Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7/20/82 <br /> <br />Page -12- <br /> <br />posal is to have suburban interests pay <br />for portions of that study. Hobbs ad- <br />vised the proposal has been amended at <br />least 20 times in the last two months. <br />If a participant buys into the EIS study, <br />they can also buy into the water that <br />Denver has on its planning board to develop <br />over the next twenty years. Basically <br />Denver identified 6 projects as stated in <br />his letter. The cost of all the water <br />supply that Denver is anticipating is 1.58 <br />billion dollars - construction cost, which <br />is a 1980 figure. This figure sounds stagger- <br />ing but is to develop a approximately 346,000 <br />acre feet of water. Obviously the City <br />of Louisville does not need that kind of <br />water supply. What does the City need in <br />the way of water supply to complete our <br />inventory? Going from our current level <br />of service, the City would need approximately <br />1,700 acre feet of additional water supply <br />to meet the needs of our comprehensive plan <br />area as projected over the years. Based <br />on these figures if the City were to buy <br />their portion of EIS, and estimating it <br />to be $5,000,000 today - there is no firm <br />figure on that. Denver is saying it is <br />probably a $3,000,000.00 study, but it <br />could go to $8,000,000.00 or $10,000,000.00. <br />If we assume that the study will be $5,000,000, <br />the City's cost would be S25,000.00, which <br />is ~ of 1%. If Denver will not accept anything <br />less than 1% of the EIS study, the City's <br />cost would be $50,000 for the study and <br />15.8 million dollars for the capital con- <br />struction cost. It was his feeling that <br />there was an opportunity between now and <br />Sept. 7, 1982 to develop figures that Council <br />wants to have along with those on other <br />alternatives the City may have. There <br />also must be certain conditions the City <br />would want such as the water be delivered <br />to South Boulder Creek and not the Platte <br />River. The City wants to have the capability <br />of utilizing Denver's surplus water, and::wants <br />to be able to reuse it. The contract that <br />we have today does not allow for that. Finan- <br />cially the City could sell this water to <br />someone else, so reuse would definitely be <br />an issue, and could be a viable asset at <br />a later time. They would like to talk with <br />the Denver Water Board as to annual yield <br />rather than safe annual yield as they have <br />