Lake County officials, Colorado Mountain College discuss straightening Dutch Henry tubing hill, culvert work and land agreements

At a Lake County Board of County Commissioners work session this morning, county staff, Colorado Mountain College representatives and local stakeholders discussed plans to straighten the Dutch Henry tubing hill, install a culvert beneath Meadow/Colbert Creek and negotiate land‑use agreements to support an expanded beginner ski/tubing area.

The discussion centered on three near‑term priorities: (1) meeting with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and other regulators about contaminated material and culverting; (2) establishing land agreements or swaps among multiple owners (county, Cloud City Mountain Sports/CCMS, sanitation/sewer district and the college); and (3) identifying funding for culvert and initial dirt work to reduce a series of 90‑degree turns in the current drainage that complicate grooming and access.

Those present emphasized safety and operations as the main drivers. "About $2,900 for a 20‑foot section" of plastic culvert is the estimate on the table, and "three sections" would be needed to span roughly 60 feet, county staff said during the meeting. Participants framed that material cost against potential liability and longer‑term revenue from tubing and a beginner ski area.

Ben, speaking for Colorado Mountain College (CMC), outlined a broader development vision that would pair culverting and regrading with a beginner slope, a central "magic carpet" surface lift and two lanes of tubing. He said modest dirt work at the top of the tubing hill could make the profile "a lot more moderate" and unlock beginner ski instruction, after‑school programs and paid tubing operations. Ben also described how CMC uses student lab hours, federal work‑study and student employees to operate grooming and other functions now — and said CMC could begin dirt work as soon as this summer if culverting is completed.

County staff and stakeholders raised regulatory and wetland questions that affect feasibility. One participant recommended first meeting with state regulators and the Army Corps of Engineers to confirm whether features around the creek are regulated wetlands and to learn what approvals would be required. The transcript shows county staff plans to set a CDPHE meeting and to follow up with the Army Corps and the EPA as needed.

Participants also discussed operations and insurance. Ben said a 300‑yard magic carpet could cost roughly $250,000–$300,000; Mountain Guard — one industry underwriter mentioned in the discussion — indicated an initial insurance quote of about $15,000 per year on a basic policy for uphill transportation, a figure participants called unaffordable for the club and college without county participation. The group noted that transporting people uphill by tracked vehicle (snowmobile) would not carry the same uphill‑transport insurance requirement.

Other operational details discussed included snowmaking capacity (CMC reported using about 2,000,000 gallons last winter and said the footprint for the proposed work is only marginally larger), night‑lighting considerations, power sources for snowmaking and lifts, and the need for warming/restroom facilities and tube storage if volume increases. A county participant suggested the county lead a master planning process and land‑use agreements because multiple landowners are involved.

On funding, participants identified several possible sources: Perkins career‑and‑technical education funds for college‑taught construction work, Great Outdoors Colorado (GoCo) grants for recreation facilities, and private or club capital campaigns. The group also discussed using student labor and vocational classes to supply in‑kind contributions on construction and maintenance.

Next steps agreed in the meeting included scheduling the CDPHE meeting to clarify culvert and contamination requirements, asking Melissa (county staff) to circulate the latest site map to the BOCC room and other stakeholders, county staff following up on title/ownership and prior access agreements with sanitation, and county facilitation of land‑use conversations among CMC, CCMS and sanitation. No formal motions or votes were taken; participants left the session with a shared direction to pursue those meetings and to return with options for culvert installation, associated costs and a timeline.

The work session closed with staff assigned to organize the regulator meeting and to compile existing maps and previous land agreements so the group can scope a phase‑based plan that begins with culverting and straightening, moves to lift/magic carpet and tubing infrastructure, and ultimately considers buildings for rentals and warming space.