HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2019-10-22Tuesday, October 22, 2019
5:00 p.m. – 6:40 p.m.
Rooms 202/203
4:45 p.m. - Dinner
5:00 p.m. Results of SAFEbuilt Report/Building Division/Building
Advisory Committee. (Director Hunt)
5:45 p.m. Downtown Parking Management Plan Phase II
Implementation (continued). (Manager Solesbee)
6:35 p.m. Trustee & Administrator Comments & Questions.
6:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items.
(Board Discussion)
6:45 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting.
Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this
meeting at approximately 4:30 p.m.
AGENDA
TOWN BOARD
STUDY SESSION
1
2
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Date: Oct. 22, 2019
RE: Results of SAFEbuilt Report / Building Division / Building Advisory
Committee
Objective:
Review findings in the SAFEBuilt Process Improvement Analysis (Aug. 23, 2019;
Consider alternative options for Building Division staffing, resources, and customer
service delivery for 2020 and beyond (staff proposes two such options);
Give staff direction on a preferred option, and direct us to undertake the necessary
budget and other steps to execute that option.
Present Situation:
The Community Development Department’s Building Division has been in a state of
ongoing flux since May 2018. From before May last year to the present, we have had four
Chief Building Officials (acting or interim), a 100 percent turnover in other division staff,
and numerous changes in processes and procedures. During the rest of 2018 and early
2019, these resulted in notable deterioration in service and a lot of dissatisfaction among
stakeholders, especially builders and contractors.
The good news: Beginning in winter 2018-2019, the trend in most performance measures
has been positive. The Town contracted with SAFEBuilt Colorado starting in February to
provided several types of services, including: Plan review services; Chief Building Official
services, inspections, and a Process Improvement Analysis. In particular, we have
benefitted from a stable personnel environment in building, steady attention to improving
processes, including software, and focused attention to customer service.
Staffing need special mention. The following positions and individuals have been brought
onboard since November 2018:
Permit Technician Eris Audette began work in November. Eris has made many
process improvements and has brought customer service to a new, elevated level in
Building. Eris is a Town staff member
Our current Chief Building Official, Gary Rusu, began in May 2019. Gary has many
years of experience in public-sector building environment and has brought calm
stability to the division and its work. Gary is a contract employee with SAFEBuilt.
The Building Advisory Committee has continued to meet throughout 2019 – at first weekly,
then biweekly, and beginning in October, monthly. The BAC is a subgroup of the Estes
3
Valley Contractors Association and consist of approximately a half-dozen or more
individuals from the building and design communities. They have given inestimable advice
and feedback to the Town in restructuring and improving the Building Division, in matters
large and small.
During the first half of 2019, several Town Board Study Sessions, regular meetings, and at
least one special meeting in February 2019, staff provided reports on ongoing changes in
Building. Most of those meetings also featured public comment from affected stakeholders
– in fact, the Feb. 2019 special meeting was almost entirely devoted to a listening session
on this topic.
Staff can now report the following results:
The SAFEBuilt Process Improvement Analysis report (attached) was completed on
August 23, 2019. Some of the processes are already implemented. Others are
discussed below.
Since July 2019, Building division staffing has been thin on the ground, but stable.
We currently have 2.5 staff members (including Gary as a contract staff person) in
the office. Up to five or six additional plan reviewers are processing building plans
for the Town (and other jurisdictions) remotely. At this writing, we expect a
SAFEBuilt contract building inspector to begin work on Mon., Oct. 21; that person’s
primary responsibilities include Vacation Home Life Safety Survey (VHLSS)
inspections.
Except for one approx. two-week period in July, we have met the targets for building
plan review turnaround time that Town Board set in January 2019. The primary
yardsticks were response with review comments by 10 business days from
submittal (residential plans) and 20 business days (commercial and other plans).
This includes SAFEBuilt staff review times and also our internal and external
agency reviewers.
Clients and stakeholders are reporting much higher levels of satisfaction with
specific plans and projects and with Building Division services overall. The BAC and
the Contractors Association have been hearing feedback and providing summary
information to staff. There are occasional exceptions, but in general the feedback
has been positive on changes since February.
Proposal:
The Process Improvement Analysis contains numerous specific areas for improvement,
but essentially they come down to a few broad areas:
Improvement in workflow, including avoiding redundant steps and low value-added
elements;
Special attention to automation and software;
Improve communications, both amount and timeliness;
Focus on customer service;
Establish and pay heed to quality assurance and feedback.
The Analysis has an Executive Summary at the front, but the report itself is not long and
bears reading in full.
Staff concurs with the report’s conclusions.
4
Implementing the recommendations brings us to discussion about staffing and resource
allocation in Building Division. In a nutshell, we have two choices:
Continue with an “in-house” model, similar to other Town departments and
divisions, in which we would hire Town staff to fill currently vacant positions and
allocate resources to support that model, including implementing a full software
process solution;
Follow a contract-for-services model, which entails hiring an external firm to perform
many Building Division services, including plan review, inspections, record
management, and code interpretation, and certain management and
communications functions. This model also entails fiscal commitments that dovetail
with current fees.
“In-House” Option:
Under this scenario, the Town would hire a new Chief Building Official in early 2020, along
with a Combination Building Inspector and likely a Residential Plans Examiner. The Permit
Technician position would be retained. In staffing, this would be identical to the model that
existed for a good many years until 2018.
Automated processes would continue to be built on an as-needed basis. Good progress
has already been made with the Laserfiche document-management system in the Building
Division. For example, scheduling regular (non-VH) inspections via a Laserfiche form was
implemented approx. six weeks ago and is working well, replacing an old-fashioned
telephone voicemail scheduling setup. Laserfiche can help with resolving a number of the
inefficiencies in the Analysis. However, each Laserfiche solution will likely require
customizing the software. Automating miscellaneous permit processing via Laserfiche
went live in the summer and is working well, but a significant amount of programming effort
was needed.
Communications with this option would not necessarily be better or worse in the area of
plan submittal, inspection performance, inspection scheduling, permit issuance and
TCO/CO finalization, or standard Q&A services. Much of this work (except inspections)
would be performed by the Permit Technician, a position which staff recommends be
retained in-house regardless of other options. Plan reviews is one area where
communications may be marginally better with a fully -in-house staff. Most or all contract
models would entail plan reviews being done remotely. There is an advantage, more so in
second-round or later plan resubmittals, in having a staff member physically present to
discuss options or answer questions about plan contents.
Customer service is not likely to be any different, except for the plan-review advantage
noted above. Possibly the major potential difference in service could come from having the
same CBO or same inspector in the office or on the site, day in and day out, year in and
year out. However, this advantage can be reduced if an external contract provides for the
same personnel from the contracting agency assigned to the Town.
Another customer-service factor would be personnel who know the Town and its people.
Living locally helps provide this. However, there is no guarantee that even in-house staff
5
will be able or willing to live in Estes Park. Less than half of Community Development staff
at this time are Estes Valley residents.
Along the same lines, it needs to be noted that hiring in Building Division has proven to be
difficult. Two full-bore attempts to hire a staff Chief Building Official in the past 12 months
have resulted in two failed searches (including one with only two applicants.) Hiring
building staff everywhere is difficult in the early 21st Century. Experience is critical, and
individuals with the necessary credentials are baby boomers, with many retiring and others
looking at it in a few years.
There is no intrinsic advantage or disadvantage in the quality assurance area to having in-
house staff versus a contract arrangement. It can be argued that in-house staff are more
directly accountable for job performance, or that inefficient processes can be corrected
more easily if they are under direct Town management. In practice, changing these
elements always turns out to be easier said than done.
Contract Option:
Most or all of the merits or demerits listed under the in-house option apply conversely for
the contract model. A few additional points:
A Town contract for Building Division services, at least initially, is best executed for
one year. There is some risk that we could see an annual change in firms that we
contract with for various reasons, including cost escalation, performance concerns,
community disenchantment, or going out of business, to name a few. There is also
a risk factor to locking in a longer contract, even if we include the standard
contingency that budget appropriation must be approved each year. Staff would
suggest a reasonable middle course under a contract option is to start with one
year, assess performance and value added, then consider a longer term. Past and
current performance is the best predictor of future outcomes. (This is also true for
in-house staffing; it is one reason we always check references.)
A large firm can bring one element to the table that is almost impossible to replicate
in-house for a town our size: namely, depth. A firm with six or eight plan reviewers
can stage workload and meet deadlines during a crunch that would be hard to do
with one or two staff doing the same work. There is also the simplest depth
measure of all to consider for a small division like Building: If one staff member is
out sick, at continuing education, or similar, who does the work? A larger firm has
resources for this purpose that the Town does not.
As noted, a contract model should not have 100 percent of Division staff under
external employ. Staff strongly recommends that the Permit Tech always be a
member of Town staff. This is also supported by our contractors in BAC and the
Association. If nothing else, this give key the Division direct accountability to Town
administration and the community.
Budget considerations:
The 2020 Budget proposed in Community Development and recommended by the Town
Administrator has, of necessity, been built around the in-house model. The simple reason
is that we already knew in June through September, when budgets were in review, just
what staff and resources would cost for the Building Division (as much as we ever know for
sure, anyway.) Until Sep. 30, when a quote was received from SAFEBuilt for a 2020
6
contract, we had no firm figures for that option. Moreover, picking an option is Town
Board’s policy prerogative, with the Oct. 22 Study Session having been set some time ago.
With that said, some budget comparisons are appropriate. The following are estimated
figures, intended to give a general comparative sense of the two options’ fiscal pluses and
minuses in fiscal year 2020:
In-House:
Revenues = $333,000
Expenditures = $818,908
Contract (SAFEBuilt):
Revenues = $86,000 [net, based on SAFEBuilt retention @ 82 percent of fees]
Expenditures = $170,577 [based on 1.5 FTE staff salary + benefits]
[Note: SAFEBuilt and the Town’s Finance Dept. used somewhat different methods
to project permit revenues in 2020. Our Finance Dept.-estimated revenues in
particular are projected quite conservatively. Fee-based revenue streams are
always harder to predict from year to year, so all the ratios herein should be
considered with due caution.]
I should note that we have a proposal and quote from SAFEBuilt (attached), but not a draft
contract as yet. Staff will be looking for a not-to-exceed 82 percent of actual fees as a
locked-in contractual section in 2020, if we choose to go this route.
For actual budget procedure in late 2019 and early 2020, Finance Director Hudson has
advised that opting for the contract model will involve a budget amendment, as it is too late
in the cycle to incorporate meaningful recommendations for significant changes in
Community Development’s budget. Based on the preceding estimates, staff suggests that
adopting the in-house budget as currently proposed will likely provide enough funding to
accommodate either option, with the possibility that the contract option could provide some
savings. The “due caution” fiscal warning bears repeating here. Staff expects that if the
contract option is preferred, we will be able to bring a budget amendment in time to have
those services begin January 2, 2020. At worst there may be a small delay to allow for
contract execution and administrative details.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff is comfortable recommending a contract with SAFEBuilt for 2020. Our reasons are:
“Past and current performance is the best predictor of future outcomes.” Staff
believes SAFEBuilt has performed up to expectations in the past eight months. This
view is supported by BAC and the Contractors group.
The fiscal projections seem to indicate a more favorable balance than under the in-
house scenario. Estimated (revenues – expenditures) indicates around $84K net
deficiency under the contract model; the corresponding deficiency under the in-
house model is $486K. (Again, permit-fee revenue projections are notoriously hard
to nail down, so these fiscal aspects should be approached with great caution.)
SAFEBuilt has the necessary depth and expertise to provide the stated services
timely and effectively, based on their record with us since May.
7
Staff has also met with and spoken with other northern Colorado municipalities who
have been using SAFEBuilt under similar scenarios to ours. In particular, Town
Administrator Machalek and I spent a July afternoon in Timnath meeting with their
Town Manager and Community Development Director on their experience with the
company over the past seven years. Timnath’s population is similar to Estes Park’s
(and growing rapidly, along with commercial activity). Timnath is very pleased with
their experience and reported virtually no negatives.
A one-year contract offers the opportunity to assess our experience and obtain
quality-assurance feedback from stakeholders. If SAFEBuilt should not live up to
expectations, we will have the option during next year’s budget cycle to reassess
and go in a different direction.
There are other firms that offer similar contractual services to SAFEBuilt. The Town
has had experience with other building-services providers in the recent past. Those
have not necessarily met our expectations. No doubt other firms can perform as
well, perhaps better, than SAFEBuilt; however, in this case we do have a known
quantity with a proven (albeit brief) history.
Advantages:
Please see preceding bullet-point list.
Disadvantages:
None identified to date. Precise attention will be needed to budget and performance
during 2020.
Action Recommended:
Study-session verbal direction on proceeding with one of the two options is needed. Staff
recommends a one-year contract with SAFEBuilt for 2020, aligned with the attached
proposal / quote.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A at this time. A specific budget will need to be adopted via the amendment process if
the contract option is chosen.
Level of Public Interest:
Interest among contractors and builders has been high, regarding future direction in
Building Division overall and specifically in the in-house vs. contract choice. Please see
attached letters from the BAC and the Contractors Association.
Attachments:
1. SAFEBuilt Process Improvement - Estes Park Findings Final 8.23.19
2. SAFEbuilt Proposal for Estes Park - Sept 30 2019 – Final
3. RE_ SAFEbuilt Proposal to Estes Park - rhunt@estes.org (email) – Oct. 10, 2019
4. BAC: BOARD LETTER #2 – Sep. 20, 2019
5. Contractors Association: MEETING MINUTES #3 – Oct. 2, 2019
8
ESTES PARK, COLORADO
Process Improvement Analysis
2
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Randy Hunt
Community Development Director
170 MacGregor Ave
Estes Park, CO 80517
Dear Mr. Hunt,
Thank you for taking the time to review this report. As a community grows and evolves, a
successful and efficient building department can make all the difference. Supporting a thriving
city requires consistent, but adaptive processes to provide building services to its citizens.
One of SAFEbuilt’s core values is Improvement; we aim to continuously review and improve all
the services we provide, whether that is through introducing a new technology or updating
processes.
We have conducted a thorough review of the existing permitting process for the Building
Department of the Town of Estes Park. We reviewed processes by shadowing and holding
interviews with the staff. The recommendations that follow in this report are based on our
findings and SAFEbuilt best practices.
We recommend the following:
Improve efficiencies with technology
Establish a framework for repeatable & reproducible processes
Improve communications
Develop customer service standards
We understand these are recommendations for your consideration. At this time, some
suggestions may not be the best fit for Estes Park; however, we look forward to working with
you to discover your priorities to find the best solutions for your short and long-term goals. We
hope to help you achieve these improvements and bring these best practices to life. Thank you
for your participation in the review of our discoveries.
Respectfully,
Tom Klein
Chief Revenue Officer
SAFEbuilt
970.292.2203
tklein@safbuilt.com
www.SAFEbuilt.com
3
II. CURRENT STATE PROCESS
A. Current State Permitting Process
Clear and concise department processes are essential to promote a strong and safe community
through adherence to codes and regulations. Those processes include Intake, Plan Review,
Permit Issuance, Inspections, and Permit Closeout. The current permitting process relies
heavily on manual input, requiring repetition of steps and reproduction of efforts. SAFEbuilt
shadowed and interviewed staff to define the existing process, detailing the path a project takes
to be routed to completion. Each primary step is further broken down to include systems and
their stakeholders. Applications are routed to Residential, Commercial and Miscellaneous
permit types, they each follow the same general process; however, there are differences in the
various steps and subprocesses due to construction methods and code specifics. For reference
purposes, Residential permitting was used in the examples given in this report, as they
concisely cover the full range of procedure steps (See Appendix B).
INTAKE:
Generally, applicants submit permit applications in person at the office of the building
department. Smaller projects can also be submitted by mail or email.
The intake of a permit application begins with an address verification by a Permit Technician to
ensure that the address is valid, and the property is located within the Town’s jurisdiction. This
verification includes a check of the County Assessor records, development plans, and the
Address Map Book (older properties without development plans are documented in a property
atlas of the Town). Once the address is validated, the submittal package is checked for
completeness to ensure all necessary documentation has been included with the application.
The information from the application is then entered into multiple tracking systems by Permit
Tech. This portion of data entry is completed in stages due to the extent of manual entry and the
different systems used to input and track an application. Permit data is recorded in PT Win, the
official permitting system of Estes Park (See Software Below). The Permit Tech then assesses
plan review and permit fees in PT Win based on the project valuation and permit type. The
review fee is paid by the applicant and is given a handwritten receipt.
Next, the Permit Tech disassembles and scans all the submittal documentation into digital
format. The digital documents are then organized and renamed in a standard naming
convention. The Permit Tech then creates an Electronic Address Folder on the jurisdiction’s
network and saves the project documentation. The hard copy from the original submittal, is
routed for plan review once the documents have been reassembled.
The permit information is also logged into an Excel worksheet, by the Permit Tech to track the
permit through the review process. The Permit Tech then validates the contractor license of the
general contractor listed on the permit application. Contractor licensing is tracked in an Access
database and is continuously updated to ensure contractor information is up to date and all
renewal fees are paid.
4
Finally, the permit submittal is distributed for plan review by sending out emails with the
electronic documents to each reviewing department. Depending on the scope of the project,
this may include Planning; Light, Power, and Water; Public Works; Fire Department;
County Health Department; Sanitation; and Building. The original paper submittal is routed
to the building plans examiner for the permit plan review. Distribution is tracked by saving
the sent emails and entering the date of delivery into the Excel permit log.
Suggestions:
• Clearly define required documentation for submittals based on permit type, so
applicants are prepared to apply for a permit (simple checklist by permit type to post
online and have hard copies in the office)
• Verify all licensing and documentation before entering permit information into PT
Win. This will reduce double entry due to missing information.
• Create a google sheet or some other shared log to track all information in one place
(link each project to shared document folder). This will prevent losing project
information by email or missing steps in duplication of excel logs.
• Request that contractors submit one hard copy and one electronic set of plans to save
time on scanning
PLAN REVIEW:
Multiple departments review a submittal for compliance with local codes and ordinances;
however, it falls on the Building Department to manage the collection of all review data and
track the permit through the process using email and excel logs.
At the initiation of the plan review, the building plans examiner logs the date they receive the
submittal for review. The Plan Review team tracks their plan review information dates in a
separate Excel file. When corrections are required to a submittal, a comment letter is generated
by the plans examiner and emailed to the applicant. A copy of the letter is stored in the
Electronic Address Folder with the plan review tracking excel log that includes the date of the
initial review and the date comments were sent out. Once a revised plan submittal is corrected
and resubmitted to the department, the log-in process commences from the beginning and
follows the previous steps for re-review.
At the completion of a plan review and approval of a permit, the plans examiner compiles the
“field” set of construction documents and plans. This entails stamping the approved hard copy
drawings, scanning them to the “Electronic Address Folder”, printing a reduced sized set for the
hard copy file, and creating a general comment sheet for the project. The comment sheet is also
saved in the Electronic Address Folder and a printed hard copy is placed in the permit folder.
The permit log is updated with the plan review approval date and the application is routed back
to the Permit Technician for issuance.
Suggestions:
• Create a standard process for electronic storage of permit documentation to remove
duplication of storing hard copy sets
• Request an electronic set of plans from contractor to minimize time and cost of
scanning and printing
5
• Rapid Review: provide a block of time on a reoccurring schedule for a “Rapid
Review” service for small, “over the counter” projects (decks, basement finish, minor
interior remodel, etc.)
• Set a standard review turnaround time for all departments to provide a consistent
service for the community
PERMIT ISSUANCE:
Without a full-service permitting system, it falls to department staff to manually track down the
results of all other reviewing departments. Once the building plan review is complete, the Permit
Technician collects the results from the reviewing parties via email. The Permit Tech then
updates PT Win, the plan review tracking excel log, and the Electronic Address Folder with
review dates by each department, comments, approvals, and conditions of approval. Project
valuation is verified, and the permit fees are calculated in PT Win. A paper permit card is filled
out by hand. The applicant is then notified by email that the permit is ready to be issued.
When the applicant pays the permit fees to the department, the permit is issued. The logs are
updated with the permit issuance and expiration dates. There is no method to notify staff when a
permit is about to expire or is expired. It falls to department staff to track expiration dates
manually using the Excel permit logs. After the permit is issued, staff takes the payment and a
copy of the permit application to the Finance department.
Finance returns an “Approved” stamped copy of the application to Building which is then
scanned and saved in both electronic and hard copy files. The date that Finance approves the
application is entered in PT Win as a “Decision Date”. This date is used for monthly reporting
purposes. The paper/hardcopy permit folder is then moved to the “Active Projects” filing
cabinet where it resides for the duration of the project.
Suggestions:
• Create a fillable permit card pdf form to store electronically and print to give to
applicant
• Highlight required inspections on permit card or cross off unnecessary inspections
before issuance
INSPECTION:
Once the permit has been issued, the project progresses to the construction and inspection phase
of the process. Field inspections of the different components that make up a structure take place
throughout the construction process. Required inspections are listed on the permit card that is
issued to the applicant. It is the contractor’s responsibility to schedule the necessary inspections
in the appropriate phase of construction. Inspections are scheduled by calling into an
“inspection line” and leaving a voice message requesting an inspection. Next-day inspection
requests are honored if the request has been made by 4:00pm in the afternoon, requests made
after 4:00pm will be scheduled the day following. The voice messages are sent as audio files to
the Inspector’s email where the requests are listened to and written down on an Inspection
Record Form. Due to the quality of phone service in the area there are times when the messages
cannot be understood, and the inspection request cannot be scheduled. Once all the inspection
requests have been received, the Inspector creates a route sheet that lists all the inspections for
the following day. The route sheet is a Word document where the inspector manually enters
6
each inspection request, location, status, etc., each day. A copy of the route sheet is emailed to
the rest of the department staff for reference each morning. Once the route sheet is complete the
Inspector must look through the address files for each permit that has an inspection called in for
the day to familiarize themselves with the project and check the status of previous and
outstanding inspections.
After a field inspection is completed, the department copy of the Inspection Record form is
brought back to the office and saved in the permit file. The Inspector then creates the Daily
Inspection Log and enters the results for each inspection performed that day as well as updates
PT Win. The Daily Inspection Log is also used to track the day-to-day operations of the
Inspector, including the arrival time and duration for each inspection.
Suggestions:
• Utilize a single log system to track inspections
• Inspection request form (on website) – great addition to website, make sure to
communicate to applicants at permit issuance where they can find the inspection
request form
• Route inspections with Google Maps and print route, until a better system can be
implemented
PERMIT CLOSEOUT:
When a project nears completion, applicants are required to notify the Building Department two
weeks prior to scheduling their final inspections. The Permit Technician provides the applicant
a list of contacts from the various departments that require an approval of a final inspection to
release the Certificate of Occupancy (CO). The CO requests are logged in a separate Excel file
by the Permit Tech. When appropriate, the applicant calls each department to schedule their
final inspections.
Once final inspections are completed and approved, the permit card is brought back to the
office by the Inspector performing the final inspection. Results from other departments are also
gathered and emailed into the Building Department. The Permit Tech compares the information
on the permit card to the data in PT Win to ensure the records match. The Permit Tech is then
tasked with updating the logs and PT Win with the results and following up with the other
departments if there are any outstanding inspections. If there are conditional approvals from
any of the inspecting departments, the Permit Tech notes what the conditions are and includes
the comments on the Certificate of Occupancy.
After the final inspection, the Building Staff collects business license affidavits for each
contractor and subcontractor that worked on the project. These affidavits are required prior to
issuing the Certificate of Occupancy and are turned in to the Clerk’s office. In the past, these
affidavits would hold up the issuance of a CO if they were not turned in, but currently a copy is
just retained with the permit record. The affidavits of all third-party and special inspection
reports are also due. These reports include all engineering observations, setback certifications,
grading certificates, and any other “Special Inspections” that were performed during the
construction of the project. These documents are scanned and saved in the Electronic Address
Folder as well as the hard copy permit file.
7
After all documentation has been checked and all inspections approved, the Certificate of
Occupancy is created. The CO is a Word template that Building Staff fills out with the pertinent
permit data and is signed by the Chief Building Official. The CO is emailed to the applicant,
saved in the electronic address file, saved in the hard copy file, and a copy saved in a separate
file for monthly reporting purposes.
Once the Certificate of Occupancy has been generated and saved, the permit is closed out.
The permit folder is pulled from the “Active Projects” file, stamped as closed, and filed in
record storage. Each log is then updated with the close date in each tracking systems.
Suggestions:
• Track all logs in one shared excel file, google sheet, etc. with multiple tabs.
Transfer intake log information to plan review tab, to permit issuance, to
inspection, to Certificate of Occupancy tab. This will remove the redundancy of
logging the same information in each excel file and will also provide some
basic reporting capabilities about the number and type of permits in any give
step. This will also give the Building Department visibility into each step of the
permitting process.
• Collect all business license information during the intake process and then
confirm the information is still valid before releasing CO – this will eliminate
the duplication of license gathering and scanning at both ends of the permitting
process
• Satisfaction Survey – implementation of comment cards or a survey would
provide regular feedback from the community on how the department is
performing and may shed light on areas in need of improvement
• Create a standard process for electronic storage of permit documentation to remove
duplication of storing hard copy sets
B. Current State Permitting & Plan Review Software:
There are several systems and softwares used throughout the permitting process in the Estes Park
Building Department. PT Win, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, and Laserfiche are the
primary systems in place. PT Win is an outdated permitting system that is currently used to log
permit applications, generate the permit tracking ID, and assess fees. PT Win does not have
workflow functionality or a method for tracking applications through the permitting process. PT
Win is no longer supported as a system and is not a viable platform to continue to use in the
future.
The primary software used to track permit data is Microsoft Excel. There are currently three
spreadsheets that are used to track a single permit through the permitting process from
application to closeout. The excel Permit Log is primarily maintained by the Permit Technician
and is used as a tracking method for submittal, plan review/ approval, permit issuance, and
closeout dates. This also includes entering information from all other departments involved
with the permitting process. Another log is used by the Plans Examiner to track the timing of
when a review is received, when comments are sent out, corrections received, and date of
building review approval. Inspections are tracked in the same format by the Building Inspector.
The Inspector creates a daily inspection log with the inspections for each day. The inspection
results are entered at the end of the day with the status of the inspection result and any
8
associated comments. Microsoft Access is the system of record used to maintain and track
Contractor Licenses. A new tracking system (Laserfiche) is currently being implemented by
Town staff. Laserfiche is a document management software that also has workflow
functionality. At this time, the “Miscellaneous” permit is the only record type that has been
implemented in Laserfiche.
The Town of Estes Park does not currently use a software program for plan review. All plan
reviews that are completed in the department are in hardcopy/paper format and not in a
digital media.
While the overall permitting process in the Town of Estes Park follows a standard workflow, the
lack of technology and a single permitting system greatly hinders efficiency and the timing it
takes to issue a building permit. The inability to track permits in a single system of record leaves
room for error and inaccurate record management. The numerous tracking methods creates a lot
of confusion and requires a heavy amount of manual entry and duplication of work. The staff
does a great job keeping logs and systems up to date, but the tedious and repetitive nature of
updating the logs can take a lot of time. With the constant interruptions of applicants entering the
office and answering phone calls and emails, it would be easy to make a mistake or miss a step in
the process. Best practices of an automated permitting system with custom workflows would
greatly improve the efficiency of the permitting process.
While Laserfiche does have workflow processing and tracking capabilities, it is not a true
permitting system and does not have the full functionality that can be expected in a system
specifically designed for this industry. If properly set up, Laserfiche can be a very useful tool for
document management and can be integrated into other permitting systems.
III. Recommendations
A. Quick Wins:
Intake:
Clearly define required documentation based on permit type, so applicants are prepared with a
complete package with they arrive at the department to apply for a permit. Verify all licensing
and documentation before entering permit information into PT Win, this will reduce double entry
due to missing information. Create a google sheet or some other shared log to track all
information in one place (link each project to shared document folder, if possible). This will
prevent losing project information by email or missing steps in duplication of excel
logs. Request an electronic set of plans from contractor to minimize time and cost of scanning
and printing
Plan Review:
Create a standard operating procedure for electronic storage of permit documentation to remove
duplication of storing hard copy files. Set a standard review turnaround time for all departments
to provide a consistent service for the community. Provide a block of time on a reoccurring
schedule for a “Rapid Review” service for small, “over the counter” projects (decks, basement
9
finish, minor interior remodel, etc.). This is a service that community members will love and will
speed up construction on smaller project.
Permit Issuance:
Create a fillable permit card pdf form to store electronically and print to give to applicant,
instead of filling it out by hand and then scanning it and filing it. Highlight required inspections
on permit card or cross off unnecessary inspections before issuance – reduces the number of
incorrect inspection requests.
Inspections:
Inspection request form – great addition to the website, make sure to communicate to applicants
at permit issuance where they can find the inspection request form. Route inspections with
Google Maps and print route to provide efficient routing from inspection to inspection.
Permit Closeout:
Track all logs in one shared file with multiple tabs. Transfer intake log information to other tabs -
removes redundancy of logging the same information in each excel file & provides basic
reporting capabilities. Collect all business license information during the intake process and
confirm information is still valid before releasing CO - reduces duplication of license
verification. Implement comment cards or a survey to provide regular feedback from the
community on how the department is performing, this could shed light on areas in need of
improvement. Create a standard process for electronic storage of permit documentation to
remove duplication of storing hard copy sets.
B. Long Term Efficiencies:
Improve efficiencies with technology:
After reviewing all the functions of the Estes Park Building Department, the greatest area of
improvement that is needed is in the tracking and processing of a permit through the building
process. Staff does an amazing job working with the current systems in place and have taken
strides to improve and update the application process. A full-service permitting system with
online capabilities would greatly increase department efficiency, transparency, and customer
satisfaction. The ability to have a workflow process that interacts with all parties involved in the
permitting process allows each department to update and track a permit through the review.
Each reviewing department can update the permit record with review or inspection statuses
leaving Building staff free to focus on other duties.
Creating a standardized workflow in the system of record also allows customers to understand
the steps to receiving a permit and reduces inquires of where an application is in the review
process. Many permitting systems have electronic plan review functionality which also helps
the overall timing of a plan review. Instead of routing copies of plans to different departments
for review, each department can login to the system and review the electronic files concurrently,
which allows for a faster turnaround time. In addition to electronic document review, online
permit submittal is also a functionality that can greatly increase efficiency. With a permitting
system that allows for online submittals, customers can submit, pay, and have a permit issued
without ever having to leave their office. This functionality has been widely accepted by the
construction community and is the preferred method for submitting most over the counter type
10
of permits. Another advantage of a complete permitting system is in the assessment of permit
fees. When fees are manually assessed there is always room error. Having fee schedules set up
in a permitting system depending on permit type allows for staff to confidently assess correct
permit fees on each permit.
The ability to submit permit applications and schedule inspections through an online permitting
portal would provide applicants transparency to the overall process. Customers could view where
an application is in each step of the permitting process, which would limit the number of phone
calls for status updates. A permitting portal combined with the use of technology to result
inspections in the field would provide real time results to the applicants, making construction run
smoother and faster.
A robust permitting system and cloud-based document storage would greatly improve record
requests and document retention. With the current filing system of records, the staff is tasked
with looking through the various filing cabinets and folders until the appropriate historical
document can be found.
The ability to pull reports or follow up on permits that may be close to expiring is not available
with the current systems used. Most permitting systems have the ability to run custom reporting
from any data gathered in the system. The ability to run basic reporting would be beneficial for
managing a building department. Reviewing trends of inspections per month, inspections
performed by trade, and plan review turnaround times can give great insight to how efficient
your department is operating as well as shed light on the current staffing levels. These Key
Performance Indicators are advantageous to running a smooth and consistent department (See
Appendix A). Permitting systems have workflow capabilities that can send automatic
notifications to applicants as their permit is nearing expiration. After the permit has reached its
expiration date, it will move the permit to an “expired repository,” where the permit can be
reopened after the appropriate fees are paid. This reduces double entry of permit information,
manually notifying clients of permit expiration dates, and eases finding a specific expired permit
to reopen.
The ability to schedule, route, and result inspections in one location can not only increase
efficiency, it also reduces the amount of paper products used daily. Most permitting systems
with field use components can instantly send email inspection results to the applicant without
having to leave correction lists on site. This allows contractors to receive real time data on their
requested inspection(s) and plan their schedules accordingly. The use of field technology allows
inspectors to pull up approved plans on their electronic devices. This makes walking around a
construction site much easier and safer when you do not have to carry around large plans.
One other area of recommendation that ties in with a permitting system is document
management. Currently there are several locations and formats that historic permit records are
archived. Digitizing historic records can be a large task but the outcome of having the data in
one location greatly benefits staff and the community. Having the ability to look up permit
records in a single location decreases the time to find a record and can also expedite records
requests from the public. Digitizing records also reduces storage space which can help free up
space for other uses in the department.
11
Build Framework for Processes:
Creating a repeatable and reproducible process ensures a consistent result no matter the
individual performing the duties. Using industry best practices helps customers and
contractors receive a high level of service. Creating Standard Operating Procedures leads to
consistent levels of service for your customers and clearly defines roles for staff. It also
eliminates wasted efforts on redundant activities.
Producing customer facing SOPs provides instructions on how to submit a complete permit
package. This will provide customers with the appropriate information to ensure smooth
application processing. Providing customer education with use of building guides will
educate new builders as what inspectors are looking for to meet final approval. This is a win-
win by reducing frustration for the customers and less rework for the Estes Park staff.
Improve Communications:
Implementation of technology will assist communications with applicants and other departments.
Gathering information in a primary location will substantially improve transparency between
departments and reduce efforts in gather pertinent information by emails. Online portals will give
applicant the ability to check statuses of permits without picking up the phone, which reduces the
amount of distractions in the office.
The current department website appears to contain outdated content and fragmented navigation.
This leads to customer confusion and unnecessary calls or trips to the building department for
clarification. This reduces customer confidence. Regularly updating content and improving ease
of navigation to forms and documents is a way to ensure the public has access to the latest
department news and changes.
Establish Customer Service Standards:
Setting deadlines for plan review turn around for all departments can drastically improve
customer satisfaction. Establishing standard levels of service, and clearly stating the timelines for
all permit types will level set expectations of staff and customers. This reduces contractor and
applicant frustration and will improve relationships with customers.
Implement Quality Assurance program:
After establishing best practices, it is important to have regular follow-ups that staff is following
new processes. Shadowing staff regularly will ensure standards are being met and your
department is providing the best level of service for customers.
12
IV. Appendix
A. KPI EXAMPES
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Avg Turnaround for Large Commercial
Avg Turnaround for Small Commercial
Avg Turnaround for Residential
No. of Days
September 2019: Average Days to Complete Review
10%
70%
7%
13%
September 2019: Percentage of Review Statuses on
First Submittal
Approved As-Is
Approved with Comments
Rejected
Revisions Required
0
50
100
150
200
April May June July August September
Number of Inspections per Mo. -Trailing 6/YOY
2019 2018
13
B. Permit System Capabilities
Flexibility:
• Customized Workflow and Record Types
• Detailed Inspection Lists per Records Type
• User Defined Processes
• Ability to share information across internal users and customer portals
• Web & App based mobility
Automation:
• Automated Forms
• Workflow Controls
• Inspection Milestones
• Inspection Result Emails
• Fee Assessment
• Inspection Routing
• Pay fees online
Reporting:
• Ability to create custom reports
• Notifications
• Track Activity by Region/ Subdivision
• Ability to make daily business decisions based on real-time data
• Ability to track expiration of documentation such as insurance and certifications
C. Current Workflow (following page)
Workflow should be printed on 11x17 paper for full readability.
25%
45%
17%
13%
Sept 2019: Percentage of Inspections by Type
Electrical
Building
Mechanical
Plumbing
ESTES PARK BUILDING DEPARTMENT PERMITTING PROCESSESTES PARK BUILDING DEPARTMENT PERMITTING PROCESS
PERMIT TECHPERMIT TECHAPPLICANTAPPLICANTBLDG DEPT PLANS EXAMINERBLDG DEPT PLANS EXAMINEROTHER DEPARTMENTSOTHER DEPARTMENTSBLDG DEPT INSPECTOR/BOBLDG DEPT INSPECTOR/BOSTART ENDSUBMITS ALL APPLICATION DOCUMENTATION
VERIFIES
ADDRESS
ADDRESS
CORRECT?
NEW
ADDRESS?
CHECK DOCS
FOR
COMPLETENESS
COMPLETE?
RETURN TO
APPLICANT TO
CORRECT &
RESUBMIT
ASSIGN/
CORRECT
ADDRESS
YES
NO NO
LOG INFO IN PT
WIN & PERMIT
LOG
YES CONTRACTOR
LICENSING?
ASSESS FEES &
COLLECT
PAYMENT
PLACE APPLICATION
ON “HOLD” AND
REQUEST INFO
FROM APPLICANT
NO
YES
A
A SUBMIT NEW LICENSING INFO
SCAN ALL
DOCUMENTS &
SAVE IN ACCESS
COMPLETE
PERMIT LOG
INFO
ROUTE TO
REVIEWING
PARTIES
TRACK PLANS &
COMMENTS IN
PR LOG
BLDG DEPT
PLAN REVIEW
PROCESS
PLAN REVIEW:
- FIRE DEPARTMENT
- LIGHT, POWER, AND WATER
- PLANNING
- COUNTY HEALTH (if septic system)
- PUBLIC WORKS
- SANITATION
* Routing is tracked through
saved email files and Excel
log
PLAN REVIEW
APPROVED?
B
NO
B
CORRECTIONS
& RESUMISSION
REQUIRED
SUBMIT CORRECTIONS
RESUBMITTAL
LOG & SCAN IF
PAPER
C
C
YES
GATHER
REVIEW INFO
FROM OTHER
DEPTS
COLLECT
OUTSTANDING
FEES
ISSUE PERMIT
TO APPLICANT
FINANCE LOGS
& APPROVES
PAYMENT OF
FEES
D
D
E
E F
F SCHEDULE INSPECTIONS (ONLINE FORM)CO REQUEST REQUIRED 2 WEEKS BEFOR FINAL INSPECTIONS SCHEDULEDG
G
PERFORM
REQUIRED
INSPECTIONS
TRACK INSPECTION
REQUCEST INFO &
INSPECTION
COMMENTS IN
INSPECTION LOG
SEND APPLICANT
DEPARTMENT CONTACT
LIST FOR FINAL
INSPECTIONS
ALL
INSPECTIONS
COMPLETE?
DELIVER
COMPLETED
PERMIT CARD TO
PERMIT TECH
YES
NO
H
G
PERFORM
REQUIRED
INSPECTIONS
SCHEDULE FINAL INSPECTIONS
H
COMPARE RESULTS ON
PERMIT CARD W/ PT
WIN AND EMAILS FROM
OTHER DEPTS
REVIEW GC & SUB-C
AFFIDAVITS, ENG
LETTERS, GRADING,
ETC.
UPDATE LOGS
STAMP PERMIT FILE
AS ‘CLOSED’ & PULL
FOLDER & MOVE TO
STORAGE
GENERATE CO
W/ BO SIGN
OFF ISSUE CO TO
APPLICANT AND
UPDATE LOG
W/ ISSUE DATE
APPLICANT RECEIVES CO
Full-Service Proposal
Estes Park, Colorado
Creating safe, vibrant, and thriving communities.
TRANSFORMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
•Founded 1917, Community of ~6,000 Residents
•Tourism is Primary Business –Beauty/Location
•High Number of Rental Properties
•Steady Volume New Building / Permits
•2018 Building Permits of 1,518 / ~$482K in Fees
•Construction Valuation of $59.97M
•Residential: 693 Permits / $22.3M Valuation
•Commercial: 106 Permits / $37.6M Valuation
•Developer & Property Owner Satisfaction Key
•Building Department Capabilities to Support
Construction & Life Cycle of Building Services
•Economical Building Department Services
•Local Presence is Important to Community
Our Understanding
9
TRANSFORMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
•Flexible, Full-Service Building Department Solution
•SAFEbuilt Credentialed Building Official, Inspector,
Plan Review and Optional Permit Technician
•Technology-Enabled Service with Building
Department Software System (Community Core)
•Industry-Leading Service Levels to Support Estes
Park Community, Property Owners and Developers
•Client-Centric Collaborative Approach Distinguishes
SAFEbuilt and Core to Service Culture
•Capable of Supporting Any Type of Residential or
Commercial Building Structure
•Local Presence w/Chief Revenue Officer Resident of
Estes Park
•% of Fee Structure Scales to Estes Park Volume for
Self-Funded Economical Model
Executive Summary
TRANSFORMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
•Single Point of Contact for Estes Park, Gary Rusu
•Seamless Extension of Estes Park Staff, Works Closely with
Town, Staff and Community
•Manages Building Department and Administration, Attends City
Staff and Council Meetings as Required
•Oversees Quality Assurance Program, Ensures Code
Compliance with Any State or Local Requirements
•Work with Estes Park Staff to Make Recommendations,
Establish, Improve Building Department Services
•Helps Guide Citizens Through Complexities of Codes and
Compliance
•Provide Inspections Services, Plan Review and Building Code
Interpretations as Requested by Estes Park
•Oversee Certificate of Occupancy Issuance and Compliance
•Reports and Reporting to Estes Park on Building Department
and Performance
•Service Level Achievement and Community/Citizen Satisfaction
SAFEbuilt Building Official
10
TRANSFORMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
•Provide Code Compliant Building, Plumbing, Mechanical and
Vacation Rental Home Inspections in Estes Park
•Vacation Rental Inspections Provided in Accordance with
Ordinance 06-19 and 2015 International Residential Code
•Note –Electrical Inspections Provided by State of Colorado
•Perform Code Compliant Inspections to Determine that
Construction Complies with Approved Plan
•Inspections Monday –Friday 8am to 5pm, 2 Hour Window,
Conduct Next Day Inspections, Received by 4:00 Prior Day.
Weekend and After-Hours Inspections on Scheduled Basis.
•Provide Onsite Inspection Consultations to Citizens and
Contractors While Performing Inspections
•Return Call and Emails from Permit Holders in Reference to
Code and Inspection Concerns
•Identify and Document Any Areas of Non-Compliance
•Leave a Copy of the Inspection Ticket and Discuss Inspection
Results with Site Personnel
SAFEbuilt Inspector
BUILDING, PLUMBING AND MECHANICAL INSPECTION SERVICES
TRANSFORMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
•Provide Plan Review Services Electronically or In The
Traditional Paper Format
•Review All Plans, Ensuring They Meet Adopted Building Codes
and Local Amendments and/or Ordinances
•Determine Type of Construction, Use and Occupancy
Classification Using Certified Plans Examiners
•Provide Feedback to Keep Plan Review Process on Schedule
with Following Turnaround Times
•Interpret Legal Requirements and Recommend Compliance
Procedures and Address Any Issues by Documented Comment
and Correction Notices
•Return a Set of Finalized Plans and All Supporting
Documentation
•Provide Review of Plan Revisions and Remain Available to
Municipal Staff and/or Applicant After the Review is Complete
SAFEbuilt Plan Review
Project Type:
-Single-Family Within
- Multi-Family Within
- Small Commercial
(under $5M in value)
- Large Commercial
First Comments:
- 7 Business Days
- 10 Business Days
- 10 Business Days
- 20 Business Days
Second Comments:
- 5 Business Days or Less
- 7 Business Days or Less
- 7 Business Days or Less
- 15 Business Days or Less
11
TRANSFORMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
•Facilitate the Permitting Process from Initial Permit Intake to
Final Issuance of Permit
•Provide Front Counter Customer Service at Estes Park 8am to
5pm Monday through Friday
•Answer Questions at the Counter or Over the Phone
•Determine and Collect Fees as Directed by Estes Park
•Ensure That Submittal Documents are Complete
•Administer the Contractor Registration Program
•Administer the Rental Housing Program
•Work with the City Clerk to Facilitate FOIA Requests
•Provide Inspection Scheduling and Tracking to Ensure Code
Compliance
•Process Applications for the Board of Zoning Appeals, Planning
Commission and Architectural Board of Review
•Provide Input, Tracking and Reporting Utilizing Estes Park or
Community Core Software
SAFEbuilt Permit Technician / Front Counter Services
TRANSFORMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
•Cloud-Based Permitting and Inspection Software System
•Streamlines and Automates Building Department Processes to
Ensure Compliance, Efficiency and Customer Satisfaction
•Permitting –Customize Your Permitting Process to Specific
Permit Types, Workflows, Fee Structures and Documents
•Planning –Manage the Plan Review Process Within Your
Jurisdiction
•Licensing –Enable Issuance, Tracking and Renewal of Any
Recurring Contractor or Business License
•Inspections—View workloads, write notes, take pictures, and
communicate while in the field, without an internet connection
• GIS / County Assessor’s Office Connection
•Robust Tool > Report Library, Fee Estimator, Scheduling Tool
SAFEbuilt Community Core System
http://www.communitycore.com/
12
TRANSFORMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Proposed SAFEbuilt Fees
Assumptions:
SAFEbuilt uses two key factors when developing our pricing:
1.Competitive Wages –The salaries associated with our pricing proposal were selected to both retain and attract quality employees to ensure
a high degree of service for Estes Park and its residents.
2.Cost Effectiveness –Our approach limits additional costs or mark-ups to provide services in the most cost-effective manner without
sacrificing quality.
SAFEbuilt carries the full complement of business insurance, including errors and omissions (E&O), property, liability, auto,and workers
compensation. Certificates of insurance are available upon request.
All prices quoted in this proposal are subject to the execution of a mutually acceptable service agreement.
Fee Structure:
Position:
Building Official
Inspector:
Plans Examiner:
Permit Technician:
Community Core:
Dedicated/Shared:
Dedicated
Dedicated
Shared
Dedicated
Fee Schedule:
82% of Permit Fees
$55 Per Hour
$10K Implementation Fee, License Included
Includes:
•Salaries & benefits for Building Official, Inspector, Plans Examiners and Permit Technicians
•Insurance, Recruiting, Training, Development, Code Books
•Vehicles, Insurance, Fuel, Repairs for 2 Vehicles
•Community Core for Contract Term (1 Year), Laptops, iPads, Cell Phones, PC’s for SAFEbuilt Team
•.3% of SAFEbuilt Fees for Estes Park Community Outreach Program
TRANSFORMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SAFEbuilt Governance Model
10
•3 Tier –2 in a Box Approach. Manages day to day operation with monthly
performance review and semi to annual strategic planning
•Operational Transparency. Daily, weekly, monthly activity and
performance reporting through Community Core / current systems
•De-risks Change. Proven governance model that is responsive, adaptive
to change, cross program initiatives, continuous improvement and
changes will only be made with express consent of Estes Park
•SAFEbuilt Learnings. Apply SAFEbuilt best practices and standards to
effectively manage the scope of work in Estes Park building department
•Customer Service Culture. Governance structure and performance
metrics drive culture of continuous improvement and customer service
•Estes Park Integration. Easily integrate into current meeting cadences
and reporting to drive collaboration value
•Analytics Value. In Q1 2020 will provide analytics and insights on
community development and the city from publicly available data sources
• Insert here….
•op model graphic for solution summ, towers and
•Transition timeline graphic summ for 1-3 for trans
•Integrated governance graphic for gov
Scott Leading Presentation Compilation
SAFEbuiltEstes Park
Steering Committee - STRATEGIC
Strategic Direction Setting
Tactical Direction Setting
Issue/Risk Escalation
Issue/Risk Escalation
City Manager,
Planning Commission,
Council
Semi Annual /
Annual
Chief Revenue Officer,
VP of Operations
Account Manager
Program Leadership - MANAGEMENT
Community Development
Director,
Chief Building Official
Monthly /
Quarterly Account Manager,
Building Official
Operational Management - TACTICAL
Chief Building Official
Daily –as Required Building Official,
Inspectors,
Plan Examiners,
Permit Techs
13
TRANSFORMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
SAFEbuilt At A Glance
A leading provider of Community Development and Building Department
Services, including, but not limited to: Full-Service Building Department
Management, Inspections, Plan Reviews, Code Compliance, Planning and
Zoning, Engineering, Landscape Architecture…
•Experience: Founded 1992, 80 Offices in 26 States
•Diversity: 800+ Public and Business Clients
•Majority of Clients Have Populations Under 50,000
•Credible Talent: Over 1,000 Building Professionals
•Excellence: Operations Playbook & Proven Leadership
•Service Oriented: 95% Client Retention
•Tailored Solutions: Life Cycle of Building Services
•Transparency: Extensive Performance Reporting
•Innovation: Robust Technology, Compliance, Security Infrastructure
•Affiliations:
o International Code Council (ICC)
o National Home Builder’s Association (NHBA)
o U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
o National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
Residential, Industrial, Commercial, Hospitals,
Schools, Offices, High Rises, Resorts, Prisons
TRANSFORMING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
We Protect
ICC Certified / Robust
Quality Assurance / Pro-
Active Skill Development
We Enhance
Business Process
Efficiency / Convert and
Integrate Data into
Actionable Insights
We Deliver
High-Level Performance /
Industry Best Practices /
Certified Professionals
Why SAFEbuilt?
14
Thank You
13
15
/
Compose
More
Inbox
Starred
Snoozed
Sent
Drafts
[Gmail]Trash
Employee
Notes
RE: SAFEbuilt Proposal to Estes Park Inbox ×
Tom Klein Thu, Oct 10, 2:36 PM (5 days ago)
to me, Travis, Eric, Russ, Gary
Reply to all
Hi Randy – we are looking forward to the 22nd session. Two questions: 1) any meetings we should have with key stakeholders prior to the 22nd and what time is the 22nd session?
For your budget we assumed $475K of permit fees in 2020 with SAFEbuilt fees of $389K. We used the 2018 and 2019 permit fees as the basis – both are very similar and we assumed 2020 would be similar.
Hope this helps, feel free to call with any questions.
Tom Klein – Chief Revenue Officer
M: 970-699-0095 | E: tklein@safebuilt.com | https://safebuilt.com/
CORE VALUES: Service – Teamwork – Integrity – Improvement – Respect
From: Randy Hunt <rhunt@estes.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2019 2:31 PM
To: Tom Klein <tklein@safebuilt.com>
Cc: Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>; Eric Pendley <ependley@safebuilt.com>; Russ Weber <rweber@safebuilt.com>; Gary Rusu <grusu@safebuilt.com>
Subject: Re: SAFEbuilt Proposal to Estes Park
Tom,
Thank you again for the presentation and proposal last week. We're looking forward to clear direction and a positive outcome from our budget process. I think you already have the Tue. Oct. 22 study session on your calendar... that
will include discussion of the process-improvement piece, and the overall 2020 direction for Building division staffing and services.
Question: I'm working on budget details, and need to know what the SAFEBuilt payment of 82 percent of building fees (p. 9 in your presentation) translates to in dollars and cents. I know we sent you some permit revenue info, but
not sure which figure you used, or if any extrapolation of value was incorporated. We want to be completely sure we are using the same 2020 estimates you are.
Thank you!
RAH
-----
Randy Hunt, AICP
Community Development Director
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Ave.
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
direct: 970-577-3719
main: 970-577-3721
email: rhunt@estes.org
http://www.estes.org
Back Archive Spam Delete Mark as unread Snooze Move to Inbox Labels More 2 of 68
tklein@safebuilt.com
16
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
THE ESTES VALLEY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 416 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 (970) 231-6200
The Estes Valley Contractors Association
September 20, 2019
Town of Estes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
Estes Park, CO 80517
To the Board of Trustees:
The recommendation of the Town Advisory Committee of the Estes Valley Contractors
Association is to retain Safe Built as the administering entity for the Estes Park Division of
Building Safety, and Gary Rusu as our CBO within that organization .
While we prefer the ‘idea’ of a local, in house, community oriented and engaged individual,
what matters most is a person that is a team player with us, providing great customer service.
We believe Gary Rusu and Safe Built have demonstrated these qualities well in the relatively
short time they have been at the helm.
Additionally, Eris Audette has proven to have these same attributes since her arrival, and we
recommend that position stay as in house and local.
Thank you for your service,
The Town Advisory Committee, the Estes Valley Contractors Association
Mike Kingswood , Chairman
Thomas Beck
Nathan Kinley
Mike Todd
Chuck Santagati
Frank Theis
17
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
THE ESTES VALLEY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 416 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 (970) 231-6200
Estes Valley Contractors Association
MEETING SUMMARY
MEETING DATE: Wednesday, October 2, 2019
MEETING TIME: 5:00 P.M.
MEETING PLACE: Room 202, Town Hall
ATTENDING: Mike Kingswood, Nate Kinley, Ed Ellingson, Jay
Harris, Zeik Escorcia, Randy Hunt, Travis
Machalek, Paul Brown, Frank Theis, Joe Hladick
1) Presentation by Randy Hunt & Mike Kingswood about the status
of the Building Division. The Building Advisory Committee
(Kingswood, Kinley, Santagatti, Beck, Todd, Shirk) has been
meeting with Town Staff at least once a month since February to
improve permitting & inspection procedures at the Town Building
Division. Among the many changes, the Town paid SafeBuilt to do
a review of the Building Division operations and make
recommendations for changes (see attached).
The group discussed the pros and cons of contract services versus
hiring Town employees to fill the CBO and Inspector positions.
The Town has tried to hire for these positions and been unable to
find qualified people. The group expressed a desire for local
people to be in these positions, but understood the difficulties.
The Town Staff will be making a recommendation to the Board
later this month to extend the contract with SafeBuilt to provide a
Contract CBO (Gary will continue), a full‐time Building Inspector,
and plan review services.
The EVCA members in attendance generally agreed that things
have improved at the Building Division, and that it makes sense to
extend the SafeBuilt contract as presented.
18
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
THE ESTES VALLEY CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 416 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 (970) 231-6200
2) Discussion about the status of a new Land Use Inter‐
Governmental Agreement (IGA) between the Town and County.
Frank Theis and the Town Staff gave a brief summary of the
current situation. There is another joint County Commission &
Town Board meeting scheduled for November 14th, at which they
will probably vote to adopt a new IGA. It will define the roles and
responsibilities of the Town & County for Land Use Planning,
Review, and Approval in the Estes Valley. It will also define the
structure of the Planning Area (Joint/Entire Valley or separate),
and whether or not there will be a Joint Planning Commission &
Board of Adjustment for the valley or separate. Also, the IGA will
define the roles and responsibilities for the preparation of a new
Comprehensive Plan for the Estes Valley.
3) New Business / General Discussion. The Building Advisory
Committee will continue to meet on a regular basis with the
Building Division. If members have comments or concerns about
the Building Division, you should send them to Mike Kingswood at
kingswoodhomes.com, and he’ll make sure there are relayed to
the Department Head.
There was no new business, so the meeting was adjourned.
19
20
PUBLIC WORKS Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Vanessa Solesbee, Parking & Transit Manager
Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director
Date: October 22, 2019
RE: Downtown Parking Management Plan Phase II Implementation (Cont.)
Objective:
To deliver information related to the implementation of the Downtown Parking
Management Plan (DPMP) Phase II (seasonal paid parking).
Present Situation:
During the Town Board Study Session on Oct. 8, staff presented results of DPMP
Phase I, including:
• 2019 Parking Utilization Key Takeaways:
o Peak occupancy has decreased slightly from 2018 (~5%); however, even
with a slight decrease, parking areas are very full;
o Peak demand was observed midday (between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m.),
on weekends, in July;
o Average duration (length of stay) was 2 hours 10 minutes;
o About half of all parkers stayed for less than 1 hour;
o Parking structure occupancy was 40-60% on weekends, 25-30% on
weekdays (full on 9 days); and
o 280 unique license plates were observed 20 or more days during a 45 -day
period (indicating the volume of “frequent parkers”).
The following results of Phase I implementation efforts were submitted as part of the
Board packet, however these items were not discussed in detail during staff
presentation due to time constraints:
• Public Engagement Process Results
• Completed Parking Management Warrants
• Additional Information: Colorado peer pricing information, future parking
infrastructure investment triggers, and points of information related to sales tax
revenue, traffic counts, overall parking supply and parking utilization (from 2005-
2019) were provided.
During the Study Session, Trustees directed staff to specify why seasonal paid parking
was the logical/preferred next step in managing public parking in Estes Park, in contrast
21
to options like increased transit service and/or additional time-limited parking. The
Trustees also indicated a strong desire to understand what parking management
solution would increase utilization of the parking structure.
As such, staff have prepared information related to the implementation of seasonal paid
parking (DPMP Phase II):
• Brief recap of Phase I findings, including responses to specific Trustee questions;
• Five pricing scenarios, including static, progressive and dynamic pricing options;
• Revenue projections and cost estimates for implementing seasonal paid parking
in 2020 for approximately 702 spaces (32% of the overall supply).
• Concepts that could be used to craft an ordinance authorizing seasonal paid
parking in the Town’s public parking areas.
• Concepts that could be used to craft a fee resolution to set 2020 parking rates.
Proposal:
Public Works seeks direction from the Town Board for the 2020 parking management
program. With the charge of implementing the Board-adopted DPMP, staff has identified
two options for Board consideration:
1) No Change / DPMP Implementation “Pause”
2) Implement DPMP Phase II (Seasonal Paid Parking)
Pending the outcome of the October 22 Study Session, Public Works can be ready to
bring forth an ordinance and fee resolution authorizing seasonal paid parking at a
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing on November 12. (Note: a revised parking permit
system is also needed, and will be discussed with the Town Board separately in 2020.)
If the Town Board decides that the current level of service is adequate and/or that
Public Works should pause DPMP implementation (and/or proceed in another Board-
identified direction), Public Works will develop a 2020 work plan that does include
seasonal paid parking.
Advantages:
• Providing multiple options for Board consideration instead of focusing solely on DPMP
Phase II implementation encourages an inclusive approach to decision-making on a
high-profile issue.
• Supports a commitment made to the community that any consideration of additional
parking management efforts, including paid parking, would be conducted in a data-
driven and transparent manner.
Disadvantages:
• Some may feel that the thresholds outlined in the Board-adopted DPMP for moving from
Phase I to Phase II have been met (and seasonal paid parking should be implemented),
however, staff feel that receiving specific Board direction and buy-in on future parking
management is critical to program success.
• The multi-meeting format postpones 2020 planning; however Public Works feels that it
allows more time for informed decision-making and public process.
Action Recommended:
Public Works seeks Board direction on a preferred option for the 2020 parking program.
22
Finance/Resource Impact:
To be discussed in detail during the Study Session. At a high-level, implementation of
seasonal paid parking would require a budget supplement for 2020 to cover the one -
time capital investment (as described in the existing 2020 CIP) of $243,000 and
approximately $215,948 in additional operating funds for an in-house option or
$232,422 for an outsourced option, totaling $458,948 - $475,422 in new program costs.
Level of Public Interest
Public interest is very high. Both staff and volunteers from the Transportation Advisory
Board (TAB) have committed hundreds of hours to public engagement efforts stretching
back to December 2018. Both TAB and the Estes Valley Library Director drafted letters
of support.
Attachments
• DPMP Phase II Implementation Overview (PowerPoint)
• Revenue Projections and Cost Estimates (for initial implementation of seasonal
paid parking)
• Concepts that could be used to craft an ordinance authorizing seasonal paid
parking in the Town’s public parking areas.
• Concepts that could be used to craft a fee resolution to set 2020 parking rates.
• Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) letter of support
• Estes Valley Library letter of support
23
DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
Phase II Implementation Overview
Town of Estes Park
Parking & Transit Division
Department of Public Works
Town Board Study Session
October 22, 2019
2Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
OVERVIEW
1. Phase I Recap
2. Phase II Implementation –What is Recommended?
•Pricing (CO case studies)
•Revenue projections
•Cost estimates
•Next steps
3. Discussion
24
PHASE I RECAP
4
PHASE I RECAP
Utilization Data
•Occupancy decreased ~5%, however still largely full (85%) during
peak times (11 a.m. to 2 p.m.)
•Average length of stay around 2 hours; in line with changing trends
•Around 280 frequent parkers observed daily (23% of core supply);
with ~70 vehicles moving between multiple lots
Public Engagement
•Rigorous effort that included in-person and online opportunities
•Reported visitor and local experience varies widely
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
25
5
PHASE I RECAP –BOARD INPUT / QUESTIONS
How do we encourage more use of the parking structure?
•Price downtown parking to influence consumer behavior change.
•Actively market the location as a free, all-day option.
•Incentivize frequent parkers to use the facility.
•Provide reliable and convenient alternative transportation.
What about just increasing transit service?
•Important complement to paid parking, but will not encourage
behavior change on its own.
•Need to identify a funding source; frequent transit is very expensive
and previous service proposals have not been funded.
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
6
PHASE I RECAP –BOARD INPUT / QUESTIONS
Why seasonal paid parking?
•Parking is not “free”, even when free to consumers.
•Time limits can impact turnover but do not often address high
occupancies, which contribute to: “cruising”, congestion and lot
hopping.
•Downtown Parking Management Plan Phase I is complete.
•The threshold for moving to Phase II (per the DPMP) in the majority of
downtown parking areas has been achieved.
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
26
PHASE II IMPLEMENTATION
8
PHASE II IMPLEMENTATION
For this discussion, staff have prepared:
•CO case studies
•Pricing scenarios
•Revenue projections
•Cost estimates
•Ordinance and fee resolution concepts
If the direction is to move to Phase II, staff will prepare:
•Technology recommendations
•Permit program offerings and pricing
•Implementation work plan (timing, outreach, education)
•Budget supplement
•Key Performance Indicators to track program success
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
27
PRICING
•Aspen*
•Aurora
•Boulder
•Breckenridge*
•Colorado Springs
•Denver*
•Fort Collins
•Greeley
•Idaho Springs
•Longmont
•Loveland
•Lyons
•Manitou Springs
•Steamboat Springs*
•Vail*
•Winter Park
10
PRICING
Colorado Comparison – Who Charges?
*Denotes a CAST community
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase I Results
28
Boulder, CO (Chautauqua Open Space Pilot)
•Implemented seasonal paid parking ($2.50/hour) in partnership with a
frequent, free shuttle.
•Pilot was “very successful” and has continued seasonally.
•Saw reduced occupancies and increased turnover.
•Quality of life improvements were noted by former opponents of pilot
(residents and representatives from Chautauqua).
•City is going to launch citywide pricing update in 2020.
11
PRICING –COLORADO CASE STUDY #1
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
Manitou Springs, CO
•Implemented year-round paid parking in 2013.
•Managed by a third-party operator.
•Experienced several years of intense construction, including closure of
top attraction (Cog Railway).
•Biggest surprise? “We made much more money than we thought”.
•Both parking revenue and sales tax were impacted by construction,
however “we are seeing robust visitation and a strong economy”.
12
PRICING –COLORADO CASE STUDY #2
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
29
Aspen, CO
•Implemented progressive pricing in 2015 (and raised rates 50%), but
moved to dynamic pricing in 2018.
•Goals were to decrease occupancy, fill underutilized parking on edge of
town, increase turnover and move frequent parkers out of core spaces.
•Now, occupancies are monitored daily; saw only 2-3 times over 85%.
•Mayor: “Town feels less full”
•Business owner: “People can actually get to my store”.
•Sales tax revenue is actively monitored and tracked.
13
PRICING –COLORADO CASE STUDY #3
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
Days of Seasonal Paid Parking
June 1 – September 30, 2020 (daily)
LLocations
•Town Hall (249 stalls of 279 total stalls)
•Virginia (30 stalls)
•E. Riverside (43 stalls)
•Riverside (91 stalls)
•Weist (96 stalls of 141 total stalls)
•Post Office (93 of 99 stalls)
•Bond Park (83 stalls)
•Tregent (17 stalls)
14
WHATISRECOMMENDED?
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
Hours:
10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
68%
32%
Percentage of Total Supply:
Free vs. Paid
Free Paid
30
15
PRICING –OPTIONS FOR ESTES PARK
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Scenario E
<1 Hour $1.50 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 10-11 AM:
$2.00/
Hour
11AM-2
PM:
$4.00/
Hour
2PM-6PM:
$2.00/
Hour
1-2 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
2-3 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $3.00 $2.00
3-4 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00
4-5 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $4.00 $4.00
5-6 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $4.00 $4.00
6-7 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $5.00 $6.00
7-8 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $5.00 $6.00
Max daily $12.00 $16.00 $28.00 $30.00 $22.00
Scenarios A & B
•Fixed
•Same price each hour
Scenarios C & D
•Progressive
•Rate increases the
longer you stay
Scenario E
•Modified dynamic
•Pricing based on
demand
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
REVENUE PROJECTIONS &
COST ESTIMATES
31
Utilization
•71% used (2019 average across all time periods and facilities)
•Calculated progressive and dynamic scenarios using duration data
Price Sensitivity
•Accounts for varying levels of price sensitivity (elasticity)
•Assuming medium price sensitivity for conservative revenue projections
Optional Incentives
•15-minutes free (1x/daily) – FOR ALL
•30-minutes free (1x/daily) – FOR RESIDENTS ONLY
•1-hour free (1x/daily) – FOR RESIDENTS ONLY
17
ASSUMPTIONS
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
18
REVENUE PROJECTIONS for 2020 (BY SCENARIO)
No Price Sensitivity $724,000 $965,000 $1,225,000 $1,219,000
$1,353,000
Low Price Sensitivity $536,000 $647,000 $741,000 $700,000
$736,000
Med. Price Sensitivity $461,000 $530,000 $577,000 $539,000
$550,000
High Price Sensitivity $397,000 $434,000 $450,000 $419,000
$416,000
30-MINS FREE FOR RESIDENTS (Daily):
Med. Price Sensitivity $429,000 $488,000 $535,000 $497,000
$486,000
Lost Revenue ($32,000) ($42,000)($42,000) ($42,000)
($64,000)
ABCDE
STATIC PROGRESSIVE DYNAMIC
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
32
•Existing Costs
•Parking Program (base budget): $214,000
•New Cost Estimates
•One-Time Capital: $243,000
•In-House Program: $215,948*
•Out-Sourced Program: $232,422*
•Provided cost estimate two-ways:
o With 2020 General Fund contribution ($214,000 for Existing Parking
Program)
o Without 2020 General Fund contribution
19
COST ESTIMATE –OVERVIEW
*Only one option would be selected (in-house or
out-sourced).
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
20
NET REVENUE (w/2020 General Fund) –NO DISCOUNTS*
Scenario 2020 2021 2022 2023**
A $2,052 $31,052 $114,052 $230,052
B $71,052 $100,052 $230,052 $400,052
C $118,052 $147,052 $311,052 $481,052
D $80,052 $109,052 $246,052 $416,052
E $91,052 $120,052 $266,052 $436,052
**Assumes
DPMP
Phase III
*In-House
Option
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
33
21
NET REVENUE (w/out 2020 General Fund) –NO DISCOUNTS*
Scenario 2020 2021 2022 2023**
A ($211,948)$31,052 $114,052 $284,052
B ($142,948)$100,052 $230,052 $400,052
C ($95,948)$147,052 $311,052 $481,052
D ($133,948)$109,052 $246,052 $416,052
E ($122,948)$120,052 $266,052 $436,052
**Assumes
DPMP
Phase III
*In-House
Option
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
22
NET REVENUE (w/2020 General Fund) –30 MINS FREE*
Scenario 2020 2021 2022 2023**
A ($29,948) ($948)$60,052 $230,052
B $29,052 $58,052 $157,052 $327,052
C $76,052 $105,052 $238,052 $408,052
D $38,052 $67,052 $173,052 $343,052
E $27,052 $52,052 $157,052 $327,052
**Assumes
DPMP
Phase III
*In-House
Option
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
34
23
NET REVENUE (w/out 2020 General Fund) –30 MINS FREE*
Scenario 2020 2021 2022 2023**
A ($243,948) ($948)$60,052 $230,052
$($184,948)$58,052 $157,052 $327,052
C ($137,948)$105,052 $238,052 $408,052
D ($175,948)$$67,052 $173,052 $343,052
E ($186,948)$56,052 $157,052 $327,052
**Assumes
DPMP
Phase III
*In-House
Option
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
24
IN SUMMARY
•Downtown Parking Management
Plan Phase I is complete.
•The threshold for moving to Phase II
(per the DPMP) in the majority of
downtown parking areas has been
achieved.
•Staff would like direction from the
Town Board on how to proceed.
•Staff could return on Nov. 12 to
Regular Meeting & Public Hearing
with ordinance and fee resolution.
1. No Change /
DPMP
Implementation
Pause
2. Move forward
with DPMP
Phase II
Downtown Parking Management Plan – Phase II Implementation
35
DISCUSSION
36
1 Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis
October 2019
PRICING S C ENARIOS & 2020 REVENUE PROJECTIONS (BY S C ENARIO )
Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Scenario E
<1 Hour $1.50 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 10-11 AM:
$2.00/ Hour
11AM-2 PM:
$4.00/ Hour
2PM-6PM:
$2.00/ Hour
1-2 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
2-3 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $3.00 $2.00
3-4 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00
4-5 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $4.00 $4.00
5-6 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $4.00 $4.00
6-7 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $5.00 $6.00
7-8 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $5.00 $6.00
Max daily $12.00 $16.00 $28.00 $30.00 $22.00
(Paid Period in 2020: June 1 – September 30)
No Discounts:
No Price Sensitivity $724,000 $965,000 $1,225,000 $1,219,000 $1,353,000
Low Price Sensitivity $536,000 $647,000 $741,000 $700,000 $736,000
Med. Price Sensitivity $461,000 $530,000 $577,000 $539,000 $550,000
High Price Sensitivity $397,000 $434,000 $450,000 $419,000 $416,000
30 Minutes Free for Residents (Daily):
Med. Price Sensitivity $429,000 $488,000 $535,000 $497,000 $486,000
Lost Revenue (From Base) ($32,000) ($42,000) ($42,000) ($42,000) ($64,000)
ASSUMPTIONS
• 702 metered stalls, including Town Hall (249 stalls of 279 total stalls), Virginia (30 stalls), E. Riverside
(43 stalls), Riverside (91 stalls), Weist (96 stalls of 141 total stalls), Post Office (93 of 99 stalls), Bond
Park (83 stalls), and Tregent (17 stalls).
• Baseline average summer utilization: 0.71 (based on the average of three occupancy counts per day
from May 28, 2019 through September 4, 2019 in the Town Hall Lot, Virginia, East Riverside Lot,
Riverside Lot, Weist Lot, the Post Office Lost, and Bond Park).
• Progressive Pricing Scenarios (C & D): Baseline length of stay calibrated based on July/August
utilization data from Town Hall Lot, East Riverside Lot, Riverside Lot, and Weist Lot.
• Progressive Pricing Scenarios (C & D): 50% of reduced vehicle-hours at higher hourly rates
reallocated to lowest hourly rate category (to estimate backfilling due to reduced long-term parking).
• Peak Pricing Scenario (E): 90% factor applied to revenue estimates to approximate lost revenue due
to first 15-minutes free parking.
• First Hour Free for Residents / 30 Minutes Free for Residents: 200 Resident vehicles per day
assumed (approximately 10% of baseline number of vehicles served per day).
• The following adjusted average utilization factors are assumed at each price point to account for
anticipated reduced demands due to pricing:
37
Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis
October 2019 2
COST ESTIMATES
ONE -TIME COSTS
Line Item Type Cost
Meter Hardware (14 Meters) Infrastructure $168,000
Signage Infrastructure $2,500
Installation, testing, etc. Technical $25,000
Software IT $45,000
Website Upgrades Pub. Ed. $2,500
Instructional Videos Pub. Ed. (Included)
Total ONE-TIME Costs: $243,000
ANNU AL ONGOING COSTS
In-House Option
Line Item Type Cost
Utilities (Power, IT) Infrastructure $25,000
Software IT $5,000
Bank/Credit Card/PCI/EMV Fees1 Financial $42,000
Pay-by-Phone Convenience Fee2 Financial $25,000
Cellular/Communication3 Financial/IT $3,150
Meter maintenance, repair, & misc. Maintenance $7,500
P&T Program Asst. position FTE Staff + Benefits $97,798
IT Dept. support Allocation $0
Finance Dep. Support Allocation $0
Educational material4 Pub. Ed. $10,000
Social media promotion - TOEP5 Marketing $500
VEP Partnership Marketing $0
Total New ANNUAL Costs: $215,948
Outsourced Option
Line Item Type Cost
Operator Budget Program $114,497
In-House Annual Costs6 Program $117,925
Total New ANNUAL Costs: $232,422
Existing Program Costs
Line Item Type Cost
Parking Division Base Budget 2020 Program $214,000
1 Assumes 10% fee on $420,000 in credit card transactions (approximated as 70% of $600,000 gross revenue)
2 Assumes 125,000 transactions per year at $0.20 per transactions
3 Assumes $45/month per meter (14 assumed) for 5 months per year
4 Stickers for meters, windshield flyers
5 Paid campaigns on Facebook
6 Excluding P&T Program Asst. position and Parking Division Base Budget
38
3 Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis
October 2019
ADDITIONAL ASSUMPTIONS
OPERATOR BUDGET
Line Item Type Cost
Salaries & Wages Payroll & Benefits $64,275
Payroll Taxes & Burden Payroll & Benefits $6,963
Health, Pension & 401(k) Payroll & Benefits $7,539
Workers Compensation Payroll & Benefits $5,242
Uniforms & Laundry Operating Expenses $927
Corporate Travel Operating Expenses $1,230
Employee Processing Operating Expenses $787
General Expenses Operating Expenses $2,694
Management Fee Management Fee $24,840
Total New ANNUAL Costs: $114,497
39
Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis
October 2019 4
SCENARIO A – NET REVENUE ANALYSIS
IN-HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Assumes General Fund Contribution (2020 ONLY)
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $214,000 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $461,000 $461,000 $789,000 $789,000
Gross Revenue $675,000 $461,000 $789,000 $789,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
In-House Management $215,948 $215,948 $290,948 $290,948
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $672,948 $429,948 $674,948 $504,948
Net Revenue $2,052 $31,052 $114,052 $284,052
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $32,000 $32,000 $54,000 $54,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free ($29,948) ($948) $60,052 $230,052
Assumes No General Fund Contribution
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $461,000 $461,000 $789,000 $789,000
Gross Revenue $461,000 $461,000 $789,000 $789,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
In-House Management $215,948 $215,948 $290,948 $290,948
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $672,948 $429,948 $674,948 $504,948
Net Revenue ($211,948) $31,052 $114,052 $284,052
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $32,000 $32,000 $54,000 $54,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free ($243,948) ($948) $60,052 $230,052
*2022 one-time capital costs estimated as 70% of 2020 one-time capital costs to account for increasing
from 702 to 1,200 paid parking stalls; Infrastructure/IT/Finance/Maintenance annual costs also increased
by 70%.
40
5 Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis
October 2019
OUTSOURCED MANAGEMEN T
Assumes General Fund Contribution (2020 ONLY)
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $214,000 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $461,000 $461,000 $789,000 $789,000
Gross Revenue $675,000 $461,000 $789,000 $789,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
Outsourced Management $232,422 $232,422 $307,422 $307,422
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $689,422 $446,422 $691,422 $521,422
Net Revenue ($14,422) $14,578 $97,578 $267,578
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $32,000 $32,000 $54,000 $54,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free ($46,422) ($17,422) $43,578 $213,578
Assumes No General Fund Contribution
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $461,000 $461,000 $789,000 $789,000
Gross Revenue $461,000 $461,000 $789,000 $789,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
Outsourced Management $232,422 $232,422 $307,422 $307,422
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $689,422 $446,422 $691,422 $521,422
Net Revenue ($228,422) $14,578 $97,578 $267,578
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $32,000 $32,000 $54,000 $54,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free ($260,422) ($17,422) $43,578 $213,578
*2022 one-time capital costs estimated as 70% of 2020 one-time capital costs to account for increasing
from 702 to 1,200 paid parking stalls; Infrastructure/IT/Finance/Maintenance annual costs also increased
by 70%.
41
Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis
October 2019 6
Scenario B – Net Revenue Analysis
IN-HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Assumes General Fund Contribution (2020 ONLY)
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $214,000 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $530,000 $530,000 $905,000 $905,000
Gross Revenue $744,000 $530,000 $905,000 $905,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
In-House Management $215,948 $215,948 $290,948 $290,948
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $672,948 $429,948 $674,948 $504,948
Net Revenue $71,052 $100,052 $230,052 $400,052
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $42,000 $42,000 $73,000 $73,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free $29,052 $58,052 $157,052 $327,052
Assumes No General Fund Contribution
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $530,000 $530,000 $905,000 $905,000
Gross Revenue $530,000 $530,000 $905,000 $905,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
Outsourced Management $215,948 $215,948 $290,948 $290,948
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $672,948 $429,948 $674,948 $504,948
Net Revenue ($142,948) $100,052 $230,052 $400,052
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $42,000 $42,000 $73,000 $73,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free ($184,948) $58,052 $157,052 $327,052
*2022 one-time capital costs estimated as 70% of 2020 one-time capital costs to account for increasing
from 702 to 1,200 paid parking stalls; Infrastructure/IT/Finance/Maintenance annual costs also increased
by 70%.
42
7 Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis
October 2019
OUTSOURCED MANAGEMEN T
Assumes General Fund Contribution (2020 ONLY)
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $214,000 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $530,000 $530,000 $905,000 $905,000
Gross Revenue $744,000 $530,000 $905,000 $905,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
Outsourced Management $232,422 $232,422 $307,422 $307,422
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $689,422 $446,422 $691,422 $521,422
Net Revenue $54,578 $83,578 $213,578 $383,578
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $42,000 $42,000 $73,000 $73,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free $12,578 $41,578 $140,578 $310,578
Assumes No General Fund Contribution
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $530,000 $530,000 $905,000 $905,000
Gross Revenue $530,000 $530,000 $905,000 $905,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
Outsourced Management $232,422 $232,422 $307,422 $307,422
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $689,422 $446,422 $691,422 $521,422
Net Revenue ($159,422) $83,578 $213,578 $383,578
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $42,000 $42,000 $73,000 $73,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free ($201,422) $41,578 $140,578 $310,578
*2022 one-time capital costs estimated as 70% of 2020 one-time capital costs to account for increasing
from 702 to 1,200 paid parking stalls; Infrastructure/IT/Finance/Maintenance annual costs also increased
by 70%.
43
Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis
October 2019 8
Scenario C – Net Revenue Analysis
IN-HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Assumes General Fund Contribution (2020 ONLY)
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $214,000 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $577,000 $577,000 $986,000 $986,000
Gross Revenue $791,000 $577,000 $986,000 $986,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
In-House Management $215,948 $215,948 $290,948 $290,948
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $672,948 $429,948 $674,948 $504,948
Net Revenue $118,052 $147,052 $311,052 $481,052
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $42,000 $42,000 $73,000 $73,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free $76,052 $105,052 $238,052 $408,052
Assumes No General Fund Contribution
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $577,000 $577,000 $986,000 $986,000
Gross Revenue $577,000 $577,000 $986,000 $986,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
Outsourced Management $215,948 $215,948 $290,948 $290,948
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $672,948 $429,948 $674,948 $504,948
Net Revenue ($95,948) $147,052 $311,052 $481,052
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $42,000 $42,000 $73,000 $73,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free ($137,948) $105,052 $238,052 $408,052
*2022 one-time capital costs estimated as 70% of 2020 one-time capital costs to account for increasing
from 702 to 1,200 paid parking stalls; Infrastructure/IT/Finance/Maintenance annual costs also increased
by 70%.
44
9 Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis
October 2019
OUTSOURCED MANAGEMEN T
Assumes General Fund Contribution (2020 ONLY)
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $214,000 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $577,000 $577,000 $986,000 $986,000
Gross Revenue $791,000 $577,000 $986,000 $986,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
Outsourced Management $232,422 $232,422 $307,422 $307,422
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $689,422 $446,422 $691,422 $521,422
Net Revenue $101,578 $130,578 $294,578 $464,578
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $42,000 $42,000 $73,000 $73,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free $59,578 $88,578 $221,578 $391,578
Assumes No General Fund Contribution
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $577,000 $577,000 $986,000 $986,000
Gross Revenue $577,000 $577,000 $986,000 $986,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
Outsourced Management $232,422 $232,422 $307,422 $307,422
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $689,422 $446,422 $691,422 $521,422
Net Revenue ($112,422) $130,578 $294,578 $464,578
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $42,000 $42,000 $73,000 $73,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free ($154,422) $88,578 $221,578 $391,578
*2022 one-time capital costs estimated as 70% of 2020 one-time capital costs to account for increasing
from 702 to 1,200 paid parking stalls; Infrastructure/IT/Finance/Maintenance annual costs also increased
by 70%.
45
Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis
October 2019 10
Scenario D – Net Revenue Analysis
IN-HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Assumes General Fund Contribution (2020 ONLY)
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $214,000 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $539,000 $539,000 $921,000 $921,000
Gross Revenue $753,000 $539,000 $921,000 $921,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
In-House Management $215,948 $215,948 $290,948 $290,948
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $672,948 $429,948 $674,948 $504,948
Net Revenue $80,052 $109,052 $246,052 $416,052
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $42,000 $42,000 $73,000 $73,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free $38,052 $67,052 $173,052 $343,052
Assumes No General Fund Contribution
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $539,000 $539,000 $921,000 $921,000
Gross Revenue $539,000 $539,000 $921,000 $921,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
Outsourced Management $215,948 $215,948 $290,948 $290,948
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $672,948 $429,948 $674,948 $504,948
Net Revenue ($133,948) $109,052 $246,052 $416,052
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $42,000 $42,000 $73,000 $73,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free ($175,948) $67,052 $173,052 $343,052
*2022 one-time capital costs estimated as 70% of 2020 one-time capital costs to account for increasing
from 702 to 1,200 paid parking stalls; Infrastructure/IT/Finance/Maintenance annual costs also increased
by 70%.
46
11 Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis
October 2019
OUTSOURCED MANAGEMEN T
Assumes General Fund Contribution (2020 ONLY)
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $214,000 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $539,000 $539,000 $921,000 $921,000
Gross Revenue $753,000 $539,000 $921,000 $921,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
Outsourced Management $232,422 $232,422 $307,422 $307,422
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $689,422 $446,422 $691,422 $521,422
Net Revenue $63,578 $92,578 $229,578 $399,578
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $42,000 $42,000 $73,000 $73,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free $21,578 $50,578 $156,578 $326,578
Assumes No General Fund Contribution
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $539,000 $539,000 $921,000 $921,000
Gross Revenue $539,000 $539,000 $921,000 $921,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
Outsourced Management $232,422 $232,422 $307,422 $307,422
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $689,422 $446,422 $691,422 $521,422
Net Revenue ($150,422) $92,578 $229,578 $399,578
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $42,000 $42,000 $73,000 $73,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free ($192,422) $50,578 $156,578 $326,578
*2022 one-time capital costs estimated as 70% of 2020 one-time capital costs to account for increasing
from 702 to 1,200 paid parking stalls; Infrastructure/IT/Finance/Maintenance annual costs also increased
by 70%.
47
Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis
October 2019 12
Scenario E – Net Revenue Analysis
IN-HOUSE MANAGEMENT
Assumes General Fund Contribution (2020 ONLY)
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $214,000 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $550,000 $550,000 $941,000 $941,000
Gross Revenue $764,000 $550,000 $941,000 $941,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
In-House Management $215,948 $215,948 $290,948 $290,948
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $672,948 $429,948 $674,948 $504,948
Net Revenue $91,052 $120,052 $266,052 $436,052
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $64,000 $64,000 $109,000 $109,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free $27,052 $56,052 $157,052 $327,052
Assumes No General Fund Contribution
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $550,000 $550,000 $941,000 $941,000
Gross Revenue $550,000 $550,000 $941,000 $941,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
Outsourced Management $215,948 $215,948 $290,948 $290,948
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $672,948 $429,948 $674,948 $504,948
Net Revenue ($122,948) $120,052 $266,052 $436,052
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $64,000 $64,000 $109,000 $109,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free ($186,948) $56,052 $157,052 $327,052
*2022 one-time capital costs estimated as 70% of 2020 one-time capital costs to account for increasing
from 702 to 1,200 paid parking stalls; Infrastructure/IT/Finance/Maintenance annual costs also increased
by 70%.
48
13 Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis
October 2019
OUTSOU RCED MANAGEMENT
Assumes General Fund Contribution (2020 ONLY)
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $214,000 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $550,000 $550,000 $941,000 $941,000
Gross Revenue $764,000 $550,000 $941,000 $941,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
Outsourced Management $232,422 $232,422 $307,422 $307,422
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $689,422 $446,422 $691,422 $521,422
Net Revenue $74,578 $103,578 $249,578 $419,578
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $64,000 $64,000 $109,000 $109,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free $10,578 $39,578 $140,578 $310,578
Assumes No General Fund Contribution
2020 2021 2022* 2023
General Fund $0 $0 $0 $0
Parking Revenue $550,000 $550,000 $941,000 $941,000
Gross Revenue $550,000 $550,000 $941,000 $941,000
One-Time Capital Expense $243,000 $0 $170,000 $0
Outsourced Management $232,422 $232,422 $307,422 $307,422
Parking Division Base Budget $214,000 $214,000 $214,000 $214,000
Expenses $689,422 $446,422 $691,422 $521,422
Net Revenue ($139,422) $103,578 $249,578 $419,578
Cost of 30-Min Free for Residents $64,000 $64,000 $109,000 $109,000
Net Revenue w/ 30-Mins Free ($203,422) $39,578 $140,578 $310,578
*2022 one-time capital costs estimated as 70% of 2020 one-time capital costs to account for increasing
from 702 to 1,200 paid parking stalls; Infrastructure/IT/Finance/Maintenance annual costs also increased
by 70%.
49
Page 1 of 2
Suggested revisions to TITLE 10 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE (VEHICLES AND
TRAFFIC)
Chapter 10.04 Model Traffic Code should be reorganized to address only
the Model Traffic Code elements (adoption, Violation, Fines, and speed).
A meeting with the Municipal judge is recommended to explore
progressive fine amounts for repeat violations. The EPMC empowers the
judge to set parking fine amounts.
A new chapter 10.06 Parking of the Municipal Code is recommended to
contain all the existing parking rules and be updated to include the
following new sections.
o Overnight parking policies should be updated to consider some
greater flexibility.
o If moving to any form of progressive paid parking fees, the 3 hour
time restriction signs could be removed.
o Time limited parking (30-minutes and/or 1hour) should be retained
at high-turnover civic facilities (post office, Town Hall, library, etc)
o The Town role in managing electric vehicle charging stations needs
clarified.
o Authority to collect daily parking fees, and potentially partner with
private parking lot owners, should be included. Possible language
could be:
(a) No person shall park a vehicle in any parking space
designated by the Town as a paid parking space without first
obtaining a parking permit or paying the required fees for the
amount of time the vehicle shall be parked.
(b) Parking fees amounts, applicable hours, and seasonal
enforcement dates shall be established by Resolution approved by
the Town Board. All required fees shall be paid by any method
allowed by the Town, and may include paper bills, coins, credit
cards, or other technology methods such as pay by cell phone,
online prepaid parking, and permit validations.
(c) The Public Works Department, or its authorized designee, is
authorized to enter into parking management partnerships with
owners of private parking lots for the purpose of uniform
management of the community parking resources where it is
determined by the Parking and Transit Manager to be in the best
interest of both the Town and the private parking lot owner.
o Authority to issue parking permits and collect fees should be
included. Possible language could be:
50
Page 2 of 2
(a) The Public Works Department, or its authorized designee, is
authorized to issue parking permits and collect fee amounts
approved by the Town Board through an adopted Resolution.
(b) Parking permits may limit the permittee to parking in
specified locations without payment of any additional parking fees.
(c) The term of parking permits is limited to the annual paid
parking season determined by Resolution approved by the Town
Board.
(d) Parking permits are not transferable and may be assigned to
a specific vehicle license plate number or a specific business
owner.
(e) The issuance and use of parking permits shall be governed
by written rules and regulations established by the Parking and
Transit Manager and approved by the Town Board. Each permittee
shall, upon issuance of a parking permit, receive a copy of these
rules and regulations.
o Clarification should be included regarding spending any new
parking revenue. Possible language: Limitation on Spending.
Spending of any fees collected for daily parking, overnight parking,
parking fines, and parking permits is limited to the administration,
operation, and enhancement of the Town’s public parking assets
and related management parking management activities and transit
services. Clear definition of where net revenues would be spent
and prioritized is desired.
The existing ordinance only permits towing of vehicles illegally parking in
loading zones or shuttle stops. This authority should be expanded to
include removal of any illegally parked vehicle. Possible language in
chapter 10.12: Removal of Illegally Parked Vehicles. Whenever any
police officer or authorized parking enforcement official of the Town finds
an unauthorized vehicle parked or standing in violation of any provision in
this Title 10, such officer/official is authorized to cause the vehicle to be
removed, and neither the officer/official nor anyone operating under his or
her direction shall be liable for any damage to such vehicle occasioned by
such removal.
51
Suggested content for a new Resolution if the Town Board wishes to authorize
seasonal paid parking
An empowering ordinance should be adopted and referenced.
Parking fee amounts, applicable locations, duration and daily hours of
applicability could be set annually by the Town Board, or delegated to the
Parking & Transit Manager within a range of values/dates/hours approved by the
Town Board. Possible language:
1. The parking fees in Estes Park shall be implemented and enforced for the 2020
visitation season commencing on June 1, 2020 and terminating on September
30, 2020 between the hours of 10am and 6pm each day.
2. Daily parking fees shall be collected for 702 metered stalls, including Town Hall
(249 stalls of 279 total stalls), Virginia (30 stalls), E. Riverside (43 stalls),
Riverside (91 stalls), Weist (96 stalls of 141 total stalls), Post Office (93 of 99
stalls), Bond Park (83 stalls), and Tregent (17 stalls).
3. Clarify that parking fees do not apply to stalls marked for disabled persons in
these parking lots.
4. Daily parking fees shall be $X.XX per hour between the hours of X:XXam and
X:XXpm.
5. Determination of possible annual parking permit fees is complex and requires
additional thought and public coordination. Any proposed rates and procedures
should be handled in a separate Resolution considered in the first Quarter of
2020 so sufficient notice (and opportunity for input) can be provided to
employers, and residents prior to the 2020 guest season.
52
Transportation
Advisory Board
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Belle Morris, Chair, Transportation Advisory Board
Date: October 8, 2019
RE: Downtown Parking Management Plan Phase I Results & Options for 2020
Mayor Jirsa, Administrator Machalek and Trustees:
The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) recommends implementing Phase 2 of the
Downtown Parking Management Plan (Initial Seasonal Paid Parking Implementation) in
summer 2020.
TAB enthusiastically supports the valid data collection processes, which Public Works
staff has provided to best inform decision-making. TAB members have participated in
some data gathering to better understand what residents and visitors experience
regarding parking and a possible future that could include seasonal paid parking. TAB
members have attended meetings on the “Listening Tour”, which allowed residents to
speak directly about their concerns and hopes regarding seasonal paid parking. After
vigorous discussions and debate, TAB requests the Town Board adopt a progressive
seasonal paid parking program, which encourages parking turn over for residents and
visitors to have the opportunity to access Downtown while reducing cruising for
available parking. TAB supports the stages of the Downtown Parking Management
Plan, which encourages multi-modal transportation and protection of our unique clean
mountain environment. To ensure resident support, TAB recommends the 2020
seasonal paid parking plan include free parking for residents, once per day, for 30
minutes. We appreciate the opportunity to provide these recommendations and
appreciate the efforts of Town staff.
Phase II of the Downtown Parking Management Plan introduces seasonal paid parking
as an important tool in managing traffic, reducing congestion and at the same time
encouraging access through multi-modal options. TAB views seasonal paid parking as a
way to influence driver decisions about where to park and for how long. Paid parking
provides incentive to turn over a parking space so that additional residents and potential
customers have the opportunity to be in Downtown using a car. While correlation
between turn over and sales tax revenue is difficult to track, TAB uses the logic that if
more people can access a parking space each day, there is a higher probability of
actual sales in shops. Implementing seasonal paid parking allows a measured increase
in access opportunity, unlike the barrier (encouraged by free parking) of one space
53
being used for a longer period of time (or all day) by a smaller number of users. If a
driver seeks a long-term parking space (over 3 hours), they can choose to pay for this
privilege or use a free periphery lot. With increased communication about parking
options, drivers can plan in advance for their needs and choose what location is best for
them. The long-term parker can avoid entering the downtown corridor and adding to the
traffic congestion. Those seeking short-term parking may use the Estes Parking App for
technology updates on availability.
Currently, visitors and residents, who drive into the Downtown corridor, cruise for
available (free) parking, which adds to congestion, pollution and overall bad
experiences. Smells of vehicle fumes and noise from traffic could easily place a person
in a 300,000 populated Front Range city rather than our Rocky Mountain beautiful town.
The managed paid parking approach will help drivers locate parking more efficiently and
encourage an enjoyable walk or shuttle drive, if a periphery parking space is the option.
Relying on free parking compromises multi-modal transportation options. Free parking
encourages driving and pulls away from encouraging walking, riding a bike or taking
transit when traveling to work or shop in the Downtown corridor. Affordable housing
residents and J1 employees often need multi-modal transportation options for accessing
employment downtown. We encourage the Town Board to make alternative
transportation a priority to complement implementation of seasonal paid parking.
We support the 2019 Complete Streets Policy and its approach to design and planning-
that include all user experiences to the transportation network. We support the
implementation of the 2018 Downtown Plan and its vision for prioritizing bicycles and
pedestrian circulation as well as making parking and transit facilities easily accessible .
The planned parking stages support the expectations of residents to provide safe,
comfortable, and accessible multi-modal options identified in these important Town
Board decisions.
TAB supports a robust plan for managing and creating additional residential and
employee permits. We support staff efforts to establish safe, comfortable, accessible
parking/transit options for employees. Employees working long hours and late shifts
have unique needs compared to a morning shift person . TAB appreciates the wisdom of
a measured approach when implementing the steps to managing parking. We have
concern about disregarding stages of parking changes, especially when considering
building an expensive parking infrastructure without a revenue source. TAB has concern
for the likely unintended consequences of having a large supply of parking in downtown,
when more affordable periphery lots are available now. We encourage utilizing the
parking infrastructure the Town already has and support multi-modal transportation.
In conclusion, while enforcing time limits in parking lots and areas has demonstrated
changes in turn over in parking, the increase in visitor numbers require a more robust
management program. The phased approach recommended by the DPMP allows for
adjustments and flexibility in pricing as well as education time for the public. TAB
supports a progressive seasonal paid parking program that includes a strong multi-
modal transportation option and we encourage the Town Board to consider moving to
DPMP Phase II in 2020. We appreciate the opportunity to provide recommendations to
the Board and we appreciate the Town staff’s thorough efforts.
54
55
joe@amerivestrealty.com
Oct 18, 2019,
10:55 AM (3
days ago)
to me
I think paid parking is a terrible idea, I'm already avoiding downtown due to the parking restrictions and
will completely boycott YEAR ROUND if any paid parking is placed in this town.. 3 hr limit on all heavily
used areas is enough, just enforce it... give permits to workers who qualify for full day parking where
needed...
Local Resident,
Joseph Ballarino
President & CEO
Phone: (239) 280-5400
Joe@AmerivestRealty.com
America's Real Estate Co.
Downtown parking changes
Linda Streck <wdmamsmom@gmail.com>
Fri, Oct 18,
2:59 PM (3
days ago)
to me
I would appreciate your passing my comments along to Mayor Jirsa and the Trustees as part of
their decision process regarding downtown parking changes.
Mayor and Trustees,
I wanted to share my support of moving forward with Phase II of the seasonal parking plan.
The parking structure has been a beautiful yet functional addition to the Town which addresses
a great need during the summer/fall. However its full functionality won't be reached until the
implementation of paid parking in the major downtown lots (Phase II) is complete. Once that is
done, then people have the CHOICE ... do I want to pay a reasonable parking fee to park close,
or do I want to walk a couple of blocks and not pay for parking? Users can make the CHOICE
that is best for their own situation, be it financial conservancy or physical restrictions or limited
time.
Many people come to the area to hike in the mountains ... compared to a multi-mile hike, a 2-4
block walk from the parking structure to downtown is minor.
The Trail-Gazette recently quoted Major Jirsa as having suggested " ... we wasted $4 million on
a parking structure ...". We need to make sure that isn't the case by motivating people to
change their behavior, and that happens by being given choices with tradeoffs. Without
implementing Phase II, then their choice is close and free or further and free, and nobody's
behavior is going to change. The tradeoff needs to be the choice of close and PAY, or further
and free - also known as Phase II.
I look forward to the Town moving forward with implementing the full plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda Streck
Estes Park, CO
Paid Parking
Vicki Alkire <calkire@sprynet.com>
Fri, Oct 18,
5:05 PM (3
days ago)
to me
To Whom It May Concern,
I have two thoughts about the parking issue. I understand that parking has been a huge issue
for years and I appreciate that the town continues to look at ways to alleviate the problem. In
fact, I was just thinking today that the next step to parking shortages may to start charging for
parking.
Although my first opinion doesn’t solve the issue, I can’t help but think that Visit Estes has
caused some of the problem. VE has had an ongoing, aggressive advertising campaign to draw
more and more visitors to Estes Park for several years now. More festivals and a farmer’s
market downtown have also been created to draw more visitors. Well, the explosion of tourists
well into the Fall has proved that this campaign has been highly successful. The town is
bursting! But, along with the success of drawing more visitors to Estes Park over the years the
parking problem has exacerbated. So, this campaign, though successful, has me wondering
why the town was so heavily promoted and why we would penalize those visitors who were
drawn by said promotion by charging them parking. That seems unfair.
If paid parking is approved, my request would be for the town to issue permits for all residents in
the Estes Valley to park free. It would be a hardship to be required to pay for parking as we do
our business in town or patronize our local businesses and restaurants.
So, although the town board may have no other alternative but to charge visitors for parking, I
would hope they would give local residents a pass.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Vicki Alkire
Glen Haven, CO
Sent from my iPad
Paid parking. Please forward to all town trustees.
chris <cgr1952@hotmail.com>
Sun, Oct 20,
8:24 PM (12
hours ago)
to me
During this past year I have visited several mountain towns that have adopted paid parking, with minor
variations; Taos (NM), Breckenridge, Aspen and Idaho Springs. This change does not appear to have
diminished tourist visitation in the least. If paid parking is adopted in Estes Park, revenue might be used
to address traffic management problems with an eye toward making our town more pedestrian and
bicycle friendly.
Having weighed the pros and cons, I enthusiastically support paid parking in Estes Park.
Christopher Reveley
EP, CO
owner of Inkwell & Brew / paid parking thoughts
Kevin Reed <reed.kevinf@gmail.com>
10:51 AM
(2 hours
ago)
to cbangs, eblackhurst, mcenac, pmartchink, kzornes, vsolesbee, me
To the Estes Park Board of Trustees:
Good morning, I'm Kevin Reed, proprietor of Inkwell & Brew, a stationery shop and coffee bar
located downtown. I'm writing to express my full support of seasonal paid parking. My
understanding based on my research is, the lot immediately behind my shop would be a paid lot
for the high season. I have no problem with that. On hearing of this proposal my first thought
was, "okay, this would work - but I would love to have a couple of spaces that were 15 or 30min
free spots - for my many daily local, loyal customers who come in for coffee, so I don't lose
those good folks". But my understanding is, the Board has already received the
recommendation that a fee-free period be allotted (anywhere between 15min and an hour).
I support the idea that we need positive changes to address the parking situations we've seen in
recent years. I understand this is a contentious topic, and I've heard that quite a few locals are
upset. Fair enough. But as for my opinion as a shop owner, I support the issue.
I appreciate your time.
Kevin Reed
Proprietor, Inkwell & Brew
kevin@inkwellbrew.com / reed.kevinf@gmail.com
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Parking Plan Comments
Carlie Bangs <cbangs@estes.org>Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 1:05 PM
To: Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>, Travis Machalek <tmachalek@estes.org>
Hello, please share my comments with the Mayor and Trustees prior to tonight's meeting.
Mayor and Fellow Trustees,
Unfortunately, I have been diagnosed with the flu and am unable to attend tonight's meetings. I'm incredibly disappointed
as topics being discussed are important. I hope I'm able to share my comments regarding the parking management plan
and you're able to read them before tonight's meeting (and hopefully, they make a little sense as I'm writing this email
while sick in bed). I'm hoping to still be able to attend Friday's final budget meeting, but I'll let you know as soon as
possible.
I spent this morning going through the Parking Management plan and re-watching the study session from last meeting. As
the liaison to the Transportation Advisory Committee, I was also able to attend October's meeting earlier in the month and
hear their discussion after your feedback. I believe all of your questions or concerns will be adequately addressed this
evening. While I have followed the Parking Management plan closely, the hiring of Vanessa, and the data gathering and
solicitation of feedback that has happened this past year, I cannot speak more highly of the effort and work that has been
put into implementing this plan unbiasedly and factually. After last year, the direction was to gather more data. While we
are all able to go downtown and see the parking issues, or hear the concerns regarding parking from the perspective of
locals and visitors, more data was needed in order for us to move forward. At the last study session, you can see how
seriously that directive was taken by Vanessa. Her expertise and professional attitude in addressing our parking and
transportation issues is a huge asset to our community. As always, we should be looking at different data across the
board- feedback from the local community (overall they say congestion and parking are huge issues), Visit Estes Park
feedback, feedback Vanessa has acquired through walking shop to shop downtown, and community surveys. Overall,
there has been a very high level of engagement. Of course, we will always have individuals that disagree, but that's our
responsibility to take feedback and make decisions based on the full picture of data and information that we have access
to.
I think the individuals with the greatest concerns may find that paid parking will actually address their concerns. For
example- Paid parking will push people out of staying downtown for long periods of time- actually if we have paid parking
rather than our current time limited parking, individuals will be able to stay in their spot for longer periods of time. Another
example, "My employees need close parking". It has been suggested that there be employee parking permits that
individuals may be able to purchase at a low yearly fee. Also, and this is my personal opinion, I'd assume that as a
business owner any close parking spots to my shop should be filled with paying customers, rather than employees. We
can be smart about how we deal with these issues so employees, visitors, and locals can all be satisfied. I truly believe
we have the answers to all the concerns, and as Trustees, WE need to continue to do our research and know how these
decisions will affect future endeavors and projects. Procrastinating or delaying steps in plans that have been approved
because we may have personal unease in moving forward, is not appropriate government. I hope that everyone has
looked closely at the Parking Management plan, as approved, and votes appropriately informed.
I implore the board to accept the data and feedback that's been received and understand that the best course of action is
to move forward on the Parking Management Plan, Stage 2 is an appropriate next step in continuing to manage our
downtown congestion and MILLIONS of visitors that will most likely continue to grow.
I hope to feel better soon and get back to work. Thanks so much,
--
Carlie Bangs
Board of Trustees
Town of Estes Park
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Paid Parking
1 message
Susan Harris <susalfish@aol.com>Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 9:16 PM
To: townclerk@estes.org
As a year round long time resident of Estes Park, I am opposed to paid parking in Estes Park. The cost of implementing
paid parking is too high and you have already stated that the town will make no money from it. Paid parking is annoying
to visitors and could result in lower sales tax collection. It is annoying to locals. There are only a few events/days when
parking is totally full...the parking garage rarely fills. We are a family tourist town and paid parking does not welcome
families.
The town runs on sales tax, and yet the town government continues to come up with traffic patterns and parking options
that discourage people from coming into town and spending their money. It would be nice if the town board and
employees would realize that without tourists and their vacation dollars, our property taxes would increase and our
services would decrease.
I vote no for paid parking.
Susan Harris
1971 Sharon Court North
Estes Park
Sent from my iPad
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Paid parking!!
2 messages
Wynbrier Ltd - Wildlife Gallery <wynbrier1@mindspring.com>Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:58 AM
Reply-To: Wynbrier Ltd - Wildlife Gallery <wynbrier1@mindspring.com>
To: townclerk@estes.org
To The Unworthy Town Board,
Do any of you really expect to get re-elected if you pass a paid parking policy? And you are going to waste how
much money installing such a policy with signs and a collection system? (which the new board will have to undo once
you folks are sent packing, which will be a cause I will put some money into.)
Larry Airgood (25 year resident)
970-586-4074
Visit us at www.wynbrier.com
See our video...go to YouTube and type: Wynbrier
Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 5:09 PM
To: Trustees <trustees@estes.org>, Travis Machalek <TMACHALEK@estes.org>
Hello All,
Please see the attached public comment received by the Clerk's Office.
Thank you,
Kimberly
Town Clerk's Office
170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-577-4777 (p)
970-577-4770 (f )
townclerk@estes.org
[Quoted text hidden]
November 12, 2019
Visit Estes Park Operating Plan
November 26, 2019
Downtown Estes Loop Quarterly
Update
December 10, 2019
CANCELLED
Items Approved – Unscheduled:
Discussion with County Assessor
regarding Assessment of Vacation
Rentals
Future of Human Resources
Management – HR Strategic Plan
Distributed Energy Discussion
ADUs and Sue Ballou, Partnership
for Age Friendly Communities
Follow Up Discussion of Building
Maintenance Code
Fish Hatchery Property Discussion
Transit Philosophy Discussion
(Including Brown Route)
Reverse Decriminalization of
Municipal Code
Items for Town Board Consideration:
Facilities Master Plan – January
14, 2020
Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items
October 22, 2019
57