Back to: Opinion
June 3, 2013
Follow Opinion

Bowen: Semantics

Letter to the Editor:

Semantics

I am still not clear on some of the issues involving the annexation of BPR. Thank you for answers to many of the questions I asked in my last letter. I am confused as to why you didn’t answer the question that I felt was the most important one. How many CFS are needed to support BPR at build out? I see you are building a holding facility of 60 CFS, and if I heard right, you are deeding over that much water rights to Fraser water “taxpayer owned.” Isn’t that kind of like putting six 5 gallon pails full of water into a 200 gallon tank?

You’ve also stated the Fraser water has enough water to build out Fraser’s current and promised future needs, BPR’S needs and some left over, but they need costly augmentation. Augmentation that you are willing to save them money on by providing Fraser water money up front, if they will only pay you back by sharing tap fees with you in the future. Is there a need for augmentation if Fraser water does not take on BPR, and aren’t tap fees with you in the future. Is there a need for augmentation if Fraser does not take on BPR, and aren’t tap fees intended to provide funds to service current needs and establish a trust fund for future needs of Fraser Water? I f these needs are not present without BPR, how are you saving the water district money, when they already have the water they currently need for now and the foreseeable future Who bought and owns these water rights that Fraser water has? The taxpayer perhaps? Why should Fraser water give you tap fee money due to them, for building infrastructure that would be needed to service your project? Traditionally in the past, developers were required to provide all water needs for their project at their own expense. I dare say that the expense of providing your project water needs will be paid in full by you, if Fraser doesn’t take you on, and you build in the county.

Water user fees do not pay for improvements and increase trust monies. With any luck, they break even with the costs of purification, plant and system costs and maintenance. More use does not appear to ever bring these expenses down.

I would never sign a contract that has so may “T think, “it should,” “probably,” etc. and I honestly don’t feel you would either, if they were words pointing at you.

One other point I want to make is about the height variance request. The height regulations are there to protect property owners of Fraser, “taxpayers” for loosing property values through major losses of views. Being able to build a 55” tall building instead of 35’, is huge to both the developer and property owners near that building. Property owners across the street from it lose most if not all of the view, thus losing a large amount of their equity at a sale. To the developer, the extra square footage on the same footprint means a large savings in building costs and up to 40% to 50% more leasing space. Who is the winner there? Jeff, your mantra is to stick with the town rules, please do. Past history suggests that the County will not give a 15’ to 20’ variance on a building height.

I know most all of the architects in Grand County, and I can assure you that they can design your project with nothing taller than 35’, and make it just as beautiful and appealing as any project with varying heights up to 55’ tall.

P.S. Jack, I have a mouse trap set in my pocket where I keep my money.

Ron Bowen

Granby


Explore Related Articles

The Sky-Hi News Updated Jun 3, 2013 08:13AM Published Jun 3, 2013 08:13AM Copyright 2013 The Sky-Hi News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.