Lake County commissioners review Dutch Henry tubing-hill plan; culvert, land swaps and funding next steps

At a work session that began at 10:30 a.m., the Lake County Board of County Commissioners received an overview of proposals to regrade and straighten the Dutch Henry tubing hill, including culverting Meadow Creek, negotiating land agreements with nearby owners and seeking grant and insurance options to support a magic carpet and other infrastructure.

The discussion matters because county staff and local partners said the culvert and regrading would reduce safety risks, unlock space for beginner ski infrastructure and tubing that could generate revenue, and require coordination with state and federal regulators and multiple landowners. The board and staff identified permitting, wetlands reviews, costs and insurance as the immediate hurdles to proceed.

Ben Carr, a Cloud City Mountain Sports (CCMS) representative who led the presentation, outlined a phased vision: (1) culverting and straightening the creek and tubing run, (2) adding an uphill conveyance (a magic carpet), a small beginner ski area and terrain features, (3) constructing a modest support building for rentals/operations, and (4) longer‑term site improvements. Carr said a 300‑yard magic carpet and associated beginner area are “the dream” and estimated a 300‑yard carpet would cost in the “$250,000 to $300,000” range and that a smaller carpet might be closer to “around $200,000.”

County staff and partners flagged regulatory and site constraints. Speakers said culvert replacement and any work within wetland areas would require reviews with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), the Army Corps of Engineers for wetlands approvals, and coordination with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency where appropriate. At the meeting staff described the current culvert as “problematic” and leaking; the sewer line runs under or adjacent to the existing culvert and will constrain design options.

Michael (county staff member) provided material cost estimates for culverts, saying a 20‑foot plastic culvert section is about $2,900 and that a 60‑foot culvert run would need three sections — roughly $9,000 in material alone, with additional installation costs expected. County staff said they will “find the money for the culvert” and recommended meeting with regulatory agencies to confirm permitting and wetlands requirements before moving dirt work.

Speakers discussed funding sources and phasing. The group suggested Great Outdoors Colorado (GoCO) grants for larger infrastructure such as a magic carpet and buildings, and noted Perkins career and technical education funds could support related training and some in‑kind labor but would not cover major capital costs. Ben Carr said Mountain Guard, a known ski‑industry insurer, had quoted roughly $15,000 a year for a basic ski‑area policy for his club; he suggested exploring whether existing insurer relationships (for example Cooper’s policy) could be extended rather than pursuing a separate, costly ski‑industry policy.

Operational and staffing models were described as a mix of student lab hours, federal work‑study positions, club employees and eventual county staffing if the county operates uphill conveyance. Colorado Mountain College (CMC) staff said much of the current grooming and operations are accomplished using CMC students through lab hours and federal work‑study, and that those students or high school employees could staff lifts, grooming and patrol roles under several funding/assignment models.

Other practical items discussed: ownership and parking (parts of the area are owned by the county, CCMS, sanitation/sewer and private parcels); potential land swaps or long‑term leases to create a single landowner for the corner; sewer and sanitation access that may limit where culverts and new slopes can be placed; and snowmaking, lighting and power needs (speakers said CMC currently provides much of the site power and that additional lighting/power planning should be included in master planning).

No formal vote or ordinance was taken. Commissioners and staff agreed on immediate next steps: arrange a meeting with CDPHE (and consult the Army Corps of Engineers about wetlands), compile site maps and ownership records, refine cost estimates for the culvert and initial dirt work, and begin county‑led master planning (Spencer, a designer referenced in the meeting, was cited as a likely consultant to prepare plans). One presenter said dirt‑work classes and student labor could begin this summer if regulatory and permitting questions are resolved.

The board closed the work session noting multiple follow‑up items for staff and partners: scheduling regulatory meetings, producing a current site map for the commissioners, and starting land‑use conversations with CCMS, sewer/sanitation and CMC. No formal commitments of county capital were made during the session; participants said funding sources will be pursued and feasibility clarified in subsequent meetings.