then owner or owners of the property to be served. It being understood and agreed that such applications may be made by the Applicant or the owner or owners of each of the various parcels, lots and tracts of the above-described real estate as subdivided. 3. The Applicant or owner shall pay all fees, charges, or costs incident to the making of each tap and the furnishing of a water meter therefor as more fully provided in the Municipal Code. 4. The water service herein provided for shall not be extended to serve any improvement or use other than as herein set forth or as set forth in the application for each tap issued hereunder. 5. Any water tap granted hereunder is granted as an accommo- dation to the Applicant or owner and the Town shall have no liability or responsibility concerning adequate service or pressure in the water pipelines which the Applicant or owner shall tap for service. 6. The Applicant shall abide by all of the rules, regulations and ordinances of the Town, and the laws of the State of Colorado, pertaining to the use of said water and the fees and charges to be paid therefor; and any tap granted hereunder, or upon any subsequent application, shall be subject to the limitations thereon as provided in said laws and ordinances. 7. Each water tap shall be used to furnish water to one (1) dwelling, unit, business or structure only, and each dwelling, unit, business or structure must be served by a separate tap. The Applicant shall not sell water from said tap to any other person, or permit water from said tap to be used by anyone other than on the property for which the tap is granted, or be used on any other property than that property for which the tap is granted. 8. The Applicant shall reimburse the Town for all preliminary expenses incurred by it in any matter pertaining hereto, or the installation of the water distribution system herein provided -2- B22 I 2 P0970 for, such as, but not limited to, legal and engineering expenses. Pre-construction expenses shall be construed to be all such expenses incurred by the Town until it formally accepts ownership of the water system. No water shall be delivered to the Applicant until such expenses have been paid in full. 9. All water lines, mains and distribution systems and rights of way therefor shall be installed or obtained at the sole expense of the Applicant, and the location, materials, installation, design, engineering and adequacy thereof shall be subject to the approval of the Town. No water shall be delivered to the Applicant until such approval has been obtained in writing from the Town. 10. Upon complete installation of any portion of the said water lines, mains or distribution systems, for which Applicant desires water service, and after approval thereof by the Town, but before any water is delivered thereto, the Applicant shall convey the same to the Town together with all rights of way therefor. The same shall be conveyed free and clear of all liens or claims of any kind. If the water system is encumbered in some way, the Applicant shall post an acceptable bond. Upon the acceptance of such conveyance, the Town shall maintain and service such lines, mains and distribution systems according to the rules, regulations and ordinances of the Town and the laws of the State of Colorado that pertain thereto. 11. The Applicant shall pay to the Town for water service as follows: A. The Applicant shall pay to the Town $1,250.00 0 upon conveyance of the system to the Town. The ' $1,250.00 shall be applied towards the first annual charge assessed the Applicant as described in Sub-section "B". B. Once the system is conveyed to the Town, the Town shall assess, and the applicant shall Pay, a sum equal to the additional pumped flow charge for consumers inside the Town limits who are connected to a Town owned and maintained pumped flow water system under the provisions of 13.32.110 (G) of the Municipal Code including any amendments to said Section, times the difference between the number of taps issued for water service within the property, and sixty (60). In the event that new taps are activated during the calendar year, the -3- 82212 p0971 I . above amount shall be prorated to the date of issuance. In the event that the system is conveyed on other than January 1st, the first annual payment shall be prorated based upon the date of conveyance. C. Once a tap fee has been paid for an individual lot or unit, said lot or unit shall be assessed for water service under the applicable provision of the Municipal Code. D. When a total of sixty (60) taps are issued within the boundaries of the property and the tap fees for these taps have been paid, and the owners of said taps are being billed for water service the terms hereunder shall be terminated. In by the Town, the annual minimum water fee under case said termination occurs during the calendar year, then the minimum fee shall be prorated to said date of termination. E. The Town agrees that after the Town has monitored the actual cost of the system for a period of five years, that the Town shall review the fee provisions of this paragraph 11 and may make any adjustments based upon the actual monitored costs. The Town agrees to consult with the Applicant during this review and take into consideration the Applicant's desires with regard to any fee adjustments. 12. All the terms and conditions hereof shall extend to and be binding upon any and all person, persons, entity or entities who are transferees of any of Applicant's interest in any lot or parcel of land located within Prospect Estates Addition owned by the Applicant on the date of this Agreement. The terms and conditions of this agreement shall be a covenant running with all the land owned by Applicant located in Prospect Estates Addition on the date of this Agreement. 13. All of the terms and conditions hereof shall extend to and be binding upon the heirs, administrators, executors, successors or assigns of the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals this .2.2,-Cday of MA/v , 1983. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ...7 By ~ A '/6up@>w,0/ I .. May6r -4- . MEMO TO:, Gary F. Klaphake and Rich Widmer FROM: Gregory A. White DATE: August 1, 1988 RE: 1989 MDC Payment On or before March l, 1989, MDC is to close the transaction between Estes Park and MDC for the purchase of 35 units of Windy Gap water. The amount of the payment is in the neighborhood of 3.5 million. Ever since the execution of the contract documents on April 1, 1988, Gary Mandarich of MDC has been inquiring as to the possibility of making that payment over a period of time. I explained to him in April of this year that the Town's intent was to use the payments for the water to fund its Water Master Plan. ' He suggested that a mutually agreeable arrangement could be made between the Town and MDC to fund those construction costs rather than the lump sum payment due March 1, 1989. In my discussions with Mandarich, it is apparent that he feels that this type of arrangement could be mutually beneficial to both MDC and Estes Park. What he contemplates is some sort of phased payment that takes into consideration the Town's needs and the needs of MDC. He has never mentioned that the payment be less than the contract price nor would the Town be placed in any lesser position with regard to security or amount of payments with this modified approach. It is my opinion that the Town should at least review this matter to determine whether or not it meets the Town's needs. If you have any questions, please give me a call. TOWN OF ESTES PARK - WATER DEPARTMENT I . REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE O L.-4 4-elp Taken byll* r.- -da-te CrL (3 191 19RR T o h ' Name 4 09 I ry, n n rx L ~ v..,1 n A\- 12 na 6 Address \98 5 (In. 14 ,Â°7 66 Telephone Dn Y-Â»,D . Location I f Ject .4.,Â·Le. n--r E-<%4--e q 12,re. 011 .<%(PIA Ir- lolA 1 999 CiÂ£. (7'Â°â‚¬'..0.-4U 'An. 'CLI lc~Â©i) Type of Unit (yv\./vv. 9. c.; 40 - T Number of Units ~ Number of Fixtures .98 The undersigned assumes responsibility for any and all engineering and legal costs incurred by the Town in processing this Request for Water Service. Signature 77'2Â·tr, >d,UL,, Â»77 02/- ACIA /6 Appldcant dr Applicant' s Authorizid Representative Is the property described above within the Northern Colorado Water Con- servancy District? Yes V< No Is the property described above below 7,850 feet in elevation7 Yes /"'No Confirmed bÂ»<2Â¢*U+0-#fa;,CP~~~32&4:--v ,~ .., Date 7-/9-AR 4-1 (1 -U, - Committee Action Town Board Action Superintendent's Recommendation 1+ Customer Notified Tap Number Expiration Date TOWN OF ESTES PARK - WATER DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE L#0 - Taken by e.â‚¬-a.....c-- 1~:tr-c~-Lo Date AL,gu Â»t- 25; (186 Name Murlet L. r/lar'GeÂ·gor rhar ,-la&*pl-niat Address P,O,80% 4675 Eme:3 RxrK Telephone 566 -c, 749 Location 103 */larG'Erâ‚¬- Ace-- SeÂ·e A.ttchal ldp i /1650-rip-1-ten Type of Unit 510,61 42< ~ h ~~~ ~L~CLjUR A * Number of Units Number of Fixtures Ul The undersigned assumes responsibility for any and all engineering and legal costs incurred by the Town in processing this Request for Water Service. Signature Lau cO 1.02)1.,Â·v'l -- Applicant or Applicant's Authorized Representative ------------------------------------ Is the property described above within the Northern Colorado Water Con- servancy District? Yes ,/" No Is the property described above below 7,850 feet in elevation? Yes / No Confirmed by 4% 410- Date 2 j/ok V It ----------------------------------- Committee Action Town Board Action Superintendent's Recommendation Customer Notified Tap Number Expiration Date = 0 . N.E. Kitchen, Inc. Long's Peak Route 1901 Fish Creek Road Estes Park, Co 80517 August 10, 1988 Robert Goehring Town of Estes Park Water Dept. P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mr. Goehring, The Crystal Water Company is requesting an emergency supply of treated water for a period of time, until their storage tank is filled to supply to usage. It is understood that the cost will be bulk rate 5 51 3-13 as quoted: $5.90 per thousand gallons. 445-/f Sincerely, Crystal Water Company by N.E. Kitchen /2 % F. ZltzÂ« Â·Â· ..2 .. A TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC.WORKS DEPARTMENT 08/08/88 CITIZEN SERVICE RESPONSE REPORT July 1988 PAGE 1 TYPE OF CALL NO. OF CALLS HOURS UTILITY LOCATION - MAIN 21 ~ 18.20 UTILITY LOCATION - SERVICE 1 .. 1.00 UTILITY BILLING QUESTIONS 1 0.50 TAP REQUESTS. 2 0.80 WATER QUALITY CONCERNS - ODOR 1 1.00 WATER QUALITY CONCERNS - COLOR v 7.00 C LOW PRESSURE PROBLEMS 4 6.00 SERVICE LINE BREAKS 1 3.00 METER REPAIR OR SERVICE CALLS 1 1.00 WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION 2 4.75 PROBLEMS MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION 1 2.00 PROBLEMS i STREET REPAIR PROBLEMS 3 10.00 SIGN REPAIR PROBLEMS 2 16.00 STORM DRAINAGE PROBLEMS 2 34.00 OTHER TYPES OF CALLS - 20.00 -------- ......................... -I--I-/ TOTALS FOR July 1988 49 ,Â·.1 1:r 125.co HISTORICAL DATA THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR TOTAL CALLS 49 ...1 .1 43 r It TOTAL MAN HOURS 125.25 i c., ...., . B (.1 43.35 1 "": 57 -t Â·Â· v CHANGE (CALLS/MHS) -34%/-8% +6%/+89% TOWN OF ESTES PARK JULY & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER BILLED 150 %*--7/7. 140 4./2 130 -4/' 120 --* 110 -4/ 100 90 80 70. 60 60 40 e- 0 -2.4% 30 n-- O --0 0 20 10 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 D JULY + YEAR-TO-DATE TOWN OF ESTES PARK JULY & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER REVENUE 450 -15.4% l 400 350 300 to u 250 200 150 100 --u 8.7% 0 60 011111 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 O JULY + YEAR-TO-DATE COLLAR LLONS (Milltons) (Thouson s> .. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for July, 1988 (Net) 39,792,900 gal. Water Use for June 14, 1988 through July 13, 1988 June 14 to 30th Water Supplied: Black Canyon * - (1,418,000) ( 17 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 23,703,000 *Big Thompson 4,456,424 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% - (222,821) July 1st to 13th * Water Supplied: Black Canyon - (536,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 19,745,000 4,873,374 *Big Thompson - (243,669) Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 50,357,308 Adjustment 1,948,210 TOTAL 48,409,098 Percent Accounted For: 82% Adjustments 1. Water Dispenser 133,000 gal. 2. Park Watering (Estimated) 392,370 gal. 3. Bleeders a. Stanley Hgts., Fall River, Old Man Mtn. 959,740 gal. b. Hondius Tank (30 days @ 7200 gpd) 216,000 gal. c. Mize bleeder (30 days @ 7200 gpd) 216,000 gal. Total Bleeders 1,391,740 gal. 4. Flushing/leaks a. 6/20 - Flush East Lane 10,000 gal. b. 6/24 - Leak on Moraine 20,000 gal. c. 7/1 - Flush Cedar Lane 1,000 gal. d. 7/5 - Flush Husky Service 100 gal. Total Flushing/Leaks 31,100 gal. Total Adjustments 1,948,210 gal. ~ V'/1-'41, 0 v .4.#10Â¥Â· L , 1 .... I . TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD JULY 1988 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (GAL) (AC-FT) 1 (31,000) 0 1,682,000 1,651,000 5.07 2.55 470,418 1.44 0.73 2,121,418 6.51 2 (31,000) 0 1,510,000 1,479,000 4.54 2.29 358,600 1.10 0.55 1,837,600 5.64 3 (31,000) 0 1,525,000 1,494,000 4.58 2.31 565,610 1.74 0.88 2,059,610 6.32 4 (30,000) 0 1,518,000 1,488,000 4.57 2.30 387,940 1.19 0.60 1,875,940 5.76 5 (38,000) 0 1,441,000 1,403,000 4.31 2.17 370,988 1.14 0.57 1,773,988 5.44 6 (41,000) 0 1,490,000 1,449,000 4.45 2.24 289,162 0.89 0.45 1,738,162 5.33 7 (54,000) 0 1,505,000 1,451,000 4.45 2.25 310,678 0.95 0.48 1,761,678 5.41 8 (52,000) 0 1,642,000 1,590,000 4.88 2.46 201,142 0.62 0.31 1,791,142 5.50 9 (52,000) 0 1,514,000 1,462,000 4.49 2.26 387,940 1.19 0.60 1,849,940 5.68 10 (52,000) 0 1,283,000 1,231,000 3.78 1.90 359,252 1.10 0.56 1,590,252 4.88 11 (45,000) 0 1,589,000 1,544,000 4.74 2.39 420,214 1.29 0.65 1,964,214 6.03 12 (51,000) 0 1,456,000 1,405,000 4.31 2.17 349,472 1.07 0.54 1,754,472 5.38 13 (28,000) 0 1,590,000 1,562,000 4.79 2.42 401,958 1.23 0.62 1,963,958 6.03 14 (28,000) 0 1,604,000 1,576,000 4.84 2.44 512,146 1.57 0.79 2,088,146 6.41 15 (29,000) 0 966,000 937,000 2.88 1.45 500,736 - 1.54 0.77 1,437,736 4.41 16 (29,000) 0 1,549,000 1,520,000 4.66 2.35 439,122 1.35 0.68 1,959,122 6.01 17 (30,000) 0 1,353,000 1,323,000 4.06 2.05 530,076 1.63 0.82 1,853,076 5.69 18 (31,000) 0 847,000 816,000 2.50 1.26 542,790 1.67 0.84 1,358,790 4.17 19 (57,000) 0 1,500,000 1,443,000 4.43 2.23 222,006 0.68 0.34 1,665,006 5.11 20 (37,000) 0 1,500,000 1,463,000 4.49 2.26 429,994 1.32 0.67 1,892,994 5.81 21 (25,000) 0 1,800,000 1,775,000 5.45 2.75 419,236 1.29 0.65 2,194,236 6.73 22 (27,000) 0 1,698,000 1,671,000 5.13 2.59 645,806 1.98 1.00 2,316,806 7.11 +- A / 23 (27,000) 0 1,567,000 1,540,000 4.73 2.38 518,014 1.59 0.80 2,058,014 6.32 24 (27,000) 0 1,508,000 1,481,000 4.55 2.29 443,360 1.36 0.69 1,924,360 5.91 25 (31,000) 0 1,712,000 1,681,000 5.16 2.60 513,124 1.57 0.79 2,194,124 6.73 26 (31,000) 0 1,538,000 1,507,000 4.62 2.33 424,452 1.30 0.66 1,931,452 5.93 27 (38,000) 0 1,588,000 1,550,000 4.76 2.40 465,854 1.43 0.72 2,015,854 6.19 28 (57,000) 0 1,582,000 1,525,000 4.68 2.36 338,714 1.04 0.52 1,863,714 5.72 29 (41,000) 0 1,398,000 1,357,000 4.16 2.10 316,872 0.97 0.49 1,673,872 5.14 30 (41,000) 0 1,840,000 1,799,000 5.52 2.78 503,018 1.54 0.78 2,302,018 7.06 31 (42,000) 0 1,460,000 1,418,000 4.35 2.19 383,376 1.18 0.59 1,801,376 5.53 TOTAL (1,164,000) 0 46,755,000 45,591,000 13,022,070 58,613,070 (GAL) TOTAL -3.57 0.00 143.49 ************ 139.91 39.96 ************ 179.88 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ 0 0 (651,104) (651,104) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** (1,391,740) TOTAL GAL 0 46,755,000 45,591,000 ******** 12,370,967 ***************** 56,570,227 ******** CFS(AVE) 0,00 2.33 0.62 2.82 TOTAL AC-FT 0.00 143.49 143.49 37.97 173.61 173.61 TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Montl Last Month Last Year 1986 1987 1988 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. 69.42 ac. ft. tan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. Jan. 22,621,137 Gal +0.85% +20.65% 64.36 ac. ft. 51.91 ac. ft. 62.33 ac. ft. eb. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 cal Feb. 20,308,658 Gal. -10.22% 20.07% 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. 68.01 ac. ft. lar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar. 19,294,231 gal. Mar. 22,161,871 Gal. + 9.13% +14.86% 68.82 ac. ft. 63.02 ac. ft. 61.33 ac. ft. 22,425,025 Gal. + 1.19% + 12.21% Pr. 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal. Apr. 104.51 ac.ft. 75.56 ac..ft. 85.96 ac. ft. ay 25,-271,446 gal. May , 28,009,040 gal. May 34,053,063 Gal. + 51.85% + 21.58% 142.77 ad. ft 102.33 ac. ft. . 141.81 ac: ft. Jun. 46,521,858 + 36.62% + 0.68% un. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 46,208,715 gal. 173.61 ac. ft. .125.09 ac..ft. 173.26 ac. ft. Jul. 56,570,227 + 21.60 1 + 0.20% ul *40,760,736 gal. Jul. 56,457;974 .123.91. ac. ft. 146.73 ac. ft. Aug Â· ug. 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 47,811,380 100.02 ac. ft. 107.47 ac. ft. Sep. ep. 32,590,405 gal. Sep. 35,018,547 71.34 ac. ft. 74.59 ac. ft. Oct. ct. 23,247,152 gal. oct. 24,306,224 ov. 1~606.~34 gt~l. Nov. ~90 ;~2,i85 f t. NOV. 55.57 ac. ft. 68.84 ac. ft.Dec. ec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. 22,430,306 . TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 965.65 ac. ft. 1089.60 ac. ft 315,317,871 gal. 355,046,559 ga:, Mlint!%/0 0 ~E WILL, 4 R EN RQUER@.9@@00@ @ *@ARR@ RAM 8*69% 22-g Cils & 9%-d 8 W - w - 0-0 03 4 0-" 00'im=Me g FC#*i59Â§ 9 m=@i#imme M SME =99*61'* 9 ...... &0 jiligwid Z 5%55*51Â§511*05 0 #~ 2 # 6 4 M. ui W d 16 ui oi 4 4 4 ~~ d-g-*0#gi,Fiduide- W Ng}*289@10@112Â§ @ 67 2 -8, 65"00Â§& 0 i i ~ 4 tid gi# tri i 4 *050=55 0 ae 62 3 0 fh. il gidifgpilf'% 6 29$ Ii,1 00Â§50000056Â§ 0 BRE ~~ 10:outiEK,Macitori,1 8 BIRM 4143 Im:Hill:r ~~ Â§}as'9@89NgionieN N CS ri ilimmigiN'g . i' rÂ© fr.11 1,1 {41 )1 Â©)%/7 HAMMOND, CLARK AND WHITE 4-..' '...' i LAW OFFICES FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING. SUITE 418 LYNN A. HAMMOND 200 EAST SEVENTH STREET ALFRED P. DAVIS ROGER E. CLARK LOVELAND, COLORADO 80537 OF COUNSEL GREGORY A. WHITE JENNIFER J. STOCKER 303-667-1023 May 27, 1988 Mr. John Phipps First National Bank Bldg. 255 Park Lane Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Moenning Water Dear John: Pursuant to your request to the Town, I am writing this letter to confirm the Town's position with regard to your client, Phil Moenning, and his request for a water tap or taps. On April 20, 1988, Dick Gerstberger sent a letter to Bill Van Horn concerning the Moenning development. The letter stated the Town's position that the provisions of the Deed of October 2, 1940 allowed Mr. Moenning to receive credit for four residential 3/4" water taps without charge. Following transmittal of that letter, the Town discovered that Katharine W. Carman had previously received three of the four taps. Mr. Gerstberger amended his letter of April 20, 1988 to Mr. Van Horn on May 11, 1988. Mr. Van Horn and Mr. Moenning met with the Water Committee on May 12, 1988. Following their presentation and review by the Committee of the entire situation including a review of the legal ramifications, the Committee authorized a compromise settlement to Mr. Moenning. The Committee offered to allow Mr. Moenning to receive one 2" tap in consideration for all of Mr. Moenning's rights pursuant to the Deed. In the event Mr. Moenning wished to increase the size of the tap or receive additional taps, he would be entitled to $9,515.00 of credit. Mr. Moenning would also have tâ€¢ Mr. John Phipps Page 2 May 27, 1988 to pay all water right fees for all the fixture values in the development. At the Town Board Meeting of May 24, 1988, the Town Board approved the Water Committee's recommendation. Also, there was some discussion about credits for the three current 3/4" taps on the property. Based upon the above, the Town's position is as follows: 1. In consideration of complete settlement of all obligations of the Town for water taps under the terms and conditions of the October 2, 1940 Deed, the Town will provide Mr. Moenning a 2" tap for water service to his development. Included in that tap are all plant development fees, the value being $9,515.00. Mr. Moenning will be responsible for all water rights fees payable according to the total amount of fixture values served by the tap. Also, Mr. Moenning shall pay for all service line installation and materials including, but not limited to, meter, remote meter readout, pressure reducer and backflow preventer. 2. In the event Mr. Moenning wishes to increase the size of . the tap, he can receive a credit of $9,515.00 towards the purchase of a larger tap. 3. In the event Mr. Moenning wishes to surrender and abandon the three 3/4" taps or any one of them, he will also be =J entitled to a credit of $3,238.00 for each surrendered tap. 4. Acceptance of this proposal of the Town is conditioned upon Mr. Moenning waiving all claims for any other water taps or rights pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Deed. Please be advised that the above is an offer by the Town to settle all of its obligations under the terms and conditions of the Deed. In the event Mr. Moenning decides to litigate this matter, this offer is immediately terminated and the Town will adopt the position as stated in Dick Gerstberger's letter of May 11, 1988. If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to give me a call. Ver71 truly yours, / i CO, L it ~recl ry A. White GAW :jc CC: Dick Gerstberger lip To: Estes Park Town Board Members From: Philip R. Moenning Subject: Water Rights Granted by Deed to Town of Estes Park by Carmans Date: July 22, 1988 When we initially approached the Town of Estes Park about the water taps granted to the Carmans, the Town was advised by the Water Department staff that these were residential taps for a single housing unit. The deed granting these taps did not say that, but the Town was advised by staff that that was the intent, and that special permission was necessary for a larger than 5/8" tap. Following an unacceptable offer from the Town of a 2" tap for which we would have to pay for all fixture value charges, Bill Van Horn and I undertook a search for more evidence of what was intended by the grant. 1. We found a deed using identical language to the Carman deed granting an easement to the Town over the Voekels lodge property in consideration for the receipt of two water taps. We physically looked at these taps and found that they were 1" taps. We examined Town water receipt records and found no payment for tap fees paid by Voekels. But we did find that they were paying water rents approximately five times that of a single family house. A copy of this deed was provided to each Town Board member. The only conclusion can be that Voekels received two 1" taps at no charge for their entire accommodation business. 2. We found in the Town Board's minutes that a single tap was granted to the Greeley-Boulder Subdivision, for the use of all its residents. A copy of these minutes was provided to each Town Board member. 3. We found that the Broadview Subdivision had a single account dating prior to 1940 for a tap serving the entire subdivision. This information is from the Water Department receipt book. 4. John Griffith paid $10 for a tap on 6/21/41 and on 7/16/41 paid his water rent of $57 for the year. Obviously $57 was for more than one house. This information is from the Water Department receipt book. 5. Bill Van Horn's father received a 2" tap when the Hobby Horse was built. No special permission was sought or granted. 6. Other accommodations businessmen reported similar experiences of receiving large taps without special permission. The above information has been shared with the Town Water Department staff, the Water Committee members and your counsel. This information appears to clearly refute the positions that the intent was to grant only residential 5/8" taps and that some sort of special permission would have to be obtained for a larger tap. Neither the Town Water Department staff, the Water Committee, nor your counsel has offered any information that contradicts the evidence we have presented. Yet at its last meeting, the Water Committe voted to adopt the same recommendation as before. In the spirit of compromise I have offered to accept a 2" tap with 1000 fixture value fees. This is 1/4 of the fixture values allowed with a 2" tap and approximately 1/2 of what our development will require when fully built. If the Town Board cannot also assume more of a spirit of compromise, we will have no alternative but to file suit asking for taps and fixture values to provide completely for our development, plus our attorney fees and costs of litigation. Very truly yours, Phili~ Moenning Moc"â€¢'04 \Al.,4 7lp R. rivisj 60,0.0 Â®1 'b,broo Â® 3. REVENUE TowN 3 0,000 79- +42 20/000 00,0.0 1. 44 1 1 , 0 0 ,~, - . 1 4.,000 49..., / ookv //0 AG VALVE 7. Mot N.,AN, , *â‚¬88 -).c.. 2. 57AFF Rtcom.â€¢â€¢03 f /n . O. ,Â¢5~g, 7" m, 'Zs/s- - .4 1. M 4" 7â€¢P /3,8 - 6, 40,Â¥u *3 0 007% r 47.5 0/,4e_57000-_- v. fo /â€¢â€¢ â€¢ f â€¢â€¢40â€¢ 425â€¢ â€¢ 7-74. 4 66,SIS- 1, P9' d l. 5 40 *w â€¢ 24 â€¢4* R 47Â·fo 41,460 6, 0/# A 2. 70 44.40 -2-- #27- -- / 5 1,59,0 3 u.e, R e e â€¢ ...M 4, 19 h t 4. 5*W =46 r 0 7. 6),4 4 0 $ 0 2, Ag E 24 + 0 14, 8 5,0 0 Br/5 - 64 rVI i f'-1 6. 2060 F'â€¢â€¢ â€¢vu u 41.14 4 9â‚¬ 000 - 40 no N /6 v.,7, MÂ¢Zfâ€¢ , *4, 9 400- /04,50% 69/4 0 90â‚¬R- --7 ~ZO d. 2 " 71 95/5 - 1 NO.- 6. 1000 Fme Fv J co 4-7.90 - 43 6-00 ( 15 u.,4173 {O ~0 F\,0/0,4,0) 74*4 4-oud 57 0/ s 40 pv u a) 4-1. m - 1% 0 00- I , 0 // WATER COMMITTEE / ~00/~ AGENDA ~//~~ i SEPTEMBER 8, 1988 1. RURAL WATER APPLICATIONS - a. Park Entrance Estates - Request for Town bulk rate water on an as-needed basis. b. Report on attorney's opinion regarding rural water requests. 2. PHIL MOENNING - Request to change town's last proposal. 3. 1988 WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS - Review of bids. 4. WATER TREATMENT PLANTS - Discussion of proposed design work and report on package plant bids. 5. CRYSTAL WATER NEGOTIATIONS - Discussion of negotiations. (May be in Executive Session) 6. MOCCASIN STREET ALIGNMENT - Discussion of negotiations involving property acquisition. (May be in Executive Session) Reports: 1. August Water Reports 2. Fawn Lane Water Line Construction 3. Crystal Emergency Connection 4. Proposed EPA Lead Regulations 5. Big Thompson River Depletion Note: The Water Committee reserves the right to add or delete items to the agenda as necessary. 10 ./ To: Members of the Town Water Committee From: Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company Our water system supplies high quality water to 13 residents of Park Entrance Estates. Generally the supply is quite adequate. However, during dry seasons the draw down is worrisome and we have some concern that even with no additional building, the well might not be able to handle the load. In talking with the Town Water Department the last year or so, we learned that a 4-inch main goes a short distance up Heinz Parkway. Our pressure line also goes up Heinz Parkway. It seemed a good idea to tap the Town line to supply water to our-system in case our well should "go dry". We felt enoo uraged to go ahead with this. The Board of Directors of Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company (PEMPWCo) pursued the idea. Rocky Mountain Consultants recommended it. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy favored it. We petitioned for inclusion in the NCWCD. The process is nearing completion with the petitions presently in the Greeley Water Courto A few weeks ago PEMPWCo was on the verge of signing a contract to construct the required facilities to make the tap when we learned of the townt s requiremen ts for an agreement with each water-user. Something of a surprise since such had never been mentioned by any- one. However, these agreements have been mailed to our water-users and we are waiting replies. We are ready to begin construction pending approval from the Water Committee and the Town Board. carl Burgenepg Secretary, PWCo TOWN OF ESTES PARK - WATER DEPARTMENT REQUEST FOR WATER SERVICE Taken by ~EL-~ 60,"dsLe, Date 91/193 11 Name Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Co. Address Box 2033 Estes Park, CO 80517 Telephone 586 5650 (Secretary) Location Heinz Parkway and High Drive. Park Entrance Estates Block 1 Type of Unit Tap on town water line and aDDropriate val ves for snppl e- water for PEMPWCo Number of Units /3 9,4*/ Am/CY #09,4 Number of Fixtures 02.1 lors 76 14) The undersigned assumes responsibility for any and all engineering and legal costs incurred by the Town in processing this Request for Water Service. Signature Q \ 1-14</R,â€žA.> 4#- pe,\Arw(?p AppiTG~t 'or 9iplicant' s Authorized Representative I-------------- --------------------- Is the property described above within the Northern Colorado Water Con- servancy District? Yes x No Is the property described above below 7,850 feet in elevation7 Yes x No J ADD . 9/6)33 Confirmed by /92 Date 1 .1 ----------------------------------- Committee Action Town Board Action Superintendent's Recommendation Customer Notified Tap Number Expiration Date TO: Town of Estes Park :~~. AUG ].6 1988 ~| | IOWN OF ESTES PARK From: Philip R. Moenning PUBUC WORKS DEPT. President AY--------0-----6- , Aspen Brook Investments Date: August 10, 1988 Subject: Settlement of Disputed Water Service Fees I would be willing to accept the town's offer provided the following items would be'a part of the written agreement: 1. The surrender of the three existing taps would be accomplished as follows: 7 A. We would not be required to actually dig up the existing waterline, remove the taps,and reconnect to a new water line, but would leave the present meters and water lines as they are. 3 B. We would receive credit for three 3/4 inch taps plus 120 fixture value units. llc. Â·We would be charged the present fixture value charges for the actual fixture units in the three cabins. Our purpose in making this request is to avoid the cost of running water lines to these cabins and capping the existing taps. The town water company would not benefit from our connecting to the new 2 inch tap, and the possibility of damage to the main when the necessary digging was done would be eliminated. lihe town would agree that we coul d service f rom ~ -~he 2 inch tap granted by this agreement al 1 presently constructed improvements and all those built in the future on this tract of some 13 acres (The description of the above is attached as Exhibit 1.) up to the maximum of 4000 fixture values as long as they are served by the 2 inch main attached to the 2 inch tap. We would be allowed to meter the water useage and be billed either from a common meter or individual meters on each house. We would also be allowed various combinations of common and individual meters. 1- ( 4. 1 The town woul d agree that intent of this agreement is to provide water for the buildings on this land without payment of any tap charges or any charges that might be imposed in; the future for water service other than the present fixture value C i charges and metered water use. 5. The town would agree that this waiver of tap fees would extend to the assigns and successors in title to this property or any portion of it. ~ 6. The town would acknowledge that this agreement is intended to take precedent over any present or future water department or Town of Estes Park rules for providing water service. 1 1 .- -6-J-- . HAMMOND, CLARK AND WHITE LAW OFFICES FIRST NATtoNAL BANK BUILDING. SUITE 418 LYNN A. HAMMOND 200 EAST SEVENTH STREET ALFRED P. DAVIS ROGER E. CLARK LOVELAND, COLORADO 80537 OF COUNSEL GREGORY A. WHITE JENNIFER J. STOCKER 303-667-1023 August 8, 1988 Mr. John Phipps Attorney at Law 363 E. Elkhorn Ave. Estes Park Bank Bldg., Suite 308 Post Office Box 1569 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Moenning Water Dear John: On July 26, 1988, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park approved the recommendation of the Town's Water Committee concerning Phil Moenning's request for water taps. This letter is written to confirm that action. The Board of Trustees approved the following proposal: 1. In consideration of complete settlement of all obligations of the Town for water taps under the terms and conditions of the October 2, 1940, Deed, the Town will provide Mr. Moenning a 2" tap for water service to his development. Included in that tap are all plant development fees, the value being $9,515.00. Mr. Moenning will be responsible for all water right fees payable according to the total amount of fixture values served by the tap. Also, Mr. Moenning shall pay for all service line installation and materials including, but not limited to, meter, remote meter readout, pressure reducer and backflow preventer. 2. In the event Mr. Moenning wishes to increase the size of the tap, he can receive a credit of $9,515.00 towards the purchase of a larger tap. 3. In the event Mr. Moenning wishes to surrender and abandon the three 3/4" taps or any one of them, he will also be entitled to a credit of $3,238.00 for each surrendered tap. 4. Acceptance of this proposal of the Town is conditioned upon Mr. Moenning waiving all claims for any other water taps or rights pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Deed. John G. Phipps Page Two August 8, 1988 Please be advised that the above is a compromise offer by the Town to settle all obligations under the terms and conditions of the Deed. In the event that this offer is unacceptable to Mr. Moenning, the Town will adopt the position as stated in Richard L. Gerstberger's lette of May 11, 1988. If you have any further questions, please ~ive me a call. Ver~ trup yours, / / a u.u ~Gregfy A. White GAW/dkc cc: Rich Widmer Gary Klaphake . . Enfurt of gatez *Irk - Phone 586-5331 P. O. Box 1200 (Area 303) ESTES PARK, COLORADO 80517 ' ~ Mr. Phil Moenning 0 - Box 3837 Estes Park, CO 80517 L _1 WATER - 8/29/88 - STATEMENT Water Fees for Aspen Brook Development Initial Five Units Tapping Materials $55.00 Labor for Tap 20.00 2" Meter and Readout 457.50 2" Meter Pit per standards (by 11/C customer) 2" Tap Fee (Per Water Committee) 11/C Water Rights Fee (176 Fixture Value Units) 8,360.00 Credit for 40 FVU -1,900.00 (Per 5/11/88 letter from Gerstberger) Previously Paid (Connect Fee #1251, 5/4/88) -760.00 TOTAL $6,232.50 Payments Should Be Made to TOWN OF ESTES PARK o jf~ 00 co i 911 3 g Cal 49 4,4 44 4,4 04 64 44 0 i O LU 0 1-3 <O 05 0/ 00-0 2 LO OZO OCD 1 -- 4,4 - 4,4 2 LU O 050 1 < m O-Xe LU LO t/)1- 1.0 -k < LU (/) 1-Â» . <Sk LU Z * 6/ H CO 4,9 49 LL LU 9 01-0 Z3 O 00 1- 00 Ch ... u h 3 Duran Exc Greeley yes $ 97,128 $111,346.54 45,599 $ 33,180 $ 287,253.50 OE'EIP'ZIE $ 09P'6E $ PLS'9D' $ -[61'LEI$ OE'880'66$ seA JUOUIBUOU 3.suoD uePIOD '9 09'60â‚¬'SPE $ 000'OE $ 089'9â‚¬ $ 69L'IOI Dg'096'9L $ 1.sEI s,Jeeu-Fflu3 08 2. BT Const., Inc (adj. Bid) yes $(84,334) $(110,616)$(41,950) $(33,500) $ PIg ou Â£ PIg ou $09'LS9'IM PIg OU $ pig ou $ s.lejqseD Yied Sels3 .03 9 uewol.IN 1. BT Const., Inc. Broomfield yes $101,399 $136,681 $ 53,400 $ 40,000 Bid Dated: September 7, 1988, 10:00 a.m. D TABULATION 5% Bidder Location Bid Bond check HDR Engineering, Inc. Suite 300 Telephone: 303 East 17th Avenue 303 861 -1300 Denver, Colorado 80203-1256 September 7, 1988 Mr. Richard Widmer Director of Public Works Town of Estes Park Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 RE: Bid Results 1988 Water System Design Projects HDR No. 06693-001-050 Dear Rich: Four bids were received for the above referenced project on September 7, 1988. The bid results are summarized on the attached 5jQ summary along with the engineer' s estimate. We have reviewed the bid tabulations and based on our previous experience with the contractor, we recommend that BT Construction Company, Inc., as the low responsive, responsible bidder, be HDR awarded the projects for the combined total bid of $270,400.00 in accordance with their bid submitted on September 7, 1988. Rich, it has been a pleasure assisting the Town in the design and bidding of this project. We look forward to successfully completing the construction phase of the project. If you have any questions, please call us. Very truly yours, HDR Engineering, Inc. Ud.Uwt O Ll - William W. Brinker, P.E. Vice President WWB:lm ENC MEMORANDUM September 9, 1988 TO: Water Committee FROM: Rich Widmer /016/ SUBJECT: Water Engineer Selection Due to the unexpected haste necessary for making a decision on the package plant bid, the consultant selection process was placed in limbo. I would like to reactivate the process under the following revised guidelines: 1. The RFPs be sent to a widened cross section of firms (10 - 15). 2. The scope of work include the following: a. Design of the Mary's Lake Treatment Plant Jb. Design of corrosion control modifications to the Glacier 1 Creek and Fall River plants. < c. Rehabilitation/repair study of the Fall River transmission line. U. Design of the influent pressure reducing valve for the Fall River plant. I believe this amount of work will ensure participation from the largest and most widely experienced firms, as well as the specialized firms, and will give us a good response. If the town is happy with the chosen firm's work, it may wish to consider a semi-permanent arrangement with the firm as its water engineer for a defined period of time. Thi s would, in my opinion, result in the most effective, efficient use of the consultant for the long-term benefit of the town and its citizens. TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITIZEN SERVICE RESPONSE REPORT August 1988 TYPE OF CALL # OF CALLS HOURS UTILITY LOCATION - MAIN . Â· 17 39.25 UTILITY LOCATION - SERVICE 6 5.0 UTILITY BILLING QUESTIONS 2 1.25 TAP REQUESTS 1 1.0 WATER QUALITY - TASTE 1 .3 WATER QUALITY - COLOR 2 3.0 PRESSURE PROBLEMS - LOW 2 2.5 LINE BREAKS - MAIN 1 15.0 LINE BREAKS - SERVICE 1 .5 METER REPAIR OR SERVICE CALLS 4 2.2 WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS 1 .5 STREET CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS 1 .25 STREET REPAIR PROBLEMS 4 26.5 SIGN REPAIR PROBLEMS 2 8.0 OTHER TYPES OF CALLS 8 5.0 TOTALS FOR AUGUST 1988 53 110.25 HISTORICAL DATA THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR TOTAL CALLS 53 49 62 TOTAL MAN HOURS 110.25 125.25 78.75 % CHANGE (CALLS/MHS) +8%/-12% -34%/-8% +44%/+82% TOWN OF ESTES PARK AUGUST & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER BILL.ED 200 190 180 ./4......--- - 170 // 160 M-K 150 140 - 7- +- 130 120 9f 110 8 2 too J E 90 80 70 60 50 40 - 30 41 ..1 0 -- 20 10 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 O AUGUST + YEAR-TO-DATE TOWN OF ESTES PARK NJGUST & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER REVENUE 600 -* 13,5% 500 / 400 'J 0 0 300 0g 200 100 -0 --0 6.2% n o 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 O AUGUST + YEAR-TO-DATE ity' LLAES ADJUSTMENTS August, 1988 1. Water Dispenser 259,000 Gal 2. Park Watering (estimated) 392, 370 Gal 3. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights, Fall River, Old Man. Mtn 1,156,060 Gal b. Hondius Tank (31 days @ 7200 GPD) 223,200 C. Mize Bleeder (31 days @ 7200 GPD) 223,200 Total Bleeders 1,602,460 Gal 4. Flushing/Leaks/Miscellaneous a. 7/15: Stanley Circle Leak 15,000 Gal b. 7/19: 2nd Street Leak - line cut 2,000 C. 0 7/20: 2nd Street Leak - line cut 3,000 d. 7/20: Flush Black Canyon Hills 10,000 e. 7/21: Flush Thunder Mountain Tank 1,500 f. 7/27: High Acres Leak - line cut 40,000 g. 7/29: Flush Raven Ave, Dry Gulch 15,000 h. 8/10: 2nd Street Leak - line cut 1,000 87,500 Gal TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 2,341,330 Gal , .A I. . TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT 1 . Water Billing for August, 1988 (.Net) 44,858,020 gal. Water Use for July 14, 1988 through August 13, 1988 July 14th to 31st Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(628,000) ( 18 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 27,010,000 *Big Thompson 8,148,696 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% -(407,435) August 1st to 13th Water Supplied: Black Canyon -(375,000) < 13 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 21,458,000 -' *Big Thompson 6,172,155 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% -(308,608) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 61,069,808 Adjustment 2,341,330 TOTAL 58,728,478 Percent Accounted For: 76% Â·. ,â€¢r , TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD AUGUST 1988 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (GAL) (AC-FT) 1 (34,000) 0 1,740,000 1,706,000 5.24 2.64 477,590 1.47 0,74 2,183,590 6.70 2 (32,000) 0 11526,000 1,494,000 4.58 2.31 446,294 1.37 0.69 1,940,294 5.95 3 (31,000) 0 1,643,000 1,612,000 4.95 2.49 456,400 1.40 0.71 2,068,400 6.35 4 (30,000) 0 1,605,000 1,575,000 4.83 2.44 451,181 1.38 0.70 2,026,181 6.22 5 (25,000) 0 1,723,000 1,698,000 5.21 2.63 462,920 1.42 0.72 2,160,920 6.63 6 +(25,000) 0 1,689,000 1,664,000 5.11 2.57 526,490 1.62 0.81 2,190,490 6.72 7 (26,000) 0 1,533,000 1,507,000 4.62 2.33 428,364 1.31 0.66 1,935,364 5.94 8 (32,000) 0 1,764,000 1,732,000 5.32 2.68 544,094 1.67 0.84 2,276,094 6.99Â· â€¢,4-- MDAI 9 (31,000) 0 1,444,000 1,413,000 4.34 2.19 362,186 1.11 0.56 1,775,186 5.45 10 (30,000) 0 1,662,000 1,632,000 5.01 2.53 518,340 1.59 0.80 2,150,340 6.60 it (26,000) 0 1,738,000 1,712,000 5.25 2.65 482,154 1.48 0.75 2,194,154 6.73 12 (26,000) 0 1,652,000 1,626,000 4.99 2.52 452,814 1.39 0.70 2,078,814 6.38 13 (27,000) 0 1,739,000 1,712,000 5.25 2.65 563,328 1.73 0.87 2,275,328 6.98 14 (27,000) 0 1,553,000 1,526,000 4.68 2.36 514,102 1.58 ' 0.80 2,040,102 6.26 15 (32,000) 0 1,864,000 1,832,000 5.62 2.83 443,034 1.36 0.69 2,275,034 6.98 16 (37,000) 0 1,602,000 1,565,000 4.B0 2.42 422,822 1.30 0.65 1,987,822 6.10 17 (67,000) 0 1,480,000 1,413,000 4.34 2.19 375,878 1.15Â· 0.58 1,788,878 5.49 18 (54,000) 0 1,6661000 1,612,000 4.95 2.49 312,308 0.96 0.48 1,924,308 5,91 19 (46,000) 0 1,793,000 1,747,000 5.36 2.70 413,368 1.27 0.64 2,160,368 6.63 20 (46,000) 0 1,417,000 1,371,000 4.21 2.12 446,620 1.37 0.69 1,817,620 5.58 21 (46,000) 0 1,572,000 1,526,000 4.68 -2.36 348,820 1.07 0.54 1,874,820 5.75 22 (43,000) 0 1,708,000 1,665,000 5.11 2.58 483,458 1.48 0.75 2,148,458 6.59 23 (41,000) 0 1,549,000 1,508,000 4.63 2.33 406,196 1.25 0.63 1,914,196 5.87 24 (42,000) 0 1,609,000 1,567,000 4.81 2.42 419,888 1.29 0.65 1,986,888 6.10 25 (47,000) 0 1,591,000 1,544,000 4,74 - 2.39 401,632 1.23 0.62 1,945,632 5.97 26 (61,000) 0 1,565,000 1,504,000 4.62 2.33 414,346 1.27 0.64 1,918,346 5.89 27 (61,000) 0 1,572,000 1,511,000 4.64 2.34 324,370 1.00 0.50 1,835,370 5.63 28 (61,000) 0 1,537,000 1,476,000 4.53 2.28 346,864 1.06 0.54 1,822,864 5.59 1 29 (81,000) 0 1,598,000 1,517,000 4.66 2.35 298,942 0.92 0.46 1,8151942 5.57 30 (71,000) 0 1,358,000 1,287,000 3.95 1.99 324,044 0.99 0.50 1,611,044 4.94 31 (58,000) 0 1,449,000 1,391,000 4.27 2.15 479,872 1.47 0.74 1,870,872 5.74 , TOTAL (1,296,000) 0 49,941,000 48,645,000 13,348,719 Â· 61,993,719 (GAL) TOTAL -3.98 0.00 153.26 ************ 149.29 40.97 ************ 190.25 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ 0 0 (667,436) (667,436) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** (1,602,460) TOTAL GAL 0 49,941,000 48,645,000 ******** 12,681,283 ***************** 59,723,823 ******** CFS(AVEI 0.00 2.49 0.63 2.98 TOTAL AC-FT 0.00 153.26 153.26 38.92 183.29 183.29 7..~.: ' TOWN OF ESTES PARK Â· ' \7.,... ,~ ~ WATER USE REPORT . .Â· COMPARISON SHEET , % Change % Change .Same Mont ' Â· Â·~ ~ Last Month Last Year 1986 - ' 1987 -~ 1988 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft.,, 69.42 ac. ft. n. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal.Â·.Jan.. 22,621,137 Gal +0.85% +20.65% 64.36 ac. ft.. 51.91 ac. ft.*~ ~ 62.33 acÂ·. ft. b. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 cal Feb. 20,308,658 Gal. -10.22% 020.07% I * .68.01 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. r. 20,907,694 gal. Mar. 19,294,231 gal. 'Mar. 22,161,871 Gal.> + 9.13% +14.86% - 0/68.82 ac. ft. , 1 L.. 1': 63.08 ac. ft. 61.33'hc ft. ' r. _20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal.Â·Apr. 22,425,025 Gal., +'1.19% t,.12.21% .75.56 ac..ft. 85.96 ac. ft. 104.51 ac.ft. fi ~25,-271,446 gal. May 28,009,040'gal.,.May 34,053,063 Gal. ~ ;+ 51.85% +Â·,21.58% 0 102.33 ac. ft. . 141.81 ac: ft.: 6 ~ c 142..77.ad: ft - . Jun: 46,521,858 + 36.62% 4 0.68% i. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 46,208,715 gal., r173.61 ac. .ft. ,.125.09 ac..ft. 173.26 ac. ft..~ 0Jul. 56,570,227 + 2I.601.*+Â·0.20% 40,760,736 gal. Jul. ' 56,457;974 183.29 ac..Â·ft. 0 ,~9 .123.91. ac. ft. 1-46.73 ac...ft.Aug: 59,723,823 + 5.57% +24.92% b 40,379,219 gal. Aug.. 47,811,380 ' Â· 100.02 ac. ft. 107.47 ac. ft. Sep. i. 32,590,405 gal. Sep. '35,018,547 71.34 ac. .ft. 474.59 ac. ft. Oct. u 23,247,152 gal. Oct. 24,306,224 , ;3 :Â· : 60.17 ac. ft. Nov.. .- 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 60Â·.95 a~85ft. 19,862, 55.57 ac. ft. 68.84 ac. ft.Dec. .. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. 22,430,306 I~ c ; TOTAL: t ':- TOTAL: . ' -TOTAL: l .C 965.65 ac. ft. 1089.60 ac. ft . '315,317,871 gal. 355,046,559 gal i ' Â·t',â€¢ fJ Â· . . ./ I 1 0 0 0 2 2 - C 29.E - N e = CS .* 4 1 c E m 2 2 6--0 R m v C SCO .C a. 22 m I - 0 2/3 3 8* Ric 0 3 cE 0 g.22 m a) R m p 2 -2 E . 2N .C CD a E EQ Â§ 3 ~' W nor 5.8 ~ o ~Z &3 , 2- 8 g co cu' AE E .=-Ca 1- m a. , F ZE .. 0-co ~ 0-k C Â£ 4> OC 4 - 0 0 m 3 2* -2 -2.-2 1 E -2 -2 2-:* -2 -5 2 5 = 22 & :- 0 2 â‚¬ 2 21 -= Z 22* ivdv â‚¬2 tvF -0 22~00~ gfci ~ & f.2 0 W =- i = 3 =.Â§-3 :2 2.% 2 Â¢ E ca .0 :5 t; 8 =25 1 P k bo. .,1 2~ 5 L 2 @v@â‚¬aoRv 15-ESE@Ea). 1 2 2 E g 13 5 5 1: 2 3 1 am ev â‚¬ ' 2( g &.C-g Ego 3 3 E.rÂ·r. c N Â£ 22 2 Z Z' B N 1% 8.2, E 2%& M 2. 23Y 3 8 2 1 824 2.2 0% 2 Ste S %2 -@a. 8 3 el 12 0-E Â¤ 0 I , I 9 00 mâ‚¬m 2 9 0 IEBS Ip, I .EÂ· 3. E 'a Z 63 0 2 *ta 23 2 : :*8 3 6- a~ 25% Emu 1 2 2 6 39 2 R.# *.B % 01.2 . 2 0, @Â· t.3 05 >al 2 4 M i 62 1 305 f %; 92 Em$ 3.@F .f U SZ A 8 2 W te (0 6 Co -Â¤ N 0 - 0 3 le . 4, 9 9 0 5 6.2 42 o k =22 2 2 @ 8,0 1; o t- 8 E U, 0.2 00 11 4 9 0 = C .&32:0 - a,, 991 *0 'Â¤ 5 0 2 * 'Z Co CO C, 10 Â·=1 :Â¤ 8 ca â€¢c, .w ~C ~ 2 & ~; ~~~ ~ ~~ E 0. 2 56&~mt jg:41 :2:022#*N 334 &2%; 221 8 ZM gLNNE Â§~@Â§ g~~gE3~=g %5 6-OW ~=. g 2 R g ... P 2 0 g 0029 = m 3 8 01 42 Z 2 16 8 1 1/ 52 Â¥ 1 9 E = lisit.% li# fiRM Hm.flifil :2; 5~ Bi .010%Â· 1 1, E &8 Sel, 4'u -- 26- u 2 --2 -1 ~ - m c.' -0 * . ~ ~ *0 *3 -* 2 32 , ri@:3 B-E f J.303 f #-% BNE w U E â‚¬41 1% N 0 E la ; .6 9 IE 'Â¤ 2-2 *~S ~- a .f gcN# 2 2 =.5 01.- 2. 9 E.Z 1 % 1,1 .5-6.-6.t 'Stl,i 3 2-91.20 gi. 4 2 m Â¢62 2 2:4.= COMâ‚¬* ...21 0 % 91 i , .2 - 6.- 00-val.=16 t; 0 Â£ -2.01- 25 o -i--8 -: ~-Â¤ G -0 5 %320 EÂ£323 93 = 5.2 EvE bo Â£ f i E B.N,%1Â·2 e:j-Ei3 E 2.Â§ A & ag gn 2 2 rs 120~ 5% 2 .O 3 8 31 v .2 -c o * 3 E & 9 92 0 - % Co kâ€¢ A'Â° u.o@ =4,-'EE 64 2 Z.0 0 U.90 6 N ...Ag @22 61 E &; 03 1251 2 2~Eao,g. 5 0-4 kNZ3~ A a,&. Â°[%9. co E.M . - * 06 * $ A "2 to .2 0 - CO a & 0 0% 2 :3 60 .Â¤ v <1, w 2 thÂ·* 2 2 8:.. 0~ v s .02 2 4, &= 2 = 6., M-Â·a ro - .. _ w 2 -2 i = E - -52 321 53#1 @Za mo 1 6â€¢ 1 NN 2 + 6222 Â¢16 M' E w bo E Â£ ui g C=t. :S M RÂ· , N E.4 m & a, 6 9 m m O G - 0 Â·M E .9 E 5.0 Â¢6 0 + v Â°02 v 0 AÂ· 2; E i. M m g % :â‚¬Â· 9 1 * 6-- #d=U:221:11 %222 ~ 3.DE Z Â·23 1 2 m.2 .9 2 U -2 s :5 5 E U Z * C Â°Â· 8 :13 125 6 50 cos v --9- E E k - 6 -g- @ge .91) @11 <$7-m u, 0~ 2 ' S & 1 93 g &:iâ€¢ 9 'i :3 * 0' Â® Eâ‚¬ -2 IC 2 5= .. . = m EN -8 -3 -Z EIS -ru ? S s f Â·g-s f 5 .8 2 2 -2 -m E N cm-2-==.92 9 i, Ca IC 043 = 0 = M 2 2, m 76 50 5 0 ... k A= 0 0 ==612 40> -C *:Si.*22 2 % M 8 1 " B @ i &2 -i -3 1 v E rn m CO E EM E~EE &fl~~ECEE M O. 4, - AM E M * 1; 6.E E J E]F ~ r A E E 2 2~ .s :3 Â·2 Fi Z 2 ENFE: C 0, 00 9 â‚¬D 6- 9 1 ra v_.O . 0 0 1 8-.2 No # cs 52 E ZO.E > 44 , C) , a 0. 6 - O â€¢M E =- 12 I *u -M N-M E E--E 3 -M 2 - ; 2 2 39$@mig#â‚¬R: . DE,f 41 qi _.g >. - 6 0 GR L ce W - 4,) 2 ag b ' 'E bo- 2 49 0852= 991M.R AK,16~4:N GM# E = :RE so s:* .5 9 - O C.> 4,9 ~ .i E j #3 jill U f464 #8 43 E &~ :#M;~ :i#i : Â·A~ 6~ 6 00:3 *,43 31 2 -8 1 1 -2 35 922=Â·EN E--2 -0. Â· E-~=U -E. Z W-2 =- C ES Â° N .-2 -* mal=e g. W E go E Â·=4=boa .0 - 61 0....Ec,7-Wagmatic W m cc Cho u 0.8 ....O M a> F< i = Â·r~ - k' .:b. 1:1.G- 74 c ' Â·g c= O-c:!51- 2!.h 2 2 1! 1!1Un Uni Jal 000'of Uel.Il Thurs, Aug. 11, 1988, Denver, &10. Rocky Mountain News-33 proposes rules to cut lea water -UOO UOISOJJO Jaw/. 006 31EM NOED 10; SUIC.130 suue360]d Nuniu!Â·Ip NU pue - !11! uaaq 1noq .IallaM 2Up[UNp U! Pealâ€ž 341 JO aluos u! Sapejap ontrol lead levels in =ang =72=93 0 phy and Possible sources of lead in drinking water: ornin m disorders, i lud- Pipes, including home service line Al!.wel Jed e S,31 112*431 0 Slouieluoo U ad .Bel.Ae 041 a eldn Peel 31!lue elli jo %0g ever, say such a detailed monitoring JANET DAY nd make water distric AT ainsodx r.1 OIDAOP such as contaminat 41 le saI Kakin BUIUUE 218 49!0~;O.I ineer corr din a hou progr~am vironmental n constru 1 U00 UO I!110 10; oid sno!.IeS !1 alod a Iâ€ž '00!JJ e sluBId luatule Maj K.IDAa SaUI04 S K.IaA SI 1100 SatiDlE er Depart en another water in Colorado isn't 1 jaq 101 WATER COMMITTEE AGENDA OCTOBER 13, 1988 1. MDC 1989 PAYMENT - Discussion of proposal by MDC to alter payment schedule. (May be in Executive Session) 2. CRYSTAL WATER NEGOTIATIONS - Discussion of negotiations. (May be Executive Session) 9 iF> t lo ~ ID r r f ig F % 2-~M *'.1L f Reports: 1. August Water Reports ~- 2. Park Entrance Estates Agreement /AM'~'/1/ Â»/) 3. Moenning Agreement *~kÂ».7 Â«2 - /0 394,0.1 4. 1988 Water Project ,Â»f - 0.7 Â».2 46 ,0-Â·,~c~ /2/(7 5. Water Treatment Plant RFP U 1 3 - 9-0 *v,D A- i. - 1Â° 6 1 6,- -I.04-t 2 Â£0032Â£ ouup,UJ - 4-- 1 (9 0 Note: The Water Committee reserves the right to add or delete items to the agenda as necessary. TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITIZEN SERVICE RESPONSE REPORT September 1988 TYPE OF CALL # OF CALLS HOURS UTILITY LOCATION - MAIN 11 14.0 UTILITY LOCATION - SERVICE 8 9.75 UTILITY BILLING QUESTIONS 1 .5 TAP REQUESTS 1 1.0 WATER QUALITY - COLOR 2 2.0 PRESSURE PROBLEMS - LOW 2 1.2 LINE BREAKS - SERVICE 1 1.0 WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS 1 .5 STREET CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS 1 .5 STREET REPAIR PROBLEMS 3 .6 SIGN REPAIR PROBLEMS 1 .25 OTHER TYPES OF CALLS 3 11.1 TOTALS FOR SEPTEMBER 1988 35 42.40 HISTORICAL DATA THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR TOTAL CALLS 35 53 66 TOTAL MAN HOURS 42.40 110.25 144.15 % CHANGE (CALLS/MHS) -34%/-61% +8%/-12% +7%/+83% TOWN OF ESTES PARK SEPTEMBER & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER BILLED 260 240 220 -- , 200 180 --*-0*M. 160 c 140 0 = 120 100 80 60 40 --f J 20.9% -e----.--- 1-- 20 0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 O SEPTEMBER + YEAR-TO-DATE TOWN OF ESTES PARK SEPTEMBER & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER REVENUE 700 ,-15.2% 600 //2/ 600 / / 400 -- 300 -Â· 200 100 ----4-1 26 4% -0 0 011111 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 O SEPTEMBER + YEAR-TO-DATE DOLLARS GALLON Thousands> TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for September, 1988 (Net) 39,489,059 gal. Water Use for August 14, 1988 through September 13, 1988 : August 14th to 31st Water Supplied: Black Canyon - (921,000)- ( 18 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 28,483,000 *Big Thompson 7,176,564 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% - (358,828) September 1st to 13th Water Supplied: Black Canyon - (680,000) c 13 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 17,939,000 *Big Thompson 4,584,212 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% - (229,211) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 55,993,737 gal. Adjustment 2,286,830 gal. TOTAL 53,706,907 gal. Percent Accounted For: 74% ADJUSTMENTS September, 1988 1. Water Dispenser 340,000 gal. 2. Park Watering (Estimated) 392,370 gal. 3. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights, Fall River, Old Man Mtn. 839,360 gal. b. Hondius Tank (31 days @ 7200 gpd) 223,200 gal. c. Mize Bleeder (31 days @ 7200 gpd) 223,200 gal. Total Bleeders 1,285,760 gal. 4. Flushing/Leaks/Miscellaneous a. 8/18 - Flush S.H. 7 end 40,000 gal. b. 8/20 - Cleave leak 1,000 gal. c. 8/18 - 9/1 Carriage Hills Emergency Connect 227 700 gal Total Flushing/Leaks/Misc. 268,700 gal. TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 2,286,830 gal. TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD SEPTEMBER 1988 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (6AL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) [GAL) (AC-FT) 1 (49,000) 0 1,404,000 1,355,000 4.16 2.10 384,028 1.18 0.59 1,739,028 5.34 2 (36,000) 0 1,425,000 1,3891000 4.26 2.15 403,262 1.24 0.62 1,792,262 5.50 3 (36,000) 0 1,455,000 1,419,000 4.35 2.20 479,220 1.47 0.74 1,898,220 5.83 4 (36,000) 0 1,415,000 1,379,000 4.23 2.13 454,444 1.39 0.70 1,833,444 5.63 5 (36,000) 0 1,485,000 1,449,000 4.45 2.24 477,590 1.47 0.74 1,926,590 5.91 6 (37,000) 0 1,355,000 1,318,000 4.04 2.04 337,410 1.04 0.52 1,655,410 5.08 7 (59,000) 0 1,388,000 1,329,000 4.08 2.06 426,408 1.31 0.66 1,755,408 5.39 B (42,000) 0 1,432,000 1,390,000 4.27 2.15 401,958 1.23 0.62 1,791,958 5.50 9 (46,000) 0 1,472,000 1,426,000 4.38 2.21 293,074 0.90 0.45 1,719,074 5.28 10 (46,000) 0 1,526,000 1,480,000 4.54 2.29 436,840 1.34 0.68 1,9161840 5.88 -*- 3 AT /.5 11 (46,000) 0 1,167,000 1,121,000 3.44 1.73 286,880 0.88 0.44 1,407,880 4.32 12 (114,000) 0 1,212,000 1,098,000 3.37 1.70 176,692 0.54 0.27 1,274,692 3.91 13 (971000) 0 1,203,000 1,106,000 3.39 1.71 26,406 0.08 0.04 1,132,406 3.48 14 (104,000) 0 1,155,000 1,051,000 3.23 1.63 175,714 0.54 0.27 1,226,714 3.76 15 (32,000) 0 1,1521000 1,120,000 3.44 1.73 176,366 0.54 0.27 1,296,366 3.98 16 (93,000) 0 1,243,000 1,150,000 3.53 1.78 298,290 0.92 0.46 1,448,290 4.44 17 (93,000) 0 1,373,000 1,280,000 3.93 1.98 245,152 0.75 0.38 1,525,152 4,68 18 (93,000) 0 1,109,000 1,016,000 3.12 1.57 274,818 0.84 0.43 1,290,818 3.96 19 (90,000) 0 1,286,000 1,196,000 3.67 1.85 223,636 0.69 0.35 1,419,636 4.36 20 (50,000) 0 1,045,000 995,000 3,05 1.54 296,660 0.91 0.46 1,291,660 3.96 21 (47,000) 0 1,180,000 1,133,000 3.48 1.75 276,122 0.85 0.43 1,409,122 4.32 22 (81,000) 0 1,103,000 1,022,000 3.14 1.58 197,882 0.61 0.31 1,219,882 3.74 23 (46,000) 0 1,224,000 1,178,000 3.62 .1.82 405,870 1.25 0.63 1,583,870 4.86 24 (46,000) 0 1,221,000 1,175,000 3.61 1.82 244,500 0.75 0.38 1,419,500 4.36 25 (46,000) 0 1,147,000 1,101,000 3.38 1.70 311,982 0.96 0.48 1,412,982 4.34 26 (47,000) 0 1,250,000 1,2031000 3.69 1.86 377,508 1.16 0.58 1,580,508 4.85 27 (671000) 0 1,069,000 1,002,000 3.08 1.55 169,846 0.52 0.26 1,171,846 3.60 28 (91,000) 0 1,098,000 1,007,000 3.09 1.56 169,846 0.52 0.26 1,176,846 3.61 29 (87,000) 0 1,137,000 1,050,000 3.22 1.62 156,154 0.48 0.24 1,206,154 3.70 30 (63,000) 0 1,142,000 1,079,000 3.31 1.67 278,730 0.86 0.43 1,357,730 4.17 31 0 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 TOTAL (1,856,000) 0 37,873,000 36,017,000 - 8,863,288 44,880,288 (GAL) TOTAL -5.70 0.00 116.23 ************ 110.53 27.20 ************ 137.73 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ 0 0 (443,164) (443,164) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** 11,285,760) TOTAL GAL 0 37,873,000 36,017,000 ******** 8,420,124 ***************** 43,151,364 ******** -FS(AVE) 0.00 1.95 0.43 2.15 OTAL AC-FT 0.00 116.23 116.23 25.84 132.43 132.43 WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Monl Last Month Last Year 1986 1987 1988 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. 69.42 ac. ft. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. Jan. 22,621,137 Gal +0.85% +20.65% 64.36 ac. ft. 51.91 ac. ft. 62.33 ac. ft. Feb. _20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 oal Feb. 20,308,658 Gal. -10.22% 20.07% 68.01 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar. 19,294,231 gal. Mar. 22,161,871 Gal, + 9.13% +14.86% 68.82 ac. ft. 63.02 ac. ft. 61.33 ac. ft. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal. Apr. 22,425,025 Gal. + 1.19% + 12.21% 104.51 ac.ft. 75.56 ac..ft. 85.96 ac. ft. May 25,-271,446 gal. May 28,009,040 gal. May 34,053,063 Gal. + 51.85% + 21.58% 142.77 ac. ft 102.33 ac. ft. . 141.81 ac: ft. Jun. 46,521,858 + 36.62% + 0.68% Jun. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 46,208,715 gal. 173.61 ac. ft. .125.09 ac..ft. 173.26 ac. ft. Jul. 56,570,227 + 21.60%. + 0.20% Jul 40,760,736 gal. Jul. ' 56,457;974 183.29 ac. ft. .123.91 ac. ft. ~ 1-46.73 ac. 59,723,823 + 5.57% +24.92% ft. AugÂ· Aug. 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 47,811,380 132.43 ac.ft. 100.02 ac. ft. 107.47 ac. ft. Sep. 43,151,364 - 27.75% + 23.22% Sep. _ 32,590,405 gal. Sep. *35,018 ,547 71.34 ac. ft. ' 74.59 ac. ft. oct. Oct. 23,247,152 gal. Oct. 24,306,224 60.17 ac. ft. 60.05 a ft. NOV. Nov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 19,662, Â¥85 55.57 ac. ft. 68.84 ac. ft.Dec. Dec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. 22,430,306 TOTAL: TOTAL: TOTAL: 965.65 ac. ft. 1089.60 ac. ft 315,317,871 gal. 355,046,559 gaL WATER COMMITTEE AGENDA DECEMBER 13, 1988 1. WILLIAM WATSON - Further discussion of request to transfer water tap from Ice House property to another parcel. 2. WATER CONSULTING SERVICES - Report on proposal review work session and interviews. Discussion of consultant selection. 3. WATER PLANT OPERATOR - Request to add full-time position. 4. WATER FACILITY TOUR (time and weather permitting). Reports: 1. October Water Reports 2. 1988 Water Project 3. Crystal Agreement Update 4. EVRPD Bulk Water Use Note: The Water Committee reserves the right to add or delete items to the agenda as necessary. ..7. 0 1/ , I LICAU OCT. 2 5 1988 625 W. Elkhorn Avenue Moraine Route Estes Park, Colorado 80517 October 24, 1988 The Mayor of Estes Park Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Sir: We would like to request a transfer of our water tap from the Ice House property which is now in your posession to another parcel of our commercial property at such time as it is needed. Would appreciate a letter from you confirming this request. We feel since we have been paying a water charge since the charges were initiated and never having used any water, that we should have this water tap transferred with your approval. Sincerely yours, LE &-416 2 40 01*6-u, William E. Watson Vivianne M. Watson c.c. Mike Dickinson enura I PLANNED PROGRESS NOV 0 , 1988 TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. TO: Gary Klaphake A BY.......~..------------4---- -- FROM: Art Anderson DATE: November 7, 1988 RE: Watson Request for Water Tap In our negotiations with the Watsons for purchase of the Ice House, the water tap transfer was discussed; however, when they refused our offer to purchase and negotiation became litigation, the water tap issue became moot . He was not promised the water tap. In the past, all EPURA projects required water taps for irrigation, so we held them closely to save money. If the Ice House project landscaping is to be undertaken by EPURA and a water tap fee is required, I feel EPURA should retain the tap to save its funds. In the Estes Park Bank property settlement, the tap fee was transferred as part of the final negotiated purchase agreement. Since EPURA had a water tap on the adjacent property, it was not necessary to retain the bank property's tap for irrigation purposes. '2244 ltÂ¢ C TOWN OF ESTES PARK 0 < â€¢61Â· C,I. Â· i 4 4 448/ 9>4Â¥2- 7 Gary F. Klaphake .-- 7 .4'1 1 r: V:.ta y . Town Administrator Â·r.4 M. ,e ~ hilt,f. t~' -/7-Â·-X- - 4f.; 4 8*~ > %1~f it:i~* Â·416*64.jÂ·Of!'1 t ~'~I r.â‚¬ kfit ,Â·9Â·Â·Â· ::..64.-iÂ·Defic,iff., er '1~< (.,9-; *- 't,â‚¬-yeljÂ·~'a,- z=Â»iÂ»73<cg* ..IM' 1 4.0.4'4''rtr<,91,11"4*,~:%- ...t~...1~--*:y; nf~~20.tl'4,~. Estes Park, Colorado 80517 4,<0.1; 4 ' ., MEMORANDUM TO: Urban Renewal Board Art Anderson, Executive Director FROM: Gary Klaphake, Town Administrator DATE: November 29, 1988 SUBJECT: Watson Water Tap The Water Committee has requested that the EPURA Board and staff attend the Water Committee meeting on Tuesday, December 13, 1988, at 2:00 p.m. in the Board Room. The purpose of the meeting is to further discuss Mr. Watson's request for transfer of a water tap. Garyli-1.aph,ke, U~~ Administrator GFK:lm CC: Richard Widmer, Public Works Director Vickie O'Connor, Town Clerk TOWN OF ESTES PARK , 12 1,1 4.7 Public Works Department Richard D. Widmer Director .70 b_ 6 19..f~-9--ek ftyÂ· :,AM W ' .rA?#/f~~~.9 1$/At~-3, '114,90: f l?". " . .>fA 4.. -Â· 74 AVE:l ;itff:t#X. L.y'lltt JI,tic:Il.},/, I..: 11 1 ,fr. - 0 Â·. - t..i LitÂ· 4*,L~,sij'h,"+ 2,~f#,b:'?,Â· ...>' ' . Â· - Â·CN-- <Â·49:. 9/4 4 Â·2 . Â·41*Li~,9,2,< #14 Â· 1 . -:'*1*B##35rf~32,3,Â£1~*~*.4 1 /~-AC.lit -'.*'**tt~*,1. i F i, Estes Park, Colorado 80517 er~13, 1988 MEMORANDUM Water Committee Rich Widmer )?Dc.,,~~ T: Water Consultant Selection ing a staff work session on November 22, 1988, which was attended by Mike Dickinson, Polly Garrett, and Gary ke, it was decided to hold interviews with four firms: rg, Tamburini and Winsor (RTW), HDR Engineering, Inc., Mountain Consultants (RMC), and Black and Veatch. Two-hour iews were held with each firm on November 29 and December 8. ing the interviews, it was the consensus of the selection tee (Water Committee members and staff) to begin ations with RMC, providing they could strengthen their team areas of corrosion control, plant process design, and ing negotiations with two other firms, Rocky Mountain tants has reported to me that combining two firms for this t does not seem feasible. Accordingly, I believe it to be best interests of the town to suggest RMC be awarded the t contingent upon them being able to strengthen their team areas noted above, plus financial planning. I would r suggest they be allowed until the committee meeting in y, 1989 to bring a revised team approach back to the town, staff is comfortable with the proposed team, to develop a ct for presentation at the January committee meeting. eve the process used in the selection has been fair in all s, and I am confident the suggested approach will result in st long-term results for the town. 1) f ) 11,1.Â· 1 'fll) 1,.1.,i,1,#...'. f 2Â£/ t' 7.11Â£. C 111 TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 12/08/88 CITIZEN SERVICE RESPONSE REPORT November 1988 PAGE 1 TYPE OF CALL NO. OF CALLS HOURS UTILITY LOCATION - MAIN 5 6.00 TAP REQUESTS 3 3.00 WATER QUALITY CONCERNS - COLOR 2 2.00 LOW PRESSURE PROBLEMS 1 0.20 MAIN LINE BREAKS 2 16.00 WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION 1 0.50 PROBLEMS STREET REPAIR PROBLEMS 1 8.00 SNOW REMOVAL PROBLEMS 1 0.25 SIGN REPAIR PROBLEMS 1 0.50 ------- TOTALS FOR November 1988 17 36.45 HISTORICAL DATA THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR TOTAL CALLS 17 35 44 TOTAL MAN HOURS 36.45 42.40 52.85 % CHANGE(CALLS/MHS) -50%/-14% -34%/-61% -20%/-30% TOWN OF ESTES PARK NOVEMBER & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER BILLED 280 260 240 /// //4-- 220 200 - 1.- 180 160 C 0 - 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 O 0 - O - 0 Â·Â· - 21.7% 011111 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 O NOVEMBER + YEAR-TO-DATE TOWN OF ESTES PARK NOVEMBER & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER REVENUE 800 T 1 5.7% 700 / 600 / 500 --- - ...1/ 400 - 300 200 100 [3~ 0 0 0- 0 0 -22.8% 011111 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 O NOVEMBER + YEAR-TO-DATE DOLLARS GALLCN~ (Thousands> TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for November, 1988 (Net) 16,863,100 gal. Water Use for October 14, 1988 through November 13, 1988 : October 14th to 31st Water Supplied: Black Canyon - (460,000) ( 18 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 11,629,000 5,676,754 *Big Thompson Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% - (283,838) November 1st to 13 th Water Supplied: Black Canyon - (118,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 6,867,000 *Big Thompson 4,048,594 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% - (202,430) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 27,157,080 gal Adjustment 1,541,880 gal. TOTAL 25,615,200 gal. Percent Accounted For: 66% ADJUSTMENTS November, 1988 1. Water Dispenser 96,000 gal. 2. Bleeders a. Stanley Heights, Fall River, Old Man Mtn. 771,480 gal. b. Hondius Tank (31 days @ 7,200 gpd) 223,200 gal. C. Mize Bleeder (31 days @ 7,200 gpd) 223,200 gal. Total Bleeders 1,217,880 gal. 3. Flushing/Leaks/Miscellaneous a. 10/19 - Fall River leak/Cleave St. leak 175,000 gal. b. 10/20 - Flush City Market, Stanley Hgts. 45,000 gal. C. 10/27 - Cleave leak & flush 5,000 gal. d. 10/31 - Cleave leak 1,000 gal. e. 11/07 - Flush Moccasin 2,000 gal. Total Flushing 228,000 gal. TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 1,541,880 gal. Â·Â·4Â·41iltwA+>Â· TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD NOVEMBER 1988 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL BIG SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (BAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) (GAL) (AC-FT) 1 (5,000) 0 534,000 529,000 1.62 0.82 373,922 1.15 0.58 902,922 2,77 + 7,5 0 L 2 (8,000) 0 502,000 494,000 1.52 0.76 290,140 0.89 0.45 784,140 2,41 3 (10,000) 0 529,000 519,000 1.59 0.80 288,510 0.89 0.45 807,510 2.48 4 (9,000) 0 543,000 534,000 1.64 0.83 313,612 0.96 0.49 847,612 2.60 5 (9,000) 0 550,000 541,000 1.66 0.84 296,008 0.91 0.46 837,008 2.57 6 (9,000) 0 526,000 517,000 1.59 0.80 375,878 1.15 0.58 892,878 2.74 7 (8,000) 0 552,000 544,000 1.67 0.84 313,286 0.96 0.48 857,286 2.63 B (10,000) 0 492,000 482,000 1.48 0.75 306,114 0.94 0.47 788,114 2.42 9 (13,000) 0 523,000 510,000 1.57 0.79 309,374 0.95 0.48 819,374 2.51 10 19,000) 0 541,000 532,000 1.63 0.82 220,376 0.68 0.34 752,376 2.31 11 19,000) 0 541,000 532,000 1.63 0.82 333,824 1.02 0.52 865,824 2.66 12 (9,000) 0 5371000 528,000 1.62 0.82 315,894 0.97 0.49 843,894 2.59 13 (10,000) 0 497,000 487,000 1.49 0.75 311,656 0.96 0.48 79B,656 2.45 14 (4,000) 0 558,000 554,000 1.70 0.86 321,762 0.99 0.50 875,762 2.69 15 (13,000) 0 473,000 460,000 1.41 0.71 310,352 0.95 0.48 770,352 2.36 16 (14,000) 0 498,000 484,000 1.49 0.75 254,280 0.78 0.39 738,280 2.27 17 (8,000) 0 519,000 511,000 1.57 0.79 268,950 0.83 0.42 779,950 2.39 18 15,000) 0 525,000 520,000 1.60 0.80 374,900 1.15 0.58 894,900 2.75 19 (5,000) 0 545,000 540,000 1.66 0.84 228,200 0.70 0.35 768,200 2.36 20 (6,000) 0 484,000 478,000 1.47 0.74 336,106 1.03 0.52 814,106 2.50 21 (7,000) 0 528,000 521,000 1.60 0.81 348,494 1.07 0,54 869,494 2.67 22 (B,000) 0 481,000 473,000 1.45 0.73 308,396 0.95 0.48 781,396 2.40 23 (7,000) 0 514,000 507,000 1.56 0.78 293,400 0.90 0.45 800,400 2.46 24 (8,000) 0 536,000 528,000 1.62 0.82 324,044 0.99 0.50 852,044 2.61 25 {3,000) 0 535,000 532,000 1,63 0.82 335,454 1.03 0.52 867,454 2.66 26 (3,000) 0 545,000 542,000 1.66 0.84 267,320 0.82 0.41 809,320 2.48 27 (4,000) 0 482,000 478,000 1.47 0.74 372,944 1.14 0.58 850,944 2.61 28 (9,000) 0 547,000 538,000 1.65 0.83 237,980 0.73 0.37 775,980 2.38 29 (8,000) 0 491,000 483,000 1.48 0.75 393,808 1.21 0.61 876,808 2.69 30 (12,000) 0 512,000 500,000 1.53 0.77 226,244 0.69 0.35 726,244 2.23 31 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0,00 TOTAL (242,000) 0 15,640,000 15,398,000 9,251,228 24,649,228 (BAL) TOTAL -0.74 0.00 48,00 ************ 47.25 28.39 ************ 75,65 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ 0 0 (462,561) (462,561) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** (1,217,880) TOTAL GAL 0 15,640,000 15,398,000 ******** 8,788,667 ***************** 22,968,787 ******** CFS(AVE) 0.00 0.81 0.45 1.15 TOTAL AC-FT 0,00 48.00 48.00 26.97 70.49 70.49 VUL- ..... .-, 1, . - COMPARISON SHEET % Chang % Change Same MI Last Month Last YE 1986 1987 1988 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. 69.42 ac. ft. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal.Jan. 22,621,137 Gal +0.85% +20.65 64.36 ac. ft.. 51.91 ac. ft. 62.33 ac. ft. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 cial Feb. 20,308,658 Gal. -10.22% 20.07 68.01 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. Mar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar. 19,294,231 gal. Mar. 22,161,871 Gal. + 9.13% +14.86 68.82 ac. ft. 63.08 ac. ft. 61.33 ac. ft. Apr. 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal. Apr. 22,425,025 Gal. + 1.19% + 12.2 104.51 ac.ft. .75.56 ac..ft. 85.96 ac. ft. May 25,-271,446 gal. May 28,009,040 gal. May 34,053,063 Gal. + 51.85% + 21.5 142.77 ad. ft 102.33 ac. ft. . 141.81 ac: ft. *Jun. 46,521,858 Gal. + 36.62% + 0.6 Jun. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 46,208,715 gal. 173.61 ac. ft. , .125.09 ac. .ft. 173.26 ac. ft. Jul. 56,570,227 Gal. + 21.60% + 0.2I Jul 40,760,736 gal. Jul. ' 56,457;974 Â· , 183.29 ac. ft. .123.91. ac. ft. 146.73 ac. 59,723,823 Gal. + 5.57% +24.9 ft. Aug Â· Aug. 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 47,811,380 132.43 ac.ft. 100.02 ac. ft. 107.47 ac. ft. Sep. 43,151,364 Gal. - 27.75% + 23.-2 Sep. 32,590,405 gal. Sep. '35,018,547 90.12 ac. ft. 71.34 ac. ft. 0 -74.59 ac. ft. oct. 29,366,406 Gal. -31.95% +20.82 ]Ct. 23,247,152 gal. Oct. 24,306,224 70.49 ac. ft. 60.17 ac. ft. 60Â·.95 a ~85ft. Nov. 22,968,787 Gal. -21.79% +15.64' lov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 19,862, 55.57 ac. ft. 68.84 ac. ft.Dec. )ec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. 22,430,306 j TOTAL: TOTAL: . TOTAL: 965.65 ac. ft. 1089.60 ac. ft 315,317,871 gal. 355,046,559 ga: 6.2,9Â·.r 4*1 ..'...,A,4.,7., 1 -~â€¢,UNÂ· 4*%*WixÂ·Â· Â·r ,7-3,4"FF: WATER COMMITTEE AGENDA NOVEMBER 10, 1988 1. ESTES VALLEY RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT - Request for bulk water fee reduction for 18-hole golf course. 2. WILLIAM WATSON - Request to transfer water tap from Ice House property to another parcel. 3. WATER CONSULTING SERVICES - Report on consultant selection procedures. 4. GLACIER CREEK WATER PLANT - Tour of facility (time and weather permitting). Reports: 1. October Water Reports 2. 1988 Water Project 6. Crystal Agreement Update Note: The Water Committee reserves the right to add or delete items to the agenda as necessary. 0: 01 K ,112 85 - -1Â£.1 NOV 03 1988 ~~ ~ PUBUC WORKS DEPT. TOWN OF ESTES PARK ESTES VALLEY RECREATION and PARK DISTRICT Post Office Box 1379 â€¢ Estes Park, Colorado 80517 690 Big Thompson Avenue â€¢ [303] 586-8191 October 31, 1988 Richard Widmer, Public Works Director Town of Estes Park P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 805,17 Re: Bulk Water Source - 18-Hole Golf Course Dear Richard: For many years the 18-Hole Golf Course has used a standpipe connector as a bulk water source for irrigating the greens of the golf course. The standpipe source of irrigation is used only during the winter and -is used for winter watering of greens. The source of water for the golf course has never been metered and consequently never been billed. In visiting with the maintenance staff, the water has been used in this manner for as long as anyone can remember. We do not know why the water source was initially permitted or what provisions were made when the source was per- mitted. This fall the standpipe began to leak. As a result the standpipe was disconnected. We do not have a ready source of water for irrigating the greens this winter. We are very concerned about how we are going to water our greens this winter. The greens at the golf course are a delicate maintenance item and need constant care throughout the winter. The relationship of winter care and the ability of the greens to rebound in the spring are in direct relationship. You have shared with me the option of getting bulk water from the water treatment plant. I am quite concerned about the expense of this as a source of water. We will use a high volume of water which would be a financial burden to the District. I would like to request a fee waiver or a fee reduction for bulk water to support the facility. The golf course property is owned by the Town and the District has a management agreement to support the facility. Because of this cooperative arrange- ment, it would be beneficial for us to arrange a cooperative venture with the Water Department. As you are aware, the Recreation District has struggled financially for the last several years. We request your consideration in our request for the fee waiver. We as governmental agencies must cooperate to fulfill our defined objectives. I would be happy to attend your committee meeting to discuss our needs. Sincerely, i Executive Director 6212'~ 0 . 4/i \/Ii./' - -- A i - Lt/- \ ~Km , 0 - lo â‚¬ l \ 0 \ /0 1 -\.. . \ 1 -1 m I ... 44 a .4 7:--- O Ul /m 1 CD .= 0 \C-hÂ· CA- Â£ i 4 -) 4 9 41 C>_- 0 4 140 & A--/-,-/-*25* -% -9.1 , 7-4 / 1 N ..1.- P *.- - . C- --- \ -1 1 M , / It /7 4 r 1 I ./Wilij/n -Â«94 ---' A- \ c 1.A \\, / 4447 2~. * , .-.- 1 * -- --Szz-cc~~~----Â« ~ - - 1 1/ k 1 , 2_f'.1 41 f 4 / /4 \\ \ \ 1%-01, pÂ« t'-f Â° i 3= 1Â«-~120~~~J~~L - 1 44< -1 \\\\\3 F>*-4 1 1-// 75&0 I to U \ / 1.-/ >Â«k, â„¢2<25/---660- 2 -\5\ -irif- 1 /7/-'.4%%~~ -.-213231~irri-.r-it 17Armfi-2 77~2- 2 \ 3.- F ~----4.-~94*>->42~-Â·-.2- -- - i-* 7 il.., >~77,.444~---14=21Â«42....04. ....in.....+--0.1-9.,~. .- -2:sys=z.--~ ------- - --/ /7 /110Â« \ - 9 - 1 --- ) I to b 0 8 4 Z Ul -1 \ 21,1 N N -Aw - 1 m - U/ 1 y .lili W- A / N 1 1 CO~~~\ 9 re.1 (977. 70 01 la- /O/1 i 76 â‚¬ pie A "ll 625 W. Elkhorn Avenue Moraine Route Estes Park, Colorado 80517 October 24, 1988 The Mayor of Estes Park Box 1200 Estes Park, Colorado 80517 Dear Sir: We would like to request a transfer of our water tap from the Ice House property which is now in your posession to another parcel of our commercial property at such time as it is needed. Would appreciate a letter from you confirming this request. We feel since we have been paying a water charge since the charges were initiated and never having used any water, that we should have this water tap transferred with your approval. Sincerely yours, w COLA- MO ol,6..U , r 1/1 - 441921 William E. Watson Vivianne M. Watson c.c. Mike Dickinson egura 'IP)}E[@fEEW@i~ I PLANNED PROGRESS ~~ NOV 0 71988 |181 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 3,-, PUBUC WORKS DEPT. TO: Gary Klaphake A BY...........----------------- - - FROM: Art Anderson 1<1 /1 DATE: November 7, 1988 RE: Watson Request for Water Tap In our negotiations with the Watsons for purchase of the Ice House, the water tap transfer was discussed; however, when they refused our offer to purchase and negotiation became litigation, the water tap issue became moot. He was not promised the water tap. In the past, all EPURA projects required water taps for irrigation, so we held them closely to save money. If the Ice House project landscaping is to be undertaken by EPURA and a water tap fee is required, I feel EPURA should retain the tap to save its funds. In the Estes Park Bank property settlement, the tap fee was transferred as part of the final negotiated purchase agreement. Since EPURA had a water tap on the adjacent property, it was not necessary to retain the bank property's tap for irrigation purposes. f . MEMORANDUM November 10, 1988 TO: Water Committee FROM: Rich Widmer ~-_ SUBJECT: Water Consultant Selection Update Proposals were received from twelve firms or combinations of firms on November 4, 1988: ARIX Greeley, CO Black & Veatch Denver Brown and Caldwell Denver Camp Dresser McKee/RBD Denver/Fort Collins CH2M Hill/Stewart Env Denver/Fort Collins Donohue Fort Collins/Denver HDR Denver Mclaughlin Denver Richard P. Arber and Assoc. Denver Rocky Mountain Consultants Estes Park/Longmont/Denver 3/hamj Rothberg Tamburini Winsor Denver The Engineering Company Fort Collins Staff is in the process of reviewing the eight-inch-thick stack of proposals and associated information. We have scheduled a work session to review our findings and to cut the firms down to a managable number for interviews. The work session will be Monday, November 21, 1988, at 1:30 pm in the Town Board conference room. You are welcome to attend. We will make the proposals available for your review as you wish. TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 11/08/88 CITIZEN SERVICE RESPONSE REPORT October 1988 PAGE 1 TYPE OF CALL NO. OF CALLS HOURS UTILITY LOCATION - MAIN 1 1.00 UTILITY LOCATION - SERVICE 10 9.00 UTILITY BILLING QUESTIONS 1 0.50 SERVICE LINE INSPECTIONS 1 1.00 WATER QUALITY CONCERNS - COLOR 3 1 0 LOW PRESSURE PROBLEMS 1 1.00 SERVICE LINE BREAKS 1 0.50 METER REPAIR OR SERVICE CALLS 3 3.50 WATER LINE CONSTRUCTION 3 1.50 PROBLEMS STREET CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS 1 0.50 SIGN REPAIR PROBLEMS 4 3.50 OTHER TYPES OF CALLS 1 1.00 -4----- -------- -------- TOTALS FOR October 1988 30 25.20 HISTORICAL DATA THIS MONTH LAST MONTH LAST YEAR TOTAL CALLS 30 35 55 TOTAL MAN HOURS 25.20 42.40 75.95 % CHANGE(CALLS/MHS) -14%/-17% -34%/-61% -17%/-47% TOWN OF ESTES PARK OCTOBER & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER BILLED 260 240 -Â· ,---*- 5.59; 220 200 - *-K 180 - 160 - 0 Â£ 140 120 - 100 80 60 40 - 20 to"" 0 0 -- .---8.-I -f] 6.0% 0-lilli 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 O OCTOBER 4 YEAR-TO-DATE TOWN OF ESTES PARK OCTOBER & YEAR-TO-DATE WATER REVENUE 800 700 - , - 15.2% 600 500 - ---- 4, 0 U / , 0 , 0 400 J 0 iE 300 - 200 100 -- 0 1 1 1 1 1 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 O OCTOEIER F YEAR--10 -DATE DOLLAP GALLONS TOWN OF ESTES PARK ACCOUNTABLE WATER REPORT Water Billing for October 1988 (Net) 25,881,411 gal. Water Use for September 14, 1988 through October 13, 1988 : September 14th to 30thWater Supplied: Black Canyon - (1,176,000) ( 17 days ) *Fall River Plant Off 19,934,000 Glacier Creek *Big Thompson 4,279,076 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% - (213,954) October 1st to 13th Water Supplied: Black Canyon - (879,000) ( 13 days ) *Fall River Plant Off Glacier Creek 12,150,000 *Big Thompson 2,989,094 Subtract for: *Wash Water - 5% - (149,455) Total Water Supplied in Billing Period 36,933,761 Adjustment 1,799,930 TOTAL 35,133,831 74% Percent Accounted For: ADJUSTMENTS October, 1988 1. Water Dispenser 115,000 gal. 2. Park Watering (estimated) - (18 days to Oct. 3) 111,780 gal. 3. Bleeders a. Stanley Hgts, Fall River, Old Man Mtn. 874,150 gal. b. Hondius Tank (30 days at 7,200 gpd) 216,000 gal. c. Mize Bleeder (30 days at 7,200 gpd) 216,000 gal. Total Bleeders 1,306,150 gal. 4. Flushing/Leaks/Miscellaneous a. 9/14: Big T. Clarifier Cleaning 180,000 gal. b. 10/5: Fall River Leak & flush 50,000 gal. c. 10/7: Fall River Leak 10,000 gal. d. 10/7: Cleave Street broken service 2,000 gal. e. 10/13: Cleave Street Flush & Hwy. 34 flush 25,000 gal. Total Flushing 267,000 gal. TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS 1,799,930 gal. TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE RECORD OCTOBER 1988 DATE BLACK FALL GLACIER SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL B1G SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL TOTAL TOTAL CANYON RIVER CREEK (GAL) (AC-FT) (CFS) THOMPSON (AC-FT) (CFS) {GAL) (AC-FT) i (64,000) 0 1,136,000 1,072,000 3.29 1.66 202,446 0.62 0.31 1,274,446 3.91 2 (64,000) 0 1,151,000 1,087,000 3.34 1.68 258,518 0.79 0.40 1,345,518 4.13 -- /. 4/ SU 3 (86,000) 0 1,107,000 1,021,000 3.13 1.58 148,004 0.45 0.23 1,169,004 3.59 4 (114,000) 0 1,045,000 931,000 2.86 1.44 216,464 0.66 0.33 1,147,464 3.52 5 (75,000) 0 972,000 897,000 2.75 1.39 66,178 0.20 0.10 963,178 2.96 6(100,000) 0 989,000 889,000 2.73 1.38 186,146 0.57 0.29 1,075,146 3.30 7 (57,000) 0 904,000 847,000 2.60 1.31 236,350 0.73 0.37 1,083,350 3.32 8 (58,000) 0 840,000 782,000 2.40 1.21 296,334 0.91 0.46 1,078,334 3.31 9 (58,000) 0 751,000 693,000 2.13 1.07 283,620 0.87 0.44 976,620 3.00 10 (50,000) 0 856,000 B06,000 2.47 1.25 274,492 0.84 0.42 1,080,492 3.32 11 (65,000) 0 7921000 727,000 2.23 1.12 236,350 0.73 0.37 963,350 2.96 12 (42,000) 0 802,000 760,000 2.33 1.18 298,942 0.92 0.46 1,058,942 3.25 13 - (46,000) 0 805,000 759,000 2.33 1.17 285,250 0.88 0.44 1,044,250 3,20 14 (54,000) 0 862,000 808,000 2.48 1.25 259,910 0.80 0.40 1,067,910 3.28 15 (54,000) 0 877,000 823,000 2.53 1.27 293,074 0.90 0.45 1,116,074 3.43 16 (54,000) 0 775,000 721,000 2.21 1.12 277,426 0.85 0.43 998,426 3.06 17 (76,000) 0 831,000 755,000 2.32 1.17 195,600 0.60 0.30 950,600 2.92 18 (79,000) 0 755,000 676,000 2.07 1.05 229,830 0.71 0.36 9051830 2.78 19 (60,000) 0 731,000 671,000 2,06 1.04 316,545 0.97 0.49 987,545 3.03 20 (15,000) 0 536,000 521,000 1.60 0.81 308,396 0.95 0.48 829,396 2.55 21 (6,000) 0 604,000 598,000 1.84 0.93 387,614 1.19 0.60 985,614 3.02 22 (6,000) 0 580,000 574,000 1.76 0.89 357,296 1.10 0.55 931,296 2.86 23 (6,000) 0 560,000 554,000 1.70 0.86 334,802 1.03 0.52 888,802 2.73 24 (6,000) 0 597,000 591,000 1.81 0.91 386,310 1.19 0.60 977,310 3,00 25 (11,000) 0 525,000 514,000 1.58 0.80 359,904 1.10 0.56 873,904 2.68 26 (8,000) 0 5671000 559,000 1.72 0.86 351,754 1.08 0.54 910,754 2.80 27 (12,000) 0 549,000 537,000 1.65 0.83 340,344 1.04 0.53 877,344 2,69 28 (4,000) 0 537,000 533,000 1.64 0.82 305,165 0.94 0.47 838,165 2.57 29 14,000) 0 612,000 608,000 1.87 0.94 216,138 0.66 0.33 824,138 2,53 30 (4,000) 0 567,000 563,000 1.73 0.87 387,940 1.19 0.60 950,940 2.92 31 (1,000) 0 564,000 563,000 1.73 0.81 368,706 1.13 0.57 931,706 2.86 TOTAL (1,339,000) 0 23,779,000 22,440,000 8,665,848 31,105,848 (GAL) TOTAL -4.11 0.00 72.98 ************ 68.87 26.59 ************ 95.46 (AC-FT) LESS 5% ************ 0 0 (433,292) (433,292) (WASH WTR) BLEEDERS ********************************************************************************************** (1,306,150) TOTAL GAL 0 23,779,000 22,440,000 ******** 8,232,556 ***************** 29,366,406 ******** CFS(AVE) 0,00 1.19 0.41 1.47 TOTAL AC-FT 0.00 72.98 72.98 25.26 90.12 90.12 TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER USE REPORT COMPARISON SHEET % Change % Change Same Mon Last Month Last Yea 1986 1987 1988 60.06 ac. ft. 57.54 ac. ft. 69.42 ac. ft. Jan. 19,571,499 gal. Jan. 18,748,713 gal. Jan. 22,621,137 Gal +0.85% +20.65% 64.36 ac. ft.. 51.91 ac. ft. 62.33 ac. ft. Feb. 20,974,216 gal. Feb. 16,914,166 ual Feb. 20,308,658 Gal. -10.22% 20.07% 68.01 ac. ft. 64.16 ac. ft. 59.21 ac. ft. lar. 20,907,694 gal. Mar. 19,294,231 gal. Mar. 22,161,871 Gal. + 9.13% +14.86% 68.82 ac. ft. 63.08 ac. ft. 61.33'ac. ft. \Pr. 20,556,057 gal. Apr. 19,985,078 gal. Apr. 22,425,025 Gal. + 1.19% + 12.213 104.51 ac.ft. 75.56 ac..ft. 85.96 ac. ft. lay =25,-271,446 gal. May 28,009,040 gal. May 34,053,063 Gal. + 51.85% + 21.58; 142.77 ac. ft 102.33 ac. ft. . 141.81 ac: ft. Jun. 46,521,858 + 36.62% + 0.683 lun. 33,345,089 gal. Jun. 46,208,715 gal. 173.61 ac. ft. .125.09 ac..ft. 173.26 ac. ft. Jul. 56,570,227 + 21.60% + 0.20% ul 10,760,736 gal. Jul. * 56,457;974 183.29 ac. ft. .123.91. ac. ft. 246.73 ac. 59,723,823 + 5.57% +24.929 ft Â·Aug. ug. 40,379,219 gal. Aug. 47,811,380 - 132.43 ac.ft. 100.02 ac. ft. 107.47 ac. ft. Sep. 43,151,364 - 27.75% + 23.225 ep. _ 32,590,405 gal. Sep. 35,018 ,547 90.12 ac. ft. 71.34 ac. ft. 74.59 ac. ft. oct. 29,366,406 -31.95% +20.82% ct. 23,247,152 gal. Oct. 24,306,224 60.17 ac. ft. 60.05 a f t. NOV. ov. 19,606,534 gal. Nov. 19,Â§62, Y85 55.57 ac. ft. 68.84 ac. ft.Dec. ec. 18,107,824 gal. Dec. 22,430,306 . TOTAL:. .. TOTAL: TOTAL: 965.65 ac. ft. 1089.60 ac. ft 1-hÂ» 315.317,871 gal. 355,046,559 ga:. -1