Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Public Works, Utilities and Public Safety 2015-04-09 Thursday, April 9, 2015 Public Safety, Utilities 8:00 a.m. & Public Works Committee Town Board Room * Revised 4/6/15 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. PUBLIC SAFETY a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD i. Department of Local Affairs Energy/Mineral Impact Assistance Funds Grant Application for Quarters Replacement on Prospect Mountain. Commander Rose b) REPORTS i. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions. 3. UTILITIES a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD i. Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company MOU. Dir. Bergsten ii. Upper Thompson Sanitation District IGA. Supt. Boles b) REPORTS i. Recap of Water Rates Study Information. Dir. Bergsten ii. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions. 4. PUBLIC WORKS a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD i. None. b) REPORTS i. Art in Public Places Policy. Supervisor Berg ii. Verbal Updates and Committee Questions. 5. ADJOURN AGENDA * * POLICE Memo To: Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee Town Administrator Lancaster From: Commander Eric Rose, Police Department Date: 04-09-2015 RE: DOLA EIAF Grant Application for Quantars Replacement Objective: Ask the Board of Trustees to authorize the application from the Town on behalf of the Northern Colorado Radio Communications Network (NCRCN) to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) Energy/ Mineral Impact Assistance Funds (EIAF). This is grant is to replace public safety radio equipment on Prospect Mountain. Present Situation: Current radio communications equipment, known as Quantars, are aging and will soon be obsolete. This radio communications is for public safety. The Town is the lead agency in this application working closely with other entities. These Quantars are quickly approaching the end of their useful life; therefore, replacement is critical for continued effective and efficient communications among law enforcement, fire departments, emergency medical services, and other first responders and emergency services in Larimer County, rural and urban areas. Proposal: The present situation will be improved with the award of this grant to replace Quantars located at Prospect Mountain. The replacement equipment will be for upgrades improving the quality and reliability of communications. The proposal is for $137,735.50; the match is also for $137,735.50, which is from the NCRCN membership fees, of which the Town is a member. The replacement will be in phases with others sites funded through future requests. Advantages: The replacement of equipment will ensure the continuation of a highly effective 800 Mhz communications system for public safety and communications interoperability. Disadvantages: None Action Recommended: Recommend to the Board to authorize this grant application to DOLA for funds to replace public safety radio communications equipment on Prospect Mountain. Budget: Not applicable Level of Public Interest Low Recommended Motion: I recommend to the Town Board to authorize this DOLA EIAF grant application to replace radio communications equipment on Prospect Mountain as a consent item at the Town Board meeting on April 14, 2015 Attachments: Grant application Rev. 7/30/14 # (For Use by State) State of Colorado - Department of Local Affairs ENERGY AND MINERAL IMPACT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM APPLICATION Tier I or Tier II Applications Must Be Submitted Electronically - Directions on Last Page -You are Highly Encouraged to Work with your Regional Field Manager with Completing your Application- A. GENERAL AND SUMMARY INFORMATION 1. Name/Title of Proposed Project: Northern Colorado Public Safety Radio Transmitter Replacement Project 2. Applicant: Town of Estes Park (In the case of a multi-jurisdictional application, name of the "lead" municipality, county, special district or other political subdivision). In the case of a multi-jurisdictional application, provide the names of other directly participating political subdivisions: The Town of Estes Park is the lead agency for the application working closely with Northern Colorado Radio Communications Network (NCRCN) members and partners: • Town of Estes Park • Estes Park Medical Center • Estes Valley Fire Protection District • City of Loveland • Loveland Fire Rescue Authority • Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District • Bureau of Reclamation • Thompson Valley Emergency Medical Services • Poudre Fire Authority • Transfort Bus System • Poudre Valley Hospital • Poudre Valley School District • Wellington Fire Department • City of Fort Collins • Berthoud Fire Department • Colorado State University Police Department • Platte River Power Authority The Town of Estes Park also serves Rock Mountain National Park, providing dispatching services from approximately 6:00 pm to 6:00 am (winter hours) and from 8:00 pm to 8:00 am (summer hours) 3. Chief Elected Official (In the case of a multi-jurisdictional application, chief elected official of the "lead" political subdivision): Name: William C. Pinkham Title: Mayor Mailing Address: PO Box 1200 Phone: 970-577-4772 City/Zip: Estes Park CO 80517 Phone: E-Mail Address: bpinkham@estes.org 4. Designated Contact Person (will receive all mailings) for the Application: Name: Eric Rose Title: Commander, Police Dept. Mailing Address: PO Box 1200 Phone: 970-577-3827 City/Zip: Estes Park CO 80517 Phone: E-Mail Address: erose@estes.org Page 1 of 13 Rev. 7/30/14 5. Amount of Energy/Mineral Impact Funds requested: (Tier I; Up to $200,000 or Tier II; Greater than $200,000 to $2,000,000) $137,735.50 6. Brief Description of the Project Scope of Work: (Give a brief introduction to the project in 100 words or less, including the various tasks involved in the project) Replace aging and soon to be obsolete emergency site equipment, also known as Quantars in multiple phases. The Town of Estes Park, as a member of the Northern Colorado Radio Communications Network (NCRCN), is seeking funds to replace the Quantars. This request is for an upgrade at the Prospect Mountain site, which is significant to the services of the Estes Park region. There are five (5) Quantars that must be replaced with six (6) next generation GTR 8000 series. The Town is the lead agency in this application working closely with other entities. These Quantars are quickly approaching the end of their useful life; therefore, replacement is critical for continued effective and efficient communications among law enforcement, fire departments, emergency medical services, and other first responders and emergency services in Larimer County, rural and urban areas. This project supports public safety. 7. Local priority if more than one application from the same local government (1 of 2, 2 of 2, etc.) 1 of 1 Page 2 of 13 Rev. 7/30/14 B. DEMOGRAPHIC AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION. 1. Population a. What was the 2010 population of the applicant jurisdiction? 6021 b. What is the current population? 6086 (Current/most recent conservation trust fund/lottery distribution estimate is acceptable.) What is the source of the estimate? US Census c. What is the population projection for the applicant in 5 years? 7474 What is the source of the projection? US Census 2. Financial Information (Current Year): In the column below labeled “Applicant” provide the financial information for the municipality, county, school district or special district directly benefiting from the application. In the columns below labeled “Entity”, provide the financial information for any public entities on whose behalf the application is being submitted (if applicable). Complete items “a through j” for ALL project types: Applicant Entity Entity a. Assessed Valuation (AV) Year: 2014 173,163,880 b. Mill Levy 1.822 c. Property Tax Revenue (mill levy x AV) 315,727 d. Sales Tax (Rate/Estimated Annual Revenue) 5% / $8.4m % / $ % / $ e. Total General Fund Budget Revenue 12,256,132 f. Total Applicant Budget Expenditures (Sum of General Fund and all Special Funds) 20,340,439 g. General Fund Balance as of January 1 of this current calendar year. 4,695,303 h. General Fund Balance (Unrestricted) as of January 1 of this current calendar year. 3,750,551 i. Total Multi-year Debt Obligations (all funds*) 15,442,593 j. Total Lease-Purchase and Certificates of Participation obligations* 6,075,000 For projects to be managed through a Special Fund other than the General Fund (e.g. County Road and Bridge Fund) or managed through an Enterprise Fund (e.g. water, sewer, county airport), complete items “k through o”: Identify the relevant Special Fund or Enterprise Fund: Emergency Response System Fund (this is a new fund) k. Special or Enterprise Fund Budget Amount 60,000 l. Special or Enterprise Fund Multi-Year Debt Obligations* 0 m. Special or Enterprise Fund Balance as of January 1 of this calendar year 0 n. Special or Enterprise Fund Balance (Unrestricted) as of January 1 of this calendar year 0 o. Special or Enterprise Fund Lease-Purchase and Certificate of Participation Obligations* 0 p. Special Fund Mill Levy (if applicable) 0 For Water and Sewer Project Only complete items “q through s”: NOT APPLICABLE q. Tap Fee r. Average Monthly User Charge (Divide sum of annual (commercial and residential) revenues by 12 and then divide by the number of total taps served.) NOTE: Commercial and Residential Combined s. Number of total Taps Served by Applicant * Include the sum of the year-end principal amounts remaining for all multi-year debt obligations, lease purchase agreements or certificate of participation notes Page 3 of 13 Rev. 7/30/14 C. PROJECT BUDGET. List expenditures and sources of revenue for the project. The totals on each side of the ledger must equal. Expenditures Sources of Revenue (Dollar for Dollar Cash Match is Encouraged) Funding Committed List Budget Line Items (Examples: architect, engineering, construction, equipment items, etc.) List the sources of matching funds and indicate either cash or documentable in-kind contribution Yes/No Line Item Expenditures Line Item Costs Cash In-Kind Replace & upgrade Quantars; Motorola model GRT 8000 - equipment $184,412.22 Energy/Mineral Impact Fund Grant Request $92,206.11 In-kind: no Installation $91,062.78 Energy/Mineral Impact Fund Grant Request $45,531.39 In-kind: no Northern Colorado Radio Communications Network $137,737.50 Yes $275,475.00 TOTAL $275,475.00 $ Please attach a more detailed budget if available *Loans with a 5% interest rate may only be awarded for potable water and sewer projects. Leave blank if a loan is not requested. Page 4 of 13 Rev. 7/30/14 D. PROJECT INFORMATION. The statutory purpose of the Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance program is to provide financial assistance to “political subdivisions socially or economically impacted by the development, processing or energy conversion of minerals and mineral fuels.” 1. Demonstration of Need: a. Why is the project needed at this time? The current public safety site equipment in operations in Northern Colorado will be obsolete in 2017; the end of their useful life. Without new Quantars, public safety and emergency communications may fail, thereby jeopardizing lives and property. These devices are critical for emergency, public safety and first responder communications. The NCRCN is strategically planning a phased approach for replacement Quantars at all sites, over the next 2 years. b. How does the implementation of this project address the need? The replacement of site equipment will ensure the continuation of a highly effective 800 Mhz communications system for public safety and communications interoperability. The NCRCN has carefully researched supplier options for purchase and installation. c. Does this project, as identified in this application, completely address the stated need? If not, please describe additional work or phases and the estimated time frame. Do you anticipate requesting Energy and Mineral Impact Assistance funds for future phases? This project will completely address the need for this one site, replacing the public safety communications equipment at Prospect Mountain. However, additional sites will also need to be upgraded to complete the entire project. The NCRCN and a designated entity intends to apply for additional funding in the coming grant cycles. d. What other implementation options have been considered? No other known grants meet this funding criteria. The local governmental members of the NCRCN do not have budgeted funds to complete this project. The NCRCN Board funds are limited for additional phases of multiple Quantar replacements at other tower sites. e. What are the consequences if the project is not awarded funds? Public safety would be jeopardized if these communications devices are not replaced. This would have a devastating negative impact on residents, and to visitors traveling to Colorado’s premiere tourist destination, Estes Park and the Rocky Mountain National Park. First responders may experience some measure of or total loss of communications, which would delay responses to emergencies. The Northern Colorado region would then need to rely on less effective means of communications. If multiple emergencies were taking place communications is needed for coordination and if it is not effective lives and property could be at risk. 2. Measurable Outcomes: a. Describe measurable outcomes you expect to see when implementation of this project is complete. How will the project enhance the livability* of your region, county, city, town or community (e.g. constructing a new water plant will eliminate an unsafe drinking water system and provide safe and reliable drinking water; the construction of a new community center will provide expanded community services, or projects achieving goals regarding energy conservation, community heritage, economic development/diversification, traffic congestion, etc.)? *(Livability means increasing the value and/or benefit in the areas that are commonly linked in community development such as jobs, housing, transportation, education, emergency mitigation, health and environment) Page 5 of 13 Rev. 7/30/14 At the completion of this project: 1) NCRCN sites will have the latest GTR8000 equipment for public safety communications 2) Public safety communications among emergency and first responders will be improved with new equipment. 3) Public safety communications will continue with no interruptions to service when GTR8000’s are installed and before the current system is no longer functional b. How many people will benefit from the project? (i.e., region, county, city, town, community, subdivision, households or specific area or group; or any portion thereof) The residents of Larimer County will be the primary beneficiaries of this system with a population of 316,000. However, neighboring counties will also benefit as law enforcement, medical responders and fire fighters work in a collaborative effort to assist each other regardless of jurisdictions. This was evident during the 2013 flood and High Park wildfire. Visitors to the region will also benefit from this as the high tourist season inevitably results in accidents. In 2014, the Rocky Mountain National Park had a record 3.4 million visitors. Accidents in the Park (hiking, climbing, and encounters with wildlife) and vehicular (tourists not familiar with driving mountain roads) require sophisticated and coordinated responses among local, county, state and federal jurisdictions. c. How will the outcome of the project be measured to determine whether the anticipated benefits to this population actually occur? 1) Continued highly effective communications for Public Safety 2) High level of reliability with upgraded equipment 3) Upgraded equipment will have a useful life of over 10 years 4) New equipment is capable of software upgrades for added benefits d. Does this project preserve and protect a historic building, facility or structure? If yes, please describe. No e. Will this project implement an energy efficiency/strategy that could result in less carbon footprint or conserve energy use or capitalize on renewable energy technology? If yes, please describe. This project does not directly address energy efficiency; rather this is about maintaining a highly effective emergency communications system. 3. Relationship to Community Goals a. Is the project identified in the applicant’s budget or a jurisdictionally approved plan (e.g. capital improvement plan, equipment replacement plan, comprehensive plan, utility plan, road maintenance and improvement plan or other local or regional strategic management or planning document)? What is its ranking? The Town citizens voted for a temporary sales tax increase to support several special projects including the emergency response system. However, the citizen vote was specific for the following (ballot language) and the funds will be allocated to this project (along with other named projects): TWO AND ONE HALF PERCENT (2.5%) FOR CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS ASSOCIATED WITH EMERGENCY RESPONSE CAPABILITIES OF THE TOWN, SUCH AS EMERGENCY PUBLIC RADIO AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER EQUIPMENT AND ASSOCIATED COSTS. The 2013 flood clearly initiated some forward thinking on the part of the Town. The Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees have adopted a strategic plan that includes references to: Page 6 of 13 Rev. 7/30/14 • Infrastructure that is reliable, efficient and up-to-date to serve our residents, businesses and guests. • Public safety, health and environment – Estes Park as a safe place to live, work and visit with our extraordinary natural environment. • Government services – providing high-quality, reliable municipal services for the benefit of our citizens, guests and employees, while being good stewards of public resources. 4. Local Commitment and Ability to Pay/Local Effort a. Why can’t this project be funded locally? The Town of Estes Park continues its recovery efforts from the devastating 2013 floods, extreme rain fall, and rock and mudslides. Flood expenditures have primarily impacted General and Proprietary (Light & Power, Water) Funds. The General Fund balance percent as of 12/31/2012 was at 47 percent; and dropped to 27 percent as of 12/31/2013. Preliminary fund balance for 12/31/2014 is 17 percent. Reimbursement takes time so there is significant lag in receiving funds and requests for reimbursements are arduous and time consuming. Not all expenses are eligible for reimbursement so the Town will be responsible for some of the flood recovery costs. The next stage of flood recovery involves significant capital outlay (large construction projects) with the Town’s General Fund. The Town simply does not have the capacity to take on non-flood expenses at this time. b. Has this project been deferred because of lack of local funding? If so, how long? The NCRCN is fully aware of the impending end of life for the current public safety communications system and has been strategically researching options and opportunities for replacement devices and funding. Working with its NCRCN partners, the Town of Estes Park also researched in-kind and cost share options. The timing for replacement was planned. c. Explain the origin of your local cash match. (Note: Whenever possible, local government cash match on a dollar for dollar match basis is encouraged.) The NCRCN has a membership fee based on the number of transmitter devices used by that agency. These fees will be used as the cost share support, 1:1. Paying members include • Town of Estes Park • Estes Park Medical Center • Estes Valley Fire Protection District • City of Loveland • Loveland Fire Rescue Authority • Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District • Bureau of Reclamation • Thompson Valley Emergency Medical Services • Poudre Fire Authority • Transfort Bus System • Poudre Valley Hospital • Poudre Valley School District • Wellington Fire Department • City of Fort Collins • Berthoud Fire Department • Colorado State University Police Department • Platte River Power Authority Page 7 of 13 Rev. 7/30/14 d. What other community entities, organizations, or stakeholders recognize the value of this project and are collaborating with you to achieve increased livability of the community? Please describe how your partners are contributing to achieve the improvement to the livability of the community through this project. If in-kind contributions are included in the project budget, detailed tracking will be required on project monitoring report. The NCRCN partners are participating through their financial support as members and are substantially involved in planning. The Town of Estes Park is an active NCRCN Board member, represented by Commander Eric Rose of the Estes Park Police Department. The Town is the primary entity responsible for project tracking and monitoring including reporting to DOLA as required. Working closely with the NCRCN Board and members, the Town will communicate directly with DOLA on project progress and completion. Because this project focuses on public safety, community organizations, citizens and businesses will all benefit from this project even if not directly, through peace of mind. i. Please describe the level of commitment by each collaborator. (e.g. fee waivers, in-kind services, fundraising, direct monetary contribution, policy changes.) The Town of Estes Park is committed to this project on behalf of the region; along with the NCRCN membership and most importantly the citizens and visitors to Northern Colorado. The commitment of the NCRCN is evident by the 1:1 cost share contribution from its membership fees. The following members are active and paid members and as such their membership fees are contributing to the match: • Town of Estes Park • Estes Park Medical Center • Estes Valley Fire Protection District • City of Loveland • Loveland Fire Rescue Authority • Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District • Bureau of Reclamation • Thompson Valley Emergency Medical Services • Poudre Fire Authority • Transfort Bus System • Poudre Valley Hospital • Poudre Valley School District • Wellington Fire Department • City of Fort Collins • Berthoud Fire Department • Colorado State University Police Department • Platte River Power Authority The NCRCN Board includes: • Mary Moore, Board Chair, Fort Collins Police Services • Eric Rose, Vice-Chair, Estes Park Police Department • Mike Gress, Treasurer, Poudre Valley Fire Authority • Rob McDaniel, Secretary, Loveland Police Department • Greg Gilbert, Loveland Fire Rescue Authority This Board is actively involved in the plans for replacing aging Quantars site equipment. During their October 6, 2014, Board meeting they discussed and supported this project (attached). Page 8 of 13 Rev. 7/30/14 ii. Please list the value of the resources that each collaborator is bringing to the program. This is a membership organization and as members each organization contributes fees to NCRCN which is what is being used for the cost share. e. Has the applicant dedicated the financial resources in their current budget, reserve funds and/or unused debt capacity that are being used for the local matching funds? Explain if No The Town of Estes Park is supporting the match through its membership fee with the NCRCN. f. Have the applicant’s tax rates, user charges or fees been reviewed recently to address funding for the proposed project? The Town of Estes Park participates in an annual audit in which tax rates are reviewed; financial audit, single audit (federal financial assistance) and in the future will participate in flood recovery audits. The Town’s Financial Officer will work closely with the Police Department to budget the expenditures and revenue for this project and to list the equipment as a Town asset. g. If the tax rate, user charges or fees were modified, what was the modification and when did this change occur? No modification. h. Has the applicant contacted representatives from local energy or mineral companies to discuss the project? If yes, when was the contact and what was discussed. Not applicable i. Has the applicant requested financial support from the industry? If yes, when was the contact, what amount did you request? What were the results? If no, why not? No. This is not applicable. 5. Readiness to Go a. Assuming this project is funded as requested, how soon will the project begin? Select One ( √ ) Within 3 months, (__) 3-6 months, (_) 6-9 months or (_) 9-12 months? What is the time frame for completion? Select One (__)Within 3 months, (_) 3-6 months, ( ) 6-9 months, ( √_) 9-12 months or (_) >12 months. b. Describe how you determined that the project can be completed within the proposed budget as outlined in this application? Are contingencies considered within the project budget? The supplier has the equipment in stock; the installation company had been contacted regarding the possibility of funding for this project, and is the existing contractor services; and NCRCN has agreed to support any additional costs associated with this project, including unforeseen costs. The supplier and the installation company have experience working together for a smooth installation process; each has multiple years of experience in this highly-focused and technical area. No permits are required; no engineering or design is required. Quotes have been received directly from the manufacturer for proprietary equipment. Page 9 of 13 Rev. 7/30/14 c. Has the necessary planning been completed? How? What additional design work or permitting must still be completed, if any? When? How did the applicant develop project cost estimates? Is the project supported by bids, professional estimates or other credible information? Please attach a copy of any supporting documents. Yes. The NCRCN Board has been discussing this project; entered into discussions with the DOLA regional office; has informed its members and partners; and received quotes on prices for equipment and installation. Meeting minutes attached. 6. Energy & Mineral Relationship a. Describe how the applicant is, has been, or will be impacted by the development, production, or conversion of energy and mineral resources. Larimer County Clerk and Recorder public records show that 1,122 oil and gas leases and 526 mineral deeds have been filed. b. To further document the impact in the area, name the company or companies involved, the number of employees associated with the activities impacting the jurisdiction and other relevant, quantitative indicators of energy/mineral impact. In 2014, local public safety agencies has handled the following hazardous material incidents that included gas/oil leaks: • Estes Valley Fire Protection District—8 • Loveland Fire Rescue Authority—123 • Poudre Fire Authority—137 • Platte River Power Authority—3 • Berthoud Fire Department—3 7. Management Capacity a. How will you separate and track expenditures, maintain funds and reserves for the capital expenditures and improvements as described in this project? Projects funded by grants are assigned a project code which is entered into the Town’s accounting system. All expenditures are clearly coded, reviewed and signed off by the department point of contact. In this case, this person will be Commander Rose. Electronic and paper copies are retained in the accounting department according to Town document retention policy. Access to files will be granted by DOLA authorized personnel upon request. b. Describe the funding plan in place to address the new operating and maintenance expenses generated from the project? Operations and maintenance will be contracted with Wireless Advanced Communications (WAC) which is the current maintenance contactor for the transmitter sites. WAC provides professional radio and communications system services for demanding commercial, government and mission critical public safety systems. They have highly trained technical staff that support and service public safety communications devices. WAC was established in 1996, and is a Colorado based company. Extending this contract will ensure continued, uninterrupted service with quality professionals who know the system and have a good working relationship with the Town of Estes Park and the NCRCN. c. Describe the technical and professional experience/expertise of the person(s) and/or professional firms responsible to manage this project. WAC: has highly trained technical staff with over two hundred years of combined experience in the Page 10 of 13 Rev. 7/30/14 communications industry. WAC has grown to employ 55 full time employees and encompass approximately 35,000 square feet of technical, fabrication and production facilities. Motorola: Motorola Solutions serves more than 50,000 public safety and commercial customers in more than 100 countries. Motorola Solutions grew from a 1928 Chicago startup into a global mission-critical and commercial solutions provider. Motorola invented the world’s first FM portable two-way radio and relayed the first words from the moon. Both companies are ideally suited to assist the Town and NCRCN to achieve the goals of this project. d. Does the project duplicate service capacity already established? Is the service inadequate? Has consolidation of services with another provider been considered? There is no duplication of service capacity. Current equipment will expire in 2017. The Town of Estes Park is the lead agency working closely with the Northern Colorado Radio Communications Network. E. HIGH PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATION (HPCP) PROGRAM COMPLIANCE. Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S. 24-30-1301 to 1307) require all new facilities, additions, and renovation projects funded with 25% or more of state funds to conform with the High Performance Certification Program (HPCP) policy adopted by the Office of the State Architect (OSA) if: • The new facility, addition, or renovation project contains 5,000 or more building square feet; and • The project includes an HVAC system; and • In the case of a renovation project, the cost of the renovation exceeds 25% of the current value of the property; and • The project has NOT entered the design phase prior to January 1, 2008. The HPCP requires projects achieve the highest possible LEED certification with the goal being LEED Gold. Projects are strongly encouraged to meet the Office of the State Architect’s (OSA) Sustainable Priorities in addition to the LEED prerequisites. Projects funded through DOLA are required to participate in the OSA's registration and tracking process. See DOLA’s HPCP web page for more information or contact your DOLA regional manager. In instances where achievement of LEED Gold certification is not practicable, an applicant may request a modification of the HPCP policy or a waiver if certain conditions exist. Please answer the following questions: 1. What is the total building square footage of the new facility, addition, or renovation? Not applicable 2. Does the project include an HVAC system? Yes No 3. Is the project a renovation? (If no, please skip to Question 6 below.) Yes No 4. What is the current property value*? $ 5. What is the total project cost for the renovation? $ 6. Will you need assistance locating resources, third party consultants, or technical assistance for LEED requirements, preparing cost estimates, or otherwise complying with the HPCP? Yes No Explain F. TABOR COMPLIANCE. 1. Does the applicant jurisdiction have the ability to receive and spend state grant funds under TABOR spending limitations? Explain: Yes. Calculated annually, de-Bruced in 2000; excess TABOR funds are spent in Community Reinvestment Fund. Page 11 of 13 Rev. 7/30/14 2. If the applicant jurisdiction receives a grant with State Severance funds, will the local government exceed the TABOR limit and force a citizen property tax rebate? Not applicable 3. Has the applicant jurisdiction been subject to any refund under TABOR or statutory tax limitations? Explain. No 4. Has the applicant sought voter approval to keep revenues above fiscal spending limits? Explain. Yes. Calculated annually, de-Bruced in 2000; excess TABOR funds are spent in Community Reinvestment Fund. 5. Are there any limitations to the voter approved revenues? (e.g., Can revenues only be spent on law enforcement or roads?) The Town of Estes Park is de-Bruced (TABOR). This application referenced the local ballot in Community Reinvestment Fund, set aside funds for public safety and road improvements, and these funds have been allocated. 6. If the applicant jurisdiction is classified as an enterprise under TABOR, will acceptance of a state grant affect this status? Explain. Not applicable G. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. Indicate below whether any of the proposed project activities: 1. Will be undertaken in flood hazard areas. Yes No X List flood plain maps/studies reviewed in reaching this conclusion. Describe alternatives considered and mitigation proposed. NA 2. Will affect historical, archeological or cultural resources, or be undertaken in geological hazard area? Yes No X Describe alternatives considered and mitigation proposed. NA 3. Address any other related public health or safety concerns? Describe. Yes X No This equipment replacement project will provide efficient and effective public safety communications among jurisdictions for emergencies. It is essential for public safety. APPLICATION SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS AND OFFICIAL BOARD ACTION DATE (REQUIRED) Application and attachments must be submitted electronically in WORD .DOC (Preferred) or .PDF Format (Unsecured) to: ImpactGrants@state.co.us Page 12 of 13 Rev. 7/30/14 Please Cc your Regional Field Manager all documents as well to ensure receipt. In email subject line include: Applicant Local Government name and Tier for which you are applying -example- Subject: Springfield County EIAF Grant Request, Tier 1 NOTE: Please do not submit a scanned application (scanned attachments ok). (If you are unable to submit electronically please contact your DOLA regional manager) For any questions related to the electronic submittal please call Bret Hillberry @ 303.864.7730 Attachments List (Check and submit the following documents, if applicable):  Preliminary Engineering Reports NA  Architectural Drawings NA  Cost Estimates Yes  Detailed Budget Yes  Map showing location of the project Yes  Attorney’s TABOR decision NA ***************************************************************************************************************************************** Official Board Action taken on On the Board Agenda for April 14, 2015 Date Submission of this form indicates official action by the applicant’s governing board authorizing application for these funds. Attachments Price quote from Motorola dated March 6, 2015 NCRCN Board meeting minutes supporting the application, dated October 6, 2014 Letter of support from NCRCN Board NCRCN IGA Map for replacement Quantars Map for oil wells located in Larimer County Page 13 of 13 Utilities Department Memo To: Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee (PUP) Town Administrator Lancaster From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent Date: January 8, 2015 RE: Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company MOU Objective: To improve the quality, reliability and efficiency of delivering drinking water to our citizens. To obtain the Town Board’s support (with Mayor Pinkham recusing himself) for a joint venture project with Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company (PEMPWCo, Public Water System ID # 135559) which will allow access to grant funding and low interest loans for this project. Present Situation: The Town and PEMPWCo have worked together to complete the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Proposal: Staff seeks Town Board approval of the attached MOU. With approval from both Town Board and the PEMPWCo board, staff will proceed with the project as outlined in exhibit B of the MOU. Advantages: This project supports the Town’s mission to provide high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of our citizens while being good stewards of public resources. All project funding obligations will be covered by PEMPWCo and its owners. Disadvantages: Staff work load will increase; however, hours and costs will be logged and included for reimbursement through the project. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval as an action item at the April 14 Town Board meeting. Bringing this as an action item will allow for comment and facility transparency as Mayor Pinkham also serves on the PEMPWCo board. Budget: N/A Level of Public Interest: Moderate. Other neighborhoods are looking to do this same thing. Those neighborhoods are located in the County and would be processed through the County. Recommended Motion: I move to include this matter as an action item at the April 14, 2015 Town Board meeting. 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding is dated this ____ day of ____________, 2015 by and between the Town of Estes Park (the “Town”) and the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company (the “Water Company”). WHERAS, the Town owns and operates its Water Utility; and WHEREAS, the Water Company owns the distribution system which provides water to a portion of the Park Entrance Estates Subdivision located within the Town; and WHEREAS, the Water Company is receiving potable drinking water from the Town as a bulk water customer; and WHEREAS, the Water Company’s distribution system is in bad repair and needs replacement; and WHEREAS, the parties have determined to seek grant funding for professional planning and engineering services related to the distribution system; forming a Special Improvement District pursuant to Colorado statutes; applying for and receiving a loan from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority to install a new distribution system; and transferring the new distribution system to the Town; and WHEREAS, the parties agree to the terms and conditions as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises stated herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A, is the SRF Future State Application Steps which provides an illustration of the steps needed to apply and receive a loan from Colorado Resources and Power Development Authority (the “Authority”). This MOU is divided into two parts. Phase 1 states the terms and conditions necessary to complete all the tasks through the Process Design Report. Phase 2 starts with the Plans and Specifications and continues through the loan application, approval, and construction of the new distribution system. 2 PHASE 1 A. DOLA Grant. The Water Company has requested that the Town act as a sponsor and recipient, on its behalf, for an administrative grant from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) for the purpose of obtaining professional planning and engineering services related to the State Drinking Water Revolving Fund application and design of the new distribution system. With regard to the obtaining and administration of this administrative grant, the parties agree as follows: i. The Town will administer and oversee professional engineering services on behalf of the Water Company to obtain a drinking water Project Needs Assessment and Technical, Environmental Determination and Managerial, Financial (TMF) report (“Phase 1 Report”) meeting requirements of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and in accordance with the DOLA grant contract. ii. The current estimate for the cost of Phase I is $36,000. The administrative grant requires a 1:1 match by the Town as grantee. The Water Company shall initially deposit $18,000 to the Town to be used as matching funds for the administrative grant and reimbursement for Town expenses. Town expenses shall include in-house costs and outside consulting costs. It is unknown whether the $18,000 deposit will be sufficient to complete all the work necessary to acquire the loan. The Water Company agrees to deposit with the Town additional funds, within sixty (60) days of receipt of written notice from the Town, of the need to deposit additional funds for reimbursement to the Town for Phase I. The Town may suspend any activities of the Town until such time as funds have been deposited by the Water Company. iii. No third party professional planning and engineering services will begin until the fully executed grant contract has been received and approved by the Town. iv. The Town will maintain accounting records of the grant in accordance with the Town’s and DOLA’s procedures. v. The Town will disburse Water Company’s funds and DOLA’s grant funds to pay for Phase 1 in a 50/50 manner. vi. Any funds remaining at the end of the project will be returned 50% to Water Company and 50% to DOLA. vii. The Water Company shall deposit the initial sum of $18,000 with the Town within 30 days of notice from DOLA of its approval of the administrative grant. 3 viii. The Town shall consult with the Water Company in the review of all proposals and selection of the professional engineering firm. ix. The Town shall contract with the selected firm for Phase I and be responsible for administration of the contract. x. Upon receipt of the Phase 1 Report, the parties shall review the report, and the Water Company shall determine whether or not to move forward with the Plans and Specifications. xi. Upon receipt of the Plans and Specifications, the Water Company shall determine whether or not to move forward with the formation of the SID to fund construction, and operation of a new distribution system (“Phase 2”) by written notice to the Town. B. In the event that the grant is not received by the Town, the parties agree to either amend this MOU or either party may terminate this MOU by written notice to the other party. PHASE 2 1. Phase 2 shall consist of all tasks required to submit the loan application to the Authority, form the SID, obtain loan approval, and construct the new distribution system. A. The parties have determined that funding currently exists through the EPA’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund administered through the Authority. The parties have determined that to provide funds for construction of the new system, the appropriate method is to form a special improvement district (SID) pursuant to the applicable state statutes. This process is as follows: i. The Water Company shall be responsible for filing with the Town the necessary petition and documentation requesting the formation of the SID. ii. The Town shall process the petition for the formation of the SID pursuant to the state statutes. iii. The formation of the SID will require an election by the property owners within the boundaries of the SID. iv. The parties contemplate having this election at the regular Town municipal election in April of 2016. v. The Town shall be responsible for holding the election for the formation of the SID including all necessary publications, election judges, and administrative duties. vi. Upon approval of the formation of the SID at this election, the Town shall proceed to form the SID. 4 vii. The SID shall proceed to secure funding through the Authority’s process for the construction the new distribution system. B. In the event that the loan is not approved and received by the SID, or the SID is unable to procure alternate funding, this MOU shall terminate. 2. Upon receipt of the approval of the funding from the Authority, the SID shall proceed to obtain services for competitive bidding of the construction project. The SID shall contract with the selected construction firm for construction of the new system. The SID shall consult with the Water Company during the construction process. 3. Upon payment in full of all obligations of the SID, the SID shall be dissolved and the Water Company shall transfer the entire water distribution system to the Town to become part of the Town’s water utility system. 4. The Town shall be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the new water system between the acceptance of the system by the Town and transfer of the new system to the Town as set forth in Paragraph 3 above. 5. It is understood by the parties, that construction of the new system may include the need to obtain easements from property owners within the SID area. The Water Company shall be responsible for obtaining and providing easements to the Town for the location and installation of the system on private property. 6. The Water Company shall be responsible for reimbursing the Town for all its administrative, legal, including bond attorney if applicable, and any other costs incurred by the Town in performing its duties and responsibilities pursuant to this MOU. 7. The Town shall provide the Water Company with periodic reports of all expenses incurred by the Town. 8. Currently, there is a water storage tank owned by the Water Company on Lot 26 of the Park Entrance Estate Subdivision. The parties understand and agree that the Town is not interested in, nor will accept, any responsibility for the water storage tank. 9. The Water Company shall be responsible for all of its old water distribution system. 10. Water Development Charges. The parties understand and agree that all lots within the SID have been credited with the appropriate amount of the bulk water rate surcharge entitling all current lots receiving water service from the Water Company to have fulfilled the financial requirement for a water tap fee for an individual customer of the Town except for the vacant Lot 12B in the Park Entrance Estates. Future 5 connection to the Town’s water system for service to Lot 12B shall require payment of the Town’s then current water development fee (tap fee). 11. Attached and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B is a proposed timeline. The parties understand and agree this is a preliminary timeline, and this timeline shall be modified by the Town if necessary. Signed by the parties the ___ day of ____________, 2015. Town of Estes Park Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company By: _______________________ By: _____________________ 6 EXHIBIT A 7 EXHIBIT B, DRAFT SCHEDULE Introductory Presentation/Project Charter 5/4/2015 Phase 1 Preliminary Application and loan requirements (pre- Details and Design) 2/12/2016 Phase 2 Formation of Special Improvement District (SID), Title 31, article 25, part 5, C.R.S. 4/5/2016 Election, SID 4/5/2016 Loan Drinking Water Revolving Fund 8/10/2016 Construction 12/15/2016 Project Closeout 2/16/2017 Maintenance by Town, Ownership by SID until loan is paid off? 2/16/2045 Ownership transfer (deeded) from SID to Town (when bond is paid off) 2/17/2045 Memo Utilities Department To: Public Safety, Utilities, Public Works Committee (PUP) Town Administrator Lancaster From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent Date: April 9, 2015 RE: Upper Thompson Sanitation District IGA Objective: Staff seeks the approval of a revised Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) which outlines how a water main extension will be constructed to the Fish Creek Lift Station for Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) and UTSD will provide an equivalent value additional sewer taps to the Town’s Marys Lake Water Treatment Plant. Present Situation: UTSD’s well at their Fish Creek lift station does not produce enough water. UTSD is trucking water to the lift station which is more personnel and equipment intensive than a Town Water connection. The Town’s Marys Lake Water Treatment Plant requires additional sewer taps. The Water Department limits production from Mary’s Lake Water Treatment until additional sewer taps are acquired. Proposal: The Town’s Water Department and UTSD will cooperate in the construction of a new water main to the UTSD lift station. The Town will lead and pay for the water main project and UTSD will compensate the Town through an equivalent value of sewer taps. Advantages: This project allows the two utilities to focus on their core businesses. UTSD will achieve improved operational performance. The Town’s Water Department will acquire additional sewer taps needed for Mary’s Lake operations and continue the build out of the Town’s drinking water system to complete looped supply around Mall Road. Disadvantages: The Water Department will see an increase in workload; however, future improvements require the Department to take on these types of capital projects. This additional workload will be temporary. Action Recommended: Staff recommends this IGA be approval through the April 14 Town Board consent agenda. Budget: 503-7000-580.35-54, “WATER SYSTEM” $1,734,851 2015 budget. UTSD lift station project $242,000 (with 15% contingency) Level of Public Interest: Low, Fish Creek flood recovery construction is underway. The addition of this project is a marginal increase in disruption. Impacted properties have been contacted with discussions of this project. Recommended Motion: I move to approve the IGA on consent at the April 14, 2015 Town Board meeting. SECOND AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT BETWEEN UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT AND TOWN OF ESTES PARK THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT ("Second Amendment") is made and effective as of the ___ day of ___________, 2015, (the "Effective Date") by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (the "Town") and the UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado ("District"), collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." RECITALS WHEREAS, the Parties entered that certain Intergovernmental Agreement dated February 6, 2009, memorializing the District's capacity to treat certain flows from the Town's Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant ("MLWTP") and the Town's funding of the costs thereof (the "Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Parties amended the Agreement as of April 16, 2013, to allow for the Town to purchase additional single family equivalents (SFE's) through the payment of additional plant investment fees (PIF) based upon increased peak monthly flow capacity requirements; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further amend the Agreement to memorialize the Town's commitment to complete certain water infrastructure design and construction, a portion of which will benefit the District, in exchange for a credit against future PIFs required of the MLWTP (the "Project"). NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties do hereby agree as follows: COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS 1. PIF/Peak Month Flow Requirements-PIF Credit. Section 3 of the Agreement is amended to acknowledge and to provide an estimated PIF credit to the Town, as of the date of execution of this Second Amendment, in the rough equivalent amount of 24 SFEs, which credit is given in exchange for the estimated Project delivery cost of $210,000.00 of District improvements. The estimated Project deliverables, along with the estimated budget for completion, is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Exhibit A shall serve as the basis for determining both the estimated PIF credit and the actual PIF credit, which shall be determined after completion of the Project and based on actual numbers. Upon completion of the Project, the Town shall prepare and submit to the District a final and actual Project cost matrix, which will be added to Exhibit A to document the actual Project costs. Documented costs shall include only those costs which may be verified through receipts and bid documentation; work performed by Town staff shall not be billed to the District, unless approved, in advance, at a pre-determined rate. The actual PIF credit shall be determined by the Parties based upon the sum that is created by dividing the actual Project costs attributable to the District, by the current District PIF fee (currently $8,700/SFE). This PIF will not be required to be paid and shall be considered to be a credit, subject to the Town's completion of the Project. The peak month waste flow capacity requirements of the Town shall be increased to 27,800 gpd (139 SFEs = 27,800 gpd divided by 200 gpd/SFE) before an additional PIF shall be assessed. 2. Consideration for PIF Credit/Town Improvements. The Town has committed and agrees to complete the design, engineering and construction of the Project, which shall include a water main line extension with a water service connection to the District's Fish Creek Lift Station, along with the necessary permitting, surveying, easements, administration, engineering, blasting, asphalt patching or paving, materials and labor necessary to complete such water main line extension. In exchange for the completion of the Project, the District agrees to extend a credit toward the Town's additional PIF requirements based on the actual costs of the District's share of the Project provided pursuant to Section 1 of the Second Amendment. The Town shall be solely responsible for all aspects of the Project, including supervising contractors necessary to complete the Project and providing for the necessary bonding and insurance to adequately protect the Parties through the duration of the Project; however, the District agrees to review plans and provide labor necessary to assist the Town with completion of the Project, as determined by the Parties. Both the Town and the District agree to timely inspect the Project upon completion and to cooperatively work through discrepancies or disagreements regarding the Project during and upon completion of the work. The Town agrees to commence the Project work within ten (10) days of execution of this Second Amendment. The PIF credit shall survive the termination of the Agreement. 3. Term. The Agreement, as modified by its First and Second Amendments, will terminate as of December 31, 2015, subject to automatic renewal for additional one-year terms unless notice of non-appropriation of funds therefor is given at least thirty (30) days prior to the end of the then-current term. Nothing in this Second Amendment is intended to be construed as a termination of the Agreement. 4. No Other Amendments. All provisions of the Agreement not expressly amended herein remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the date set forth below.\ TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO Mayor Date of execution: , 2015 ATTEST: Town Clerk UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT Larry Pettyjohn, Chairman Date of execution: , 2015 ATTEST: Chris Eshelman, Secretary SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT BETWEEN UPPER THOMPSON SANITATION DISTRICT AND TOWN OF ESTES PARK EXHIBIT A North Fish Creek Water Main Extension to UTSD Lift Station UTSD Estimated Cost QTY Unit of Measure Description Unit Cost Extended Cost 2070 ft. 8" DIP $ 29.35 $ 60,754.50 26 ea 8" MEGALUGS/BOLT PACKS $ 49.99 $ 1,299.74 8 ea 8" 45 ELBOWS $ 81.60 $ 652.80 6 ea 8" 22 1/2 ELBOWS $ 79.80 $ 478.80 4 ea 8" 11 1/4 ELBOWS $ 118.15 $ 472.60 4 ea 8" TEES $ 150.00 $ 600.00 4 ea 8" VALVES $ 1,070.10 $ 4,280.40 104 ea 8" FIELDLOCK GASKETS $ 150.00 $ 15,600.00 3 ea 12 X 6 reducers $ 138.12 $ 414.36 3 ea Fire Hydrant $ 2,000.00 $ 6,000.00 2070 ft. Blasting $ 14.00 $ 28,980.00 2 ea Air relief pit and fixtures $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 1 ea 2" Corp $ 247.51 $ 247.51 1 ea 2" Curb Stop $ 368.76 $ 368.76 40 ft. 2" copper service line $ 34.12 $ 1,364.80 1 ea 2-1/2" VALVE BOX $ 60.00 $ 60.00 6 ea 5-1/4" VALVE BOXES $ 85.00 $ 510.00 1 ea Lift Station Tap Fee (20 @ 536) $ 10,720.00 $ 10,720.00 1 ea 2" Meter $ 1,245.00 $ 1,245.00 1 ea Easement $ 10,963.00 $ 10,963.00 1 ea HDR Engineering ($6.65/ft) $ 13,765.50 $ 13,765.50 2 ea Excavator Rental (monthly) $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 6400 ft. Estimated Asphalt Replacement $ 4.80 $ 30,720.00 Estimated Total Cost $ 209,497.77 Memo Utilities Department To: Public Safety, Utilities, Public Works Committee (PUP) Town Administrator Lancaster From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent Date: April 9, 2015 RE: Recap of Water Rates Study Information Objective: Provide an additional public notification opportunity of rising Water Rates. Present Situation: The Town’s public water utility is a cost-based entity that relies solely on user fees. Costs and revenues must be balanced in order to maintain operations, plan for future upgrades and keep the utility in compliance with ever-increasing federal standards. A financial analysis is periodically performed to ensure the rates paid by customers are equitable between the rate classes and adequate to fund capital projects and operations. The last time a water rate study was conducted in 2010-2011, the Town opted to keep rates lower than recommended by the study in order to assist residents and businesses through the national economic downturn. Therefore, the Town has deferred capital projects which include the replacement of pipes that have been used many years past their design life. The older neighborhoods where these pipes exist see more frequent water leaks and do not benefit from the new standards which provide fire protection through larger-sized pipes. Pipe replacement costs run $500,000 to $1 million per mile depending on blasting, excavation and road replacement costs. Customer water bills are based upon the amount of water used, the customer class and the size of the water meter. The goal is to cover the fixed costs for drinking water with fixed revenue. The base monthly fee will be going up. Seasonal customers using less water will notice this more than a typical year-round customer. Customers who are concerned about their future bills are encouraged to call Utility Billing to obtain their future bill impact. The rate study report is available on-line, at the Public Library and at the Down Town Utility Office. The study outlines the process used to determine the recommended water rates. Notices have been added to utility bills; social media has been utilized; and a newspaper article was published to inform our customers of pending water rate increases. Proposal: Staff recommends water rates be increased an average of 9.9% over the next three years and 8% in the fourth year. Each customer will see a different percentage increase depending on their usage. Customers are encouraged to call Utility Billing to obtain their future bill impact. Advantages: This project allows the Water Department to collect enough revenue to work on a long list of deferred capital projects while continuing operations and ensuring a safe, reliable drinking water supply. Disadvantages: Our customers’ utility bills will increase. Action Recommended: Staff has recommend new water rates be reviewed and voted on at the April 28 Town Board meeting. Rates would take effect June 1st. Budget: Impacts the entire Water Department budget Level of Public Interest: High to Moderate. In general people do not like the cost of things to go up. Despite our best efforts many people will not have been aware of this coming change until the increase shows up on their bill. Recommended Motion: N/A PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: PUP Committee Town Administrator Lancaster From: Brian Berg, Parks Maintenance Supervisor Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager Greg Muhonen PE, Public Works Director Date: April 9, 2015 RE: Art in Public Places Policy Objective: Verbal update report on the progress of Art in Public Places Policy. The Policy will establish an Art in Public Places (AIPP) program for the Town of Estes Park. Present Situation: In the past the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees has communicated the need for an Art in Public Places Policy. Along with the Policy, guidelines are also needed to address issues and processes associated with the art that include selection, acquisition, purchase, commissioning, placement, installation, inventory, and maintenance of public works of art. With the establishment of the Parks Advisory Board (PAB) in May of 2014, an appropriate group can now address Art in Public Places. PAB has established an Art in Public Places Policy and Guidelines for the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees to adopt. Proposal: To present the Art in Public Places Policy and Guidelines provided by the PAB to the Town of Estes Park Board of Trustees for approval and adoption at the May 12, 2015 Board of Trustee meeting.