HomeMy Public PortalAboutTBP 1998-06-17
, .
. .
TOWN OF FRASER
"Icebox of the Nation"
P.O. Box 120/153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser, Colorado 80442
(970) 726-5491
FAX Une: (970) 726-5518
TOWN BOARD AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 17, 1998
FRASER TOWN HALL
1. Roll Call
2. Approval of 6/3/98 minutes
3. Open' Forum
," .1. . -~
4. Public Hearings r ..;"
,....
5. Action Items . ;
a) Request for recoIlSideration of Ordinance 240.
b) Setting a public hearing to amend the zoning district map and the
Business Zone R~gWations.
c) . Sign variance request, Melanie Zwick
d) Request to approve a crack and seal coat contract for various rOad,'
and trail improvements in the am~)Unt of$12,734.40.
e) Memorandum of Understanding, Emergency Services Dispatch
t)' Memorandum of Understanding, St Onge parcel
6. Discussion Items
a) Maryvale: request for water service on "Forest Meadows"
b) Wellhead protection program
c) Grand County Housing Authority, draft MOU
7. Staff Choice
8. Board Choice {,' 4r~ - ,hJ 1,'11:rl ~
a) . Grand County Water & Sanitation District update '" J'i~ 1iJ~'-i..JJiel
Upcoming Meetings
June 24th Planning Commission Regular Meeting
July 15th Town Board Regular Meeting
ýÿ
I J
. .
TOWN OF FRASER
"Icebox of the Nation"
P.O. Box 120 /153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser, Colorado 80442
(970) 726-5491
FAX Line: (970) 726-5518
-- manager's briefmg: .June 12, 1998
Wednesday begins with ajoint Town Board / Planning Commission picnic at 6:00. We'll
provide meats and drinks - you bring the rest. This picnic is a quick celebration of a lot of hard
work from the past six months! The rest of the night is dedicated to "mouing." (Read on. : .)
~.- ,
Action Items
We received a "motion for reconsideration" from Grand County Water & Sanitation District
relative to Ordinance 240, which annexed their property. The motion is enclosed This motion-is
a procedural requirement that GCWSD must file in order to keep their legal options open. You
have two ways in which to respond to this request, each with follow-up decision options:
1. you can choose to reConsider Ordinance 240: you would do this by making a motion
to reconsider Ordinance 240. If this motion fails, its the end of the request. If this_
motion passes, then reconsideration of Ordinance 240 is on, the table.
2. you Can choose not to reconsider the motion: you would do this by. not taking any
action on the request orby formally making a motion to deny their request.
If you choose not to reconsider the motion, GCWSD will have met their procedural requirements
and will keep their legal options open to challenge Ordinance 240. If you choose to reconsider
240, I would recommend tabling this reconsideration until such time as Fraser's Special Counsel,
Gerry Dahl, can be present for this discussion along with Maryyale, Bradley, and Sumrall.
Also enclosed is Carl Houck's partial critique ofGCWSD's minimum stream flow ~tudy.
Once you wade through this issue, and no matter which decision-you make, you need to set a
public hearing to amend the Zoning District Map and the Business Zone Regulations. Staff is
recommending that the hearing be held Friday, .July 24th at 8:~ a.m. (a special meeting) with
the Planning Comlnission hearing this issue on July 22nd. \
Melanie Zwick has requested a variance to the sign code (see letter) which would allow her to
place a sign underneath the existing "Finnegan's" sign on U.S. 40 at Eastom Ave. As a general
rule, Fraser does not allow "off premise" signs. Finnegan's received a variance in exchange for
an easement for the Fraser River Trail in 1991. Staff recommends denial of Zwick's request
based on the belief that allowing the variance would set an undesired precedent.
Jim Tucker will be present to request approval ofa motion to approve a contract for $12,734.40
for crack fill and seal coat expenses for the Walk Through History Park and Amtrak station
parking lots, Railroad A venue, and the Fraser-Winter Park bike path. This should substantively
increase the life span of the asphalt at these locations. _ D \If.,{
-
J .
. .
Enclosed in the packet is the final (their emphasis, not mine) Memorandum of Understanding
for emergency services dispatch services.
Also enclosed is another memorandum of understanding between Fraser and Winter Park
regarding development of the St. Onge parcel. The MOU is the same as the one adopted last fall
with the only change being extending the time for something to happen an additional year.
Discussion Items:
Last March, Maryvale requested water service for the Forest Meadows parcel. Their specific
request is enclosed Stan Cazier, Ron McLaughlin and I reviewed their request. Stan and Ron's
recommendations are included
I'll brief you on status of the wellhead protection program.
Finally, the MOU for the Grand County Housing Authority is enclosed and ready for discussion.
Staff Choice:
Nothing at this time.
Board Choice:
Kit and Mike will give an update of the discussions with GCWSD.
. .
. .
TO\\"N BOARD
JUl'i'E 3, 1998
The regular meeting of the Board was called to order by lVIayor Johnston at 7:30
p.m.. Board present were Swatzell, Klancke, Rantz, rvfcIntyre, Sanders and Soles.
Also present were Reid, Trotter and Winter.
Swatzell made a motion to approve the minutes of the 5/6 and 5/20 meetings, 2nd
Sanders, carried.
OPEN FORUM
Sheriff Johnson gave the Board a status report of the Dept. Johnson also reviewed
the latest information regarding the dispatch.
Colleen Deem presented a request for a driveway easement from County Rd. 8 ( St.
Onge property) to access a lot she owns. This lot is steep at the normal access and
this will work better. This property is also owned by the Town ofWmter Park as
joint tenants with Fraser. Rantz made a motion to approve this easement as far a
the Town's is concerned, 2nd Swatzell, carried.
CHAMBER VPDATE
Catherine Ross gave an update of Chamber activities.
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Cemetery Assoc.
Board again discussed the request from the Cemetery Assoc. for exclusive easement
for the driveway, view corridor easement and buffer easement. After discussion
Board \\till walk the site Sunday at 4:00 p.m. and will decide how to process this
request.
Mal)'vale Augmentation plan.
Reid reviewed that lVfaryvale has submitted a amended augmentation Plan. The
TO\\tn has filed an objection to said plan as a matter of policy.
Safeway building.
Reid discussed the potential use for the soon to be vacated Safeway building and the
discussion that the committee has had regarding finding appropriate uses.
. .
STAFF CHOICE
Board and Planning members ",ill have a picnic on June 17th at 6:00 p.m.
Vicky rvfattox and Jim Swanson ",ill attend the July 15th meeting.
The new school addition will be tapping the main directly. Staff will re'\iew
Ordinances to see what charges are appropriate. Board will not waive fee.
Reid discussed the Muse Drive improvements. Board directed Reid to proceed.
Reid discussed a new water main break in the meadow, the transite pipe again.
Lignosite will be used on the roads for dust control.
July 1, 1998 meeting canceled.
No further business meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
t
. .
PARCEL, MAURO & SPAANSTRA, P. C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 3600
1801 CALIFORNIA STREET
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2636
TELEPHONE (303) 292-6400
TELECOPIER (303) 295-3040 (303) 293-6502
DAVID A. BAILEY DBAILEY@PARCELMAURO.COM
June 4, 1998
Mr. Chuck Reid
Town of Fraser
P.O. Box 120
153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser, CO 80442
Re: Motion for Reconsideration
Dear Chuck:
I have enclosed for filing the Motion for Reconsideration of the Grand County Water
and Sanitation District, pertaining to Resolution No. 1998-4-5 and Ordinance No. 1998-240.
. As you know, the Motion is a prerequisite to judicial review of an annexation decision and,
therefore, a mandatory filing for the District in order to maintain that option. Moreover, the
District believes that sound bases exist upon which the Town Board should grant the
Motion and withdraw the annexation (see, in particular, section III.A on page four of the
Motion). This District does not, however, desire the Motion to deter or inhibit the current
negotiations concerning location of the District's new wastewater treatment plant and
zoning on the annexed property. We anticipate that these negotiations would continue as
expeditiously as possible even if the Town Board granted the Motion for Reconsideration.
Please let me know when the Motion will be considered by the Town Board so that
we can appear before the Board in support of the Motion. If you have any questions,
please give me a call.
Yours very truly,
dlfIft/5
DABlbap
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Bruce Hutchins ( w/encl.)
Gerald Dahl, Esq.
174898.1
I
. .
TOWN OF FRASER, COUNTY OF GRAND, STATE OF COLORADO
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERA TION OF THE GRAND COUNTY WATER AND
SANITATION DISTRICT NO.1 TO PETITION FOR ANNEXATION
IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR ANNEXATION TO THE TOWN OF FRASER,
COLORADO OF M.J. SUMRALL, STEVE SUMRALL, MARYVALE, L.L.C., J. SCOTT
BRADLEY, PEGGY L. LORE, OTTO VICTOR TSCHUDI, AND YVONNE LOUISE
ERICKSEN TSCHUDI
The Grand County Water and Sanitation District No. 1 (the "District"), through
counsel, submits its Motion for Reconsideration with respect to the Petition for Annexation
filed by M. J. Sumrall, Steve Sumrall, Maryvale L.L.C., J. Scott Bradley, Peggy L. Lore,
Otto Victor Tschudi, and Yvonne Louise Ericksen Tschudi (the "Petition").
I. Procedural Background
On April 29, 1998, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Fraser (the "Town Board")
passed Resolution No. 1998-4-5 (a resolution making certain findings of fact regarding the
proposed annexation of a parcel of land to the Town of Fraser) and Ordinance
No. 1998-240 (an ordinance approving the annexation of certain territory to the Town of
Fraser). The subject Resolution and Ordinance are sometimes collectively referred to
herein, for convenience only, as the "Annexation Decisions."
The Annexation Decisions were published in the local newspaper on May 6, 1998.
Pursuant to C.R.S. 931-16-106, "ordinances shall not take effect and be in force before
thirty days after they have been so published." There is an exception for ordinances that
are "necessary to the immediate preservation of the public health or safety and containing
the reasons making the same necessary in a separate section." Id. As published, the
Annexation Decisions contain no such "separate section" and, thus, the 30-day rule
applies. Accordingly, the effective date of the Ordinance No. 1998-240 is June 5, 1998.
A motion for reconsideration must be filed, pursuant to C.R.S. 931-12-116(2)(a)(II),
within 10 days of "the effective date of the ordinance finalizing the challenged annexation."
Such a motion is a condition precedent to judicial review of the annexation ordinance. The
due date for the District's Motion for Reconsideration is June 15, 1998.
II. Factual Background
Zoning
Correspondence from the Town of Fraser to the District, dated March 9, 1998 and
April 8, 1998, indicated that the Petition was to be coupled with zoning of the District's
. .
property that was intended to preclude the District from using its property for any
economically viable purpose and, specifically, such that the District would not be allowed
to build a mechanical wastewater treatment plant on the proposed to be annexed site. At
its April 29, 1998 meeting, the Town Board postponed a zoning decision affecting the
District's property annexed by the Town to allow the parties to discuss and determine
whether an agreement could be reached concerning the zoning of the District's property.
At least one such meeting has occurred and others are scheduled.
The Petition
The Petition was granted without the consent of the District notwithstanding that
approximately 24 acres of its property, generally located between Highway 40 and the
Fraser River north of the Town of Winter Park, was included therein. The District's
property, which constitutes only 23% of the acreage covered by the Petition, is designated
as Tract NO.4 in the Petition and on the maps attached thereto.
As representatives of Maryvale L.L.C. ("Maryvale") and the Town Manager freely
admitted at the April 29, 1998 meeting, the District's property is adjunct to, and
unnecessary for, annexation of the remainder of the property covered by the Petition. The
District's property is connected to the other annexed property, and therefore subject to
annexation, only because it is contiguous with the 1.6 acre tract of land owned by Bradley,
et al. The primary Petitioner is Maryvale whose property is approximately 70 acres or 70%
of the total amount of property annexed. One of Maryvale's principals stated at the Town
Board meeting that it allowed its property to be divided between the Petition and a second
petition for annexation (approved by the Town Board at the same meeting) to facilitate
Fraser's desire to annex the District's property.1
The April 29. 1998 Meeting
As noted above, the Town Board considered two separate annexation/zoning
proposals at its April 29, 1998 meeting. The first of these was for a 224 acre parcel owned
exclusively by Maryvale and the second concerned the 103 acre parcel that included a 70
acre parcel also owned by Maryvale and the District's 24 acre tract.
At the time Resolution No. 1998-4-5 and Ordinance No. 1998-240 were considered
by the Town Board, the Town Manager observed that the Annexation Agreement with
Maryvale included a clause that provided that if Fraser did not complete annexation of all
of Maryvale's property within 30 days of the date from which any part of the property had
been annexed, Maryvale had the opportunity to void the Annexation Agreement and to opt-
out of any annexation by Fraser. Thus, the Town Manger took the position that the Town
was required to annex the 103 acre parcel or risk Maryvale withdrawing from the
annexation.
I Without Maryvale's 70 acres, the District's property could not have been annexed
because the Petition would not have satisfied the requirement of C.R.S. ~ 31-12-107(1)(a) that the
landowners of more than 50% of the land to be annexed must be petitioners for annexation.
- 2 -
ýÿ
t
. .
Inexplicably, the conflict ostensibly created by the Maryvale Annexation Agreement
was not identified until after the Town Board had voted on that Agreement (Ordinance
1998-238), which vote preceded consideration of Ordinance 1998-240 by a few minutes.
Moreover, counsel for the Town, Rodney McGowan, indicated that Maryvale would have
only a weak argument that it could void the Annexation Agreement with the Town or
withdraw from the annexation.
Notwithstanding, after some additional discussion, the Board voted 4-3 to approve
the Annexation Decisions. As noted above, the Board then tabled zoning of the District's
property.
The District's Proposed Use of the Property Absent Annexation
Prior to the filing of the Petition, the District was engaged in negotiations with the
Fraser Sanitation District ("FSD") and the Winter Park West Water and Sanitation District
("WPYVWSD") concerning construction and operation of a new consolidated wastewater
treatment plant in Fraser. In the event that those negotiations had been completed, the
wastewater lagoons presently located on the District's property covered by the Petition
would be removed, and the Property would be used for some other purpose.
The primary issues in the consolidation negotiations were the adverse impact of
consolidation on the Fraser River in the reach between the two existing treatment plants
(i.e., decreased streamflows in the river as a result of transporting the District's wastewater
to a location north of the Town), the increased cost to the District of funding a consolidated
wastewater treatment plant rather than constructing its own plant (approximately $1
million), selection of an appropriate design and design engineer, and the terms of an
operating agreement for a consolidated wastewater treatment plant.
If the District constructed a new wastewater treatment plant on the property subject
to the Annexation Decisions, a new plant site would occupy only about four of the District's
24 acres. A new plant site would be located near the river in the southeast corner of the
District's property and away from Highway 40. The site would be bermed and landscaped
to have a very limited, if any, visual impact. The remainder of the property would be
available for other uses. The District believes that such use of its property would be in the
best interests of the residents of its service area.
-3-
, I
. .
III. Grounds for Reconsideration
A. The Annexation Decisions were the Result of a Controversial Annexation
Petition. Approved by the Town Board by Only One Vote. and Will Result in
Litigation Unless Zoning can be Agreed to by the Parties within a Short
Period of Time. Prudence Therefore Dictates that the Annexation Decisions
be Reconsidered and Withdrawn to Allow the Parties Adequate Time to Seek
a Negotiated Resolution of this Dispute.
As discussed above, the proposal to annex the District's property was controversial
from its inception. The District opposed annexation of its property. Maryvale agreed to
break-up the annexation of its property into two parcels to facilitate the Town's desire to
forcibly annex the District's property. Critical information concerning the purported interplay
between the Maryvale Annexation Agreement and annexation of the District's property was
not timely disclosed at the April 29, 1998 meeting of the Town Board. Ultimately, the
Annexation Decisions passed by a single vote.
This Motion for Reconsideration is filed as a prerequisite to judicial review of the
Annexation Decisions. C.R.S. 9 31-12-116(2)(a)(II). Judicial review of an annexation
decision must be commenced within 60 days from the effective date of the ordinance Id.
931-12-116(2)(a)(I). Thus, if the District's files suit, and the strong probability is that it will,
its complaint must be filed no later than August 4, 1998. Once a case has been filed,
judicial review of an annexation ordinance is conducted on an expedited basis. Id.
931-12-116(2)(a)(III).
The Town Board and the District's Board have met once to initiate negotiations
concerning the appropriate zoning for the District's property. A committee comprised of
members from each body has been appointed to continue these discussions. The key
issue at the outset of these discussions is the effect on the Fraser River of relocating the
District's wastewater treatment plant to a downstream site. The District's analysis of this
issue, prepared by Leonard Rice Consulting Water Engineers, is that the impact will be
significant and that the plant should not be relocated. The Town has retained its own
engineer, but no report has yet been issued.
The District does not anticipate that the conclusion of its streamflow analysis will be
materially altered by the Town's current review. Thus, barring some unforeseen turn of
events, litigation can be avoided only if the Town definitely determines that a new
wastewater treatment plant can be constructed on the District's property and the parties
agree to design factors that will protect the Town's interest in the aesthetic appearance of
the plant and the remaining property. This is no small task and one that will be difficult to
accomplish in the two months remaining prior to the deadline for commencement of
litigation. Moreover, if litigation is filed, it will almost certainly have a polarizing effect on
the parties and reduce the probability that the current negotiations will ever reach a
successful conclusion.2
-4-
I
. .
Neither the Town's interest, nor the District's, are served by the current path and
probable sequence of events. Although the Town and the District should be, and are,
making every effort to cooperate with one another, each of them has legitimate interests
to protect in the context of their current negotiations. While the District believes that it has
a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the residents of its service area, it recognizes
the Town's legitimate concern and interest in the use of the District's property and the
appearance of a new wastewater treatment plant located there. Both parties understand
and recognize their moral obligation to protect the Fraser River. None of these issues
appear to be insurmountable, but achieving a mutually acceptable resolution of them in
such a short time frame will be difficult.
The current negotiations should not be conducted with the probability of litigation
looming in the distance and drawing closer all the time. The Town Board should
reconsider and withdraw the annexation for a period of time in which the negotiations can
be completed.
B. The District's Property is not Subiect to Unilateral Annexation Because the
Property Comprises More than Twenty Acres With an Assessed Value
Greater than $200.000.
Colorado law prohibits the unilateral annexation of a tract of land comprising twenty
acres or more "which, together with the buildings and improvements situated thereon has
a valuation for assessment in excess of two hundred thousand dollars for ad valorem tax
purposes for the year next preceding the annexation ...." C.R.S. 9 31-12-105(1)(b) (1997).
The Petition includes approximately 24 acres of land owned by the District. The value of
the District's property, as determined by the Grand County Assessor's Office (the
"Assessor") , is $946,630. The Assessor has appraised the land at $270,230 and valued
the improvements thereon at $676,400.
The Petitioners failed to determine the value of the District's land prior to filing the
Petition. Based on the Assessor's determination, the District's property conclusively
exceeds the threshold amount required by Colorado law. Therefore, C.R.S.
9 31-12-105(1)(b) prohibits annexation of the District's property without its consent.3
2 Even if the Town prevails in the annexation litigation, a separate case, based on
distinct legal theories, may be filed concerning the Town's ultimate decision on zoning.
3 Any assertion that a court should or would apply the "assessment. . . for the year
next preceding the annexation" language in the statute merely seeks to place form over substance.
Clearly, the legislature intended that valuable tracts of property in excess of a minimum size (20
acres) should not be forcibly annexed. The fact that the property at issue here was not routinely
assessed because it is tax-exempt while owned by the District, and in light of staffing and other
economic considerations in the assessor's office, should not defeat the legislative intent.
- 5 -
,
. .
C. The Petition is Defective and. at the Minimum. Must be Refiled and
Republished.
Paragraph 3.b of the Petition states that "[n]ot less than 1/16 of the perimeter of the
property is contiguous with the Town of Fraser." This is an incorrect statement of the
Colorado statute which requires that 1/6 of the property to be annexed be contiguous with
the annexing municipality. C.R.S. ~ 31-12-104(1)(a). Thus, the Annexation Decisions are
invalid and without legal effect. The Petition must be refiled and republished.
D. Annexation of the District's Property is Sought for an Improper Purpose.
The improper purpose underlying the Petition weighs strongly against any finding
that annexation of the District's property is in the community interest. The Town has
described the Petition as furthering community objectives. Notwithstanding, the Petition
appears to have been primarily intended to limit the District's options in the location of its
new wastewater treatment plant and the consolidation discussions with FSD and
WP\fWIJSD. No "community interest" is served by this improper exercise of statutory rights
of annexation.
E. Maryvale's Water Rights.
The Town has not addressed or resolved the issue of whether Maryvale's water
rights used for domestic purposes will properly augment the Fraser River and the possibility
that the plan may fail to protect the water rights of the District, the Town and others,
particularly in the event that the annexation causes the District to move its wastewater
discharge to a location downstream of Fraser.
Moreover, depletions caused by Maryvale's groundwater diversions for golf course
irrigation purposes are subject to an exchange plan decree in Case No. 90CW235.
However, this exchange protects diversions from the wells only if the "call" originates at a
point downstream of Windy Gap Reservoir. Maryvale has attempted to "overfile" on the
District's treated effluent as it left the wastewater treatment plant; however, such a filing
most likely amounts to no more than a very junior water right. Thus, Maryvale has done
little or nothing to protect senior water users in the vicinity of Fraser from depletions
associated with its golf course diversions, particularly as growth continues in the Upper
Fraser Valley. This condition will be exacerbated if the effect of the annexation of the
District's property is to force its wastewater treatment plant to be moved downstream.
IV. Request for Relief
The District requests that the Town reconsider the Annexation Decisions and
withdraw them to allow the parties to conduct the negotiations concerning location and
appearance of the District's new wastewater treatment plant.
- 6 -
ýÿ
. .
Dated this !:/if day June 1998.
PARCEL, MAURO & SPAANSTRA, P.C.
Ult:~
Paul S. Enockson
1801 California Street, Suite 3600
Denver, Colorado 80202
Telephone: (303) 292-6400
Telecopier: (303) 295-3040
ATTORNEYS FOR THE GRAND COUNTY
WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT NO.1
-7-
ýÿ
. .
Certificate of Mailing
I hereby certify that, on this :..J"-'1-oay of June 1998, the forgoing Opposition of Grand
County Water and Sanitation District to Petition for Annexation was mailed to the following,
United States mail, postage pre-paid, addressed as follows:
Town of Fraser
P.O. Box 120
153 Fraser Ave.
Fraser, Colorado 80442
M.J. and Steve Sumrall
P.O. Box 2470
Fraser, Colorado 80442
Maryvale, L.L.C.
c/o E. Rick Watrous
3333 South Wadsworth Blvd.
Lakewood, Colorado 80227
J. Scott Bradley, et al.
3450 South Poplar, No. 203
Denver, Colorado 80237
Gerald E. Dahl, Esq.
Gorsuch Kirgis LLC
140117th Street, Suite 1100
Denver, Colorado 80202-0180
~. rJ' . ~~
173144.1
- 8 -
ýÿ
~ ~,~!f9.!-e~~ . Df//h:lllfa I,} ffftltil'I'.
rf.~p,.u""hil', fTUflW.l/.<i,i1u././(l1l.'!
Ji;r 1/1/.1:;(' WI'iit'fn'.
June 12, 1998
Mr. Charles Reid, Town Manager
Town of Fraser
P.O. Box 120
153 fraser Avenue
Fraser, CO 80442
Dear Mr. Reid:
This is to document my review of the draft report by Leonard Rice el'ltitled "Potential
Impacts of Wastewater Consolidation on Flows in the Fraser Rivet'," following a meeting
with Leonard Rice personnel at their offices on Friday, June 5, 1998. The meeting was held
at your direction to critically review items in the report. ht attendance were Greg Ten Eyke
and Ed Duerr, Leonard Rice, and Bruce Hutchins, GCW &SD plant operator.
After a presentation by Leonard Rice personnei on tbe background concerning the issue, the
discussion centered on several key elements which will be commented on here. Later, a
page.by-page review was conducted during which minor corrections were addressed
(e.g., bottom of page 5, average velocity is reported in cfs, which is a quantity of flow term
_ fps (feet per second) should have been used). There is no need to discuss these minor
COlT~ctions here __ they will probably be addressed by the report authors when the report is
finalized.
The principal disagreements fotllld with the report are swnmari;zed as followS:
1. Reduced Flow Impact to the Fjshety
The low flows reported in the final foul' tables of the report are felt to be reasonably
accurate, if the growth projectjons presented are accurate. Their dire impact on the
fishery that exists in questionable. On the one hand, these low flows are not continuous,
or necessarily sequential, one month after the next. They have been developed based on
flow gaging data to show statistically what the 30 day average low flow for each month
might bc, once in every three years (30E3 flows). If a statistically developed low flow
were to occur, for example, in January, there is a one in three chance it would be
4450 Arapahoe, Suite 100, . Boulder, CO 80303 . (303) 415-2048 FAX (303) 41S.z5011
ýÿ
,
. .
Mr Charles Reid, Town Manager Page NO.2
June 12, ) 998
followed by the 30E3 flow for February, and a 2/3 chance the Febl1lary flow would be
higher. What the report is attempting to portray is that during periods of low flow, the
flows would likely be lower then they have been.
The brook trout which inhabit this reach of the Fra.ser Rivcr are remarkably resilient fish
_ in fact, the Colorado [)jvision of Wildlife has found that in general brool< trout in
Colorado arc so prolific that an additional bag limit of 10 brook trout under 8 inches has
been established. Undoubted lower low flows would place more stress on the fish. The
meandering strcam reach (immediately below the current Grand County W &S District
outfall down to the confluence with 51. Louis Creek, would probably support fewer fish
than at present. What isn't mentioned is that the stream reach above the outfall would
also contain the same reduced flows, as a result of increased diversions above for
domestic water use. What about the fish in tbe upper reach, which is considerably
longer? Who has a responsibility for the fishery tbat will be diminished in the upper
reach? Is it GeW &SD, as well as other water users, because of their diversions for
domestic water use?
The real question to be asked, both for the reach below the GCW &SD outfall and for the
upper reach, is would the fishery be destroyed? Probably not. Would it be possible with
stream enhancement measures (construction of pools, and tro'ut~holding waters) to offset
the reduction in flow? Probably yes, and the cost of such l11easw'es would likely be one
to two orders of magnitude less for the lower reach .through Fraser than the millions of
dollars difference claimed by the proponents of consolidation vs. two treatment plants.
If the case is going to be made in the report that spending millions of dollars removing
anunonia from the effluent will not benefit, but harm the fishery because of flow
reduction with consolidation, then the alternative of stream enhancement mitigation
should also be presented.
2. Reduced Flow Impact to Stream Aesthetics
A fishery could be preserved (and probably even enhanced) in the reach of stream from
the existing GCW&SD outfall to St. Louis Creek. Would i.t be the samc character of
stream? Probably not. Would it be aesthetically pleasing? If could be. Other Colorado
communities, faced with low flow conditions in their streams have spent money on
stream restoration to improve the stream environment - Pueblo, Steamboat Springs, and
Boulder come to mind. What is the value of making these improvements? It probably
exceeds the value of not making improvements if consolidation occurs and there is no
reduction of flow in the reach. After all, the low flows without consolidation are only
slightly higher than with consolidation, even with full buildout as projected in the Rice
4450 Arapahoe, Suite 100, . Boulder, CO kO~Cl3 . (303) 415-2048 F.-\ X (303) 41S-2S0l)
,
. .
Mr. Charles Reid, Town Manager Page I'o. 3
June 12,1998
report. This is especially true during "the summer months of May through early
September, when likely toulist and other activity would be at its peak alongside the
stream. To the casual public and toumis that might walk along a path next to the stream
through town, if large rocks were placed in the stream to form holding pools for tfout,
tbe aesthetics of the "stream experience" ",",ould probably be improved. It again should
be emphasized that low flows will not always be occun'ing (the same 30E3 discussion
as before).
3. ln1Pact of a Mechanical W\VTP at the Site of the CWTent GCW &SD Treatment System
If the point is made that mitigation measures should be considered for improving stream
babitat and the fishery, then the same argument can reasonably and logically be made that
visually, a new WWTP can be designed with structural and landscaping features to not
be unpleasant. This issue was not made in the Rice report, but was discussed at the
review se~sion on June 5. If mitigation measures should be considered to offset the
reduction in stream flow, mitigation measures should also be considered to offset the
visual presence ofa new WWTP at the GCW&SD site. That is true. There are a nwnber
of communities in Colorado where the WWTP is not a drawback to the community. An
example is Durango~ where the WWTP is located in town, next to the highway entrance
to town wom the south, and also adjacent to a rapids section of the Animas River wbere
significant rafting and kayaking occur. The WWTP is not a visual eye sore. But visual
ae~thetics is not the only consideration. If it were, then that concern could be adequately
mitigated.
Odor is another issue. Even though modem WWTPs can be designed to be essentially
odor free (and many of them are, most of the time), therc are wlfortunatcly upset
conditions which can and do occur at most WWTPs which result in odors, Ask the
rcsidents of Avon, Colorado, about the Upper Eagle W&S District plant in their town,
supposedly designed with the highc~t tech equipment for odor control. Modern WWTPs
are not odor free - they are largely odor free, but odors do and will occu.r. The issue is
subjective one, depending on your viewpoint. In the case of the town of Fl"asel', having
aWWTP at the entrance to the town, no matter how well visually matched with the
environment, there would still be the potential that odor problem~ could occur --
sometime.
4450 Arapahoe. Suite 100, . Boulder. CO 80303 . (303) 415-2048 FAX (31)3) 415-2500
. .
Mr. Charles Reid, Town Manager Page NO.4
June 12. 1998
There are a number of lesser issues found in the draft Rice report which wl1l be mentioned
in closing - they are not of tbe same substa.nce as the three issues discussed previously.
They are:
1. There is no mention of the Consolidated Ditches vs. Denver case wherein Denver
was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Coun in its choice to move the point of its
effluent discharge downstream. below the point of diversion of an intervening ditch.
Ratber, the Rice report stared that consolidation could impact the Hammond Ditch.
That might be true, but it certainly is legal for the relocation of the GCW &SD outfall
to occur, regardless of any intervening water right. The same is true also concerning
the junior Maryvale inigation water right.
2. Confinnation was obtained independently that CWeB, which holds the junior 1ow-
flow filings on the stream, will not object to consolidation. CWeB does not want to
get involved. or have their water rights a basis of contention between two local
parties.
3. The impact of Clinton water is stated in the Rice report currently to occur between
December 1 and May 1. The terms of the Clinton water agreement are that the water
can be called for between September 15 - May 15. The Rice report docs
acknowledge that because there is a very short-period of record, the Clinton Watel'
could impact the CDPHE low flows over time. We concur in that statement -the
Ullpact would be positive (potentially more flow). That is especially important when
the results of the flow analyses in the final four tables of the Rice report are examined
- additional flow would lessen the impact of consolidation on the stream during the
fall and winter low flow months. In their final analyses of the Clinton and O'Neil
water on page 11 of the report, the Riee authors state weekly and diurnal demand
fluctuations, offset by the dampening of flow variations which occurs in the
GCW&SD lagoons, could more than use up tbe potential gains of both the O'Neil and
Clinton water in regard to in stream flows. We do not concur in that statement-
with whatever dampening of flow variation that occurs in the lagoons, the input of
additional water could only be positive.
In smnmalY, it i~ our opinion that there would be some reduction of flow in the Fraser River
reach of concern if consolidation occurs. We do not believe it would have a devastating
effect on the existing fishery, or that the effect could not be mitigated with proper stream
engineering and habitat restoration. The same mitigation could enhance the public's
opportunity for increased use and enjoyment of the stream through town. Having a
mechanical wastewater treatment plant upstream from town at the present site of the
4450 Arapahoe, Suit!! 100, . Boulder, CO 803U3 . (31'-3) 415-1048 FAX (303) 415~Z500
ýÿ
, .
. .
Mr. Charles Reid, Town Manager Pa.ge NO.5
June 12, 1998
GCW &SD lagoons could also be mitigated, so that arch itec uu'ally , envirolUl1entaUy and
vi~'Ually the plant would not detract fi'om the town's image. However, the potential for odors
cannot be mitigated with 100 percent cel1:ainty. The risk for that possibility, and the slightly
reduced flows in the river arc impact~ that the town must weigh in deciding if it is beneficial
or not to push for consolidation. If consolidation does occur, the town should seek
mitigation for the fishery and stream corridor, to offset the impacts of flow reduction.
Ifwe can be offurther service in helping to l'esolvc this mama', please do not hesitate to call.
Very truly yours,
CAROLLO ENGINEERS
Co.-.j) \-\o.)c.~~~-.,
Carl P. Houck) P.E.
44S0 Arapahoe, Suite 100, . Boulder, CO 80303 . (303) 4t5-2048 FAX (Jf)3) 41 S-2S00
it. ~\ Ii" , IVY Y
.'c,. . II" S Ir II
Ot- k~Q,,;y\l- .- ~~'\
~.
~ @-0' ~ ~~ 'tl>VJ
/ ~\~. \ tq<\ \
~f\1-
May 14, 1998
Fraser Town Trustees
Box 120
Fraser, CO 80442
Deaf1i'ustees,
This is a request for permission to add a sign below Finnegan's SIgn at the
corner of Eastom and Highway 40.
I am requesting this location because my building and property Is blocked from
view to people heading north on Highway 40.
Linda Finnegan and I spoke about this and she Is agreeable to this arrangement.
The sign will say INSURANCE and be the width of the posts (approx. 5') and
about 10 " high.
Sincerely,
Melanie Zwick
.
~.::j l.ldO;:::::'O :::':,6 t .,; t '.~ll?l'l t~';'b ':<':~ o..:.~, : '011 3111JHd 'T.ld . .1011.1:,'.1)(; :;, r 6'_11:! : l.IOdJ
1(1,. III..
RECORDED 01/22/91 AT 12:34:22 BOOK 474 PAGE 151
RECORDER - GRAND COUNTY CO PG tt 4 OF 6
EXHIBIT "B"
TO EASEMENT DEED (WARRANTY)
FROM THE OWNERS OF WINTER TRACT 1
TO THE TOWN OF FRASER, COLORADO
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
1- GRANTOR shall have the right to erect a directional
sign in the town landscape planter at the corner of
Eastom avenue and U.S. highway 40 as long as such
sign complies with the provisions of the Town of Fraser
sign code.
.
ýÿ
II . .
The Company You Keep'" New York Life Insurance Company
PO Box 323
Fraser, CO 80442
Bus. 970 726-8883
Melanie Zwick, ChFC
June 16, 1998 Agent
Fraser Town Trustee
Fraser, Co 80442
Dear Trustee,
I am requesting to add a sign for my business to the existing Finnegan's sign at the comer of
Eastom and the highway on town property. The sign will say'insurance' and be about five square
feet.
The reason for this request rather than placing a sign on my building is that my building and
property are blocked from view by the Maynard Realty building. Many people have suggested that
I add a sign to Finnegan's. I have spoken to Linda Finnegan and she is agreeable to this.
My other options are:
1. Put a sign on my property. This would be about 15' away from the existing sign. I think that
would present a cluttered look and would not be as aesthetically pleasing as adding to the existing
sign.
2. Use an existing Fraser directory sign. Catherine advised that a new directory sign would not be
offered. There is no appropriate existing directory sign.
I am requesting use of an existing sign. If there was no sign, I would not be requesting the
placement of a new sign.
Your consideration is appreciated.
G}l!'
1 C~
Mela Ie Zwick
Ace
~-- .., ----_.
N>> Hwy 40
----'1
!
1
I Eastom 8
(not to scale) ! NVLlfl for Financial Products & Services
I Registered Representative for
j NYLlFE Securities Inc.
3200 Cherry Cr. Dr. S.
Denver, CO 80209
303 744-2000
New York Life Insurance Company
New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporetion
fA Delaware Corporetlon)
NYLlFE Securities Inc:.
51 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010
ýÿ
.
.
I J
P No. of Pages
PROPOSAL AND
'53' lRu Gt< IIV boo ~ PA\l1 "'6-
I kJ c... ACCEPTANCE
Po. 6.,)( 3\c:..S-
V..)I ~ T e r- P",rr<. Co
go~~ 2..
1- 970. S' 3/" 3'i 'I 0 ,.." Pit..
-17C -72.'-S"'792... .
c~,:', cc
PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO
PHONE DATEt; _ f _ rB
'-0 (,V ^' 0':- FRASe/(
$3J. 3J.. ~ q
STREET
JOB NAME
/63 PI< A st5 If.. 11v'=
FI?AS l5 t<
CITY. STATE AND ZIP CODE
JOB LOCATION.!.
FI!AS /:,( el> ?tJ Y'I z.
~E~ Bcl.ou.)
AnSIIIl'!.!:f DATE OF PLANS
JOB PHONE
4 TT: .::Ti fv1 Tut:.J(E~
SEAL S31-3",;Cf
We hereby submit specifications and e,timates for: T~IJjN 'TD C-LGAJW 'A-rH PA1lJ{'~~,"CJrs. !lD.4PS
1''' ,.
-,-----_.~ _._---
"-"~_Y+'~-'~-'~-'+---'~-'~-'- -,,_.~_.. .~--+ -, ..~._---,-_.._---_. ---~--"'.
FlU st' It Iff IK G..--'!..A 'TH I t>, S.~-.E..._LU..J...'l DeO A r OJ..() ri ~~-4-k...I!?I.l,.LC..C.__i:.~!;?"':'_~_~.._..
-...-------
-------------------.-------------
I T()~S a.€~T2JZ.. -ll.)t' ISO ~7DO
- .__...._--._._-'
3S x I ~O r~~ 'Sz.5o
:5"E'A i- Ce A- r ?/l.o;je~7 s ,
/00 I( ~o 1'~F 10coll:O
~ 8 oil. ;t g nit ""..-
.-.
-;!.A~ett IIlJE
....
----
-Rfl./1.. l!oAD AllG S7;~ .z.g 7$.~ ,,,. 100
r LJ7 A..l..-~t::..a..#-f 6,~ t /) $ j:' / .;u~r.._.._:n
.
~---
__..A...'I.........t..!.P~;;:-~.dIJJFt> .....J:.C r If i- ___nO .
1tW!t.N..fr. AJeGA T~A uJ STATlo~ ,s'C I( 3Q~ /500
_-'!~..l~ ~__" I :l,.23-'i' 'Ie t#...__.._.._____.
eft) ~ !/Q~...........L.:I.OQ___
-,,--~--,_._-----,-~,~.....---------_._-_._.._--~_.-
S' c ?!.... z. 0 , s F..._L~~_... _____.______.________.___
.~._-~-_.__._-~-----....~-
------_._----~.-_.-----,._~,.~..-----_..__.--_..._',._-.~.--'.._-~-_.._._._-----_.,_._----_.
We Propose hereby to furnish material and labor - complete in accordance with above specifications. for the sum of:
--# '10 I-
dollars ($ /~. 7..3 'I. ).
Payment to be made as follows: . .
I>FP",-SIT 8f1ft.ANCc Z>u
All material is guaranteed ta be as specified. All work to be completed In a workman. Authorized <:.
like manner according to standard practices. Any alteratlan ar deviation from above
specifications involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders, and
will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All agreements contingent Signature
upon strikes. accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire. tornado
Note: This proposal may be '3l:l
and other necessary insurance. Our workers are fully covered by Workmen's Com. withdrawn by us if not accepted within
days.
pensation Insurance.
Acceptance of Proposal -The above prices. specifications
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accepted. You are authorized Signature X
to do the work os specified. Payment will be made as outlined above.
Date of Acceptance
Signature t><;.
PACC-fl93.3 ~
\. I
PRINTED IN U.S.A.
~
,
GRAND . .
CO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
JAMES L. NEWBERRY PHONE: 970n25-3347
District I, Winter Park 80482 Fax: 970n25-Q100
ROBERT F. "BOB- ANDERSON R. HOWARD MOODY
District II, Granby 80446 County Manager
PAUL J. OHRI ANTHONY J. DICOLA
District III, Kremmllng 80459 MEMORANDUM County Attorney
TO: All Dispatch Entities
FROM: County Manager ~
DATE: June 9, 1998
SUBJECT: Dispatch M.O.D.
Enclosed is the final M.O.D. on the future dispatch operation. Please have your
mayor, fire chief or board president sign the enclosed M.O.D. and return. to the
County Manager's office by July 1, 1998.
..
P.O. BOX 264 HOT SULPHUR SPRINGS CO 80451-0264
ýÿ
. .
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding dated the 19th day of May 1998 is between
Grand County, the Towns of Grand Lake, Granby, Hot Sulphur Springs, Kremmling,
Fraser and Winter Park and the East Grand, Grand Lake, Kremmling, Granby Fire
Department and Hot Sulphur Springs/Parshall Fire Departments.
The purpose of this MOU is to provide funding for the Countywide dispatch center
in order to provide dispatching services for the above entities. Parties will be presented
with an IGA (Intergovernmental Agreement) which further defmes details by the fall of
1998. The parties to this MOU desire to provide dispatching services locally and agree to
the following:
A. Provide funding estimated at $125,000 start up costs and $246,000
annual costs based upon the following percentage of participation:
Percent
Grand County 47
Granby Fire Department 1
Kremmling Fire Department 1
East Grand Fire Department 2
Grand Lake Fire Department 1
H.S.S./ParshaU Fire Department o ($500 min fee)
Towns of
Kremmling 10
Winter Park 14
Granby 8
Grand Lake 7
Fraser 7
Hot Sulphur Springs ---1
100010
B. Parties agree to provide funding by January 15th each year for their
percentage of participation for a period of 5 years. For the 1 st year
(1999), entities shall provide 1/3 funding by April 1, 1/3 funding by
July 1 and balance 1/3 by October 1, 1999.
C. The effective date of this agreement is January 1, 1999. The County
and E-91 I Board will provide initial funding for 1998 staff costs.
D. County agrees to establish a separate "Dispatch Fund" to insure the
integrity of the funds.
ýÿ
.
. .
E. Efforts shall be made to secure grants for various portions of the operation.
In the event of successful receipt of grant funds, each parties contribution
shall be reduced by the percentage of their participation.
F. Parties agree to maintain a fund balance of at a mlnimum of 20%
throughout each fiscal year.
G. The Dispatch Operation shall be a separate department, separate fund,
under the control and supervision of the Grand County Sheriff.
Attest: Grand County Commissioners
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners (date)
Granby Fire Department
Chairman, Board of Directors (date)
Kremmling Fire Department
Chairman, Board of Directors (date)
East Grand Fire Department
Chairman, Board of Directors (date)
Grand Lake Fire Department
Chairman, Board of Directors (date)
H.S.SJParshall Fire Department
Chairman, Board of Directors (date)
Kremmling
Mayor, Town ofKremmling (date)
Winter Park
Mayor, Town of Winter Park (date)
Granby
Mayor, Town of Granby (date)
Grand Lake
Mayor, Town of Grand Lake (date)
ýÿ
. . .
Fraser Mayor, Town of Fraser (date)
Hot Sulphur Springs Mayor Town of Hot Sulphur Springs
, (date)
. .
.
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BElWEEN mE
TOWNS OF WINTER PARK AND FRASER
WHEREAS, the towns of Winter Park and Fraser jointly purchased a parcel of land described
generally as the "St. Onge" parcel; and
WHEREAS, the approval and intent of this purchase is stated in Town of Winter Park Resolution
502 Series of 1997 and Town Fraser Resolution No. 10-3-97; and
WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding was approved by the towns of Winter Park and
Fraser concurrent with Resolutions 502 and 10/3/97; and WHEREAS, this Memorandum of
Understanding is set to expire by June 30, 1998 unless extended by both the towns of Winter Park
and Fraser;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWNS OF WINTER PARK AND FRASER AGREE TO THE
GENERAL PROVISIONS PROVIDED HEREIN:
. The parceL if developed at the initiative of the two towns, sha1I be used to provide
affordable/attainable housing.
. The two towns shaIl share any and all development costs, or costs associated with preparing
the site for develop1l1ent, on a "SO/50" basis.
. The two towns shall actively seek other partners to participate in the development of
affordablelathllmable housing on this parcel.
. The towns shall work on a formal intergovernm.ental. agreement that will govern the
relationship between the towns of Winter Park and Fraser vis-a-vis development on the parcel.
It: for any reason, the terms of the formal intergovernmental agreement can not be agreed
upon or completed by June 30, 1999 or such longer period as the two towns agree, the land
shall be sold pursuant to the language below:
Net proceeds from the land, if sold for any reason, sha1I be divided between the two
towns on a "SO/SO" basis.
Town of Winter Park Town of Fraser
Harold N. Teverbaugb, Mayor Jeff Johnston, Mayor
AITEST
.
Town of Winter Park Town of Fraser
Nancy J. Anderson, CMC, Town Clerk Vicky Winter, Town Clerk
.
. .
602 Park Point Drive. Suite 275. Golden. CO 80401
Phone: (303) 526-2600. Fax: (303) 526-2624
email: pjtmwi@aol.com
March 31, 1998
Mr. Chuck Reed, Town Manager
Town of Fraser
P.O. Box 120
153 Fraser Avenue
Fraser, CO 80442
Re: Proposal for Maryvale' s Use of
Forest Meadows Augmentation Plan
Job No. 406.1
Dear Chuck:
Jeff Kirkendall asked me to prepare this proposal to the Town of Fraser
for Maryvale's use of the water rights and plan for augmentation described in the
decree entered for the Forest Meadows property in Case No. 83CW362. He
also asked me to request that the Town respond as soon as can be accomplished.
After the Tuesday meeting on March 17, Stan Cazier sent me the Forest
Meadows decree and its supporting engineering report. I found that the Forest
Meadows decree provides for the same type of water uses as those planned by
Maryvale for the portions of Maryvale which lie within the Forest Meadows
boundaries, to wit, single-family residential, multi-family residential, hotel units
and commercial and municipal, and also irrigation. So it would seem to me that
Maryvale could pay the Town the full "tap fee" for as much of the Forest
Meadows augmentation plan as needed for Maryvale, and that that part of
Maryvale which lies within Forest Meadows would be operated under the
slightly different unit water use criteria described in the Forest Meadows
augmentation plan.
An alternative to the above basic proposal would be for Maryvale to
construct the two wells and the augmentation reservoir described in the Forest
ýÿ
, .
. .
Mr. Chuck Reed
Page Two
March 31, 1998
Meadows augmentation plan and deduct these costs from Maryvale's payment of
full tap fees to the Town.
I have roughly calculated the amounts of water needed by Maryvale's
portions of Forest Meadows, using Forest Meadows unit water requirements for
the numbers of units, etc., which Maryvale plans for the areas. While I would
need to refine these numbers, what I came up with would include some 331
mostly multi-family units requiring 4.64 acre-feet per year of consumptive use
from the Forest Meadows plan. Also, Maryvale' s planned 60 hotel units for
Parce17 would require 0.42 acre-feet of consumptive use. Along with the in-
house consumptive use for the 331 residential units and the 60 hotel units, there
would be approximately 1.8 acres of irrigation requiring 1.8 acre-feet per year
of consumptive use. Thus, excluding the Maryvale golf course irrigation within
Forest Meadows, Maryvale would need a total of approximately 6.86 acre-feet
per year of consumptive use from the Forest Meadows plan. As I read the
Forest Meadows plan, it provides a total of 32.65 acre-feet per year of historic
consumptive use credit from the Elk Creek No.2 Ditch. It appears to me that
10.87 acre-feet of reservoir evaporation was and is anticipated, leaving some
21.78 acre-feet net for the domestic and irrigation consumptive uses.
Maryvale would like to have the Town augment at least the roughly 6.86
acre-feet per year of consumptive use. In fact, Maryvale would like to utilize all
of the 21.78 acre-feet per year of consumptive use from the Forest Meadows
plan, not only for the domestic and associated irrigation consumptive uses
described above, but also to help irrigate as much of the roughly 17 acres of the
Maryvale golf course which lies within Forest Meadows. However, as an
engineer, I see a problem with this, and the problem is that the Forest Meadows
plan in Paragraph (12)(D) on pages 5 and 6 seems to restrict the total area
irrigated to 10.1 acres under the Forest Meadows plan. I will leave that question
to Stan Cazier and Bob Trout, but I shall continue herein under the assumption
that the 10.1 acres is limiting.
The maximum use of the Forest Meadows plan to which Maryvale would
like to go would be to use 5.06 acre-feet for domestic and hotel purposes, 1.8
acre-feet for related domestic and hotel irrigation, and 8.4 acre-feet for golf
course irrigation, for a total 15.26 acre-feet. This would allow for a total of
.)fill'li/l {/I/d wi",d \hill'r (:"/ls/llltl//ls, II/e
ýÿ
,
. .
Mr. Chuck Reed
Page Three
March 31, 1998
10.1 acres of irrigation, including 1.8 acres for related domestic and hotel use,
and 8.3 acres of golf course irrigation.
So, again the concept would be for Maryvale to pay the Town for the full
tap fee cost for the use of whatever water Maryvale acquired from the Town,
with Maryvale being able to deduct from such full tap fee costs the costs of
constructing the two wells, the augmenlatioti reservoir, and possibly other items
such as a pipeline from the two wells southward to Forest Meadows, if Maryvale
constructed or paid for the construction of such required facilities.
One of the benefits which Maryvale would hope to achieve would be the
acquisition of part of the Forest Meadows water to augment the Maryvale golf
course. This would, of course, allow Maryvale to stretch the remaining use of
its changed Cozens Ditch water for use on the Maryvale golf course. Jeff
wanted me to advise the Town that Maryvale wants to make some provision to
allow the Town to use whatever remains from the changed Cozens Ditch after
Maryvale's downsizing and golf course are taken care of, it there is any such
remainder.
At Jeff's request, I have sent copies of this letter to those named below.
Please, let Maryvale know of the Town's general response to this proposal. If
the Town responds favorably, Maryvale will need to discuss numerous details on
costs and other factors with the Town.
Also, I need to advise you that Maryvale at this time plans to file an
application to amend its augmentation plan by, among other things, using
Maryvale's Cozens Ditch water to augment the Maryvale portion of Forest
Meadows. Maryvale has a need to file this application as soon as possible, and
we believe that Maryvale must file now by covering the Forest Meadows area
with its own water so that the amendment may move along, particularly if this
proposal to use the Town's water fails. We believe that the Maryvale
application can be filed so that the Cozens Ditch water may be removed from the
Maryvale plan and the Town's Forest Meadows water used instead, without need
to change the Town's decree for Forest Meadows to allow for Maryvale's
intended uses. What this letter attempts to do by advising the Town thusly is to
avoid any shock, surprise, or upset when the Town sees Maryvale's application
.11t/rllllllllrl \V",," \~(",'r (:"IISIIIIt/llls. 11Ie.
,
. .
Mr. Chuck Reed
Page Four
March 31, 1998
to amend which will state its true intent to use Cozens Ditch water for the Forest
Meadows area. At the same time, however, Maryvale wants to pursue the
proposal described herein.
Thank you for taking a look at this proposal.
Very truly yours,
Gv.f
J Tom Wood, P.E.
President
JTW:dkp
MSWORD:03I27J98:406.1..lJSEOFFORESTMEADOWS-PROP
cc: Jeff Kirkendall
Rick Watrous
Bob Trout
Stan Cazier
Ron McLaughlin
,\Jar/ii/till" WiJ/J{/I~{J/t'r (:"/ls/I/Ia//ls, f/lL
,
JUN-12-88 13,38 FROM'MCLA~IN WATER ENGRS 10,303.766 PAGE 2/13
June 11, 1998
Mr. Chuck Reid, Manager
Town of F~aser
P.O. Box 120
Fraser, Colorado 80442
RE: Input to Det~ine F.-aser Water Demand at Build-Qut
Dear Mr. Reid:
As you are aware, Leo Eisel and I have been working with Stan Cazier to detennine the
relationship of the Town of Fraser's water demand and its associated water rights,
augmentation plans, and associated water agreements at build-out conditions. The results of
tIlis effort is contained in the accompanying draft copy of Table 1 which is enclosed fOf your
review. Of particular interest to us would be for you and members of your planning staff to
confinn the ,aumber of EQRs Fraser will be serving at build-out conditions that are listed in
the first cell of the Table. You will note tIle number presently in this cell is 1335. This
represents the number for ultimate EQRs within Town Limits as presented in MWE's January
1998 Predesign Report and Application for Site Approval, Wastewater Treatment Plan:t
ExpansionlUpgrade for the Fraser Sanitation District and Winter Park West Water and
Sanitation District, Grarui CoUn:ty. Colorado.
The second number we would like confirmed is whether the 592 EQRs in the second cell of
the first row for the number of EQRs at build-out for the Forest Meadows sbould be counted
with the 1335 EQRs mentioned in the previous paragraph. If the 592 EQRs are already
included in the 1335 EQRs, as the current draft of Table 1 shows. then the remainder of the
calculations in the Table are correct. If the Forest Meadows EQR number should be added
to the Town's EQRs raising the total to 1927 EQRs, then the associated calculations in the
table will need to be redone since the number of EQRs is fundamental to forecasting water
demand at build-Qut.
.
JUN-12-88 13,46 FROM'MCLA~LIN WATER ENGRS 10,303.8766 PAGE 2/2
The third number we would like you confirm is to advise if the category of developable areas~
described in MWE's January 1998 Report under the category of "Developable Areas Outside
Town". should be included in the water demand projections for the Town. If the
approximately 600 EQRs are to be included in these projections it would raise the total
projected EQR demand to nearly 3200 EQRs:
Developable Ar~ Build-Out E.o.&
Within Town Limits 1335
Developable Areas Outside Town 1200
Forest Meadows 592
Total EQRs at buiId-Qut = 3127
Obviously. if the total EQRs at buiId-out will approach 3200, the associated water demand will be higher
than the value contained in the draft of Table 1 based upon a build out population of 1335 EQRs. MWE
would need to recalculate the demand based upon the Town's best estimate of EQRs at build-out
conditions.
The final piece of infonnation needed is the area within the Town of Fraser, as indicated in the fourth cell
of Column 1 where the current number is 600 acres. This value was estimated from a map and may not
be accurate. Would you or your staff please provide a more accurate nUlllber?
Thank you for your assistance in clarifying these items. If you have additional questions about this request
or Table 1. please contact our office.
Very truly yours,
McLaughlin Water Engineers, Ltd.
~~~
Enclosure
cc: Stan Cazier
2 \V)A'~"9S.022.001PIF"""'r BuiJd-o~ EQRB
, .
JUN-12-88 13,38 FROM'MCL~LIN WATER ENGRS 10, 303.8766 PAGE 4/13
l1M'~
Table 1 \ ' FT
........" '-'
Summary of Water Rights and Plans of Augmentation
for
Town of FrdSer, Maryvale, and Forest Meadows
Town of For~'i Original Amended Aug Plan
Fraser Meadows Maryvale in 9SCW041
in S3CW362 AugPIan
(included in 86CW2S8
Fraser at w/o Small w/SmaII
buildout Capacity Wells Capacity Wells
conditions)
Total EQRs at Build-o\lt 1335e11>) (!) 592(11) 5516(4) 3401(61 2829(4)
Annual Demand (af/yr) S48 AFo3} (!) 263 AF(Z) 1459 AF(~ 901 Af<m 748.9 ,~';)
CU (af/yr) 131.15 (1) 32.65 AF<I) 84.S AF<I3) 53.0 AF(11l) 45.7 A};'U\l)
AFiyr'-J51
Area 600 Acres,'ll) 40.29 Ac Approx Approx; Appro;'!;
700 acres 960 ac~) 960 acre~.';:J)
75.3 Ac including 37.1
Area "D"<=) acres of
lawns{l4)
Supply 900 gpm (9) From 1600 gpm 1600 gpm 1870 gpm
870 AF/yr Town of Fraser 1459 AFfYR(6) 1550 AFIYR(6) 1680 AFIYR(6)
Physical supply source 9 wells~> Troublesomem Troublesome Troublesome T{oublesome
producing aquifer via aq\lifer aquifer through aquifer through
at'1~ Town of Fraser through 16 up to 16 wells(1l) up to 16 luge
100 gpm wells wells"') wells & 91 OD-
60% site weUs'U)
of the tin1e
=
870 ac--ft/yr
Source of Aug Water (10) Elk Creek Cozens Ditch Coze.ns Ditch Co:;;ens Ditch(6)
Ditch Nt 2(lZ} Mat)vale Res Maryvale Res Maryvale Res
Detention Detention Detentiou
Reservoirs Reservoirs Reservoirs
Quantity of Aug Water 183 AF/yr'IO) 32.65 AF/yr(l':) 116 AFfYR(4) 116 AF(4} 116 AP<~
Required AccoUDting ('24; Included iJ:l ~ l;S, /25,
ToYtu of Fraser
1 9~OZ2.001P/''''''J PlNI SctV ArQ> robk:
ýÿ
. .
JUN-12-88 13,40 FROM'MCLA~LIN WATER ENGRS . 5/13
10,3034808766 PAGE
Consumptive u...<:e as % N.A. 5%(1) 3.3% 3.3%\<1' 91 wells
of total water divided 10% /domestic(")
S6%/lawns
3.3% for
central(4) water
system.
Maryvale Golf Co1U'Se (1HJ>
Note: The water demand for the Town of Fraser is based upon the assumption of 1335 EQRs at buildout
conditions within the Town. This assumes an increase of 550 EQRs from the present number ofEQRs,as
reported on Page n-2 of the MWE's Pre-Design Repol1 And ApplicationFor Site Approval WasteWater
TreatmenL Planl Expansion/Upgrade for flu! Trasel' Sanitaiton Di$tTict and Winter Park West Water And
SanitioJi()n District, Grand Ccunty Colorado. Please see footnote 20 accompanying Table I, there ate areas
listed in this footnote which would increase this value to 2535 EQRs, if these areas are also going to be
served water by Fraser. Also, does the 1335 EQR "within Town Limits" value include the 592 EQRs
estimated for buildout at Forest Meadows, or is that in addition to the 1335 EQR raising the total to 1927
EQRs tor Fraser "within the Town Limits"? If the additional areas listed in FootnOte 20 of this table are also
to be served, this would raise the total EQR number to as high as 3127. If this number ofEQRs (1335) at
buildout for "within Town Limits" is not correct, please advise, since it is the basis for determining the water
demand for future growth. An error in this estimation, particularly on the low side, will have serious
consequences for the Town's future growth.
DHAff
2 95.022.001P/A"i f'JaD Setv Alea Ta1>~
ýÿ
.
JUN-12-88 13,40 FROM'MCLA~LIN WATER ENGRS 10, 303.8766 PAGE 6/1::3
0-< '" "
.;'JlAf
~"
FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 1 . , I~~'
(1) From Case N2 83CW362, Table 1:
ConsuMDtion Demand Summary
Domestic Consumption ::
11.64 AF
Irrigation Consumption =437,500 ft:! x 1 Ac ;; 10.04 Acres x I.OIAF ..- 10.14
AF
43,560 ft'l Ac
Evaporation from Augmentation Reser:oir = 10.87
AF
Total ;;
32.65 AF
(2) Town of Fraser "Integrated Augmentation Plan Framework" HRS Water Consultants. February
1990
Water Demand Domestic Demand Itription Demand
SPDU 30 x 350 gpd ... 10,500 3000 !tel/unit =
9O,OOOftZ
MFDU 480 X 250 gpd = 120,000 500 ftZ/unit = 240,()()()ft2
Hotel 500 units 500 ;ll; 125 8Pd = 62.500 150 ft'l/unit =
7S,OOOrr
Com & Ind 130,000 tt2 ;ll; 107 gpd/lOOO ft2 = 13.900 250 ~11000 ftZ =
32.500ftZ
206,900 gpd
437,SOOff
Domestic & household = 206,910 gpd x 365 days x AE .- 232 AP
Yr 325,851 gal
Diversion Demand SummarY
Reservoir Storage = 17.7 AF
Irrigation Demand 437,500 ftZ x Acre x ~ = 13.5 AF
43.5W AC
Domestic ;;:; 232 AF
Total = 263.2 AF
(3) Predesign Study 1996 Water Improvements for the Town of Fraser, MWE, Ltd., September 1996
(4) Case N2 86CW258. The source of augmentation water for the 5516 EQRs at haildout is 116 acre-
feet of historic consumptive use credits from tbe Cozens Ditch which call be stored in the 84 acre-
feet of storage in Maryvale Reservoir, Maryvale Reservoir enlargement and the proposed detention
reservoirs.
(5) Engineer Report for Augmentation Plan for the Town of Fraser, Bl'oyles Engineering Company.
November 20, 1984, Item B.2, Page 1
(6) Application to Amend Finding of Fact, Conclusion of Law, Judgement and Decree Adjudicating
Augmentation Plan Gathered in Case N2 86CW258, September 1, 1988 indicates 3401 EQRs at
buildout without small capacity wells and 2829 EQRs with small capacity welIs.
3 9S-022.001P/Aag
P!ar) ~ Area Tllble
.
JUN-12-88 13,41 FROM'MCLAtIlLIN WATER ENGRS 10,303.8766 PAGE 7/13
Ii. rl
Ui..'1t\ .
Estimated supply is based on:
. Assuming 100 gpm yield based on Fraser Well Nil 1 and 2 and a wen utilization factor of
0.60: 100 gpm x 16 wells ~ 1600 gpm, 1600 gpm x 144D min/day x. 365 days/yr x 0.60
+ 325,900 gal/AF = 1550 AF/Yr
. Assuming 3 gpm for the on-site small capacity wells and a weIl utilization factor of O. 30:
91 wells x 3 gpm = 273 gpDl, 273 gpm x. 1440 min/day x 365 days/year x 0.30 +
325,900 gal/AF = 130 AF/Yr
The decree is Case Nil 86CW258 indicates estimated supply from the 16 wells is 1459
AF /Yr.
Tbe toW for tIle with on-site wells situation is;
1600 gpm -+- 270 gpm = 1870 gpm, and
1550 AFfYr + 130 AF/Yr = 1680 AFfYr
. The decree in Case NQ 86CW258 limits pumping from the wells to 1600 gpm and 1459
acre-feet/year .
(7) Golf Course was not included in Case NA 86CW258
(8) Per 1989 lease agreement between Town of Fr3$er and Maryvale, 65 acre~feet of water from
Middle Park Conservancy District were to be leased by the Town of Maryvale for golf course
irrigation.
(9) . 9 weIls decreed in 85CW337 (Windy Gap Exchange) with pennitted yield of: (a) 2.23 efs
(1000 gpm) for Wells NQ 1,2, 3a, Sb, 4 and 5, and (b) 1.11 cfs (500 gpm) for Wells Nil
7 ~ 8 and 9. A total of 3.34 cfs (1500 gpm) can be pumped from Wells 1,2, 3a, 3b, 4,5,
7> 8 and 9 as decreed in 82CW219 and 85CW339 (Elk Creek Ditch No.2).
. 2.28 cis decreed for Fraser domestic water system in Civil Action 1175, W2279 and
82CW219.
. Wells 1-5 are alternate points of diversion for 2.28 cfs (1954 appropriation date from
Fraser domestic water system.
. Per Decree 9OCW235 and information provided to MWE April 4. 1998 titled "Original
Approximate Well Capacities"; the Fraser well capacities are:
Well CaDacity (cpm)
1 100
2 100
4 9$-O:u.OO1I'fAug I'Iim s...v ..vca Table
ýÿ
.
JUN-12-88 13,41 FROM'MCLA4IlLIN WATER ENGRS I D, 303.8766 PAGE 8/1:!
Wen Capacity (e:pm) DRAFT
.
3A 40
3B 70
4 unknown
5 18 (not used)
6 18 (not used)
7 65 (manual start)
8 nOt driU~
9 not drilled
Use 100 gpm as average yield and 60 percent utilization factor for calculation purposes;
100 gpm x 9 wells = 900 gpm, 900 gpm x 1440 minlday x 365 days/year ... 325,900
gal/AF x 0.60 = 870 AFIYR
(10) The Town of Fraser does not have a decreed augmentation plan; instead the Town relies
On a collection of augmentation sources to insure that the Town~s nine decreed wells in
Case NQ 85CW337 can continue to pump out of priority when a senior call is
administered. Sources of augmentation water include:
. Green Mountain Reservoir releases to augment municipal water rightS with priority dates
senior to OctOber 1977. All nine of Fraser's wells bave appropriation and adjudication
dates junior to 1977. Well N2s 1.9> however, are decreed as alternate points of diversion
for other water rights senior to 1977 in Case N2s 82CWZ19 and 82CW337 (Gaskill Ditch
and Fraser Domestic Water System). Therefore, these wells should be covered by Green
Mountain Reservoir releases. In the event that Green Mountain Reservoir releases are not
available, the Town~s junior wells are cover~ by other sources of augmentation water
discussed below.
There appears to be some question that Well N2s I and 2 are cover~ by Green Mountain.
This question is being investigated by MWE. Well NRs 1 and 2. how~ver, are augmented
in the Forest Meadows plan for augmentation decreed in 83CW 362 and the decree in
Case no. 85CW339 by Elk Creek Ditch N2 2 (7/23/1894 appropriation date and 8/1111906
adjudication date) for 32.65 ac-ftlyear of historic consumptive use).
. Fraser bas 80 acre-feet of Middle Park: water: 65 acre-feet can be used by Maryvale under
an 1989 lease to irrigate the proposed Maryvale golf course.
. Fraser has 25 acre feet of Windy Gap water which can be used for augmenting out of
priority diversions by W ell N~ 1-9. This was decreed in Case NI"L 85CW337.
5 9S-0n.oorV/Aug Plu Setv .....ea Table
. .
JUN-12-88 13,42 FROM'MCL~LIN WATER ENGRS 10, 30.08766 PAGE 8/1
; ",' :;. .':!j 8.'.\ .;..,-........--
UriAtl.
. F laser has 110 acre-feet of Clinton Reservoir Agreement water which it can use tot direct
supply Or augmentation purposes. However, this water is only available from September
lS.!l to May 5th. This gives the Town the right to have Denver bypass 110 acre-feet of
water from diversion into its Fraser River collection system and deliver this water instead
to either St. Louis Creek, Big Vasquez Creek and/or the Fraser River. St Louis Creek
joins the Fraser River downstream from the Town's well field while the Big Vasquez
Creek joins the Fraser River upstream from the Town's well field. The Fraser River point
of delivery would also be upstream from the Town's well field. These factors make the
Big V asqu~ Creek point of delivery and the Fraser River point of delivery more
advantageous than the St. Louis Creek point of delivery.
If the Town wants its Clinton Reservoir water delivered at Big Vasquez Creek or the
Fraser River upstream from the Town it must provide 0.67 ac-ft of replacement water to
Denver for each acre-foot of Clinton water bypassed to the Big Vasquez Creek or Fraser
River. In addition~ the Town must replace its depletions resulting from use of the by-
passed water. In contrast, if the Town were to accept delivery of its Clinton Reservoir
water At Williams Fork Reservoir, it wHl not have to make the replacement payment of
0.67 ac-ftIac-ft to Denver. The Town has already acquired the necessary water to allow
the Town to receive delivery of the Clinton water at Big Vasquez Creek or the Fraser
River. This replacement water has been transferred to Denver.
The amount of water required for replacing the Town's depletions when the 110 acre-feet
is bypassed to the Town's points of diversion on the Fraser River or Big Vasquez Creek
is based on 5 % of depletions because this by-pass water will be required during the winter
when there will only be depletions resulting from in-house use. These depletions will be
replaced by bypassing 5.0% of Fraser's 110 acre-feet Or 5.5 acre-feet (.05 x 110 acre-feet
:!!i!! 5.5 acre-feet) of Clinton Reservoir water at Williams Fork Reservoir .
Assuming the Town takes all of its 110 acre-feet of Clinton Reservoir bypass water from
either the Fraser River or Big Vasquez Creek and replaces 5.5 acre-feet of its depletions
from by-passing flows at Williams Fork Reservoir. this will require payment of70 ac-ft
to Denver (110 ac-ft - 5.5acft) x 0.67 ac-ft/ac-ft = 70 ac-ft). This 70 ac-ft will be
released from Wolford Mountain Reservoir under terms of an agreement.
Tn summary. the sources of water available to Fraser in addition to Green Mountain for
replacing out of priodty diversion include:
Source AcftJyear
· Augmentation of Fraser Well ~ 1 and 2 by the Forest Meadows Plan 32.65
for Augmentation decreed in Case N2 83CW362 and 85CW339.
· Windy Gap Water decreed in Case N2 8SCW337 25.0
· Remaining Middle Park Conservancy District water from 80 acft 15.0
after leasing 65 acft to MaryvaIe
6 95-{fn.OOIP/Aue PIllIl Setv Arm Tat.I~
I .
JUN-12-88 13,Q3 FROM'MCLA~IN WATER ENGRS 10,303.766 PAGE 10/13
",. ';'''''lJ. :> ';-"']'"
, . j. 1 f'
!. .. " . ~.~ ~'t ~
lJnAt '
Sourc~ Acft/y~
· Clinton Reservoir Agreement water ll2:.Q
Total 182.65
(11) The source of supply is 16 weIls decreed in Case NA 86CW258 and included in the amended
Maryvale plan for augmentation. Results of well production for Wells 7, 8 and 9 are from "Town
of Fraser 1994 Testing Program Well N2s 7, 8 and 9". Prepared for the Town of Fraser by HRS
Water Consultant Inc. October 1994. Well N2 7 was estimated to produce 88 gpm, Well Nt 8 at
70 gpm. and Well Nil 9 at 150 gpm.
(12) As decreed in Case N2 83CW362, the source of augmentation water is Elk Creek Ditch N2 2 for
0.5 cfs diversion and 32.65 acre-feet/year from previously irrigated meadowland consisting of
32.32 acres. FOr purposes of this comparison, the nine wells are assumed to each have a capacity
of 100 gpm, and would pump at 60% oftbe time. This would result in a total annual combined
production of:
9 wells x 100 rrm x 1440 min x 365 days x AF x 60% = 870 AF
we day yr 325,851 gal
Storage will be required to carry over the 32.65 acre-feet/year of historic consumptive use credits
from the Elk Creek: Ditch Nil 2 for use during the non-irrigation season. The decree in case N2
83CW362 (paragraph 121) tequites the reservoir to be at least 17.66 acre-feet.
(13) Average Annual Demand is projected to be:
In house:
1335 EQRs x 350 g:aJ x 3-65 days x AF = 523 AF
EQR day Yr 325,851 gal
Landscape irrigation:
1335 EQRs x 500 ftZ + 43560 sq ft x 1.6AF = 25 AF
EQR day EQR Ac
Total = 523 + 25 = 548 AF
(14) Engineering Report Plan of Augmentation Prepared for Regis - MaryvaIe, Inc., Grand County,
Colorado by Wright Water Engineers, January 1987, Section 1
(15) Consumptive use for the To~'Il of Fraser is based upon 5 % of the average annual daily diversion
(350 gpd/EQR) being consumed for in house use. For landscape irrigation during the months of
June, July. and August, and assume 500 sq ftfEQR of landscape irrigation and 1.6 ac-ft/acre of
consumptive use.
In house consumptive use for June, July and August:
7 95-0ZZ.001 PfAug PIllA SCI'V .~ Table
ýÿ
, . 10,303.8766
JUN-12-88 13:43 FROM'MCLA.LIN WATER ENGRS PAGE 11/1-
350 gal/day EQR x 1335 EQR x AF x 5% x 92 days = 7 AF DRAFT
325,851 gal
Landscape irrigation;
500 sq ftJEQR ..,.. 43.560 sq ft/ acre x 1.6 AF/acre x 1335 EQR = 25 AF
In house consumptive use fOf January through May and September through December:
350 gal/day EQR x 1335 EQR x AF x 5% x 273 days = 20 AF
325.851 gal
SUBTOTAL = 52.00 AF
Forest Meadows == 32.65 AF
TOTAL = 85.00 AF
(16) EOR CaIculation.~:
SFDU 30 x 350 gpd x 1 EQR = 30 EQRs
350 gpd
MFDU 480 x 250 gpd x 1 EOR == 343 EQRs
350 gpd
Hotel 500 x 125 gpd x 1 EQR == 179 EQRs
350 gpd
Commercial & IndustriaJ;
130,000 ft2 x 107 ~ x 1 EOR = 40 EORs
1000 ft2 350 gpd
Total EQRs = 592 EQRs
(17) As proposed in Case N2 98CW041; application to Amend Case N2 86CW258.
(18) As decreed in Case ~ 86CW2S8, Maryvale Plan for Augmentation.
(19) As proposed in Case N2 98CW041, Application to Amend Case N2 86CW258.
(20) Predesign Report and Application for Site Approval. Wastewater Treatment Plant
Expansion/Upgrade for the Fraser Sanitation District and Winter Puk West Water and Sanitation
District, Grand County, Colorado by McLaughlin Water Engineers. Ud., January 1998. PagelI-2:
Ultimate EQR within Town Limits 1335 EQR
Developable Areas outside Town, excluding Maryvale:
Existing 150 lots to northwest 150 EQR
Denver Water Board Property
50 acres 200 EQR
Commercial Site to North 250 EQR
Developable Land Adjacent to the
Town on the West (150 acres) 600 EQR
8 9$.Q2Z,OOlP/Aug PIllIl Scrv ~ Table
.
JUN-12-88 13,44 FROM'MCLA~IN WATER ENGRS 10,303&766 PAGE 12/13
Dn -
Total EQR's 2535 EQR
(21) This value of the service area of Fraser needs to be provided by the Town of Fraser.
(22) Engineering Report for Augmentation Plan for the Town of Fraser, By BoyleS Engineering Co.,
November 20, 1984.
(23) Estimate of Acreage by MWE from Exhibit A of Case NQ 98CW041. prepared by Martin and
Wood, March 1998.
(24) The Town of Fraser must:
(1) Maintain records on volume of Clinton Reservoir bypass water taken at: (a) St Louis
Creek. (b) Big Vasquez Creek, and (c) Fraser River.
(2) Maintain records on volume of Clinton Reservoir bypass flows used to replace depletions
from Clinton Reservoir bypass flows.
(3) Amount of Clinton Reservoir deliveries taken at Williams Fork Reservoir.
(4) Amount of Middle Park Conservancy District water requested and the amount provided ,.
to augment the Maryvale golf course.
(5) Amount of Windy Gap water requested
(6) The quantity and timing of augmentation water used to augment Town of Fraser Well Nils
1 and 2 under the terms and conditions of the Forest Meadows plan for augmentation
decreed in Case NQ 83CW262.
(7) The volumes of pumping from the Town's nine wells:
(I) Under their own priorities
(2) As alternate points of diversion for:
(25) The following accounting and reporting requirements will be necessary:
9 9$..(l2'2.00lPf AIIg PItm ~rv Area Table
.
JUN-12-88 13,44 FROM'MCLA~IN WATER ENGRS 10, 3034.766 PAGE 13/13
DRAFT
Table 2
Summary of Watt'r Supply and potential Augmentation/Replacement Requirements
Available Sutplus (Deficiency)
Potential Augmentation! of water for
Depletion Replacement augmentation purposes
Situation (acre-feet/year)(X) (acre-feeUyear)G) (acre-feet/year)
Town of Fraser with original 170rJ) 299(4) 129
Maryvale augmentation plan
(86CW258)
Town of Fraser with amended 138(5) 299<4) 161
Maryvale augmentation plan,
w/o on-site wells
Town of Fraser with amended 131 (6) 299<4) 168
Maryvale augmentation plan,
with on-site wells
Footnotes:
(1) This assumes the worst case situation at full buildout conditions in which Fraser had to replace
all of its depletions; I.e. there was no Green Mountain Reservoir water and all its water rights
were out of priority.
(2) These annual values do not provide monthly amounts of water for augmentation purposes. This
refinement will be completed if necessary.
(3) Town of Fraser in.eluding Forest Meadows: 85 acre-feet
Maryvale Original Augmentation Plan (86CW258) 85 acre-feet
Total 170 acre-feet
(4) Town of Fraser including Forest Meadows: 183 acre-feet
MaryvaIe Original Augmentation Plan 116 acre-feet
Total 299 acre-feet
(5) Town of Fraser including Forest Meadows: 85 acre-feet
Maryvale Amended Augmentation Plan w/o onsite wells 53 acr~feet
Total 138 acre-feet
(6) Town of Fraser including Forest Meadows: 85 acre-feet
Maryvale Amended Augmentation Plan w/on-site weJIs 46 acre-feet
Total 131 acre-feet
P:9S.022,OOIPlTabIe 2
.
JUN-12-88 13,46 FROM'MCLA~IN WATER ENGRS 10, 303.8766 PAGE 1/2
. ~lcLaughlin Water Engineers, L~d.
-- ~ y- --. a, \
--- - ... ...-
....-----1Io("llI"t__ 2420 Alcott Street. Denver. Colol4ldo 80211 (303) 458-5550
.. ... - .. ...-
"'---.-. FacsimiJe (303) 480.9766
-,
FAX TRANSMITrAL
DATE: ...:rUh~ f:) I I ~ f 8
COMPANY: {f'5~ of ~e.v
TO: Ctuu:K ki2, d ~Uh1 Hf~~k
J
FAX NUMBER: if?O] 7~h -SS/8
FROM; td2r~d &~~
RE: ha~u.." W41-t..t_ tf:,<.J1; / ~7b1.k -h~ ~ Su~
MWE PROJECT NUMBER q~-b~~,t:D11'
Number of pages (total. including this sheet) /3
If you do not feceive all pages, please contact ~~d .4~ at our office at (303) 458-5550.
COMMENTS:
~-I1!1 ~ :I.411h,.,~-IY~ y~~ N'~
~r~~'
It)cY)4.
.::3. ( '111~~ ~1 ~ ~~~.
P:\Forms\Fax Tr.1lISIDiaal.Wtld.1lme 10. 1998
ýÿ
~
Sun 10 98 03:2610 8ak. Cazier 8. McGowan 97.87-9430
10.6
Mr. Joe Tom Wood
Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc.
602 Park point Drive, suite 275
Golden, colorado 80401
RE: Ability to use Forest Meadows Augmentation Plan
Dear Joe Tom:
This letter is written in response to your inquiry about
whether the Town would allow service to the Forest Meadows property
utilizing the Forest Meadows Augmentation Plan. The Board of
Trustees would provide service to the Forest Meadows property upon
the following terms and conditions:
1. Maryvale would be responsible for construction of the
storage pond required by the Forest Meadows Augmentation
Plan and convey the property to the Town together with
necessary easements in and out. The "Reservoir" is to
include all inlet and outlet hydraulic conduits,
measuring facilities and controls. Plans and construc-
tion will be reviewed and approved by Fraser as part of
the project cost. The Reservoir shall be at least 17.66
acre-feet in size.
2. Maryvale would obtain a conditional decree for the
Reservoir as required by the augmentation plan.
3 . Maryvale would pay the appropriate plant investment fees.
The Town would not charge a water resource fee since
Maryvale is providing the Reservoir, even though the Town
is providing the water rights. The Town would agree to
provide water service for up to 331 multi-family units as
well as 60 hotel units as requested.
The Town understands that to the extent that this reduces the
quantity of water needed from the Cozens Ditch for the augmentation
plan, that water will be devoted to use on the golf course.
Implicit in this proposal is your ability to hook on to the
Town's existing water system served by wells no. land 2.
Hopefully, the forgoing proposal is acceptable and, if so, we
can work out an appropriate agreement.
Sincerely,
~ .
. .
Memorandum of Understanding
This Memorandum of Understanding dated the 16th day of June, 1998 is between
the Towns of Winter Park, Fraser, Granby, Grand Lake, Hot Sulphur Springs Kremmling
and Grand County and the Winter Park Recreation Association. The parties to this
Memorandum of Understanding desire to further the efforts of providing housing
throughout the county and agree to the following:
A. 1. Enhance the furtherance of the provision of housing
by contributing to the formation of a Grand County
Housing Authority staff.
2. The entities shall provide the funding on an annual basis
as follows for a period through the year 2002: (parties agree
to provide funds each year by January 1 and agree to provide
~ year's funding for start up year by July 1, 1998.
Grand County $ 25,000
Winter Park Recreation Assoc. 25,000
Town of Winter Park 25,000
Town Fraser 25,000
Town of Granby 300
Town of Grand Lake 300
Town of Hot Sulphur Springs 300
Town of Kremmling 300
B. Reallocate the formation of the Grand County Housing Authority Board as
follows: (Board membership based on recommendations from the
following agencies) Each member shall be appointed for a 5 year term.
1. Winter Park Town Council
2. Fraser Board of Trustees
3. Winter Park Recreation Association Board of Directors
4. Grand County Board of Commissioners
5. Board of Trustees from Granby, Grand Lake, Hot
Sulphur Springs and Kremmling.
C. Funds shall be held by the Grand County Housing Authority. A fund
balance of at least 20% shall be maintained in order to insure financial
stability. During the year 2002 determination shall be made as to the need
for continuing the subsidies by the parties.
ýÿ
..
. .
D. Annual audits shall be prepared and the Housing Authority shall operate
under the provisions of the existing bylaws until the newly appointed
Board determines necessary changes for the efficient operation of the
Housing Authority. Current contracts, projects and loan agreements shall
be maintained with regard to Grand Living Solar Senior Homes, Silver
Spruce Apartments and Cliffview Assisted Living.
Attest: Grand County Commissioners
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners (date)
Winter Park Recreation Assoc.
Chairman, Board of Directors (date)
Winter Park
Mayor, Town of Winter Park (date)
Fraser
Mayor, Town of Fraser (date)
Granby
Mayor, Town of Granby (date)
Grand Lake
Mayor, Town of Grand Lake (date)
Hot Sulphur Springs
Mayor, Town of Hot Sulphur Springs
-.- - (date)
Kremmling
Mayor,TownofKrennnHng (date)
ýÿ
\ . .
<
MEMORANDUM
TO~ Catherine Trotter
Town of Fraser Planning Department
FROM: Bruce Hutchins
Grand County Water and Sanitation Department
DATE: July 13, 1998
RE: GCWSD Comments to Ordinance Amending the Town of Fraser's Business
District Regulations
The following are the comments of the Grand County Water and Sanitation District
to the ordinance amending the Town of Fraser's business district regulations which would
govern construction of a new mechanical wastewater treatment plant on the District's
property along Highway 40.
1. Section C (Submission Requiremel1t&).
IftJD a. Is there an established fee schedule or seme other document that specifies
the amount of the llrequired fee. II If not, can you provide a ballpark estimate
of this fee.
b. We suggest adding the following underlined language to the last subsection
IJtJ.: 1'V^ of Section c: /,JI~~ ~ I.-l~c::.~ "6
{ ~11 vtl' er Any additional materials ~ the opinion oflhe Town Staff, are
()b"" nec:essa.ry 10 adequately r, lew the apPII~io~ ~~~~:n:riill& shall
beJdentltied by the Town___the pre-applrCi&tlo 0 .
2. Seetio" E (Site Guideline~J.
a, Subsection (1) - The "maximum building footprintlJ for both the building and
the treatment area probably is too small. We understand that Fraser
A,~ determined the proposed size by scaling-off some of our design drawings,
but we think it makes sense to increase the maximum footprint over these
preliminary drawings. We would like to increase the building footprint to
LJ\ 10,000 square feet and the treatment facility to 2,500 square feet per
100,000 gallons of capacity. Also, we are assuming that this subsection is
supposed to reflect a true footprint of the structures and does not take Into
account buffer areas around each of them (which also could be specifically
identified in the application). Finally, we suggest including contingency-type
.. . .
language at the end of this section that would allow the size of the maximum
building footprint and the treatment facility to be exceeded, at the discretion
of the Town, "due to unforeseen circumstances or as may be necessary to
comply with present or future federal, state and local laws and regulations."
~~ -.pJ!.. v.v(.. t b. Sypsection (Z) .. We would like to change the first sentence to. "The surface
of all on-site parking shall be paved or shall be a material acceptable to the
~ ~l~\- ",m ~ ~j' Town." We may propose parking blocks of sand, gravel or grass. which we
\ ~ 1 :tAva think the Town would find aesthetically acceptable and consistent with a
.Au.oA j\0 c. W\ ';1
. \ \iO'l"wi\\ u..,e..~'" minimalist approach to constructing the plant at the current location.
c..\.\ c \I<.:a.
l~~"""'~ c. fujpsection (4) - This subsection should be indented to align with the other
subsections in order to avoid confusion. We also suggest re-wording this
ttXW- ,1Wl ~ subsection to state: "All structures shall be set back 100 feet from the Fraser
River." We have reviewed the preliminary drawings and it appears that the
_ ~u.-+' v third or fourth treatment unit or cell may be within 150 feet of the Fraser. Our
,~ . understanding is that it is more important to be farther off of Highway 40 than
. v.u,.t. a bit closer to the river, but let me know what you think.
~ ~o(id-i~1
d, Sybsection (5) .. We would like to remove the prohibition on chain-link
fencing. We agree that ordinary galvanized fencing Is unattractive and we
~ . li,J f~o.L- would not propose it. However, we might propose PVC-coated chain link
N f) t, &<.1 o1'l fence which comes in several colors such as forest green and black. The
~ilOJJJ . first sentence of this section seems to give Fraser the protection that it needs
to approve anything we propose.
e. Subsectior, (8).
i. For the reasons discussed below, the District feels strongly that it
makes sense to handle the "future use of the District's remaining
~f i~~J propertyl! issue outside of the proposed zoning regulation. The
District recognizes that the "open spacel! issue is very important to the
yi'1G Ifi~ Town and will work with the Town to accomplish this objective in a
mutually acceptable manner. The District also iQ not opposed to the
majority of its property being dedicated to open space. However, this
property also represents a potential source of revenue to the District
and the residents of its service area which cannot be ignored by the
Board. There are three sub-issues, which are discussed below and
which we should discuss in greater detail.
(1) We believe the cost of cleaning the ponds will be In the $200-
300,000 range. To defray this expense, as well as
construction of the plant itself, the District believes that it and
the Town should jointly explore grant programs and other
sources of funding that might compensate the District for
2
, . .
cleaning up the property and dedicating it to open space. If the
Town's zoning regulation is designed to force the District to
simply give up a portion of its property as a condition of a
special review and approval process, it seems unlikely that the
District and the Town will qualify for any grant programs.
I)'f, ~ pt-J (2) The District's Board believes tha~ at least at the outs9~ only
.Add I).C , n. "JJ. f two-thirds of the District's 24 acres should be committed to an
(,u.J tJ . 0"'1 1 open space process. Once the plant is built and we have a
#.1 #t II /). . I good sense of how future treatments units and other possible
J 1) '" u.~ f.- tt-vtt;6'l modifications will fit on the property, an additional increment of
~ J/o"", c 1/ ~. (,.f)'ti' the land might be available for open space. For now, however,
, lfld;~ r. we think we should err on the side of keeping one-third of the
Cd' \ .<to::. f- ~10;' acreage available for trealment-relatsd purpose..
..fJ- ~~I,.t. ~ '-----(3) Lastiy, as you know, the ponds may also serve as sources of
J /. /-, Inl' augmentation water to protect the Fraser River and the
~ () I tMd /' Districfs water rights. The current draft does not account for
1~11J~fj(" e' this usage.
ii. Four years from the building permit issuance may be an inadequate
It- ~ . period of time to clean the ponds in light of the fact that the District will
fI,,6 ~6~ fJ dtfXA1' flVf need the ponds through the construction period and in light of some
rt; e:h'r;-;J of the possible. least-cost alternatives for oleaning the ponds. We
f) yn1 CJn!~ v would like to modify this to four years from the date the ponds are
--h'~~ taken out of service.
iii. Most likely. the District would publicly-dedicate the ponds as open-
uh l +l ~ ~t ~,,-.f space rather than getting into issues related to reolaimed wetlands
, !;.. (which means different things to different people and requires more
~ t&""/JOit1t 'III ol-, t l1-1 specifioity if it were to stay in the zonIng regulation) or as a
""~r,v-l- i+ (a.,uW Recreational Class 2 facility. There may be other viable alternatives,
riD ~ t~' I vM cf}l . , which is another reason why we think this issue should not be dealt
'1.. ___ k. --t ~~e with in the regulations.
I~
3. Section F (Design GuideUnes).
~. bt... Subsection (1) - We would like to revise the building height requirement so
-14 N.J~t f ~ ~ that it allows 25% of the building to have a maximum height of 30 feet. This
(~fiO;'I..t' lJy 4~i ~ will facilitate loading of treated sludge into dump trucks by means of a
tM11j\/J).. (MA.d f)~{J. c!Jnveyor system.
. td 1: ~/",,~ ~O~\ Ao-o-wI.
AL!VI'& b. Sl,fpsectio'1 @)- We would like to add "pre-cast concrete with an architectural
I finish" and lIany other material or facade acceptable to the Town" to the list
J,l o~ of exterior building materials.
rob~~~ 3
1..
ýÿ
, . .
c. L Subsections (6) & (7) - The District does not object to inclusion of either
~ 1) plf Me noise or odor requirements. but the standards should be more objective (see
~ ' 'i below) and violation of the standard should be based on 8 complaint based
" 0 . . system with independent verification of a purported violation by the Town or
~ I"~t someone of the Town's choosing and with an opportunity to cure the
(\ft violation.
. t-
It)lV1~V~ (,- oP.J' i. Noise - Based on OSHA-related standards, and incorporating certain
c;,C caveats related to the construction phase, we suggest the following:
Q1cl I' ~o-rl' tjV 80 decibels (dBa) measured at the further of the property line
&tlJ> }
aft' ~~ of the mechanical wastewater treatment property or 25 feet
away from the outside wall of any structure and 25 feet away
~*,(t' VV1\'~ from any mobile vehicle or equipment. The limitations set forth
pIlL" r ~).. . above shall net apply to construction-related activities at the
time the plant is built or as part of any modifications or
~ ~~ I additions made in the future.
Odor - Based upon the CDPHE regulation applicable to odor
~ ii. emissions, we 8uggest the tOI/OVIIlng: "It is a violation if odors are
detected after the odorous air has been diluted with ten (i0) or more
volumes of odor free air. Measurement of odorous emissions shall be
made at the boundary of the portion of the property used for
wastewater treatment in accordance with the Odor Emission
Regulations adopted by the Colorado Department of Public Health
and the Environment under the Colorado Air Pollution Control Act.1l
Hi. Determination of a violation - "A violation of either the noise or odor
requirements of this subsection (9) shall be determined only in the
event that the Town has receIVed complaints from its residents. The
Town or its designated representative shall investigate the complaints
and make a determination of whether the standards set forth herein
have been violated. If a violation is found, the applicant, at the
Town's direction, shall take forthwith action to remedy or remove the
condition causing the violation. The applicant shall have fifteen (15)
days, Or such other period oftime as may be determined by the Town,
in which to cure the violation in a manner acceptable to the Town.
Failure to so cure the violation may result in assessment, in the sole
discretion of the Town, of reasonable fines and penalties."
d. Subsection (ID .. The proposed requirement for storage and removal of
J treated sludge is generally acceptable; however, we should add language
t. Dpt; pi tuch as 'under normal operating condilion$ . . .' or 'except in the event of an
Iv vI ~Jcll~~ t!" ~ "./,,f,' J
e r~~ 4
1()A'1~ · t ~'II''''I'
ýÿ
, . .
.
emergency condition constituting a threat to public health or the environment
"
. . .
e. Subsection (9) - AeroMod has indicated that the treatment facility can be
1~~~~ operated without a cover, and the only reason that the District would install
a floating cover is if we need to do so for temperature reasons. There is no
odor issue raised by whether or not we use a cover. ReqUiring that all of the
treatment facility be enclosed, even by a floating cover, dramaticafly
increases the cost to the District. We therefore request that this requirement
be removed.
4. Section G (Landscaping Requirement~).
a. Subsection (2)- The current requirements set forth in subsection 2 appear
to require the District to landscape approximately one acre of land (15% of
~1 ~l the 26% of the Diatrict's property that would be used for purposes related to
W al \ vi' \ \ tf' the wastewater treatment plant), including placement of trees and shrubs in
\)~~ \~~\Je:- a somewhat undefined manner. We should discuss whether it makes more
l\vJ'-'1 ~ sense to broaden the landscaping requirement to a plan that is acceptable
1J; to both the Town and the applicant, but which has the stated and required
vJ-"" purpose of obscuring, to the full extent possible, the treatment plant from
plain view.
b. SlIPsection (3) .. Rather than the District giving a guaranty of some 80rt, it
M# W1 w' may make more sense to simply require the landscaping contractor to
provide a guaranty and a two-year performance bond which names both the
District and the Town.
5. Despite everyone's best intentions, there are bound to be things we did not think of
or changes in construction or regulatory requirements that would reqUire the District to
construct or modify the plant in 8 way that, on the face of It, would violate the new or
existing zoning regulations. We would therefore like to add a general variance provision
as follow:
. k~
. .J.. 1- '') As part of an initial application under this subsection (9), or at any time after
t) vIr;.}r. approval of an initialllpplication, the applicant may request a variance from
.~ ~ any otherwise applicable requirement of the Town's Business District
r \)~~ \ RegUlations. The Town Staff shall review the variance request and make a
~ vJ-'1 recommendation to the Planning Commission which shalf, in turn, make a
t lJl;~ recommendation to the Board of Trustees. The Town shall determine
~\ whether and what type of notice of the variance request should be given to
~ ;~ ~ . k the public and whether a public hearing Is required prior to a decision on the
\ f)M~ variance request. The Planning Commission or the Board of Trustees also
~", will conduct a hearing at the request of the applicant.
\)0 ~tJ-' ~. V1 ,1'/) 5
~~ \ vJl" ~ ,t~tJ :
~ ~~ ~"'I f'
0~ ~
. . .
. We appreciate the opportunity to make these comments and look forward to talking
with you later tOday and meeting with you on July 15th. Until then, if you have any
questions, please give me a call.
182712.1
6
ýÿ