My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PROJC00092
CWCB
>
Loan Projects
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
PROJC00092
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2009 11:06:34 AM
Creation date
10/6/2006 12:02:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Loan Projects
Contract/PO #
C153507
Contractor Name
Greeley, City of
Contract Type
Loan
Water District
3
County
Larimer
Bill Number
SB 87-15
Loan Projects - Doc Type
Contract Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
59
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />/' <br />-t <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS <br /> <br />WATER-SEWER BOARO MEETING <br /> <br />January 7. I9BB <br /> <br />Chairman Farr called the Water-Sewer Board meeting to order on Thursday, <br />January 7, 1988 at 4:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Civic Center <br />Complex. <br /> <br />I. ROLL CALL <br /> <br />Present at the meeting were Board members: W. D. Farr, Robert Ruyle, Richard <br />Boettcher, Elmer Rothe, David Clarkson, and Water Board Attorney Bill <br />Bohlender. From the Water and Sewer Department were Director Mark Rybus and <br />staff members. <br /> <br />2. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN FOR I9BB <br /> <br />A motion was made by Oavid.Clarkson and seconded by Robert Ruyle that W. D. <br />Farr be elected to serve as Chairman of the Water and Sewer Board for 1988. <br />The motion was carried unanimously. <br /> <br />3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES <br /> <br />A motion was made by Robert Ruyle and seconded by Elmer Rothe to approve the <br />minutes of the meeting of Oecember 3, 1987 as presented. The motion was <br />carried unanimously. <br /> <br />4. APPROVAL OF ANO/OR AOOITIONS TO AGENDA <br /> <br />The agenda was approved as presented. <br /> <br />5. CONSIDERATION OF SETTING THE CASH EQUIVALENT RATE IN LIEU OF WATER <br />RIGHTS EXCHANGE <br /> <br />A motion was made by Robert Ruyle and seconded by Richard Boettcher to set the <br />cash in lieu of water rate at $1,000 per acre foot. The motion was carried <br />unanimously. <br /> <br />6. CONSIOERATION OF OPTIONS FOR REHABILITATIUN OF BARNES MEADOW RESERVOIR <br />OAM <br /> <br />Mark Rybus noted that, at the November Water-Sewer Board meeting, a <br />representative of Morrison-Knudsen Engineers presented a condition status <br />report on Barnes Meadow Reservoir Dam, along with a series of alternatives for <br />repair of some undesirable conditions that were found during the detailed <br />examination of the structure. Overall, the structure is in acceptable <br />condition, but some rehabilitation work is needed in order to bring it up to <br />first-class condition. Mr. Rybus said the staff had reviewed all pOSSible <br />methods of repairs to Barnes Meadow Dam, and was prepared to make a detailed <br />recommendation to the Board. <br /> <br />John Gauthiere gave a detailed report on the condition of the dam, and <br />reviewed the alternatives proposed by Morrison-Knudsen Engineers. The costs <br />of these alternatives ranged from $185,000 to $1,035,000. The staff's <br />recommended alternative included work on the embankment dam, outlet works, and <br />the service and auxiliary spillways, for a total construction cost of <br />$26B.255. The unit cost per acre foot would be $114.20. <br /> <br />Mr. Ruyle stated that he would like to have this matter tabled until the <br />repair cost of all the City's dams is analyzed and the staff can determine the <br />estimated cost per acre foot. He said that, when it is determined what the <br />overall situation is, a work session should be held with the City Council to <br />discuss the matter further. Mr. Rybus said there are time limitations <br />involved in completing the Barnes Meadow study, because the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board is participating in 50% of its cost and the City cannot <br />collect the matching funds until it is completed and presented to them. He <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.