HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town BoardNote - The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not
available at the time the agenda was prepared.
Town Board of Trustees Regular Meeting
Tuesday, August 26, 2025, 7:00 p.m.
Town Hall Board Room, 170 MacGregor Ave, Estes Park
Accessibility Statement
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services.
Contact us if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or
townclerk@estes.org.
Meeting Participation
This meeting will be streamed live and available on the Town YouTube page. Click on
the following links for more information on Digital Accessibility, Meeting Translations,
and Public Comment.
The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at
the time the agenda was prepared.
Agenda
Pledge of Allegiance
Agenda Approval
Public Comment
Town Board Comments and Liaison Reports
Town Administrator Report
Consent Agenda
1. Expenditure Approval Lists – Bills
2. Town Board Meeting & Study Session Minutes dated August 12, 2025
3. Town Board and Estes Park Planning Commission Joint Study Session Minutes
dated August 7, 2025
4. Resolution 80-25 Zero Emissions Vehicle Transition Plan for Transit
5. Resolution 81-25 Contract with Freedom Homes, LLC for the Museum Annex
Addition Project, $358,500. Budgeted
6. Directing Staff to Decline the Town’s Right to Purchase PRPA Windy Gap Water
Rights
Reports & Discussion Items (Outside Entities)
1. Larimer County Transportation Funding
Presented by Larimer County Commissioner Shadduck-McNally and Community
Planning, Infrastructure and Resources Director Ellis
Report on the Larimer on the Move Transportation Plan, transportation
funding gap, and the referral of a transportation sales and use tax ballot
measure to the November 2025 election.
Action Items
1. Resolution 82-25 Eighth Modification to the Reimbursable Agreement
(DTFH68-14-E-00004) with the Central Federal Lands Highway Division of
the Federal Highway Administration for the Downtown Estes Loop Project
Presented by Director Greear
Extend the effective period of the Reimbursable Agreement to December
31, 2027.
2. Ordinance 15-25 Temporarily Suspending Certain Provisions of Chapter
17.66 of the Estes Park Municipal Code to Regulate Rather Than Prohibit
Feather Flag Signs
Presented by Director Careccia
Consider a temporary suspension of regulations pertaining to feather flags
allowed under certain conditions.
3. Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) 2026 Colorado Legislative
Position Statement on Housing
Presented by Manager Speedlin Bangs
Consider supporting legislation that would give local governments more
tools and revenue options to address housing issues.
4. Continue an Ordinance to Vacate a Portion of Stanley Circle Drive Right-of-
Way to September 9, 2025
Reports & Discussion Items
1. 2026 Annual Workforce Housing and Childcare Funding Plan Draft Review
Presented by Manager Speedlin Bangs
Outlines the proposed use of 6E Lodging Tax revenue in 2026.
Adjourn
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 12, 2025
Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Town Hall in said Town
of Estes Park on the 12th day of August, 2025.
Present: Gary Hall, Mayor
Marie Cenac, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Bill Brown
Kirby Hazelton
Frank Lancaster
Mark Igel
Cindy Younglund
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator
Jason Damweber, Deputy Town Administrator
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Bunny Beers, Deputy Town Clerk
Sarah Stoddard Cameron, Recording Secretary
Absent: None
Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all desiring to do so, recited the
Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA APPROVAL.
It was moved and seconded (Hazelton/Igel) to approve the Agenda, and it passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
John Guffey/Town Resident spoke regarding climate change and opportunities to reduce
plastic waste.
Robin Scritchfield/Postal Carrier stated concerns regarding the new parking requirement
and affordability for local USPS mail carriers and expressed a desire for employee parking
permits.
TRUSTEE COMMENTS.
Board comments were heard and have been summarized: acknowledged the police
auxiliary for their involvement in the community; commended Estes Recycles Day for its
success and expressed gratitude to the League of Women Voters, and all others who
contributed; the Estes Park Sister Cities delegation from Monteverde, Costa Rica would
not attend the previously scheduled August visit; formally welcomed the new Restorative
Justice Program Manager, Jay Shields; applications for the Business Accelerator
Services of Estes (BASE) program are open and business owners were encouraged to
participate in the free program; and acknowledged constituents concerns on affordable
housing.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Town Administrator Machalek recognized Emergency Services Dispatchers, Kelly
Doherty and Emily Pugh, who overcame communication barriers to find a missing hiker.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Expenditure Approval Lists - Bills.
2. Town Board Meeting Minutes and Study Session Minutes dated July 22, 2025.
3. Town Board and Estes Valley Fire Protection District Joint Study Session Minutes
dated July 15, 2025
DRA
F
T
Board of Trustees – August 12, 2025 – Page 2
4. Resolution 77-25 Intergovernmental Agreement with Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT) for Fiscal Year 2025 Certifications and Assurances as
required by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as Recipients of FTA Funding
for Public Transportation
5.Resolution 78-25 Amended and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement with CDOT
for Multimodal Options Funds (MMOF) and Transportation Alternatives Program
(TAP) Grants for Final Segment of the Fall River Trail, $4,793,076. Budgeted
6.Overdose Awareness Day Presented by The North Colorado Health Alliance Permit
Application for use of Bond Park
It was moved and seconded (Igel/Hazelton) to approve the Consent Agenda, and
it passed unanimously.
ACTION ITEMS:
1.REVISED POLICY 1101 DELEGATION OF CONTRACT SIGNATURE AUTHORITY.
Town Attorney Kramer reviewed Policy 1101 Delegation of Contract Signature
Authority, clarifying which Town employees are authorized to approve various
contracts, and outlining contracts requiring Town Board approval. Since the adoption
of this policy in 2020, contracts may have been brought to the Town Board
unnecessarily. Staff proposed substantive revisions: allow the Police Chief to enter
the Town into memoranda of understanding with partner agencies; allow the Town
Administrator to commit the Town as lessee of property owned by others, for no
greater than one year; and allow the Town Administrator to enter the Town into
memoranda of understanding with nonprofit organizations for the ongoing support of
Town operations. Staff stated these revisions would streamline the Town’s ability to
enter contracts.
Board discussion ensued and has been summarized: concern was heard with regard
to the scope to which the policy may apply, particularly the Police Chief’s ability to
enter memoranda of understanding with other law enforcement agencies; staff
provided further clarification stating that contracts executed under this revision would
be limited to day-to-day coordination, and strictly limited to current purchasing
thresholds, noting any consequential decisions would be subject to Board approval;
requested a comprehensive list of approved contracts be brought to the Board
annually. It was moved and seconded (Igel/Brown) to approve revised Policy 1101,
with the exception of Memoranda of Understanding being executed by the Police
Chief, and it passed unanimously..
Following the motion, Town Administrator Machalek acknowledged that further
revisions were necessary, and the amended policy would be considered at a future
meeting.
2.RESOLUTION 79-25 INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR 2025
COORDINATED ELECTION. Town Clerk Williamson presented Resolution 79-25 to
officially join the 2025 coordinated election. The Town Board was presented with two
citizen-initiated ordinance petitions at their July 8, 2025 meeting and approved placing
Ordinance 11-25 and 12-15 on the upcoming Coordinated Election on November 4,
2025. A letter was sent to the Larimer County Election Office on July 14, 2025 notifying
the County of the Town’s intent to participate in the November election. An
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the two political subdivisions must be
executed in order to participate in the upcoming coordinated election. This agreement
would place all responsibility, including preparation and conduct of the election, on the
County Clerk and Recorder. It was moved and seconded (Hazelton/Cenac) to
approve Resolution 79-25, and it passed unanimously.
REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1.WIND SIGN CODE REVIEW. Town Administrator Machalek provided an overview of
current Municipal Code, Section 17.66.060, which states wind signs, defined by
DRA
F
T
Board of Trustees – August 12, 2025 – Page 3
Section 17.66.040, shall not be permitted, erected, or maintained in the Town. At least
two businesses have requested the Board review the prohibition, citing the efficacy of
wind signs in attracting business. Staff have reviewed the current code and presented
the Board with four options: maintain the current Municipal Code prohibition; modify
the code to permit wind signs with certain restrictions; allow wind signs on a temporary
basis; or, eliminate the prohibition within the code. Board discussion ensued and has
been summarized: potential immediate benefit to local businesses’ revenues as
advertising mechanisms were acknowledged; concerns were raised regarding the
aesthetics and volume of signage without enforcement and identified code
parameters; and signage activated through artificial air should be prohibited. The
Board directed staff to prepare comprehensive definitions and narrow parameters for
wind signage; and an administrative moratorium on prohibition of wind signs until the
development code update.
Whereupon Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m.
Gary Hall, Mayor
________________
Sarah Stoddard Cameron, Recording Secretary
DRA
F
T
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado August 12, 2025
Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the
Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 12th day of August, 2025.
Board: Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tem Cenac, Trustees Brown,
Hazelton, Igel, Lancaster, and Younglund
Attending: All
Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, Deputy Town Administrator
Damweber, Attorney Kramer, Director Careccia, Planner
Washam and Town Clerk Williamson
Absent: None
Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m.
VEHICLE/MOTORCYCLE PARKING LIMITATIONS CODE AMENDMENT.
Planner Washam stated the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) currently permits
the parking and storge of up to four (4) vehicles on single-family or two-family residential
lots of two (2) acres or less. The provision excludes vehicles stored within a fully
enclosed garage and recreational vehicles. The code does not define or distinguish
between a motorcycle and a vehicle. In a review of other communities, as well as
Larimer County, a maximum on licensed and operational vehicles has not been
imposed, however, the codes regulate the storage of inoperable or junk vehicles. Staff
requested direction from the Board on completing a comprehensive analysis of potential
benefits and impacts to change the code to remove the maximum or allow a separate
number of motorcycles, to bring forward an amendment to the code to align with other
comparable communities, or to include the item in the current rewrite of the
development code. Staff noted amending the code now could result in missed
opportunities for thorough community deliberation, could led to unintended
consequences or inconsistencies, and overlook other perspectives.
Board discussion and questions were heard and summarized: the number of properly
licensed vehicles on a lot should not be regulated; the item should be reviewed and
discussed through the rewrite of the code; questioned the number of complaints the
Town has received; stated concern with an unlimited number of cars on a lot; and
questioned the number of recreational vehicles on a lot, stating it too should be
reviewed with the code rewrite. After further conversation, the Board consensus was to
address this issue with the development code rewrite.
Mayor Pro Tem Cenac arrived at 4:27 p.m.
DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE STATUS REPORT AND PRIORITY AREA
DISCUSSION. Eric Krohngold/Design Workshop Senior Associate and Philip
Supino/Headwaters Community Planning Land Use Code Specialist provided a status
report on the Development Code update, project timeline, code analysis, identified
priority topics which are important to the community and the stakeholders for inclusion
in the code update through a number of focus groups, questionnaires, and community
conversations, and reviewed opportunities for code improvements. Additional
communication on the project has been provided through the development of a project
website, social media updates, technical advisory committee meetings, Planning
Commission discussions, and pop-up engagement activities to begin in August at
DRA
F
T
Town Board Study Session – August 12, 2025 – Page 2
community events. It was noted the intended adoption of the revisions to the code was
projected for November 2026.
The team noted the code update would make the code user friendly, while modernizing
it and creating stronger alignment between previous town planning efforts and state and
national best practices appropriate for Estes Park. Opportunities to address in the
rewrite included integration of the 2022 Estes Forward Comprehensive Plan, update
terminology and definitions, fix inconsistent and redundant language, add new and
updated graphics, consolidate dispersed information and reorganize for ease of use,
and integrate sustainability, wildlife, and wildfire protection elements.
A series of discussion items were reviewed with the Board, the Comprehensive Plan
goals for each, and Board input was summarized.
Development Review Regulation and Process. The current review process involves six
steps. The team proposed a streamlined review with proper regulatory oversite
consisting of four steps. Questioned if the Board would support changing the
development review process for certain items from a Board of Trustees review to an
administrative review? Board comments were heard and summarized: stated it would
depend on the items being considered and the scope; and larger and controversial
items should come to the Board for action. It was further noted the need to establish
standards for staff to identify items as minor or major issues and when to escalate an
item to the Town Board.
Housing. Housing typologies in Estes Park currently consist of single-family homes,
multi-family apartments, and workforce housing. Identifying other opportunity to align
zoning and regulations would provide a wider range of housing types, promote infill and
clustered development, explore the expansion or permitted housing types such as
ADUs and cottage courts, and support small-scale and affordable housing development.
Additional housing types identified included cottage courts, ADUs, townhomes,
courtyard apartments, duplex and triplex, and fourplex. Questioned what types of
housing are missing in Estes Park that would align with housing goals specified in the
Comprehensive Plan? Board comments were heard and summarized: it was noted the
Estes Park Housing Authority continues to explore all types of housing including the use
of PUDs; suggested it may be useful to allow PUDs in residential settings; a need to
address the missing middle and homeownership; development of ADUs has been
difficult and may be directly related to regulations; seasonal workforce housing needs to
be addressed for the local economy through the possible redevelopment of hotel rooms;
concern with maintaining height restrictions; a focus on developing senior housing;
mindful in the development of housing to ensure individuals are interested in living in the
types of units being built; and a need to maintain the green spaces when developing.
Housing – Community Housing Overlay. An overlay zoning supplements the base
zoning district to add specific requirements or incentives related to community housing
that can include density bonuses, reduced parking requirements, or mandatory
inclusionary zoning. The location of an overlay would be identified by the Town and
could be used as a tool to incentive development outcomes. Questioned if the Board
would support exploring a Community Housing Overlay as a tool to implement housing
policies? Board comments were heard and summarized: the process would be akin to
a rezoning without the process; noted it appears to be a way around the rezoning
process; would be supportive of project specific bonuses rather than an overlay; more
information on the concept was noted to fully understand the impacts of an overlay;
would lean on the community perspective for this item; and a number of Board
members stated they would not be supportive of this item.
Lodging Conversion to Housing. The team stated the town has an opportunity to
repurpose select lodging properties through the development code to convert
accommodations to residential housing in targeted zone districts to allow for
dormitories, co-living units, and group housing. It was noted that there could be issues
DRA
F
T
Town Board Study Session – August 12, 2025 – Page 3
related to the development code, fire codes, etc. that would need to be considered.
Questioned if the Board would support the idea of converting existing lodging and
accommodations options into housing, taking into account the context and feasibility of
such conversions? The Board consensus was to support this effort which has been an
effective method for creating workforce housing for other resort communities.
Mayor Hall called a break at 5:35 p.m. and reconvened the session at 5:45 p.m.
Wildlife and Habitat Protection. Potential code amendments to address wildlife and
habitat protection may include: update and integrate mapping of critical habitat, wetland
and riparian zones, native vegetation, wildlife corridors, and migration corridors into the
review process; and a Natural Resources Protection overlay to provide additional review
and apply natural resources protection standards and refine design and development
standards in wildlife zones to address drainage control, limiting fence heights,
maintaining migration corridors, lighting, and building placement. Questioned if the
Board would support the creation of a Natural Resources Protection Overlay Zone with
development standards to guide development in environmentally sensitive areas? The
Board stated support, noting it as a community issue because property owners view
their property as wildlife habitat that should be included in a wildlife protection zone.
Wildfire Mitigation. The code could be amended to align the code with state-level
wildfire mitigation strategies and coordinate with regional entities to ensure consistency
in implementation; plan for natural hazards by integrating into decisions, particularly
related to housing location and transportation networks; establish clear, enforceable
standards for wildfire mitigation in new and existing development and apply these
standards to redevelopment to help reduce long-term vulnerabilities; and incorporate
landscaping best practices to reduce fuel loads, such as those development by the
Eses Valley Fire Protection District. Questions if wildfire mitigation regulations should
be applied to both new developments and existing properties, and if so, should review
criteria or thresholds to determine the level of wildfire mitigation required for different
development activities? Board comments were heard and summarized: concerned with
over regulation; this item should be explored further with the Fire District; the proposed
amendments could provide a safer place for citizens to live and reduce insurance costs;
the amendments should be considered to weigh the benefits and costs to the
community; questioned whether it would apply to items such as remodels, residing, or
be based on the type of buildings; and comment on the need for clear criteria.
Design Guidelines. Design guidelines would codify expectations in the Development
Code to address issues such as the development of clear expectations for development
transitions in scale and form relative to adjacent properties to ensure compatibility and
predictability; guidelines for commercial and multi-family development to preserve Estes
Park’s architectural diversity without prescribing a specific style; and clarify definitions
and standards for items such as height calculations, townhome definitions, and lot
standards for the missing middle housing. Questioned if the Board would support
requiring design guidelines for commercial buildings and multi-family developments to
ensure high quality and enduring design without prescribing a specific architectural
style? Board comments were heard and have been summarized: the Town should
protect property rights and allow freedom of design and development without design
guidelines; would be in favor of screening requirements for items such as dumpsters;
would not be in favor of developing strict design guidelines; comment on the need to not
over regulate; and stated support for guidelines that support diversity.
Signage. The team questioned if the Sign Code should be integrated into the
Development Code. Further code amendments recommended included an update to
standards for neon, LED and other illuminated signage to reflect current best practices
and emerging technologies; ensure signage regulations support dark sky principles by
minimizing light pollution, glare, and excessive illumination; provide greater flexibility for
government and public signage to allow for necessary communication while maintaining
overall aesthetic standards; and add additional standards for pole signs. Questioned if
DRA
F
T
Town Board Study Session – August 12, 2025 – Page 4
there was support to integrate the Sign Code into the Development Code from the
Municipal Code? Board consensus was to support the integration.
Non-Conforming Uses. The town-wide rezoning in 2000 led to many non-conforming
lots which led to additional costs and delays incurred by the property owner if any
changes are made to the lot. Possible code amendments could address the non-
conforming use and lot standards to streamline site-specific improvements without
requiring a variance; and the existing zoning district standards could be amended to
allow for a greater variation in site-specific conditions. Questioned if the Board would
support allowing small, site-specific improvements on non-conforming lots by right if
they meet clear criteria? Board consensus was to support the proposed amendments.
Parking. To support the Comprehensive Plan, the team would suggest amending the
residential parking standards to reflect actual demand, balance concerns with spillover,
and avoid requiring excessive paved areas; right-size parking to reduce impervious
surfaces; align parking regulations and short-term rental rules; and evaluate hard
surface requirements to ensure functionality, durability, and environmental concerns
without overburdening property owners. Questioned if in select areas of town, would
the Board support allowing a fee-in-lieu option to reduce required on-site parking?
Board comments were heard and summarized: stated concern with the practice;
questioned what would happen if the use were to change at a specific location;
commented on the need to provide the number of parking spaces for the business type;
questioned why a fee would be charged for the reduction in parking spaces; and overall
lack of support was noted by the Board. Questioned if the Board would support
reduced parking requirements for affordable or workforce housing? Board consensus
was support for the reduction in parking requirements.
Mixed-use zoning. The team reviewed possible areas for amendments for mixed-uses,
including identifying areas in town as a mixed-use zone district to implement the mixed-
use centers and corridors future land use; amending the PUD regulations to allow for
mixed-use development; and include land uses and building forms not previously
considered, to allow the Town to respond to new housing trends and mixed-use
development needs. Questioned what should a mixed-use zoning district look like in
Estes Park? Board comments were heard and summarized: unclear as to what a
mixed-use development may look like; an overlay may be the appropriate application for
this use; a number of communities are moving towards the concept and would be
supportive of looking at it further; and would be supportive in a limited application.
FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS.
It was requested and determined to schedule Visitor Center Parking Design for
November 11, 2025 and revisions to Policy 601 Spending Authority and Limits for
September 23, 2025.
Trustee Igel noted the Town needs to discuss the regulation of e-bikes for the safety of
both the e-bike riders and the drivers within Estes Park. Mayor Hall stated he has
requested Town Administrator Machalek to send current regulations to the Board for
review. He further stated discussions with Chief Stewart have taken place and would
continue to address enforcement of the regulations.
COMMENTS & QUESTIONS.
None.
There being no further business, Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 6:48 p.m.
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
DRA
F
T
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado August 7, 2025
Minutes of a Joint Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD and
PLANNING COMMISSION of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County,
Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in said Town of
Estes Park on the 7th day of August, 2025.
Town Board: Mayor Hall, Mayor Pro Tem Cenac, Trustees Brown,
Hazelton, Igel, Lancaster, and Younglund
Planning Commission: Chair Cooper and Commissioner Phares
Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, Town Attorney Kramer,
Director Careccia, Facilitator Stewart and Deputy Town
Clerk Beers
Absent: Vice Chair Arterburn, Commissioners Mulhern and Pawson
Mayor Hall called the meeting to order at 9:06 a.m.
Introductions were made and the study session was facilitated by Susan Stewart. She
provided an overview of discussions held during the March 18, 2025 joint study session.
REZONING CRITERIA.
Director Careccia and Town Attorney Kramer briefly spoke regarding the rezoning
criteria research from other jurisdictions including references to change in conditions.
Staff requested direction on any proposed code amendments for change in conditions.
Board discussion ensued and has been summarized: importance of determining
evaluation criteria related to change in conditions and consideration of property rights;
rezoning criteria options such as public benefit, environmental protections and
compatibility with surrounding areas; including code language to allow technical
correction to zoning in special circumstances and impacts if change in conditions was
removed from the code. After additional discussion, Town Administrator Machalek
recommended staff draft text amendments with a broad range of rezoning criteria for
consideration at a future study session.
WORKFORCE, AFFORDABLE, AND ATTAINABLE HOUSING DEFINITIONS.
Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) Director Scott Moulton presented an overview of
housing terms and definitions. Affordable housing in general are households paying no
more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs. Attainable housing was defined
as available housing matching a community’s standard or predominant income levels,
generally attainable for members of the community. The Estes Park Development Code
(EPDC) defines attainable housing as units attainable to households earning 150% of
the Larimer County area median income (AMI) or below, adjusted for household size
which applies to renter and owner-occupied homes. EPDC defines workforce housing
as at least one resident in each unit being employed within the Estes Park School
District R-3 boundary. He reviewed the current housing inventory highlighting the
increase of more than 200 units with recent acquisitions and expanded housing options
added to the community due to the increase funding from 6E. He reviewed the
community workforce qualification income demographics, a snapshot of local job
openings in 2025, deed restricted housing occupancy, private rentals, and home
ownership.
Board comments and questions have been summarized: requested clarification on deed
restricted housing and whether community changes in development can impact
established deed restrictions; homeownership opportunities which are equitable across
DRA
F
T
Town Board Study Session – August 7, 2025 – Page 2
all segments of the community; discussion ensued regarding the lack of options in
previous years for teachers, police, etc., which has improved with recent housing
opportunities throughout the community; density bonuses and focus areas to address
the needs of lower AMI; perceptions of what affordable housing looks like; missing-
middle AMI; the Board was sensitive to the impacts of addressing current needs without
creating or further contributing to any existing gap in the community; how changes in the
economy and transportation improvements, which expand travel opportunities in the
region, could change future considerations; concerns the upper AMI would be saturated
and reflect less options for the lower AMI; and the importance of homeownership
options.
Director Moulton stated the EPHA housing stock provides options in the community with
restricted use to develop balance overtime, and the EPHA focus would change to home
ownership, lower AMI housing, and seasonal housing.
The EPHA and Town staff would bring forward concepts for consideration which
incorporate the elements of the discussion and input from impacted members of the
community, including developers. It was determined the next discussion would occur at
each respective Board or Commission study session due to difficulties scheduling joint
meetings.
FREQUENCY OF FUTURE JOINT MEETINGS.
It was suggested and determined the Town Board and Estes Park Planning
Commission would hold facilitated study sessions in January and August of each year,
and a special joint study session would be scheduled in November or December to
discuss annexation.
There being no further business, Mayor Hall adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m.
Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk DRA
F
T
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Dana Klein, Parking & Transit Manager
David Greear, Public Works Director
Department: Public Works
Date:
Subject:
Type:
August 26, 2025
Resolution 80-25 Estes Park Zero Emissions Vehicle Transition Plan
for Transit
Resolution
Objective:
Public Works (PW) staff seek Town Board adoption of the Town of Estes Park Zero
Emissions Vehicle Fleet Transition Plan for Transit.
Present Situation:
On July 9, 2024, the Town Board approved Resolution 59-24 allowing the Town to enter
into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) for the Zero Emissions Fleet Transit Plan.
After three (3) weeks of advertising, three (3) qualified proposals were received and
opened on October 2, 2024. An internal selection committee reviewed, evaluated, and
scored each proposal. The top 2 (two) companies were invited for an interview. The
following table contains the project budget and summary of the bid results:
Budget: $40,000 ($36,000 CDOT Grant + $4,000 Local Match)
Company Selection Criteria Score
(100 points max)
Proposal:
The Town’s 2024 and 2025 Strategic Plan identifies the following initiative under the
section Infrastructure – We have reliable, efficient, and up-to-date infrastructure serving
our community and customers: Complete a Zero-Emission Fleet Transition Plan (3.B.1).
In support of this initiative, and to assist the Town in making informed decisions in
moving toward a zero-based emission vehicle fleet, the Town submitted an application
through the CDOT Planning Grant Program (Grant) for the completion of a Zero-
Emissions (ZEV) Transition Plan (Plan). The Grant application, which was approved,
provided the Town with funding to retain a qualified third-party consultant to develop a
Plan intended to assist Town staff and stakeholders in making informed decisions
related to a transition plan. The third-party consultant would work to provide a
deliverable that includes (a) a current state assessment; (b) a process to determine a
desired future state appropriate for the Town; (c) an engagement process that includes
elected officials, citizen advisory board members, and Town staff; and (d) a finalized
Plan that encompasses priorities, timelines, estimated financial costs and savings,
guidance on code, planning, land use impacts, utility coordination, and identification of
key partners and opportunities.
The Final Plan has been completed by Kimley- Horn, with input from a key stakeholder
group consisting of representatives from National Park Service-Guest Services, Estes
Valley School District Transportation, Town of Estes Park Power & Communications,
Town of Estes Park Fleet Division, Town of Estes Park Parking & Transit Division and
RATPdev USA Transportation Services.
Advantages:
•Moves forward the Complete a Zero-Emission Fleet Transition Plan initiative
within the Infrastructure section of the 2024-2025 Strategic Plan.
•Enables the Town to leverage State grant funds to (a) achieve one of the
initiatives identified in the 2024 and 2025 Strategic Plan; and (b) complete an
important long-term planning process that will provide a Plan identifying steps to
realize long-term benefits for the Town organization and community.
•Places the Town in the position to identify and implement a Plan to realize
energy efficiencies and minimize emissions.
Disadvantages:
•Will require staff time managing the project and the administration of the
associated grant and recommendations
Action Recommended:
Public Works staff recommend adopting the Town of Estes Park Zero Emission Vehicle
Transition Plan for Transit.
Finance/Resource Impact:
This project was included in the 2024 and 2025 budget and Grant Award as detailed
below and in Resolution 59-24:
Level of Public Interest:
The level of public interest in this item is Low.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of resolution 80-25
Attachments:
1. Resolution 80-25
2. Contract with Kimley-Horn for Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan for Transit
3. Final Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan for Transit
.
RESOLUTION 80-25
ADOPTING THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK ZERO EMISSIONS VEHICLE TRANSITION
PLAN FOR TRANSIT
WHEREAS, on July 9, 2024, the Town Board approved Resolution 59-24
authorizing the Town to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) for the Zero Emissions Fleet Transit Plan for
Transit; and
WHEREAS, after a competitive bidding process, the Town entered a contract with
Kimley-Horn in February 2025 for the creation of the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Plan was completed after stakeholder and public input in August
2025.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Board adopts the Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan for Transit in
substantially the form now before the Board.
DATED this day of , 2025.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Attachment 1
TOWN OF ESTES PARI<^
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
Zero Emission Vehicle (Zev) Transition Plan
The parties, the Town ofEstes Park, Colorado (Town), a municipal corporation, and
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Contractor), a North Carolina corporation, whose address is
3325 S. Timberiine Rd Suite #130, Port Collins, CO 80525, make this Contract this 1<5TH
day of ^-1/biy-f^M. _, 2025, at the Town ofEstes Park, Colorado, considering the
following facts and circumstances:
1 RECITALS:
1.1 Town desires to use the services of Consultant outlined in Consultant's Proposal; and
1.2 Consultant has agreed to provide the Services outlined in its Proposal, on the terms
and conditions stated in this Contract.
2 CONTRACT: This Agreement is a Contract, representing the entire and integrated
agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior negotiations, written or oral
representations and agreements. The Agreement incorporates the following Contract
Documents. In resolving inconsistencies between two or more of the Contract Documents,
they shall take precedence in the order enumerated, with the first listed Contract Document
having highest precedence.
The Contract Documents, except for amendments executed after execution of this Contract, are:
2.1 State of Colorado Grant Agreement No. 25-HTR-ZL-00234, containing 24 pages,
dated October 8, 2024; provided, however, that Section 16 (General Provisions),
Subsection R (Standard and Manner of Performance) does not flow down to
Consultant, and Consultant's standard and manner of performance are solely as
set out elsewhere in the Contract Documents and particularly including Section 8
herein;
2.2 Change Orders;
2.3 Notice to Proceed;
2.4 This Contract;
2.5 The following Addenda, if any:
Number Date Page(s)
1 9/23/24 3
2.6 Notice of Award;
Town ofEstes Park Professional Services Contract —Page 1 of 13
RFP- ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE (ZEV) TRANSITION PLAN - 2025
Attachment 2
2.7 Request for Proposals (RFP), containing 37 pages, dated September 11,2024;
2.8 Consultant's Proposal, containing 27 pages, dated October 2, 2024; and
2.9 Insurance Certificates.
3 SCOPE OF SERVICES: Consultant shall provide and furnish at its own cost and expense all
materials, machinery, equipment, tools, superintendence, labor, insurance and other
accessories and services necessary to provide its Services in strict accordance with the
conditions and prices stated in the Contract Documents.
4 BEGINNING WORK AND COMPLETION SCHEDULE: The Consultant shall begin
services under this Contract upon receiving Town's notice to proceed. Consultant shall
timely perform its Services, according to the Proposal Schedule (page 4 ofRFP)
incorporated into this Contract or as otherwise directed by Town.
5 PRICE: The Town will pay Consultant for the performance of this Contract, not to exceed
Thirty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy dollars ($39,870), as the Price for the total
Services performed as stipulated in Consultant's Proposal. This Contract does not create a
multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or other financial obligation. Each request for
service shall incur a concurrent debt for that request only. All financial obligations of the
Town under this Contract are contingent upon appropriation, budgeting, and availability of
specific funds to discharge such obligations.
Funding for this project is provided by the grant awarded by the State of Colorado
Agreement # 25-HTR-ZL-00234). The funding for this grant is:
State-Provided funds = $36,000
Town/Local Match funds = $4,000
TOTAL FUNDING = $40,000
Funding for this project expires on December 31, 2025.
The Contractor is obligated to adhere to all requirements of the Grant Agreement.
Any terms the Grant Agreement requires to be included in this Contract are hereby
incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
TIME OF PAYMENTS TO CONSULTANT: The Consultant shall bill its charges to the
Town periodically, but no more frequently than once a month. Each bill shall contain a
statement of the time the primary employees spent on the Services since the previous bill, a
brief description of the Services provided by each such employee, and an itemization of
direct expenses. The Town will pay each such bill which it finds to be in accordance with
this Contract within forty-five days of its receipt. If Town questions any part of a bill, finds
any part of a bill does not conform to this Contract, or claims the right to withhold payment
of any part of a bill, it will promptly notify Consultant of the question, nonconformity or
reasons for withholding.
Town ofEsles Park Professional Services Contract —Page 2 of 13
RFP - ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE (ZEV) TRANSITION PLAN - 2025
7 QUALIFICATIONS ON OBLIGATIONS TO PAY: No partial payment shall be final
acceptance or approval of that part of the Services paid for, or shall relieve Consultant of any
of its obligations under this Contract. Notwithstanding any other terms of this Contract,
Town may withhold any payment (whether a progress payment or final payment) to
Consultant under the following conditions:
7.1 Consultant fails to promptly pay all bills for labor, material, or services of consultants
furnished or performed by others to perform Services.
7.2 Consultant is in default of any of its obligations under this Contract or any of the
Contract Documents.
7.3 Any part of such payment is attributable to Services not conforming to this Contract.
Town will pay for any part attributable to conforming Services).
7.4 Town, in its good faith judgment, determines that the compensation remaining unpaid
will not be sufficient to complete the Services according to this Contract.
8 CONSULTANT'S DUTIES:
8.1 Consultant's standard and manner of performance are solely as set out in Section 8
herein.
8.2 Town enters into this Contract relying on Consultant's special and unique abilities to
perform the Services. Consultant will use its best efforts, skill, judgment, and
abilities. Consultant will further the interests of Town according to Town's
requirements and procedures, according to customary professional standards.
8.3 Consultant has and will undertake no obligations, commitments, or impediments of
any kind that will limit or prevent its performance of the Services, loyally, according
to the Town's best interests. In case of any conflict between interests of Town and any
other entity. Consultant shall fully and immediately disclose the issue to Town and,
without Town's express approval, shall take no action contrary to Town's interests.
However, notwithstanding the foregoing, it is agreed that the Consultant is not a
fiduciary with respect to the Town. Consultant shall exercise its professional
judgment and perform its services with the professional skill and care ordinarily
provided by professionals practicing under the same or similar circumstances and
professional license, and as expeditiously as is prudent considering the ordinary
professional skill and care of a competent professional.
8.4 Consultant's Services under this Contract shall be of the standard and quality
prevailing among recognized professionals of expert knowledge and skill engaged in
the Consultant's same profession under the same or similar circumstances.
8.5 Consultant's work, including drawings and other tangible work products provided to
Town, will be accurate and free from any material errors, and will conform to the
requirements of this Contract. Town approval of defective drawings or other work
shall not diminish or release Consultant's duties, since Town ultimately relies upon
Consultant's skill and knowledge.
Town ofEsles Park Professional Services Contract —Page 3 of 13
RFP - ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE (ZEV) TRANSITION PLAN - 2025
8.6 The Contract Documents determine whether the Consultant's Scope of Services
includes detailed independent verification of data prepared or supplied by Town.
Consultant will, nevertheless, call to Town's attention anything in any drawings,
plans, sketches, instructions, information, requirements, procedures, or other data
supplied to Consultant (by the Town or any other party) that Consultant knows, or
reasonably should know, is unsuitable, improper, or inaccurate for Consultant's purposes.
8.7 Consultant shall attend such meetings on the work stated in this Contract, as Town
requires. Town will give reasonable notice of any such meetings, so Consultant may
attend. Town will pay for any meeting time beyond those identified in the RFP and
the consultant's proposal exceeding Consultant's total estimate of included hours,
according to Consultant's fee schedule attached to Consultant's proposal.
8.8 As applicable state and federal laws may require. Consultant will assign only persons
duly licensed and registered to do work under this Contract.
8.9 Consultant shall furnish efficient business administration and superintendence and
perform the Services in the most efficient and economical manner consistent with the
best interests of Town as is consistent with the professional standard of care and rules
of professional conduct.
8.10 Consultant shall keep its books and records for Services and any reimbursable
expenses according to recognized accounting principles and practices, consistently
applied. Consultant shall make them available for the Town's inspection at all
reasonable times. Consultant shall keep such books and records for at least three (3)
years after completion of the Services.
9 TOWN'S DUTIES:
9.1 Town will provide full information to the Consultant on the Town's requirements in a
timely manner.
9.2 Town will assist the Consultant by providing such pertinent information available to
Town, including maps, studies, reports, tests, surveys and other data, as Consultant
specifically requests.
9.3 Town will examine all tests, reports, drawings, specifications, maps, plans and other
documents presented by the Consultant to Town for decisions. Town will obtain the
advice of other consultants, as the Town thinks appropriate. Town will give decisions
to the Consultant in writing within a reasonable time.
9.4 Town will appoint a person to act as Town's representative on this Agreement. This
person will have authority to issue instruction, receive information, interpret and
define the Town's policies and decisions on the Consultant's Services.
9.5 Town will give prompt written notice to the Consultant when the Town notices any
development that affects the scope or timing of the Services.
Town ofEstes Park Professional Services Contract —Page 4 of 13
RFP - ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE (ZEV) TRANSITION PLAN- 2025
10 USE OF FFNAL PRODUCT: Consultant may have limited involvement after the completion
of this Agreement and lacks control of the future use of Consultant's work. Except for
deficiencies in Consultant's performance under this Agreement, future use and interpretation
of Consultant's work is at the risk of Town or other users.
10.1 The Consultant will keep record copies of all work product items delivered to the
Town.
11 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS AND OTHER MATERIALS: All drawings,
specifications, computations, sketches, test data, survey results, renderings, models, and
other materials peculiar to the Services of Consultant or Consultant's subconsultants under
this Contract are property of Town, for its exclusive use and re-use at any time without
further compensation and without any restrictions. Consultant shall treat all such material
and information as confidential, and Consultant shall neither use any such material or
information or copies on other work nor disclose such material or information to any other
party without Town's prior written approval. Upon completion of Services, or at such other
time as the Town requires, Consultant shall deliver to the Town a complete, reproducible set
of all such materials. For copyright ownership under the Federal Copyright Act, Consultant
conveys to Town and waives all rights, title and interest to all such materials in written,
electronic or other form, prepared under this Contract. Town shall have worldwide reprint
and reproduction rights in all forms and in all media, free of any claims by the Consultant or
its subconsultants and subcontractors. The Town's rights, granted above, in drawing details,
designs and specifications that are Consultant's standard documents for similar projects, and
in Consultant's databases, computer software and other intellectual property developed, used
or modified in performing Services under this Contract are not exclusive, but joint rights,
freely exercisable by either the Town or the Consultant.
All design documents, including drawings, specifications, and computer software prepared
by Consultant according to this Contract comprise Consultant's design for a specific Project.
Neither party intends or represents them as suitable for reuse, by Town or others, as designs
for extension of that same Project or for any other project. Any such reuse without prior
written verification or adaptation by Consultant for the specific purpose intended will be at
user's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to Consultant. Except as required for
performance under this Contract, Consultant's verification or adaptation of design
documents will entitle Consultant to additional compensation at such rates as the Consultant
may agree.
12 CHANGE ORDERS: Town reserves the right to order work changes in the nature of
additions, deletions, or modifications, without invalidating this agreement, and agrees to
make corresponding adjustments in the contract price and time for completion. All changes
will be authorized by a written change order signed by Town. Work shall be changed, and
the contract price and completion time shall be modified only as set out in the written
change order.
13 SERVICE OF NOTICES: The parties may give each other required notices in person or by
first class mail or by email to their authorized representatives (or their successors) at the
addresses listed below:
Town oj'Estes Park Professional Services Contract —Page 5 of 13
RFP- ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE (ZEV) TRANSITION PLAN - 2025
TOWN OF ESTES PARK:
Dana Klein, Parking &Transit IVtanager
170 MacGregor Ave
EstesPark,CO,80517
CONSULTANT:
Erik Mumm, Project Manager
3325 S. Timberline Rd Suite #130,
Fort Collins, CO 80525
14 COMPLIANCE WITH LAW: Consultant will perform this Contract in strict compliance
with applicable federal, state, and municipal laws, rules, statutes, charter provisions,
ordinances, and regulations (including sections of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration [OSHA] regulations, latest revised edition, providing for job safety and
health protection for workers) and all orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals applicable to
work under this Contract. Consultant shall protect and indemnify Town against any claim or
liability arising from or based on the violations of any such law, ordinance, regulation, order,
or decrees by itself or by its subcontractors, agents, or employees. Town assumes no duty to
ensure that Consultant follows the safety regulations issued by OSHA.
15 PERMITS AND LICENSES: The Consultant shall secure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges, files, and taxes and give all notices necessary and incidental to the lawful
prosecution of its Services. Anyone conducting business in the Town ofEstes Park is
required a business license which can be obtained from the Town Clerk's Office.
16 PATENTED DEVICES. MATERIALS AND PROCESSES: The Consultant shall hold and
save harmless the Town from all claims for infringement, by reason of fee use of any
patented design, device, material, process, or trademark or copyright and shall indemnify the
Town for any costs, expenses, and damages, including court costs and attorney fees, incurred
by reason of actual or alleged infringement caused by Consultant or its subcontractors,
agents, or employees during the prosecution or after completion of Services.
17 INSURANCE: Consultant shall, at its own costs, secure and continuously maintain through
the term of this Contract the minimum insurance coverages listed below, with forms and
insurers acceptable to Town. In addition, Consultant shall maintain such coverages for the
insurance listed in Paragraphs 17.1, 17.3 and 17.4 for two additional years. For any claims-
made policy, Consultant shall include the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting
periods to maintain continuous coverage.
17.1 Professional Liability/Errors and Omissions for at least $ 1,000,000.
17.2 Workers' Compensation according to the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of
Colorado and Employer's Liability with limits of at least $500,000.
17.3 General liability, including contractual liability, of at least $1,000,000 per each
occurrence plus an additional amount adequate to pay related attorney's fees and
defense cost. Coverage shall include bodily injury, property damage, personal injury,
and contractual liability.
17.4 Comprehensive Automobile Liability with minimum limits for bodily injury and
property damage coverage of at least $1,000,000 per each occurrence plus an
additional amount adequate to pay related attorneys' fees and defense costs, for each
Town oj'Estes Park Professional Services Contract —Page 6 of 13
RFP - ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE (ZEV) TRANSITION PLAN - 2025
of Consultant's owned, hired or non-owned vehicles assigned to or used in
performance of this Contract.
17.5 Valuable Papers insurance in an amount adequate to assure the restoration of any
plans, drawings, field notes, or other similar data related to the services covered by
this Contract in case of their loss or destruction.
17.6 The required general liability and comprehensive automobile liability policies shall
contain endorsements to include Town and its officers and employees as additional
insureds. The required professional liability and workers' compensation policies or
coverages shall not contain endorsements including the Town, its officers or
employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary
insurance. Any insurance or self-insurance benefits carried by Town, its officers, or
its employees, shall be in excess and not contributory to that provided by Consultant.
17.7 Consultant shall, upon request, provide Town a certified copy of each required policy.
17.8 As evidence of the insurance coverages required by this Contract, before beginning
work under this Contract, Consultant shall furnish certificates of insurance certifying
that at least the minimum coverages required here are in effect and specifying the
liability coverages (except for professional liability) are written on an occurrence
form to:
Town ofEstes Park
170 MacGregor Avenue
PO Box 1200
EstesPark,C080517
Attention: Dana Klein, Parking & Transit Manager
Public Works Department
With the exception of professional liability and workers' compensation, policy or
policies providing insurance as required will defend and include the Town, its Board,
officers, agents and employees as additional insureds on a primary basis for work
performed under or incidental to this Contract. Required insurance policies shall be
with companies qualified to do business in Colorado with a general policyholder's
financial rating acceptable to the Town. The policies shall not be cancelable or subject
to reduction in coverage limits or other modification except after thirty days prior
written notice to the Town. General liability and automobile policies shall be for the
mutual and joint benefit and protection of the Consultant and the Town. These policies
shall provide that the Town, although named as an additional insured, shall
nevertheless be entitled to recover under said policies for any loss occasioned to it, its
officers, employees, and agents by reason of acts or omissions of the Consultant, its
officers, employees, agents, sub-consultants, or business invitees. They shall be
written as primary policies not contributing to and not in excess of coverage the Town
may carry.
17.9 If Consultant is self-insured under the laws of the State of Colorado, Consultant shall
provide appropriate declarations and evidence of coverage.
Town oj'Estes Park Professional Services Contract —Page 7 of 13
RFP - ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE (ZE V) TRA NSIT10N PLAN- 2025
17.10 Consultant shall not cancel, change, or fail to renew required insurance coverages.
Consultant shall notify Town's designated person responsible for risk management of
any reduction or exhaustion of aggregate limits, which Town may deem to be a
breach of this Contract.
17.11 The Town relies on, and does not waive or intend to waive, by any provision of this
Contract, the monetary limitations or any other rights, immunities, and protections
provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, § 24-10-101 et seq., C.R.S.,
as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to the parties, their officers, or
their employees.
17.12 If any insurance required here is to be issued or renewed on a claims-made form as
opposed to the occurrence form, the retroactive date for coverage will be no later than
the commencement date of the project and will state that in the event of cancellation
or nonrenewal, the discovery period for insurance claims (tail coverage) will be at
least 72 months.
17.13 Consultant shall not cancel, non-renew or cause insurance to be materially changed or
replaced by another policy without prior approval by Town.
18 INDEMNIFICATION:
18.1 Consultant and its agents, principals, officers, partners, employees, and
subcontractors ("Indemnitors") shall and do agree to indemnify, protect, and hold
harmless the Town, its officers, employees, and agents ("Indemnitees") from all
claims, damages, losses, liens, causes of actions, suits, judgments, and expenses
including attorneys' fees), of any nature, kind, or description ("Liabilities") by any
third party arising out of, caused by, or resulting from any Services under this
Contract if such Liabilities are: (1) attributable to bodily injury, personal injury,
sickness, disease, or death of any person, or to the injury or destruction of any
tangible property (including resulting loss of use or consequential damages) and (2)
caused, in whole or in part, by any error, omission or negligent act of the Consultant,
anyone directly or indirectly employed by it, or anyone for whose acts Consultant
may be liable provided that these obligations may be subject to the limitations in
Colorado Revised Statues Section 13-50.5-102.
18.2 If more than one Indemnitor is liable for any error, omission or negligent act covered
by this Agreement, each such Indemnitor shall be jointly and severally liable to the
Indemnitees for indemnification and the Indemnitors may settle ultimate
responsibility among themselves for the loss and expense of any such indemnification
by separate proceedings and without jeopardy to any Indemnitee. This Agreement
shall not eliminate or reduce any other right to indemnification or other remedy the
Town, or any of the Indemnitees may have by law.
18.3 As part of this indemnity obligation, the Consultant shall compensate the Town for
any time the Town Attorney's Office and other counsel to the Town reasonably spend
on such claims or actions at the rates generally prevailing among private practitioners
Town oj'Estes Park Professional Services Contract —Page 8 of 13
RFP- ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE (ZEV) TRANSITION PLAN - 2025
in the Town ofEstes Park for similar services. This obligation to indemnify the Town
shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.
19 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: Consultant shall perform all Services under this
Agreement as an independent contractor, and not as an agent, fiduciary or employee of
Town. No employee or official of Town shall supervise Consultant. Consultant shall
exercise no supervision over any employee or official of Town. Consultant shall not
represent that it is an employee or agent of the Town in any capacity. Consultant's officers,
employees and agents are not entitled to Workers' Compensation benefits from the
Town, and Consultant is obligated to pay federal and state income tax on money
earned under this Agreement. Except as this Agreement expressly states, Consultant shall,
at its sole expense, supply all buildings, equipment and materials, machinery, tools,
superintendence, personnel, insurance and other accessories and Services necessary. This
Agreement is not exclusive; subject the terms of this Agreement, Town and Consultant may
each contract with other parties.
20 PROVISIONS CONSTRUED AS TO FAIR MEANING: Any tribunal enforcing this
Agreement shall construe its terms as to their fair meaning, and not for or against any party
based upon any attribution to either party.
21 HEADINGS FOR CONVENIENCE: All headings, captions and titles are for convenience
and reference only and of no meaning in the interpretation or effect of this Contract.
22 NO THIRD-PARTY BENEFICIARIES: The parties intend no third-party beneficiaries
under this Contract. Any person besides Town or Consultant receiving services or benefits
under this Agreement is an incidental beneficiary only.
23 TOWN'S RIGHT TO BAR PERSONNEL FROM WORK SITE: For conduct the Town (in
its sole discretion) decides may violate applicable laws, ordinances rules or regulations, or
may expose Town to liability or loss, Town may bar any person (including Consultant's and
subconsultants' and subcontractors' employees) from the Town's work sites. Such a bar shall
not require any employee's discharge from employment, but shall merely prohibit the
employee's presence at Town's work sites. Such a bar shall not warrant an increase in
contract time or Price.
24 WAIVER: No waiver of any breach or default under this Agreement shall waive any other
or later breach or default.
25 TERM: This Contract shall commence on the date specified in a forthcoming Notice to
Proceed, and shall continue through May 31, 2025 with the option of one (1) additional 6-
month renewal, upon agreement of both parties, with the understanding the project must be
completed as timely as possible as this project is not funded beyond December 31 ,2025.
26 TERMINATION:
26.1 In addition to any other available remedies, either party may terminate this Contract if
the other party fails to cure a specified default within seven (7) days of receiving
Town oj'Estes Park Professional Services Contract —Page 9 of 13
RFP - ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE (ZEV) TRANSITION PLAN - 2025
written notice of the default. The notice shall specify each such material breach, in
reasonable detail.
26.2 Town may, at any time, terminate performance of the work, in whole or in part, for its
own convenience. The Town may effect such termination by giving Consultant
written Notice of Termination specifying the extent and effective date of termination.
In case of termination, for convenience, Town shall pay Consultant for work
satisfactorily completed, to the date of termination. The Town shall determine the
portion of work completed.
26.3 If either party so terminates, the Consultant shall promptly deliver to the Town all
drawings, computer programs, computer input and output, analysis, plans,
photographic images, tests, maps, surveys and writer's materials of any kind
generated in the performance of its Services under this Contract up to and including
the date of termination.
27 SUSPENSION: Without terminating or breaching this Contract, the Town may, at its
pleasure, suspend fee services of the Consultant hereunder. Town may effect suspension by
giving the Consultant written notice one (1) day in advance of the suspension date. Upon
receipt of such notices the Consultant shall cease their work as efficiently as possible, to
keep total charges to a minimum. The Town must specifically authorize any work performed
during suspension. Since suspension and subsequent reactivation may inconvenience the
Consultant, the Town will endeavor to provide advance notice and minimize its use. After a
suspension has been in effect for thirty days, the Consultant may terminate this Contract at
will.
28 ASSIGNMENT AND DELEGATION: Except as stated, neither party may assign its rights
or delegate its duties under this Contract without the express written approval of the other.
29 SUBCONTRACTING: Except subconsultant clearly identified and accepted in the
Contractor's Proposal, Consultant may employ subconsultants to perform the Services only
with Town's express prior written approval. Consultant is solely responsible for any
compensation, insurance, and all clerical detail involved in employment ofsubconsultants.
30 GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE: The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern
enforcement and interpretation of this Contract. Venue and jurisdiction for any court action
filed regarding this agreement shall be only in Larimer County, Colorado.
31 AUTHORITY: This instrument forms a contract only when executed in writing by duly
authorized representatives of Town and Consultant. By their signatures on this document,
the signatories represent that they have actual authority to enter this Contract for the
respective parties.
32 INTEGRATION: There are no other agreements on the same subject than expressly stated or
incorporated in this Contract.
33 DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT: In addition to any other legal or equitable
remedy the Town may be entitled to for a breach of this Contract, if the Town terminates
Town oj'Estes Park Professional Services Contract —Page 10 of 13
RFP - ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE (ZEV) TRANSITION PLAN - 2025
this Contract, in whole or in part, due to Contractor's breach of any provision of this
Contract, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the Town.
Signature pages follow.
Town oj'Estes Park Professional Services Contract —Page 11 of 13
RFP - ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE (ZEV) TRANSITION PLAN - 2025
CONSULTANT
By: <^7/^/'/^M/L I I 13 ]S 02 S
T,^: ^.ce'^res:,k^ ^ ' >>MP3-i
State of CO\^U^T^ _)
ss
County of T^mW. _)
The foregoing instrument way acknowledged before me thi^ [0 _ day of
WnvAaX.yr _, 2025, by h/i/l'o^, ^ U/^e/^ as
l/rc.c flr6!'t^c"^ _ of ^-,^/6y ~/^^t _, Consultant, (If by
natural person or persons, insert name or names; if by person acting in representative or official
capacity or as attorney-in-fact, insert name of person as an executor, attorney-in-fact, or other
capacity or description; if by officer of corporation, insert name of such officer or officers as the
President or other officers of such corporation, naming it.)
Witness my hand and official Seal.
My Commission expires D^jC-- 14 < 2-OZ>~f
RACHEL M SLAVIK
NOTARY PUBLIC - STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID 20234046734
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES DEC 14, 2027
c^i
fot&ry Public
y^^.
lie'
Town of Estes Park Professional Sen'ices Contract —Page 12 of 13
RFP - ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE (ZEV) TRANSITION PLAN-2025
TOWN OF ESTES PARK:
By: F
Title : puWL ^^^r^ Dfff^^
jjl^/^
Date'
State of doUOt^O
County of CAfc^Mfc?-
ss
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by (~i££& MlAfto^OJ _, as
A%<JP- uoc£X3> ^r<lFUn(2_ of the TownofEstes Park, a Colorado municipal corporation, on
behalf of the corporation, this l5rtl day of ^t^>u<.p,f^\ _, 2025.
Witness my hand and official Seal.
My Commission expires ^LXO-| o^/^a-^to
BUNNY VICTORIA BEERS
NOTARY PUBLIC_
STATE OF COLORADO_
NOTARY ID20164028823MYCOMMISSIONEXPIRESJULY 29, 2028
d^r/^^—/_
Notaly-Public
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Town ofEstes Park Professional Services Contract —Page 13 of 13
RFP - ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE (ZEV) TRANSITION PLAN - 2025
1
ESTES PARK
2025 Zero Emission
Transition Plan for
Transit
Attachment 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................ 2
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ 4
List of Figures............................................................................................................................... 5
Executive Summary ............................................................................6
Introduction .......................................................................................8
Policy & Legislative Impacts ...............................................................8
Local Initiatives ............................................................................................................................ 9
Regional Initiatives ...................................................................................................................... 9
Colorado Initiatives ................................................................................................................... 10
Interstate Initiatives .................................................................................................................. 12
Fleet Plan ......................................................................................... 13
Fleet and Operations ................................................................................................................. 13
Current Fleet ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Current Operations ............................................................................................................................. 14
Local Climate and Impacts on Resilience .................................................................................. 14
BEV Daily Task Feasibility .......................................................................................................... 16
Strategies for Addressing Route Infeasibility: ........................................................................... 17
Fleet Transition Strategy ........................................................................................................... 17
Fuel Plan .......................................................................................... 19
Charging Strategy ...................................................................................................................... 19
Infrastructure Considerations ............................................................................................................. 21
On-Route Charging .............................................................................................................................. 21
Charging and Energy Management Software Systems ....................................................................... 21
Facility and Infrastructure Plan ......................................................... 22
Current Facilities ....................................................................................................................... 23
577 Elm Road—Town Fleet Maintenance Facility .............................................................................. 23
Leased Vehicles Facility ....................................................................................................................... 24
Additional Future Facility Options ............................................................................................ 24
School District Transportation Facility ................................................................................................ 25
Larimer County Estes Park Maintenance Shop ................................................................................... 26
Light and Power Storage Facility ......................................................................................................... 27
Estes Park Town Hall Site .................................................................................................................... 28
VISITOR CENTER REDESIGN ................................................................................................................ 29
Transition Strategy ........................................................................... 30
Action Steps ............................................................................................................................... 31
Funding Plan .................................................................................... 31
Operations and Maintenance Costs .......................................................................................... 32
Workforce Transition Plan ................................................................ 32
Training Approach ..................................................................................................................... 33
Skill Assessment of Existing Workers ........................................................................................ 33
Training Plan: Strategies and Partners ...................................................................................... 34
Engagement of Workforce in Development of Transition Plan ................................................ 35
Appendix A: Market Overview and Route Transition Feasibility
Assessment ...................................................................................... 36
APPENDIX B: ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY ........................................... 75
`
4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: The Town's Existing Fleet .............................................................................................................. 13
Table 2: The Town's Service Provision as of 2024 ...................................................................................... 14
Table 3: Battery Capacity and Ranges for a 686 kWh 35' Gillig BEB ........................................................... 16
Table 4: Battery Capacity and Ranges for a 113 kWh Optimal EV Cutaway ............................................... 16
Table 5: Blocking Scenario .......................................................................................................................... 20
Table 6: ZEV Transition Overview by Year .................................................................................................. 30
Table 7: Total Cost of Ownership ................................................................................................................ 32
Table 8: List of Market Available Electric Buses Comparable to Estes Park's Fleet per 2024 APTA Vehicle
Database ..................................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 9: List of Currently Available ZEV Paratransit and Microtransit Buses per 2024 APTA Vehicle
Database ..................................................................................................................................................... 41
Table 10: BEB Cost Estimates (2024) .......................................................................................................... 46
Table 11: Currently Available FCEBs per 2024 APTA Vehicle Database ...................................................... 48
Table 12: FCEB Cost Estimates (2024) ......................................................................................................... 50
Table 13: Currently Available Diesel Hybrid Buses per APTA Vehicle Database ......................................... 51
Table 14: Typical Diesel-hybrid Bus Costs (2024) ....................................................................................... 53
Table 15: BEB Chargers' Advantages and Disadvantages ........................................................................... 58
Table 16: BEB Charging Infrastructure Costs, ............................................................................................. 60
Table 17: Hydrogen Fuel Station Sample Costs .......................................................................................... 63
Table 18: The Town’s Existing Fleet ............................................................................................................ 64
Table 19: The Town's Service Provision as of 2024 .................................................................................... 64
Table 20: Red Route Feasibility Using Trolley ............................................................................................. 65
Table 21: Blue Route Feasibility .................................................................................................................. 66
Table 22: Gold Route Feasibility Using Electric Cutaway ............................................................................ 67
Table 23: Silver Route Feasibility Using Electric Cutaway ........................................................................... 68
Table 24: Brown Route Feasibility Using 35' BEB........................................................................................ 69
Table 25: Summary of Fleet Expansion Necessary for ZEV Transition Under Current Service Provision ... 71
Table 26: Expanded Daily Hours of Service Mileage Impacts ..................................................................... 73
`
5
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Anticipated Fleet Composition and Key Milestones (BEVs) ........................................................... 6
Figure 2: Anticipated Fleet Composition and Key Milestones (HEVs) .......................................................... 7
Figure 3: Nonattainment areas and maintenance areas within Colorado (from CDOT Nonattainment Area
Air Pollution Mitigation Enterprise 10-Year Plan, 2022) ............................................................................. 11
Figure 4: Town of Estes Park monthly average high and low temperatures .............................................. 15
Figure 5: Miles per diesel gallon-equivalent fuel economy for BEBs .......................................................... 15
Figure 6: Fleet Transition Strategy and Milestones (BEVs) ......................................................................... 18
Figure 7: Fleet Transition Strategy and Milestones (HEVs)......................................................................... 18
Figure 8: Existing Town Transit Maintenance Facility ................................................................................. 23
Figure 9: RATP Dev USA Maintenance Facility ............................................................................................ 24
Figure 10: School District Transportation Facility ....................................................................................... 25
Figure 11: Larimer County Estes Park Maintenance Shop .......................................................................... 26
Figure 12: Light and Power Storage Facility ................................................................................................ 27
Figure 13: Estes Park Town Hall .................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 14: Estes Park Visitor Center Redesign ............................................................................................ 29
Figure 15: End-of-life Batteries ................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 16: BEB Battery Capacity Example ................................................................................................... 43
Figure 17: Generalized BEB Charging Schematic ........................................................................................ 54
Figure 18: Power Converters at Mountain Line Transit, Missoula, MT ...................................................... 55
Figure 19: Individual Depot Plug-in Chargers at Mountain Line Transit, Missoula, MT ............................. 56
Figure 20: Overhead Depot Chargers at Foothill Transit ............................................................................ 56
Figure 21: Overhead Pantograph Chargers, Park City Transit, UT .............................................................. 57
Figure 22: Inductive Charging Pad at Antelope Valley Transit Authority ................................................... 57
Figure 23: Generalized Hydrogen Fueling Station Schematic ..................................................................... 61
Figure 24: Hydrogen Dispenser and Hydrogen Storage Infrastructure at AC Transit ................................. 62
Figure 25: Champaign-Urbana Hydrogen Fueling Station .......................................................................... 62
Figure 26: Champaign-Urbana Hydrogen Fueling Station and Storage ...................................................... 62
Figure 27: Planned 2025 Months of Service Comparison (2025 TDP) ........................................................ 72
Figure 28: Expanded Daily Hours of Service (2025 TDP) ............................................................................. 73
`
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Town of Estes Park (the Town) provides public transit services in Estes Park, Colorado. The Town
owns three buses and leases five buses from RATP Dev USA. The Town provides daily transit services
during the peak summer tourism season from late May through late October. To modernize its fleet,
prepare for the future, plan for new transit facilities, and support local air quality improvement goals,
the Town is pursuing a transition to zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) for its services.
While developing this plan, the Town determined that battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are the most
suitable to transition the current fleet to zero emission technology. The Town’s current fleet is primarily
comprised of cutaway vehicles based on the tight turns, steep grades, and lower demand present on
some routes the Town operates. The Town has identified several BEVs that are available for
procurement that are similar in size and seating capacity to the existing Town fleet, but fleet expansion
will be required as the range of these comparable vehicles is not sufficient to replace the existing fleet
on a one-to-one basis.
As the Town’s current facility does not have the space to accommodate any new vehicles for charging or
storage, the Town will need to identify a future facility that has the electrical capacity to charge the BEV
fleet and the space to store vehicles. The Town will follow a transition strategy that begins in 2030,
shown below in Figure 1, which allows time for the Town to identify, acquire (if necessary), design, and
construct a facility for BEV charging and storage. The Town recognizes the rapidly changing nature of the
BEV market and plans to reassess the transition plan every five years.
Figure 1: Anticipated Fleet Composition and Key Milestones (BEVs)
During the next technology reassessment, the Town may also determine that a transition to a low-
emission technology such as hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) could provide a path for the Town to
significantly lower emissions from transit vehicles while completing a transition which maintains a 1:1
ratio of vehicle replacement. Transitioning to HEVs would not require the Town to implement new
charging infrastructure and would also avoid the need to identify, acquire (if necessary), design, and
`
7
construct a facility for HEV storage. The Town could continue to fuel buses with gas or diesel, but would
need to provide workforce training on the additional electrical components within HEVs. If this is the
scenario that proceeds, at least for an interim period, the Town could follow a transition strategy that
maximizes the existing fleet’s useful life and begins in 2030, shown below in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Anticipated Fleet Composition and Key Milestones (HEVs)
As mentioned, the Town will closely monitor the state of the ZEV market. Technology advancements
such as solid-state batteries and improved transit vehicle retrofitting capabilities are both progress
points that could lead to a significantly improved environment for a 1:1 transition in terms of vehicle
replacement. The Town recognizes the significant cost burden the current technology would impose and
has assembled a plan which is realistic, feasible, and adaptable to the future.
This document is accompanied by two appendices: Appendix A: Market Overview and Route Transition
Feasibility Assessment, and Appendix B: Engagement Summary. Appendix A provides significant detail
regarding the Town’s review of available technology and technology selection, while Appendix B covers
the Town’s efforts to engage with the general public and stakeholders.
`
8
INTRODUCTION
The Town began implementing alternative fuels in 2019 with the addition of a battery-electric trolleybus
within its bus operations. Moving forward, the Town is pursuing the acquisition of zero emission vehicles
(ZEVs) to further reduce operational emissions. While this plan identifies a goal and current trajectory of
100 percent ZEVs in 2039, this target will be continually reevaluated and revised based upon changing
markets, emerging technologies, and battery-electric technology's ability to meet service and
operational requirements.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) has introduced a new requirement that any federal grant
application for projects related to zero emission vehicles (ZEV) must include a zero emission transition
plan. Therefore, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires a Zero emission Bus Transition Plan
from each transit agency that applies for the FTA Low or No Emission Grant Program—5339 (c)—and the
FTA Bus and Bus Facilities Grant Program—5339 (a)—for zero emission bus (ZEB) projects.
As per FTA, this Zero emission Bus Transition Plan includes the following six elements:
1. Policy & Legislative Impacts: Consideration of policy and legislation impacting relevant
technologies
2. Fuel Plan: Description of the partnership of the applicant with the utility or alternative fuel
provider
3. Fleet Plan: Demonstration of a long-term fleet management plan with a strategy for how the
applicant intends to use the current request for resources and future acquisitions
4. Facility & Infrastructure Plan: Evaluation of existing and future facilities and their relationship to
the technology transition
5. Funding Plan: Address the availability of current and future resources to meet costs for the
transition and implementation
6. Workforce Transition Plan: Examination of the impact of the transition on the applicant’s
current workforce by identifying skill gaps, training needs, and retraining needs of the existing
workers. This focuses on supporting the applicant’s short-term and long-term needs to operate
and maintain zero emission vehicles while avoiding displacement of the existing workforce
The Town’s ZEV transition plan includes each of these required elements, which will guide the Town’s
investments and strategy in the coming years. In addition to these required elements, this plan includes
a Transition Strategy section that details the phasing of bus procurement and facility improvements
necessary for a successful ZEV transition for the Town.
POLICY & LEGISLATIVE IMPACTS
The Town is anticipating future changes to policy, legislation, and the development of supportive
technologies locally in addition to the plans already put in place that will impact the Town’s ZEV
transition plan. The Town has identified specific policies at the federal, state, and local level that are
relevant to the fleet transition.
`
9
Local Initiatives
Town of Estes Park Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Readiness Plan
In January 2021, the Town of Estes Park adopted an Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Readiness Plan
that built off the 2018 and 2020 Colorado Electric Vehicle Plans. This plan reviewed the Town’s potential
to transition the existing vehicle fleet to electric vehicles, inventoried existing physical infrastructure,
and reviewed policies in place to support electric vehicle adoption. This plan outlined two key goals1:
• Maximize the Town’s EV infrastructure investment
• Incorporate an action-oriented implementation plan to guide the Town’s future EV investment
both in terms of infrastructure and the Town fleet
This plan mainly focused on light-duty passenger vehicles but had a secondary emphasis on transit
vehicles. This plan culminated in key recommendations that were related or directly linked to transit
vehicles. These recommendations identified strategies to coordinate with local utilities for time of use
rates, build partnerships, and adopt a zero emission vehicle first replacement policy. The key
recommendations that were proposed to support electric vehicle adoption for transit vehicles are:
• Develop and implement EV education and awareness programs
• Build and strengthen local and regional partnerships surrounding EVs
• Implement EV charging-focused time of use rates
• Adopt a “ZEV first” fleet replacement policy
• Adopt codes and policies that support transportation electrification
In October 2020, the Town of Estes Park Board added language recognizing electric vehicles to the Town
Strategic Plan which created a foundation to advance this Plan’s key recommendations.
Regional Initiatives
Northern Colorado Clean Cities EV Action Plan
In September 2020, the Northern Colorado Clean Cities (NCCC) adopted an EV Action Plan to
strategically support electric vehicle adoption across the public, residential, and commercial sectors. By
2030, it is expected that Northern Colorado will have at least 50,000 electric vehicles on the road and
the goal of this plan is to align with the Colorado Electric Vehicle Plan. The vision for this plan is to
support local actions that accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles across Northern Colorado. The
strategies of this plan that relate to transit electrification are 2:
• Support the development of Community EV Plans
• Provide guidance for communities that want to adopt EV-friendly policies
• Support municipal fleet conversions
• Promote EV awareness through community outreach and education efforts
1 Town of Estes Park. 2021. Electric Vehicle Infrastructure and Readiness Plan (EV Plan). Retrieved from:
https://estespark.colorado.gov/e-vehicleplan
2 Northern Colorado Clean Cities. 2020. An EV Action Plan for Northern Colorado Clean Cities. Retrieved from:
https://xcelenergycommunities.com/sites/xcelenergycommunities.com/files/document/pdf/NCCC%20EV%20Actio
n%20Plan%202020.pdf
`
10
While the plan outlines strategies, it is significant to note that the NCCC is no longer active as of March
2024.
Colorado Initiatives
The State of Colorado has several statewide initiatives that outline a framework of goals for reducing
transportation-based greenhouse gas emissions in the state.
Nonattainment Area Air Pollution Mitigation Enterprise
In June of 2022, CDOT adopted the Nonattainment Area Air Pollution Mitigation Enterprise 10-year plan.
This is one of four programs supported by Senate Bill 21-260, formally known as the Concerning the
Sustainability of the Transportation System in Colorado Act, passed by the Colorado General Assembly,
and signed into law by the Governor of Colorado in June 2021. The legislation established two new fees
that will fund activities under four new enterprises through fiscal year 2031-2032 (one of which is the
Nonattainment Area Air Pollution Mitigation Enterprise):
• A new fee on most rides from transportation network companies (TNC) like Uber and Lyft
• A new fee on retail deliveries from companies like FedEx and Amazon
The plan outlines potential requirements for projects seeking funds from the enterprise. The plan
identifies three focus areas to guide project eligibility for funding through the enterprise:3
• Projects that reduce traffic congestion, including demand management projects that encourage
alternatives to driving alone or that directly reduce air pollution, such as retrofitting of
construction equipment, construction of roadside vegetation barriers, and planting trees along
highways
• Projects that reduce the environmental and health impacts of transportation
• Projects that improve neighborhood connectivity for communities adjacent to highways
The only pollutant for which Colorado has a nonattainment area is ozone. To receive funding, the
project must be located within the nine-county ozone nonattainment area, shown in Figure 3. By
reducing its overall greenhouse gas emissions by converting to low- and zero emission vehicles,
expanding its operations, and improving neighborhood connectivity, the Town will support the goals of
the Nonattainment Area Enterprise.
3 As defined in Colorado Revised Statutes 43-4-1303, as amended by Senate bill 21-260.
`
11
Figure 3: Nonattainment areas and maintenance areas within Colorado (from CDOT Nonattainment Area
Air Pollution Mitigation Enterprise 10-Year Plan, 2022)
Colorado Department of Transportation 2020 Electric Vehicle Plan
The 2020 Colorado Department of Transportation Electric Vehicle Plan details strategies that will
support the deployment of zero emission vehicles and buses in the state. This plan outlines a path
towards a large-scale transition of Colorado’s transportation to zero emission vehicles, and sets goals of
transitioning 100% of light-, medium-, and heavy-duty vehicles being zero emission. To achieve these
goals, the plan states that Colorado must:4
• Increase the number of light-duty EVs to 940,000 by 2030
• Develop plans for transitioning medium- and heavy-duty (MHDV) and transit vehicles to ZEVs
• Develop an EV infrastructure goal by undertaking a gap analysis to identify the type and number
of charging stations needed across the state to meet 2030 LDV and MHDV goals
• Develop a roadmap to full electrification of the light-duty vehicle fleet in Colorado
• State government agencies must meet directives and goals related to EVs. Beginning in Fiscal
Year 2022, and each subsequent FY, the Colorado Energy Office and the Colorado Department
of Public Health and Environment must consult with CDOT to prepare an annual report detailing
the progress made toward the EV adoption goals
Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap
Based on the 2020 CDOT Electric Vehicle plan, the Colorado Department of Energy created a
Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap, which defined strategies and goals related to the
4 Colorado Energy Office. 2020. Colorado Electric Vehicle Plan 2020. Retrieved from:
https://energyoffice.colorado.gov/transportation/ev-education-resources/2023-colorado-ev-plan
`
12
reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution in Colorado. The Roadmap sets a goal of 90% reduction in
GHG emissions from 2005 levels. To reach this goal, the Roadmap finds the need to dramatically
increase the total number of zero emission vehicles and dramatically decrease vehicles miles traveled
(VMT).5
Colorado Transit Zero Emission Vehicle Roadmap 2021
The Colorado Transit Zero Emission Vehicle Roadmap builds on the goals and strategies outlined in the
2020 Colorado EV Plan. This Roadmap outlines the following goals, objectives, and actions that reflect
CDOT’s commitment to supporting transit agencies in operating a 100% zero emission transit fleet by
2025:6
• CDOT will develop a state-approved master purchasing contract for zero emission vans,
cutaways, and large buses to streamline transit agency procurement of ZEVs.
• The Colorado Energy Office (CEO) will gather data on utility rates with municipal and rural
utilities and co-ops to develop new rate structures that encourage the sustainable charging of
EVs for individuals, fleets, and transit agencies.
Colorado State Senate Bill 19-077 – Electric Motor Vehicles Public Utility Services
This bill authorized the ownership of EV charging by electric utilities. In addition, it established a
regulatory framework and process to file plans for EV infrastructure and facilities infrastructure
investments, as well as charging programs, electrification of transit, and low-income programs.
Interstate Initiatives
Beyond state-level initiatives, the State of Colorado has entered into interstate agreements promoting
the use of alternative fuels for transportation.
Multi-State ZEV Task Force Memorandum of Understanding
In July 2022, the State of Colorado signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with several other
states to support the deployment of medium- and heavy-duty zero emission vehicles (ZEVs). Other
signatory states include California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Virginia, and Washington. This task force set forth goals including limiting all new medium-
and heavy-duty vehicle sales within the signatory states to ZEVs by 2050; accelerating the deployment of
medium- and heavy-duty ZEV and ensuring that the deployment of these vehicles equitably benefits
disadvantaged communities. These goals, as well as supportive strategies and recommendations, are
detailed in the Multi-State Medium and Heavy-Duty Zero emission Vehicle Action Plan: A Policy
Framework to Eliminate Harmful Truck and Bus Emissions.7
5 Colorado Department of Transportation. 2021. Colorado Greenhouse Gas Pollution Reduction Roadmap.
Retrieved from: https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/greenhousegas/assets/co-ghg-pollution-
reduction-roadmap.pdf
6 Colorado Department of Transportation. 2020. Transit Zero Emission Vehicle Roadmap. Retrieved from:
https://www.codot.gov/programs/innovativemobility/assets/cte/colorado-transit-zev-roadmap-2021-11.pdf
7 Multi-State Medium- and Heavy-Duty Zero Emission Vehicle Action Plan. 2022. Retrieved from:
https://www.nescaum.org/documents/multi-state-medium-and-heavy-duty-zev-action-plan.pdf
`
13
FLEET PLAN
The Fleet Plan is a long-term fleet management plan that outlines how the Town intends to transition its
current bus fleet to zero emission buses. This section is one of three parts which comprise the Transition
Strategy: Fleet Plan, Fuel Plan, and Facility and Infrastructure Plan—the Town has summarized the
findings of all these sections within the Transition Strategy covered later in this document.
Fleet and Operations
CURRENT FLEET
The Town’s current fleet is made up of three buses owned by the Town and five leased buses. As seen in
Table 1, the Town owns three trolley buses, two of the trolley buses are battery-electric and the third is
a traditional gasoline-powered bus. The battery-electric trolley buses owned by the Town are used
exclusively for the Red Route.
Of the five leased buses, four are 26’ cutaway buses that provide flexibility for the fleet and serve routes
with turn-radii limitations, specifically the Gold, Silver, and Blue Routes. The Brown Route is served by a
diesel El Dorado 35’ bus. The End Useful Life year for each bus was calculated using the year the bus was
procured and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) useful life benchmarks.8
Table 1: The Town's Existing Fleet
Ownership
Status Bus Model Propulsion
Type
Seating
Capacity
Acquisition
Year
End of
Useful Life
Owned Hometown Trolley Villager
Trolleybus 30’
Battery-
Electric 24 2019 2032
Owned Hometown Trolley Villager
Trolleybus 30’
Battery-
Electric 24 2022 2035
Owned Hometown Trolley Villager
Workhorse 30’ Gas 24 2004 2017
Leased F450 Cutaway Bus 26’ Gas 24 2024 2034
Leased F550 Cutaway Bus 26’ Gas 22 2018 2028
Leased F550 Cutaway Bus 26’ Gas 22 2018 2028
8 The useful life benchmark, set by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), is used to determine the expected
service years for each vehicle class. The FTA determines the useful life for Trolleybuses to be 13 years, Cutaway
Buses to be 10 years, and Traditional Buses to be 14 years.
`
14
Ownership
Status Bus Model Propulsion
Type
Seating
Capacity
Acquisition
Year
End of
Useful Life
Leased F550 Cutaway Bus 26’ Gas 22 2018 2028
Leased El Dorado 35’ Bus Diesel 32 2018 2032
CURRENT OPERATIONS
The Town’s transit service consists of five routes that originate at the Estes Park Visitor Center (EPVC).
The Town’s services include the Red Route which is a downtown trolley that runs seven days a week,
from Memorial Day in May to mid- to late-October, and the four Town shuttles, the Gold, Silver, Blue,
and Brown Routes that run daily from early summer to early fall, and on weekends-only in the fall, as
shown in Table 2.
Table 2: The Town's Service Provision as of 2025
Route Vehicle Frequency Hours of Service (miles)
Trolley (EV) Every 20 to 30 mins 9:00am until 9:00pm 38
Gas Cutaway Every 60 mins 9:00am until 9:00pm 164
Gas Cutaway Every 30 mins 9:00am until 9:00pm 192
Gas Cutaway Every 30 mins 9:00am until 9:00pm 136
Diesel Bus Every 30 mins 9:00am until 9:00pm 135
Local Climate and Impacts on Resilience
BEVs use the vehicle battery to operate all functions of the bus. The constant heating demand present in
cold climates like Estes Park cause the battery to deplete more quickly than it would in moderate
climates. Since climate and extreme temperatures can impact the ability of a battery to maintain a
charge, it is important to understand to what degree this may impact the Town’s operations.
Figure 4 shows the average highs and lows throughout the year in the Town of Estes Park. The solid red
line shows the average high and the solid blue/purple line shows the average low. The Town’s transit
service runs from Memorial Day in May to mid- to late-October. Within the Town’s service window, July
tends to be the hottest month in Estes Park, with an average high of 77°F. May and October tend to be
the coldest months, with average lows of around 32°F-40°F in May and around 27°F-36°F in October.
`
15
Figure 4: Town of Estes Park monthly average high and low temperatures 9
To compare the yearly temperatures of Estes Park to the experiences of other transit agencies deploying
BEVs, Figure 5 shows observed battery performance for a BEV in a range of temperatures. The agencies
included in this analysis represent a variety of climates (DDOT in Washington, DC; Seneca Transit in
Seneca, SC; DTA in Duluth, MN; and WRTA in Worchester, MA). In general, these agencies experienced
battery performance peaking around 60°F, with efficiency declining at higher and lower temperatures.
Because Estes Park frequently experiences temperatures on both ends of this spectrum throughout the
year, the Town will need to be prepared for fluctuations in the actual ranges of BEVs.
Figure 5: Miles per diesel gallon-equivalent fuel economy for BEBs 10
9 Weather Spark. 2025. Climate and Average Weather Year-Round in Estes Park, Colorado.
https://weatherspark.com/y/3564/Average-Weather-in-Estes-Park-Colorado-United-States-Year-Round
10 Mark Henning, Andrew R. Thomas, Alison Smyth. 2019. An Analysis of the Association between Changes in
Ambient Temperature, Fuel Economy, and Vehicle Range for Battery Electric and Fuel Cell Electric Buses. Retrieved
from: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2634&context=urban_facpub
`
16
BEV Daily Task Feasibility
The Town has modeled BEV performance for existing routes based on battery capacity estimates and
daily operating range. Operating the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system during
hot or cold temperatures draws power away from the systems that power the bus propulsion,
significantly reducing the amount of battery power available to propel the vehicle. Batteries also
degrade over time, and over the lifetime of a BEV, they can degrade significantly.
To analyze the potential for BEV deployment on the Town’s existing scheduling and blocking, a route
analysis estimated the range of a BEV in strenuous conditions. The route analysis is based on the range
estimates shown in Tables 3 and 4, modeling the range of a 686 kWh 35’ Gillig Bus and a 113 kWh
Optimal EV Cutaway in various conditions to create conservative estimates of the maximum daily range
for the Town’s fixed-route fleet.11 It is assumed based on existing operating practices that the Brown
Route will use the 686 kWh 35’ Gillig bus and the Gold, Silver, and Blue Routes will use the 113 kWh
Optimal EV Cutaway. More information on these comparable vehicles can be found in Appendix A.
Analyzing BEB feasibility to create a reliable estimate of usable battery capacity estimates must model a
difficult day for the battery capacity of the bus, estimating intensive HVAC usage or other conditions
which would reduce the range of a BEB. To account for these factors, the feasibility model developed by
the Town accounts for battery degradation of up to 30% of the original battery capacity, representing a
bus operating with 70% of the battery’s original capacity. Although batteries can degrade well beyond
70% of their original capacity, this threshold was chosen based on warranty practices observed in the
current market. The assumed impacts of these strenuous conditions are detailed in Appendix A.
Table 3: Battery Capacity and Ranges for a 686 kWh 35' Gillig BEB
Battery Condition New New
686 kWh 480 kWh N/A N/A
539 kWh 374 kWh 235 miles 163 miles
339 kWh 238 kWh 141 miles 98 miles
Table 4: Battery Capacity and Ranges for a 113 kWh Optimal EV Cutaway
Battery Condition New 70% Battery
Capacity New 70% Battery
Capacity
Advertised Capacity
Usable Capacity
11 A 440 kWh 35’ Gillig Low Floor bus was identified as a model vehicle because it is similar in size and capacity to
the vehicles the Town currently operates.
`
17
Battery Condition New 70% Battery
Capacity New 70% Battery
Capacity
Perceived Capacity in
Strenuous Conditions 51 kWh 35 kWh 67 miles 53 miles
When analyzing the Town’s operations under these conditions, the model finds the Gold, Silver, Blue,
and Brown Routes to be infeasible for operating one BEV on each route per day. As detailed below and
in the Fuel Plan, there are strategies to address routes/daily operating requirements that are infeasible
for transition on a one-to-one vehicle basis to BEVs.
Strategies for Addressing Route Infeasibility:
There are two primary strategies to account for the lack of battery capacity that would be needed to
complete a day of service on the infeasible routes: opportunity charging and expanding the Town’s fleet
to allow for the swap of vehicles midday. Each strategy is covered below.
• Opportunity Charging: Charging while at a layover location on-route allows for the bus to gain
additional charge throughout the day and should be implemented where the vehicle may spend
significant layover time, such as the EPVC. To gain sufficient charge to supplement the range of
the vehicle, layover times of at least 20 minutes should be scheduled. The critical issue with this
strategy for the Town’s operations is that there are currently no high-speed charging solutions
available for comparable BEVs to the majority of the Town’s existing fleet (cutaway vehicles).
Therefore, opportunity charging is an infeasible strategy for the Town to employ.
• Additional Vehicles/Fleet Expansion: Using two or more electric vehicles over the course of a
daily task could make the Town’s routes feasible for conversion to BEV on days with normal
operating conditions and under strenuous conditions (very hot or very cold weather during
service, where energy efficiency would be further derated). Generally, an example of this would
be while bus A is operating, bus B is charging and then swaps into revenue service when bus A
needs to be charged. This strategy was assumed for the purposes of the Fuel Plan.
Fleet Transition Strategy
Building on the findings of this plan, the Town is planning for a transition to a fully BEV fleet by 2039.
This strategy would allow the Town to efficiently utilize the existing fleet until each vehicle meets their
respective ULBs defined by the FTA. It is recommended that the Town purchase additional vehicles to
facilitate midday charging.
This fleet transition strategy also evaluated how best to reduce single-year economic burdens by
purchasing replacement vehicles a year before or after the anticipated ULB is reached. It is
recommended that the Town begin the fleet transition in the year 2030 and simultaneously begin the
acquisition and development process for a charging and fleet storage location with appropriate charging
infrastructure, covered in more detail below. It is crucial that charging infrastructure be in place prior to
battery-electric vehicles being delivered to ensure a seamless transition.
`
18
Figure 6 summarizes the Town’s transition strategy for BEVs. While the timeline shown is the most
aggressive timeline for fleet transition (assuming that vehicles are replaced at their ULB), the Town may
choose to phase investments more gradually. The first delivery of battery-electric buses should take
place in the year 2032 to allow the existing 35’ diesel bus to reach the end of its useful life before
purchasing the 35’ BEVs.
Figure 6: Fleet Transition Strategy and Milestones (BEVs)
Figure 7 summarizes the Town’s transition strategy if the Town selects HEVs for their transition strategy.
This timeline is shown for the fleet transition to follow the existing ULB of the vehicles being operated
by the Town. The first delivery of HEVs would be in 2032 and would culminate in a fleet that is hybrid
electric for the 35’ buses and cutaways and battery electric for the trolleys in 2038.
Figure 7: Fleet Transition Strategy and Milestones (HEVs)
`
19
FUEL PLAN
The Fuel Plan identifies the charging infrastructure and electrical capacity needed to operate the future
fleet of zero emission vehicles. As described within the Executive Summary and covered in more detail in
Appendix A: Market Overview and Route Transition Feasibility Assessment, the Town is pursuing
battery electric as the suitable zero emission technology based on available vehicle types and the lack of
availability of cost-efficient hydrogen fuel.
Identifying strategies to charge and operate the buses is critical to developing the findings of the Fleet
Plan and the Facility and Infrastructure Plan. Feasibility assessment modeling analysis completed for
each route determined that the Brown, Blue, Gold, and Silver Routes were only feasible to transition to
BEVs under the condition that each route would need more than one bus to complete the daily mileage
of current operations, as described in Appendix A: Market Overview and Route Transition Feasibility
Assessment. Building upon that analysis, which modeled the performance of the bus under normal
operating conditions, this fuel plan examines the charging strategy needed to operate battery electric
buses under strenuous conditions 12. This section details a plan where the amount of fleet expansion can
be minimized, allowing each route to be completed with two vehicles each (as opposed to the one
vehicle per route used today) which will be detailed in this section.
Charging Strategy
To identify the number of buses and chargers needed to complete the daily operations for each route,
daily operations were modeled to estimate the amount of time a bus could operate before needing to
recharge. The analysis also calculated the amount of time a bus would spend charging before returning
to service.
For this modeling there were a few key assumptions made:
• The modeled vehicle for the Gold, Blue, and Silver Routes was based on market-available
cutaway buses with a battery capacity of 113 kWh13. This cutaway bus has an estimated range
of 80 miles under normal conditions and 60 miles under strenuous conditions, assuming battery
degradation to 70% of the battery’s initial capacity.
• The modeled charger is a level 2 charger currently being used to charge the Town’s trolleys
which can deliver 33 kW of power. For the modeled cutaway bus, it would take approximately
3.5 hours to complete a charge.14
• The Brown route was modeled with a market-available 35’ battery electric bus with a battery
capacity of 686 kWh15. This bus has an estimated range of 153 miles under normal conditions
and 112 miles under strenuous conditions, assuming battery degradation to 70% of the initial
capacity.
12 Generally, strenuous conditions for BEV performance occur due to significant HVAC usage but can also be caused
by extreme passenger loads or through battery capacity degradation over time.
13 See Appendix A.
14 This is an approximation because as the battery level nears 100% state-of-charge, buses charge slower to protect
the battery.
15 See Appendix A.
`
20
• The market-available 35’ bus is assumed to use a Level 3 charger that has a charging capacity of
120 kW, similar to the chargers identified in Appendix A. For the modeled 35’ battery electric
bus to complete a full charge it would take approximately 6 hours.
The charging modeling revealed a need to create a blended charging plan to charge buses both during
the day and overnight. Based on today’s technology, a reliable charging strategy to complete the daily
mileage requirements for each route is to operate the buses in short enough blocks to allow for the bus
to return to the charging facility for charging in the middle of the day. This increases operations costs as
buses must return to the maintenance facility and staff must be present at the facility to manage the
buses on the chargers throughout the day. However, this blended charging plan would allow for
predictable operations and driver shifts. This analysis assumed using a 33 kW charger for the cutaway
buses and a 120 kW for the 35’ buses, but higher capacity chargers can be used for more efficient and
faster charging. For more information on market-available chargers see Appendix A.
Table 5: Blocking Scenario
Route 16
Blue 164 3 55 2
Gold 192 4 48 2
Silver 136 3 45 2
Brown 135 2 67.5 2
Red 38 1 38 1
Table 5 shows the blocking scenarios for each route and the distance covered by each block. Each route,
except for the Red route, must increase the fleet specific to that route to two buses to reliably operate
the daily mileage. An example of a block schedule adjusted to accommodate BEV operations is detailed
below:
• Bus 1 and Bus 2 start the day fully charged after being charged overnight
• Bus 1 goes out for service, completes the first block, and returns to the charging facility to be
charged
• Bus 2 goes out for service for the second block and when that is completed, Bus 2 returns to the
charging facility to be charged
• Bus 1 (assumed to be fully charged by the end of the second block) goes out for service to
complete the third block and then returns to charging facility to be charged.
• In the case of the Gold Route, Bus 2 would go back out to complete the fourth and final block of
the day
Both buses would be charged overnight to be ready for the next day. The BEV block schedule is such
that the Brown, Blue, Silver, and Gold routes would each need two buses to complete the daily routes
16 This distance was selected to accommodate the distance the bus must travel to and from the charging facility for
midday charging.
`
21
while the buses alternate between being in service and charging throughout the daily revenue service
hours and overnight.
INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS
To understand the peak load for charging buses, the Town conservatively assumed that all buses would
be charging at the same time. All buses will charge at various times throughout the day to complete
daily revenue service. However, it is expected that all buses could be charged overnight to save on
electricity demand charges typically present during daytime hours. When all vehicles are charged at one
time, there will be a higher peak demand. For this analysis, two scenarios were evaluated:
• Scenario one: The cutaway buses and trolleys use Level 2, 33 kW chargers and the 35’ buses use
a 120 kW charger that has two charging dispensers so two buses can be charged at once at 60
kW each (or one bus at 120 kW). The peak load for this scenario is approximately 384 kW, at any
given time. This scenario would require a total of six Level 2 chargers and one Level 3 charger
with two charging dispensers.
• Scenario two: All buses use a 120 kW charger that has two charging ports so two buses can be
charged at once at 60 kW each or one bus at 120 kW. The peak load for this scenario is
approximately 600 kW, at any given time. This scenario would require four Level 3 chargers with
two charging ports.
Depending on the scenario, the electrical infrastructure and space for the buses to be charged would
need to be planned to accommodate the charging and movement of buses throughout the facility. See
Appendix A for more information on market-available chargers and see the Facility and Infrastructure
Plan for more detail on this topic.
ON-ROUTE CHARGING
There are also opportunities to implement on-route charging using overhead pantograph chargers at the
Estes Park Visitor Center to allow the buses to charge to remain in service and extend the range. Due to
the current market availability, only the 35’ buses could use the overhead pantograph chargers (market-
available cutaway vehicles do not have this capability). It is recommended that, for redundancy, two
pantograph chargers be installed. Due to the capital and operation costs to purchase, install, and
maintain the pantograph chargers, it is not recommended for the Town to be the sole owner and
operator. In the future, should more vehicle types be compatible, the Town should seek opportunities to
partner with regional transit agencies (such as Bustang, operated by the Colorado Department of
Transportation) that provide intercity, seasonal service to the EPVC. For now, on-route charging is not
considered a feasible strategy to support the Town’s transition.
CHARGING AND ENERGY MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEMS
To support the efficient implementation of charging infrastructure, many agencies with BEVs in service
employ a charging and energy management software system (CEM), which allows the agency to track
state of charge (SOC) for buses throughout the day, optimize charging, and reduce costs and energy use.
If peak energy load is optimized, this may reduce the need for costly grid enhancements and utility
infrastructure. A CEM reduces operating costs by optimizing and automating depot charging around
fleet schedules and utility rates.
`
22
This Fuel Plan presents a blocking schedule to accommodate midday and overnight charging and
different types of charges. This will ultimately create significant operational changes to the operations of
the Town’s transit service. To ease this burden, it is recommended that Level 3 chargers be
implemented for flexibility.
FACILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN
The Facility and Infrastructure Plan is a high-level scan of the Town’s owned facilities and a review of the
existing maintenance facility, providing an understanding of the future potential to support a ZEV fleet.
Because of the need for fleet expansion described in the sections above, identifying space for a new
charging and storage facility to support the future expanded fleet is critical. The Town’s current transit
facilities, as described below, do not currently have the space to store and charge an expanded fleet,
therefore this section considers other Town-owned property which could be reconfigured/repurposed
to serve the needs of an expanded transit fleet.
`
23
Current Facilities
577 ELM ROAD—TOWN FLEET MAINTENANCE FACILITY
Currently, the Town’s owned fleet vehicles are stored, charged, and maintained at 577 Elm Road (see
Figure 8). The two battery-electric trolley buses owned by the Town are charged and stored outside at
the facility due to space considerations, along with the one existing gas-powered trolly. Charging and
storing the battery-electric trolleys outside can cause issues for the longevity of the battery-electric
vehicles and can slow charging rates. The Town recognizes the need to store the current battery-electric
trolleys and any future battery-electric vehicles indoors or under coverings so that the buses can charge
and run more efficiently. The Town is currently planning to initiate a master plan to reconfigure this site,
which may create additional capacity for an expanded fleet. Electrical capacity within the vicinity of the
Elm Road location is sufficient to support an expanded transit fleet, as detailed below.
Figure 8: Existing Town Transit Maintenance Facility
`
24
LEASED VEHICLES FACILITY
The Town currently leases vehicles from RATP Dev USA. These vehicles are stored and maintained at
RATP Dev’s facility at 1050 Kenwood Lane (see Figure 9). This facility is about 3.5 acres of land. Although
additional vehicles cannot be stored, it is feasible to consider adding charging facilities. To facilitate the
conversation of this facility to support BEV infrastructure, a partnership would need to be established
with RATP Dev USA. Due to its general location proximate to the existing transit maintenance facility and
nearby to other sites with significant electrical capacity (described below), sufficient electrical capacity is
assumed at this site but must be confirmed if this site becomes a feasible option for the future
expanded ZEV fleet.
Figure 9: RATP Dev USA Maintenance Facility
Additional Future Facility Options
The existing facilities, highlighted above, cannot currently accommodate any new vehicles due to space
constraints in their existing configurations, therefore the Town reviewed other Town-owned facilities to
identify potential locations where the Town could charge and store buses indoors. The review assumed
the space needed to fit 13 drop-down plug-in overhead chargers, which would require an estimated
10,000 square feet.17 Once a facility has been identified, planning and design should be completed to
identify the final number and configuration of chargers as well as the exact space needed to
accommodate the battery-electric buses and cutaway buses.
17 Based on the sizing of Foothill Transit’s Pomona Facility
`
25
The Town should continue to study the locations described in this section to identify a new facility to
charge and store the required expanded fleet. Though additional analysis should ensure that the
electrical capacity at each location is sufficient to meet estimated peak charging demand, the analysis
conducted below is an initial scan conducted in partnership with Town utility staff members. It is
recommended that the Town identify a site and implement charging and storage infrastructure before
procuring any BEVs to ensure seamless transition.
The town has a number of sites with strong potential to support future ZEV fleet charging needs,
detailed below.
SCHOOL DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FACILITY
The Town is exploring a partnership with the Estes Park School District to build a shared facility to house
and charge the Town’s school bus and electric bus fleet. The identified location for this potential shared
facility is at 1701 Brodie Avenue, shown in Figure 10. As the facility would require significant
reconfiguration or expansion to accommodate the 10,000 sq ft required for the Town’s transit fleet
expansion, it is therefore not considered a primary option for a new storage and charging facility, but
could be a future option especially if the school bus fleet began a transition to battery-electric
technology.
Figure 10: School District Transportation Facility
`
26
LARIMER COUNTY ESTES PARK MAINTENANCE SHOP
Though not Town-owned, the Town recognizes the potential to create a shared asset at the existing
facility owned by Larimer County, primarily due to apparent space availability (see Figure 11). The Town
will continue to evaluate the feasibility of this site as an option.
Figure 11: Larimer County Estes Park Maintenance Shop
`
27
LIGHT AND POWER STORAGE FACILITY
The Light and Power Storage Facility at 640 Elm Road could accommodate the 10,000 square feet
needed for 13 charging stations, though this site comes with many challenges. This facility, which is just
to the southwest of the current transit maintenance facility has an estimated 10.5 acres of available
space (see Figure 12), but this site is built on a closed landfill facility and has significant constraints to
adding more infrastructure. Though it appears to have sufficient space, this facility needs to be further
studied to evaluate the steep grade of the site and feasibility of implementing a charging facility. The
site also must accommodate the existing and future storage and maintenance needs of the utility
support vehicles, in addition to potential transit vehicles. The electrical capacity has also been reviewed,
indicating a capacity of nearly 10 MW, significantly exceeding the required 384 kW.
Figure 12: Light and Power Storage Facility
`
28
ESTES PARK TOWN HALL SITE
The Estes Park Town Hall site, located at 170 MacGregor Avenue, could potentially accommodate a
10,000 square foot charging facility in the parking lot area (see Figure 13). Implementing a charging
facility at this location would require converting existing public parking into an enclosed and secured
charging and transit fleet storage facility. While there is space at the Town Hall location within the
parking lot, the feasibility of implementing a charging and transit fleet storage facility would need to be
further studied and there would be tradeoffs with parking capacity. The electrical capacity has also been
reviewed, indicating a capacity of nearly 5 MW, significantly exceeding the required 384 kW.
Figure 13: Estes Park Town Hall
`
29
VISITOR CENTER REDESIGN
The Estes Park Visitor Center is not a primary option for overnight charging, but is covered here due to
its anticipated future status as a redesigned hub for local and regional transit. As shown below in Figure
14 the Visitor Center redesign anticipates space for a transit bus island as well as capacity for on-route
ZEV charging, leveraging the existing ZEV charging infrastructure within the parking lot. The Visitor
Center will serve as a critical transfer point for the Town’s transit services and connectivity with regional
transit such as Bustang18.
Located directly adjacent to the Visitor Center, the existing Town Parks facility also has potential to
support overnight parking, but significant coordination would be required to further vet this as a
potential option.
Figure 14: Estes Park Visitor Center Redesign
18 https://ridebustang.com/bus-lines-routes-maps/
`
30
TRANSITION STRATEGY
The Transition Strategy is a summary of the Fuel, Fleet, and Facility Plans that summarizes the
recommendations for how the Town will move forward with the transition to zero emission technology.
This Transition Strategy can be sped or slowed based on how the state of technology develops over
time. The Town will begin the transition to BEVs in 2030 and will utilize the useful life of each current
vehicle before acquiring any new vehicles to maximize cost efficiency. The Town has identified the
following key milestones:
• 2029
o The Town should revise this plan, as it is a living document based on the current state of
the ZEV market, to update based on the current state of technology.
• 2030
o The Town should acquire, permit, develop, and implement a new facility and prepare
the site for battery-electric charging infrastructure and storage of vehicles.
• 2032
o The town receives its first two ZEVs and puts them into service.
• 2034
o The town receives its first two ZEV cutaways and puts them into service.
• 2038
o The Town decommissions the last three gasoline cutaways, and the fleet is 100% ZEV.
The following fleet procurement and transition recommendation in Table 6 are based upon the
assumption that the Town will use buses until the end of their useful life and purchase buses in the year
before, during, and after the useful life is over to reduce single-year economic burdens.
Table 6: ZEV Transition Overview by Year
Fleet Makeup
Year Gasoline
Trolley
Gasoline
Cutaway
Diesel
35'
BEB
Trolley
BEB
Cutaway
BEB
35'
Total
Vehicles
Chargers
Needed19 Notes
2025 1 4 1 2 8
2026 1 4 1 2 8
2027 1 4 1 2 8
2028 4 1 2 7 Receive three Cutaways
(technology TBD); Retire Gas
2029 4 1 2 7
2030 4 1 2 7 2
Start BEB Transition - Initiate
site acquisition and prepare
19 Chargers needed refers to individual power dispenser cables—the interface that will plug into the bus. The
recommended charging strategy assumes that one charging cabinet will have two dispersers to charge two
vehicles at the same time or in sequence.
`
31
Fleet Makeup
Year Gasoline
Trolley
Gasoline
Cutaway
Diesel
35'
BEB
Trolley
BEB
Cutaway
BEB
35'
Total
Vehicles
Chargers
Needed19 Notes
and storage
2031 4 1 2 7
2032 4 2 2 8 4
Retire 35' Diesel Bus, Receive
two 35' ZEVs, Retire one ZEV
Trolley, Receive one ZEV
2033 4 2 3 9 6 Receive one 35' ZEV
2034 3 2 2 3 10 8 Retire one Gas Cutaway,
Receive two ZEV Cutaways
2035 3 2 2 3 10
2036 3 2 2 3 10 10
2037 3 2 4 3 12 12 Receive two ZEV Cutaways
2038 2 6 3 11 14 Retire three Cutaways,
Receive two ZEV Cutaways
2039 2 8 3 13
Action Steps
While the Town is actively navigating its long-term path towards zero emissions, the following near-term
steps will be pursued:
• Select a new facility site and begin planning, permitting, design, construction, and
implementation for an expanded fleet storage and charging facility which should:
o Include space for seven charging cabinets each with two dispensers, with capacity to
install more chargers as the Town expands operations; and
o Include the necessary property security measures to allow this facility to be used as a
location for overnight charging.
• Monitor development of plans of ZEV transitions for other departments and agencies within and
proximate to the Town to identify opportunities to share fueling infrastructure and benefit from
procurements that serve multiple departments.
• Monitor the marketplace for ZEV technology performance and availability; track state and
regional initiatives and incentives; and communicate regularly with peer agencies that are in the
process of transitioning their own fleets to share lessons learned.
FUNDING PLAN
The transition of the existing fleet to ZEV will present significant cost impacts to the Town. The Town will
address the availability of current and future resources to meet the costs of the transition and
`
32
implementation and has compiled the following assessment of anticipated operations, maintenance,
and procurement costs in alignment with the Transition Strategy.
Operations and Maintenance Costs
Table 7 below summarizes the operations and maintenance costs for diesel, gasoline, and BEB
technologies. Annualized lifetime costs were based on an average vehicle life of 14 years for the 35’
buses and 10 years for the gasoline cutaway buses and an average miles per year of 9,270 for the 35’
buses and 11,808 for the cutaway vehicles. To determine the potential cost savings of transitioning to
battery electric buses, this section leverages peer agency data.
Table 7: Total Cost of Ownership
Diesel 35' BEB 35'
Vehicle Life 14 10 14 10 13
Miles per Year 9,270 11,808 9,270 11,808 5,895
Fuel Cost/Mile $0.88 $0.62 $0.74 $0.23 $0.23
Maintenance Cost/Mile $1.38 $1.00 $1.98 $1.98 $1.98
Annualized Lifetime
Costs $20,962.77 $19,128.96 $25,170.78 $26,063.48 $13,011.87
Annualized Difference
in Lifetime O&M Costs
Compared to Baseline Baseline $4,208.01 $6,934.52 N/A
WORKFORCE TRANSITION PLAN
A key aspect of this ZEB Transition Plan is to preserve the current workforce and to provide a pathway to
empower staff with the necessary skills to support the successful deployment and maintenance of ZEBs.
This is done with the goal of ensuring consistent passenger service while delivering environmental
benefits and in recognition of the value and importance of the existing workforce and the Town’s role as
an employer within the region. Updating the existing training systems to include battery electric buses
while planning for the gradual retirement of gas and diesel buses will be done as part of this transition.
The Town will partner with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), local colleges and technical
schools, and other industry specialists to train trainers, operators, mechanics, and other staff to work
with the new zero emission vehicles with the goal of avoiding the displacement of the existing
workforce.
Because the Town is working towards a conversion to an EV fleet, there is great potential for inter-
departmental collaboration on training materials for maintaining EVs and ZEBs and the related
infrastructure.
`
33
On a regional and statewide level, as other agencies continue their process of transitioning to ZEB
technology, the Town could collaborate with and learn from these agencies on materials and training
programs for their maintenance staff.
This Workforce Transition Plan provides a framework to identify skill gaps, training needs, and
retraining needs of existing workers to operate and maintain zero emission vehicles and related
infrastructure while undergoing a significant operational shift.
Training Approach
Training will occur in various formats to support diverse learner needs, such as in-person instructor-led
sessions, hands-on exercises, computer-based training, knowledge checks, reference material, and
operational manuals. Workforce training efforts will consider the human aspect of this shift in
operations and acknowledge the challenges that come with introducing new skills, processes, and
procedures. For this reason, the workforce transition will include resources to support affected
employees directly and indirectly through the cultural and technological shift.
The Transit Cooperative Research Program’s (TCRP) Research Report 219: Guidebook for Deploying Zero
emission Transit Buses identifies three key best practices related to training and development:
• Ensure adequate safety training related to high voltage hazards and hydrogen fuel (as
applicable)
• Require OEMs to conduct first responder training and specify training materials, needs, and
responsibilities in the procurement contract.
• Careful coordination of training prior to or in conjunction with bus delivery.
From a high-level perspective, workforce training needs to cover three distinct phases:
• Phase 1: Foundational Electrical/Electronic Principles
• Phase 2: Zero emission Bus Systems and PPE
• Phase 3: OEM-Specific Training
The details of each phase of training as well as recommended resources are given in Appendix D.
Skill Assessment of Existing Workers
At a broad level, it is expected that all technicians will be impacted to some degree by the transition to
ZEBs. The baseline assessment of skills of maintenance technicians will be their proficiency at diagnosing
and repairing electrical and electronic faults on traditional buses (12- and 24-volt electrical systems).
Without these foundational skills, workers cannot be trained on ZEB-specific skills, including working on
systems with upwards of 800 volts and using specialized tools and instruments to diagnose electrical
faults. The Town plans to complete this assessment of baseline skills by utilizing the expertise of
maintenance supervisors, who will be able to estimate the percentage of technicians who are already
proficient at using specialized tools, such as digital multi-meters (DMM), to diagnose electrical faults.
Existing technicians will be evaluated to determine who already holds ASE Transit Bus certifications for
Electrical/Electronic Systems (H6), or similar certifications from the automobile and heavy-truck sectors.
The Town also plans to recognize and account for training provided internally, as well as from technical
`
34
schools, previous employment, and third-party training providers. The findings of this assessment will
inform more detailed assessments of skills gaps and next steps, explored further in the next section.
The Town will work with facilities and labor management to develop the criteria for foundational E/E
skills and establish the baseline for deciding which workers need additional training and in which skill
area depending on workforce structure. Impacted workers will be classified by their expected level of
training required based on job requirements:
• Basic E/E Training
• Multiplex Training
• Advanced E/E Training
• Basic ZEB Training
• Advanced ZEB Training
The Town will work to develop E/E skills across the entire workforce of technicians with the
understanding that these skills are widely transferrable and can assist in the repair of traditional buses.
The early deployment of Diesel-hybrid buses should prove useful in providing technicians with more
hands-on learning regarding electric drive systems. The Town’s workforce transition is aided by the
potential to collaborate with departments within the City of Loveland who are already experienced in
operating and maintaining diesel-hybrid solid-waste vehicles.
Training Plan: Strategies and Partners
The first step in closing the skill gaps will be to establish a team of labor and management subject-
matter experts who are committed to working together in support of that goal. The inclusion of subject
matter experts is key to a successful training strategy. Their inclusion will support technicians to assess
their skills openly and accurately in the skills gap survey and provide a venue for the technicians to
provide feedback regarding training content and delivery methods. The team will offer input on the
training requirements and responsibilities of the OEM using the language and best practices outlined in
the report from ITLC and Jobs to Move America (JMA) titled “Providing Training for Zero emission Buses:
Recommended Expanded RFP Language.”
Technical skills are best transferred by engaging trainees through hands-on exercises, computer
simulations, training mock-ups, and on-the-job exercises. Use of learning aids and hands-on exercises
will be implemented for classroom learning to supplement education on theory and principles based on
the success of these methods.
There is potential to partner with local community colleges and technical schools to develop responsive
training to address the need for rapid learning gains in electrical-electronic systems. The Town maintains
strong relationships with several local colleges and technical schools and is currently in conversations
about developing a partnership to develop course curriculum to teach the skills needed to maintain
battery electric buses (BEBs). The Town will work closely with the instructors to ensure the syllabus
materials are well suited to cover the comprehensive list of learning needs outlined in APTA’s Standard
for Training on Electrical and Electronic Systems. The selected partner will provide evidence of its
success in workforce education and experience in training incumbent workers. Using the results of the
`
35
surveys outlined in the previous section, the team will target training for specific technicians in specific
skill areas and coordinate classes to train technicians in the skill gap areas.
The Town recognizes the significant value of the existing workforce’s experience and intends on working
collaboratively throughout the process to support workers during the transition.
Engagement of Workforce in Development of Transition Plan
Ongoing engagement with the frontline workforce in all decision-making processes accounts for a
critical piece of the transition plan and the implementation of ZEB technology. Involvement of all
members of the workforce will be integrated throughout the workforce transition process, from the
initial planning phases through each consecutive step.
Ensuring engagement and involvement with frontline workers is a top priority for the Town, and this will
be communicated from the technician level to the management level. The Town will identify strategic
approaches to integrate and engage the current workforce in the development of the transition plan,
including regular communications regarding progress updates and the development of engagement
mechanisms and tools between the Town leadership and the frontline workforce. Another key
component to prioritize engagement of the current workforce is to encourage and empower the
frontline workforce to speak up in the decision-making processes, rather than keeping these processes
in the hands of management.
The Town intends to carefully develop bus procurement documents to require the OEM/vendor to
provide training aligned with closing the existing skill gaps and developing staff to work on ZEBs safely
and confidently. Staff with local agency subject-matter expertise may be included in meetings with the
OEM/vendor to ask questions and review training specifications in the Request for Proposals (RFPs). This
would ensure a voice for those in the workforce that will directly be affected by the introduction of the
ZEB technologies to influence decisions that affect how they will adapt to and develop skills for the
successful deployment and maintenance of ZEBs.
`
36
APPENDIX A: MARKET OVERVIEW AND ROUTE
TRANSITION FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
`
37
Market Overview and Route
Transition Feasibility Assessment
April 2025
`
38
MEMORANDUM
To: Dana Klein
From: Erik Mumm, AICP
Evelyn Burr, AICP
Date: March 21, 2025
Subject Zero emission Vehicle Technology Review and Route Transition Assessment
Technical Memorandum
INTRODUCTION
The Town of Estes Park (Town) retained Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to prepare a Federal Transit
Authority (FTA)-compliant Zero emission Vehicle (ZEV) Transition Plan for the Town’s transit service (The
Peak). This memorandum (memo) represents a portion of the larger effort to assist The Town in
planning for ZEV technology. This memo provides a summary of the current state of zero emission
technology, including refueling infrastructure, and an assessment of the Town’s current fleet and
operations. The findings summarized in this memo were compiled through reviews of peer transit
agencies, original equipment manufacturers (OEM), available industry research, and general market
trends. This memo includes the following sections:
• ZEV Technology Overview
• Fueling Equipment and Infrastructure Overview
• Initial Fleet and Route Assessment
• Zero emission Technology Recommendation
ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW
The Town currently owns and operates two battery-electric trolleys, one gas trolley, and leases multiple
traditionally fueled vehicles. This memo will describe trends in zero emission transit, including battery
electric buses (BEB), hydrogen fuel cell electric buses (FCEB), and diesel hybrid buses. These
technologies are described in detail below.
Battery Electric Buses
BEBs operate using electricity as fuel stored in an onboard battery pack that powers an electric motor.
BEBs are available with a range of battery capacities, measured in kilowatt-hours (kWh), and are formed
through different configurations of multiple individual cells packed together depending on the desired
total battery capacity.20 These buses are generally categorized as either long-range or fast-charge buses
depending on the size of the onboard battery packs. Long-range BEBs have large battery packs designed
to accommodate overnight depot charging and longer routes (usually between 250–600 kWh).
20 A kilowatt-hour is a measure of power equivalent to an energy consumption of 1,000 watts in 1 hour.
`
39
Fast-charge BEBs have smaller battery packs (from 50–250 kWh) and are designed to operate on shorter
routes that benefit from opportunity charging on-route or a midday break to charge at the depot.
Many battery chemistry technologies are available on the market, the most common being lithium
nickel manganese cobalt (NMC), lithium iron phosphate (LFP), and lithium titanium oxide (LTO). Major
manufacturers in the United States (US) tend to favor NMC batteries for their higher energy density and,
as a result, their somewhat extended ranges over LFP and LTO batteries.21
MARKET AVAILABILITY
Transit Bus
In 2023, two major OEMs of heavy-duty transit buses shifted considerably: Proterra filed for bankruptcy,
and Nova Bus ended its US bus production to shift focus to the Canadian market. Proterra’s transit bus
division was acquired by Phoenix EV; however, the 2024 American Public Transit Association’s (APTA)
Public Transportation and Vehicle Database does not note any Phoenix EV vehicles that have been
procured or are planned to be procured. At the time of publication of this report, there were only a few
OEMs actively building these buses to standards that meet the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s Low- or
No-Emissions Grant Program’s Buy America requirements. The source of funding for purchasing these
buses must be considered when planning a transition to a low- or no-emission technology.22
Table 8 highlights the available bus lengths, battery capacities, and advertised ranges of three different
OEMs, including the electric trolleys currently in use by the Town, produced as a partnership between
Motiv Power Systems and Hometown Trolleys. The selection of buses shown in the table is intended to
provide comparable examples to the Town’s existing fleet. The Town’s current fleet is comprised of two
electric and one gas Hometown Trolley Villager 30’ Trolleybus, four gas F450/F550 Cutaway Buses, and
one diesel El Dorado 35’ Bus. It should be noted that New Flyer has expressed plans to discontinue the
Xcelsior Charge NG 35’ in 2027 due to lack of forecast demand for that length.
Optimal EV recently completed the FTA’s testing procedure at Altoona, resulting in the market’s first Buy
America-compliant cutaway low-floor battery electric class 4 bus to pass Altoona testing. This
certification makes these vehicles eligible for purchase or lease under the FTA’s Low- and No-Emissions
Grant program.
The prices shown in Table 8 are given as estimations, as the actual purchase price can be dependent on
what is contracted to be procured with the bus. The warranty negotiated with the OEM can also
influence price, as a greater amount of battery degradation covered by the warranty can increase the
price. Additionally, the market for BEBs is constantly evolving, and prices of BEBs fluctuate as a result.
As for costs, the range distances in Table 8 are dependent on a variety of factors. These ranges
represent those of a new bus, the batteries of which are not entirely usable for vehicle propulsion and
degrade over time (described in detail below). Additionally, the advertised range typically exceeds what
operators experience during daily operations, primarily due to optimal testing and driving conditions.
21 Kumar, P., Mulukutla, P., and Doshi, P., 2023. “Real-world electric bus operation: Trend in technology,
performance, degradation, and lifespan of batteries” Working Paper.WRI India. Available online at
doi.org/10.46830/wriwp.22.00097
22 http://www.transit.dot.gov/lowno
`
40
The factors that limit the range of BEBs are detailed below in the Usable Battery Capacity and
Degradation section.
Table 8: List of Market Available Electric Buses Comparable to Estes Park's Fleet per 2024 APTA Vehicle Database
MANUFACTURER
/MODEL
LENGTH
(FEET) OCCUPANCY BATTERY
SIZE (KWH)
STATED
RANGE
PRICE 23
(2024)
24 29 30 158/237 150/200 Not Available
RIDE Motors
(formerly BYD) K9 40 42 455 208 ~$850,000
Gillig Low Floor BEB 35 61 (31 seats) 490/588/686 170/205/239 ~$963,000
Gillig Low Floor BEB 40 71 (35 seats) 490/588/686 170/205/239 ~$988,000
New Flyer Xcelsior
Charge NG 40’ 40 84 (40 seats) 345/435/520 176/216/254 ~$1,119,000
Motiv EPIC
4/Endera/Turtle 24 14 127 105 Not Available
Optimal EV S1LF
Low Floor Shuttle 26 21 113 125 Not Available
GreenPower Motor
Company EV Star
25
25 19 118 150 Not Available
Paratransit and Microtransit Buses and Vans
While the Town does not directly operate microtransit service at present, the Town is in the process of
finalizing a Transit Development Plan (TDP) that includes a recommendation to implement a new
microtransit zone. This section highlights the market-available vehicles that would suit this type of
service.
As battery electric transit buses have advanced through the market, a growing selection of smaller
transit vehicles designed to accommodate the needs of agencies to electrify or transition their
paratransit fleets has emerged. For the purposes of this document, these vehicles are grouped since
agencies frequently use the same vehicles for both types of service. Table 9 provides an overview of
currently available paratransit and microtransit vehicles reported as procured by agencies in the APTA
23 Prices reflect the procurement cost for a single bus per the database and may include additional costs related to
the purchase of a single bus.
24 From 2022 Brochure (latest available), available at hometown-mfg.com/sites/default/files/2022-
04/MT50E%20Electric%20Villager%20Brochure.pdf
25 More research would need to be done to determine if Greenpower Motors is a viable option.
`
41
Public Transportation Vehicle Database. These ZEVs have the same useful life benchmarks as their
combustion-fuel counterparts.
Table 9: List of Currently Available ZEV Paratransit and Microtransit Buses per 2024 APTA Vehicle Database
MANUFACTURER
/MODEL
LENGTH
(FEET) OCCUPANCY BATTERY
SIZE (KWH)
OEM -STATED
RANGE
PRICE (AS
OF 2024)
23 68 Not Available ~$118,000
GreenPower Motor
Company EV Star 25 18 (with two
ADA spots) 118 150 Not Available
Toyota Sienna
Hybrid 7 N/A Not Available –
Chrysler Pacifica Not
Available 7 16 –
Ford Transit Van
Plug-In Hybrid 20–22 15 89 159 $56,585 +
Like the prices, ranges in Table 9 are dependent on a variety of factors. These ranges are representative
of new vehicles, the batteries of which are not entirely usable for vehicle propulsion and degrade over
time (described in detail below). Additionally, the advertised ranges typically exceed what operators
experience during daily operations, primarily due to optimal testing conditions. The factors that limit the
range of BEVs are detailed below in the Usable Battery Capacity and Degradation section.
As for the zero emission paratransit and microtransit vehicle options currently available in North
America, the Ford E-Transit Van is the most popular electric cargo van in the North American demand
response market, and is currently being used for the Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) On-Demand Service
in Tooele County, UT. In addition, CalVans, a public transit agency offering vanpooling, has a fleet of over
400 Ford E-Transit Vans.
The other options identified have more limited deployment and adoption. The Antelope Valley Transit
Authority (AVTA) runs a microtransit program in rural Los Angeles County using the GreenPower EV Star
Vans.
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE
Over the life cycle of an energy storage system, batteries will lose usable capacity but are required to
maintain a minimum state of charge (SOC) to protect the component and vehicle systems, as illustrated
in Figure 15. Battery warranties typically guarantee a battery to 70–80% of the nameplate capacity for
the life of the vehicle (approximately 12 years). This reduction is difficult to quantify and is challenging
to measure consistently. As such, it can be difficult to submit a warranty claim related to battery
capacity.26
26 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021
`
42
Figure 15: End-of-life Batteries 27
Higher temperatures and extended full-drain cycles can accelerate the natural battery-aging process
when compared with operating near the middle of the capacity parameters. Battery life can be
extended by cycling the battery at lower SOCs when possible and avoiding a high SOC when the vehicle
is not in use and/or decreasing the upper SOC limit. For example, it is more advantageous for battery
longevity to cycle a BEB battery from an SOC of 40% up to 70% than to frequently recharge from 60% to
90%. Rates of battery charging also matter—fast-charging batteries have a capacity reduction of around
8.7% when compared to slower-charging counterparts, meaning that slow charging leads to longer-
lasting batteries. Once a battery reaches the end of its useful life for BEB application, it will still retain
60–80% of its initial capacity, leading to opportunities for a second-life application before eventually
being recycled into new battery components.28 The ability to optimize charging (as described above)
does require a significant level of oversight and management. Bus operators can employ a computerized
charge management system to aid in the optimal charging of their fleets.29
Usable Battery Capacity and Degradation
Electric batteries degrade over time and use (calendar and cyclical aging), resulting in a gradual decline
in the battery’s ability to hold a charge, known as capacity loss or capacity fade.30 Over the life of the
vehicle, this can reduce the range of the bus by about 25%. In general, battery degradation and aging
are accelerated by use in high ambient temperatures (higher than 86 degrees Fahrenheit) and high
depth of discharge (discharging more than 80% of total battery capacity).31 When compared to
complete charge and discharge (near 0% to 100%), a battery charged more frequently at moderate
states of charge will experience less capacity degradation.
27 Aamodt, Cory, & Coney, 2021, Bigelow, 2017
28 Ibid.
29 Survey and gap prioritization of U.S. electric vehicle charge management deployments, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, NREL, 2024
30 Kumar,P., Mulukutla, P., and Doshi, P., 2023.“Real-world electric bus operation: Trend in technology,
performance, degradation, and lifespan of batteries” Working Paper.WRI India. Available online at
doi.org/10.46830/wriwp.22.00097
31 Ibid.
`
43
Figure 16 highlights the effects of battery degradation. When the battery is new, the first 10% of the
battery should be reserved for longevity. The remaining 90%, referred to as service energy, is the
portion of battery capacity that is to be considered useable. The service energy is designed to protect
battery life.32 The last 10% will cause the bus to operate at a derated performance, and the BEB will not
experience the same range per kWh as it would with the rest of the battery. Below 5%, the energy
supplied by the battery will be insufficient to move the bus.
Recent industry thinking suggests that agencies could strive to be more aggressive in using the battery
to a greater depth of discharge, allowing for longer ranges of operation and narrower margins of SOC
remaining when the bus arrives back at the depot at the end of the day. This approach requires further
investigation and should be tracked by the agency as the fleet begins conversion and actual operating
performance statistics are collected.
Figure 16: BEB Battery Capacity Example
Depending on the OEM and the details outlined in the bus procurement contract, OEMs typically
provide an initial warranty on the battery, which can guarantee between 70-80% of the kWh of a new
battery. This warrantied amount of battery life is typically calculated against the stated range of the
battery, rather than the actual range of the battery, not including a reserve. For example, if the battery
is advertised at a 440 kWh nameplate capacity, the actual benchmark amount covered and replaced by
the warranty could be anywhere between 246 kWh and 282 kWh. This highlights the need to plan for
lifetime and warrantable battery degradation to account for a bus’s ability to complete its required
tasks. As noted above, the amount of battery degradation covered by the warranty is dependent on
negotiation with the OEM and can influence the purchase price of the BEB.
Impacts on Range and Duration
Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) and Climate
BEBs use the battery to operate all aspects of the vehicle, including running the HVAC system. Any
heating or cooling demand will use battery power, which can significantly shorten the range of the BEB.
32 Mountain Line Transit. (2020). Zero emission Bus Implementation Plan. Retrieved from: mountainline.az.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2021/03/Phase-2-Implementation-FINAL.pdf
`
44
On particularly hot or cold days, this typically results in the vehicles observed range being significantly
less than it would be in ideal operating conditions.
A 2019 study collected operations and performance data from eight transit agencies in climates ranging
from Northern Minnesota to Southern California and found that, when temperatures dropped from
ranges of 50–60°F to 22–32°F, BEBs lost around 32.1% battery efficiency, resulting in a reduced range.33
The degree of impact on the battery range is highly dependent on the difference between the ambient
temperature outside and the internal temperature set in the cabin. The exact energy consumption of
the HVAC system can also depend on other factors, including the number of passengers onboard, the
average speed of the route, and how often the vehicle opens its doors.
It is also important to remember that during cold temperatures, more energy is needed to start up the
vehicle for operations. Depending on the transit agency’s storage facility, someone might be required to
turn the bus on and heat it up hours before regular operations can start. Additional “start-up” time is
needed when the vehicle is stored outdoors.
Operator Driving Styles
A 2018 study evaluated various driving styles of city buses, comparing effects on pollution and energy
consumption of driving a BEB versus an internal combustion engine diesel bus.34 This study included
real-world measurements, review of research, and driver surveys. Results showed that BEBs are
generally driven more aggressively and accelerated faster than diesel buses, which results in higher use
of mechanical energy, affecting range and battery longevity. The study also pointed out that more
frequent stops result in higher energy needs than driving longer distances on steady speeds.
BEBs have much more torque than conventional diesel buses. Therefore, when driving a BEB it is
important to use “smooth on” and “smooth off” skills to improve a rider’s onboard experience and
optimize the vehicle’s range. Additionally, knowing how to take advantage of regenerative braking can
further improve vehicle range and battery longevity. These skills take time to acquire, especially
considering the vehicle’s size and potential changes in topography.35
Passenger Load
Passenger load and the additional weight a bus carries will impact a BEB’s range. A Transportation
Research Record (TRR) article from 2019 investigated the energy impacts of passenger loading on
conventional buses and BEBs.36 The study found that increased vehicle mass results in increased energy
consumption; this is true regardless of drivetrain type. On average, a BEB at maximum payload
consumes about 23% more energy than an empty BEB. The study notes that a diesel transit bus requires
about 34% energy at maximum payload compared to a zero payload, even though BEBs are generally
33 Mark Henning, Andrew R. Thomas, Alison Smyth. (2019). An Analysis of the Association between Changes in
Ambient Temperature, Fuel Economy, and Vehicle Range for Battery Electric and Fuel Cell Electric Buses. Retrieved
from: engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2634&context=urban_facpub
34
acris.aalto.fi/ws/portalfiles/portal/27322839/ENG_Veps_l_inen_Jari_Driving_Style_Comparison_IEEE_Vehicle_Po
wer_an d_Propulsion_Conference_2017.pdf
35 http://www.faac.com/blog/2023/04/20/three-training-tips-to-ensure-ev-bus-success/
36 afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/time-varying_passenger_loading_impact.pdf
`
45
heavier than conventional diesel buses. The authors attribute the diesel bus’s higher energy
consumption to the fact that a BEB can regain energy through regenerative braking.
Therefore, it is important to plan bus operations accordingly. If a higher number of transit riders is
expected for specific routes at specific times, it may be necessary to adjust a vehicle’s route operating
time or make route adjustments during peak periods.
Topography
Topography can significantly impact the range of BEBs, though existing benchmarking and trials of
demanding routes to better understand a vehicle’s energy need when navigating topographically more
challenging areas are limited. A 2022 study evaluated the performance and energy consumption of BEBs
driving terrain demanding routes in Europe.37 This study shows that routes with elevation increases
require significantly more energy. This is amplified by low outside temperatures. Even though the
authors concluded that buses at higher elevations have higher energy consumption on hilly roads
compared to flat roads, they recommend real-life testing to better understand each route’s topography
and impact on battery range.
When deploying BEBs on existing transit routes, it might be beneficial to evaluate each route’s
topographic changes. Identifying routes with gradual ascents and descents, as well as lower expected
payload for ascending and higher payloads for descending, can help regain additional energy through
regenerative braking.
SPECIAL OPERATOR TRAINING
As mentioned above, the range of the bus can be significantly impacted by many route characteristics,
as well as operator driving styles and passenger load. It is recommended that operators are trained in
the optimal driving styles to help maximize the range of BEBs. This includes smooth and steady
acceleration, and gentle and steady braking to take advantage of regenerative braking, which transfers
energy back into the battery rather than dissipating as heat.
In addition, it is recommended to accustom bus operators to driving BEBs prior to deployment. This can
be done through driving simulators or behind-the-wheel training, using a used BEB dedicated for
training purposes only.
LIFE CYCLE CONSIDERATIONS
The useful life target of BEBs, like traditional combustion engine vehicles, is approximately 12 years as
outlined by the FTA. However, the electrical systems of the vehicle are not necessarily intended to last
the duration of that lifetime, and warranty terms and periods vary by manufacturer and procurement
process. Like diesel and Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) buses, BEBs may require a midlife overhaul for
the energy storage system (batteries), drive motors, and power inverter. The cost of maintenance varies
depending on the size and need for replacement components. The battery midlife overhaul is estimated
to cost approximately $500 (2021) per kWh of battery capacity. This cost estimate is expected to
decrease to approximately $218 per kWh over the next decade.38 Specifics of the overhaul timeline and
37 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032122004543
38 Couch & Johnstone, 2019
`
46
cost should be specified with the manufacturer during procurement, or warranty periods should be
considered and negotiated with manufacturers.
Upon the end of a BEB’s useful life, there are a few options for decommissioning the bus. If the battery
is still in good shape, it is possible for the battery to be reused in another application, such as an on-site
energy storage system. The other primary option for an end-of-life BEB is to recycle the battery.
Although there are not yet many BEBs that have reached the end of their life cycle, with market and
industry maturation, strategies such as battery recycling and component reuse will become further
established.
COSTS
Table 10 highlights a sampling of the acquisition, maintenance, and overhaul costs available for electric
heavy-duty buses, cutaways, and microtransit vehicles. It should be noted that there is not much
information readily available for the cutaway and microtransit vehicle types.
Table 10: BEB Cost Estimates (2024)
BEB (TYP) 35’–40’ CUTAWAY (TYP)
~$850,000–
$1,119,000 + ~$170,00039+ ~$37,700–$56,600 +
Vehicle
Operations and
40
$2.62/mile Costs Not Available Costs Not Available
Overhaul 41 $500/kWh Costs Not Available Costs Not Available
Decommissioning Costs Not Available Costs Not Available Costs Not Available
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Transit Vehicles
FCEBs are like diesel and CNG vehicles in that they store consumable fuel on the vehicle. However, they
are also like BEBs in that the drivetrain and all other vehicle systems are powered by electrical current.
Instead of using combustion to produce mechanical motion, FCEBs operate using hydrogen fuel to
produce electricity. The onboard fuel cell uses an electrochemical reaction to combine the hydrogen fuel
with atmospheric oxygen, producing an electrical reaction that charges the battery. This battery is used
to power the electric motor and other systems. The reaction produces heat and water as a byproduct.
Like traditional diesel bus or gas vehicles, the size of the fuel tank directly corresponds to the overall
range of the vehicle. With a larger onboard hydrogen tank, buses can operate over longer distances.
Because the hydrogen fuel cell essentially charges the onboard battery as the bus operates, these buses
can be outfitted with smaller batteries than their BEB counterparts.
39 Telluride 2024 Purchase of Electric Cutaway. Source: www.kdvr.com/news/local/31-7m-in-grants-to-fund-28-
new-electric-transit-buses
40 AC Transit 2024 Zero emission Program Progress Report, June 2024.
41 Mid-life overhaul Cost Assumptions from MTS 2020 Zero emission Bus Fleet Transition Study, 2020
`
47
Hydrogen fuel is stored in a gaseous state on an FCEB at an approximate pressure of 700 bar. Due to the
high-energy density of hydrogen, it can be stored in a volume sufficient to allow an FCEB to perform
similarly to traditional fossil fuel vehicles. Hydrogen-powered transit vehicles are close to a 1:1
replacement for traditionally fueled/internal combustion buses because of their similar range and
fueling approach.42
Temperature influences the maximum capacity of a hydrogen storage tank. Filling during hot weather or
filling rapidly can leave a vehicle only partially full for service during pull-out the next day. Strategies
such as pre-chilling the gas before dispensing and slow-filling tanks can be employed to reduce the
impact of temperature and maximum pressure. Deployment and operation of hydrogen fueling
equipment is like that of fossil fuels, where vehicles return to the depot to fuel, unload collected fares,
and clean the buses. Hydrogen fueling takes approximately 6–10 minutes, depending on the pressure of
the stored hydrogen fuel and how many vehicles are being filled simultaneously.43 Hydrogen fueling
stations have hazards like CNG facilities. For hydrogen stations, safety systems will include pressure
relief, fire and leak detection, and flame detection systems.44
As a basis of fuel cell technology, the vehicle battery is rapidly charged and discharged based on the
traction or system demands, and the fuel cell cycles between active and inactive to generate electrical
current. During this cycle process, the battery will remain at a moderate SOC, compared to how a depot-
charged BEB may operate, charging to maximum capacity then draining to a low state of charge while in
operation. This combination of high-frequency charge/discharge and moderate battery SOC results in
less battery degradation and improves the lifespan of the energy storage system compared to BEBs.
MARKET AVAILABILITY
Transit Bus
New Flyer and El Dorado are the top two major manufacturers of FCEBs in the North American market.
In April 2024, Gillig announced they would be expanding their zero emission portfolio to include an
FCEB, which is still in development as of the writing of the memo. These buses are scheduled to begin
production in 2026. Ongoing changes in the funding landscape may impact the plans for their release.
Another FCEB manufacturer, Van Hool, provided FCEBs for early adopter agencies in the US. Due to
issues with Buy America compliance, this vendor has been largely pushed out of the US transit market.
The New Flyer FCEB has an advertised range of 300 to 350 miles, with an onboard hydrogen storage
volume of 37.5 kg. Operating this model, AC Transit observed a usable range of about 280 miles. AC
Transit purchased New Flyer’s FCEB in 2019 at a cost of $1.1 million.45 The Stark Area Regional Transit
Authority (SARTA) operates the El Dorado FCEB with an advertised range of 260 miles and an onboard
hydrogen storage volume of 50kg. Operating this model, SARTA observed more than 280 miles of range
42 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021
43 Center for Transportation and the Environment, 2021
44 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021
45 AC Transit. (2022). Zero Emission Transit Bus Technology Analysis, Vol. 3. Retrieved from: www.actransit.org/zeb
`
48
on a full tank in best conditions and an average of 140 miles on cold days while operating with an
electric heater.46
FCEBs have less available information on capital and operations costs, range, and performance in
different conditions in comparison to BEBs. This is due to the ease of small-scale deployment and a
greater number of BEB early-adopters to date; however, the market for FCEB technology continues to
grow. Ranges and prices of FCEB vehicles on the market are shown in Table 11. As with the BEBs listed
above, the ranges listed here represent testing in near-ideal conditions. The observed range of the
FCEBs is likely to be less than what is given by the OEM. The prices given are also an estimation and are
based on 2020 data. The market for FCEBs is evolving rapidly, which may influence procurement costs.
Table 11: Currently Available FCEBs per 2024 APTA Vehicle Database
MANUFACTURER/MODEL LENGTH
(FEET)
RANGE
(MILES)PRICE (2024)
New Flyer Xcelsior Charge FC 40 370 ~$1,011,000
El Dorado National (ENC)
Axess Evo-FC 40 350 ~$1,100,000
Paratransit and Microtransit Buses and Vans
Currently, there are no major manufacturers that produce hydrogen fuel cell vehicles that would be
suitable for paratransit operations. In 2019, SARTA took delivery of five fuel cell electric paratransit vans
built by Tesco on the Ford Transit U4X chassis and converted to hydrogen fuel cell by US hybrid. These
vehicles are claimed to have a 250-mile range, but little other information is available as of the writing of
this memo.
Automotive company Stellantis is beginning to produce fuel cell mid-size and large vans in Europe but
has not entered the US market. There are hydrogen-powered cars available, including the Toyota Mirai
(only available in California) and Honda CR-V e:FCEV (2025), with hydrogen fuel cell technology and
battery electric technology.
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE
Impacts on Range and Duration
Potential impacts on a FCEB’s range and duration include the use of the onboard HVAC system, battery
degradation, operator driving style, passenger load, topography, and climate conditions. In general,
FCEBs are less affected by these characteristics than their BEB counterparts due to the onboard fuel
storage.
HVAC and Climate
Implementing a waste heat recovery system on FCEBs can improve fuel consumption. Waste heat from
the fuel cell process can be collected and used to maintain comfortable cabin temperatures and
augment the electrical HVAC system. Generally, waste heat also prevents the system from freezing,
46 SARTA. (2020). Fuel Cell Bus Performance and Data Collection. Retrieved from:
http://www.sartaonline.com/Content/uploads/SARTA-Fuel-Cell-Bus-Performance-Final-Report-2139.pdf
`
49
making FCEBs suitable for harsh climates without significantly degrading the vehicle’s range.47 A 2022
report published by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in collaboration with SunLine
Transit Agency identified that the FCEB fleet's fuel economy varied throughout the year, with the
highest being 9.75 mpg in December 2021 and the lowest being 5.71 mpg in July 2021. This drop in fuel
economy can be attributed to the increased use of air conditioning during hot weather, which reduces
efficiency.48 SARTA observed that in cold or snowy weather, their FCEBs experienced an average drop in
range of approximately 20 miles.49
Operator Driving Styles
Some research suggests that driving style can have significant effects on the economy of FCEBs;
however, studies currently available use computer simulations or passenger vehicle testing to develop a
conclusion. One study50 mentions that frequent acceleration and deceleration, as well as stopping and
waiting for passengers to get on and off the vehicles, can affect the vehicle’s range.
Passenger Load
Like BEBs, passenger load varies throughout the vehicle’s operating time and will affect the vehicle’s
range. Also, like a BEB, a FCEB can regain some energy through regenerative breaking, especially if the
vehicle has more passengers on board when going downhill.
Topography
Topography has similar effects on FCEBs as it has on BEBs. Slow and steady ascends are more favorable
on a vehicle’s range than short and steep inclines, requiring more energy.
SPECIAL OPERATOR TRAINING
Training for drivers of FCEBs is similar to BEBs, where driver behavior has an impact on vehicle
performance. As a result of the greater range of FCEBs when compared to BEBs, the impact is mostly on
efficiency and system performance rather than the ability for a vehicle to complete a full duty cycle.
LIFE CYCLE CONSIDERATIONS
Lifespan
The lifetime of the fuel cell power pack is intended to last about half of the vehicle’s lifespan,
approximately six of the 12 years of useful life balance. At this point, the fuel cell would theoretically
need to be swapped out or rehabilitated to continue providing maximum power for the balance of the
vehicle’s life. The US Department of Energy has set the target of the fuel cells at 20% fuel cell voltage
degradation, meaning a vehicle’s battery capacity is around 80%, but this value is not necessarily
considered end of life. Based on the oldest available FCEB fleet data, fuel cells are missing the 20%
target, but it is likely that more recent technology will improve.51
47 saemobilus.sae.org/papers/investigating-route-gradient-thermal-demand-hydrogen-fuel-cell-electric-bus-
energy-consumption-2024-01-2176
48 SunLine Transit Agency Fuel Cell Electric Bus Progress Report Data Period Focus: Jan. 2020 through Dec. 2021.
Accessed from www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/83559.pdf
49 TriMet Facilities System Master Plan; Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Bus Feasibility Study, October 2021
50http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222003772#:~:text=The%20fuel%20cell%20bus
%20is,load%20w
51 Eudy & Post, NREL. Fuel Cell Buses in US Transit Fleets: Current Status 2020, 2021
`
50
Because an FCEB’s onboard electrical battery is substantially smaller than that of a BEB, ranging
between 50–120 kWh of capacity difference, any mid-life overhaul work or battery replacement will be
less costly than replacing a larger battery.52
Mid-Life Overhaul
FCEBs require a mid-life replacement of onboard batteries due to degradation. The mid-life overhaul of
FCEBs tends to be less expensive than overhauls for BEBs due to the smaller onboard batteries, which
are the most expensive components to replace at mid-life and often priced by energy storage capacity
(cost varies). FCEBs also require the overhaul or replacement of the fuel-cell component.
Decommissioning
Upon the end of an FCEB’s useful life, much like BEBs, the main options are to either reuse the battery in
another application, such as an on-site energy storage system, or recycle the battery. Reusing the
battery from an FCEB may be less significant than that of a fully electric bus because the FCEB’s battery
is significantly smaller. Although there are not many FCEBs that have reached the end of their life cycle,
with market and industry progression, strategies such as disposal and recycling of component reuse will
become further established.
COSTS
The up-front procurement cost of an FCEB is greater than that of a BEB, and there are fewer
manufacturers, especially for vehicles for paratransit and microtransit fleets. Table 12 provides a high-
level overview of FCEB-associated costs.
Table 12: FCEB Cost Estimates (2024)
FCEB (TYP)
Vehicle Acquisition ~$1,100,000
Vehicle Operations and
Maintenance53 $2.69/mile
Overhaul 54 Battery Replacement: $500 per kWh
Fuel Cell Overhaul: $40k per bus
Decommissioning No cost available
Diesel Hybrid Transit Vehicles
A diesel hybrid bus combines the use of a diesel engine with an electric motor to improve fuel efficiency
and reduce emissions. The diesel engine generates power by burning diesel fuel, which is used to drive
the wheels of the bus and charge the onboard hybrid battery. An electric motor is also connected to the
52 http://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/v/1/transportation/documents/zero emissions-
buses/appendix-b-from-art-zeb-study_final-
report_20230801.pdf#:~:text=The%20battery%20midlife%20overhaul%20is%20estimated%20to%20cost&text=sm
aller%20 – page 19
53 AC Transit 2024 Zero emission Program Progress Report, June 2024
54 Mid-life overhaul Cost Assumptions from MTS 2020 Zero emission Bus Fleet Transition Study, 2020
`
51
wheels and can provide additional power to assist the diesel engine when needed. This helps reduce the
load on the engine and improves fuel efficiency. When the bus brakes or decelerates, the electric motor
acts as a generator and converts the kinetic energy into electrical energy. This energy is stored in the
hybrid battery for later use. The hybrid battery stores electrical energy generated by the diesel engine
and regenerative braking, which can be used to power the electric motor and provide additional
assistance to the diesel engine, reducing fuel consumption. A control system manages the power flow
between the diesel engine, electric motor, and hybrid battery, optimizing the use of electric power to
improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions.
Diesel hybrid traction power systems have been employed in recent years to improve the efficiency of
transit vehicles. While these systems do deliver better fuel economy (30–60% improvement in some
cases), some agencies report increased maintenance and repair challenges due to maintaining the
electrical components.55
Hybrid buses generally have slightly lower NOx emissions than diesel buses, although real-world testing
has yielded mixed results on the consistent impacts of this technology. Hybrid buses generally emit
lower CO2 (g/mi) than diesel or CNG buses due to their higher fuel economy. Total well-to-wheels
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are generally lower from hybrid buses than from non-hybrid buses,
also due to their higher fuel economy. The reduction in total annual GHG emissions from operating new
hybrid buses instead of new CNG buses could be as high as 54.5 tons CO2-e per bus. 56
The average range of a diesel hybrid is about 6.3 miles per gallon compared to regular diesel buses that
have a fuel economy of about 5.3 miles per gallon, according to a King County Metro Report comparing
buses with different fuel types.57, 58 Another study found that diesel hybrid buses have the best fuel
economy when cruising at a speed between 24 and 29 miles per hour.59 Diesel hybrid vehicles can be
considered a 1:1 replacement for traditionally fueled buses.
MARKET AVAILABILITY
According to APTA’s 2024 vehicle database report, there are currently nine different manufacturers of
diesel hybrid buses. The most common include Gillig, New Flyer, and El Dorado National and are listed in
Table 13.
Table 13: Currently Available Diesel Hybrid Buses per APTA Vehicle Database
MANUFACTURER/MODEL PRICE (AS OF 2024)
Gillig Hybrid Low Floor 35’ 35 6.3 $1,013,255 60
55 (Pan, 2021)
56 (M.J. Bradley & Associates, 2013)
57 http://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/zero emission-bus-evaluation-results-king-county-metro-
battery-electric-
buses#:~:text=This%20report%20outlines%20the%20evaluation,fuel%20economy%20of%205.3%20mpdge
58 http://www.newflyer.com/2018/07/electric-vs-diesel-vs-natural-gas-which-bus-is-best-for-the-climate/
59http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1361920920308221#:~:text=They%20found%20that%20
buses%20achiev
60 Price for 2025 Planned Procurement
`
52
MANUFACTURER/MODEL PRICE (AS OF 2024)
Gillig Hybrid Low Floor 40’ 40 6.3 Not Available
New Flyer Xcelsior
Hybrid-Electric 35’ 35 5.8 Not Available
New Flyer Xcelsior
Hybrid-Electric 40’ 40 5.8 Not Available
El Dorado National EZ Rider II
32’ 32 Not Available $835,723
El Dorado National EZ Rider II
35’ 35 Not Available Not Available
Paratransit and Microtransit Buses and Vans
There are currently no hybrid vehicles options that would be an adequate replacement for the Town’s
existing fleet of vans and cutaways used for paratransit and microtransit service.
OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE
Impacts on Range and Duration
HVAC
Using the HVAC system on a bus to maintain an ambient cabin temperature will affect a vehicle’s range,
as additional power from the engine and battery is needed to power the HVAC system. Heating and
cooling the vehicle in extreme temperatures exacerbate the fuel consumption, further reducing the
vehicle’s range.
Operator Driving Styles
Like other vehicles, aggressive driving styles, such as rapid acceleration and high-speed driving, can
decrease the range and duration of a diesel hybrid bus. Eco-friendly driving techniques, such as smooth
acceleration and maintaining a constant speed, can help optimize the vehicle's range.
Passenger Load
Like BEBs and FCEBs, passenger load also affects diesel hybrid buses. Higher payloads require higher
amounts of power to move the vehicle, thus pulling more fuel from the vehicle’s tanks and battery. Due
to the nature of diesel hybrid buses, this also means increased CO2 emissions.
Topography
Like with BEBs and FCEBs, topography can significantly affect a diesel hybrid bus’s range. Steep inclines
require more power, while descends will help regain energy that is stored in the vehicle’s electric
battery.
SPECIAL OPERATOR TRAINING
Special operator training for diesel hybrid buses does not differ greatly from training required for
operators to drive vehicles in the Town’s current fleet. Training should cover topics such as
understanding the characteristics and performance of the vehicle, range management, eco-friendly
`
53
driving techniques, and the impact of various factors on vehicle performance. It should also include
safety protocols, emergency procedures, and maintenance requirements specific to diesel hybrid buses.
LIFE CYCLE CONSIDERATIONS
Lifespan
Diesel hybrid buses have an expected life cycle of 14 to 16 years, although the actual number of years
varies greatly depending on use and maintenance. This is slightly less than the expected lifespan of a
normal diesel transit bus, with a life cycle of about 16 years. Some transit agencies can keep buses in use
for as long as 20 years.
Decommissioning
Decommissioning a diesel hybrid transit vehicle involves multiple steps and the decommissioning
process can be included in the contract a transit agency signs with a transit vehicle manufacturer.
Generally, it is important to consider if decommissioning means selling or disposing of the vehicle. If a
transit agency decides to dispose of the vehicle, proper handling and recycling of all vehicle parts is
critical, including the vehicle’s electric battery and following all local laws. Decommissioning prices and
processes vary based on location, contracts, and local laws.
FACILITIES CONSIDERATIONS
Additional tools and maintenance infrastructure may be required to allow trained technicians to safely
work on the electrical components of these vehicles. Additionally, proper storage and conveyance of
diesel fuel must be maintained to avoid accidental combustion, including, but not limited to, adequate
setbacks, bollards, and leak detection systems.
COSTS
Over the life of a diesel-hybrid bus, compared to a diesel bus, an agency can expect to see significant
savings in total fuel costs. New Flyer estimates their diesel hybrid buses can deliver up to 8% in fuel
savings.61 Decommissioning cost information is difficult to obtain and can vary greatly depending on
location, the contract signed with the manufacturer, and other local regulations, but typical costs are
shown in Table 14.
Table 14: Typical Diesel-hybrid Bus Costs (2024)
DIESEL HYBRID BUS (TYP)
Vehicle Acquisition $835,723–$1,100,000
Vehicle Operations and Maintenance62 $2.16/mile
Overhaul $80,000
61 New Flyer, www.newflyer.com/bus/xcelsior-hybrid/
62 AC Transit, 2024 Zero emission Program Progress Report published June 2024.
`
54
FUELING EQUIPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
OVERVIEW
Because BEBs and FCEBs rely on alternative forms of fuel, both technologies require specialized
refueling/recharging equipment and infrastructure.
Battery Electric Infrastructure
The charging infrastructure for BEBs utilizes the existing electrical grid to charge buses. Typically, this
involves leveraging existing power lines, transformers, and switchgears to install electric bus chargers on
a given site, represented in Figure 17. The existing electrical grid can sometimes serve as a limiting
factor, and upgrades to electrical infrastructure may be necessary to support BEB charging. Charge
management software can also help agencies charge fleets most efficiently to reduce costs and work
within limits of a facility’s existing power capacities.63
Figure 17: Generalized BEB Charging Schematic
There are two primary charging methods for BEBs: depot charging and opportunity charging. In practice,
opportunity charging fast chargers are typically deployed on-route to supplement (and not replace)
overnight depot charging for the purpose of providing extended range. Below is a description of both
types of charging infrastructure.
DEPOT CHARGING
Depot charging typically takes place overnight at an operations and maintenance (O&M) facility after a
bus has finished service for the day and prior to beginning service the next day. Depot chargers come in
two primary styles: ground-level plug-in chargers (similar to a standard electric vehicle charger) and
overhead chargers.
Overhead chargers can either be plug-in, where the charging cable drops down from an overhead
structure, or pantograph, where an overhead structure on top of the bus comes in contact with an
overhead charging apparatus using automated systems. Pantograph chargers can be either pantograph
up, where the moving element of the system is mounted on the bus and extends up to connect to the
charger, or pantograph down (also called inverted pantograph) where the moving element extends
63 Survey and gap prioritization of US electric vehicle charge management deployments, Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, NREL, 2024
`
55
down from the charging station to connect to the bus. The advantages and disadvantages of each style
of charger are detailed in Table 15.
An example of a cabinet-style depot charger is shown in Figure 18, individual depot charger examples
are shown in Figure 19, and an example of an overhead charging array is shown in Figure 20.
The typical output of a plug-in depot charger is between 40 kWh and 125 kWh, although some agencies
are using depot chargers that range up to 225 kWh and faster options are said to be currently in
development.64 As a result of this lower electrical output, depot chargers are slower than methods of
fueling traditional diesel vehicles and can require four to six hours to fully charge a bus.65 This is often a
lower-cost way to charge BEBs, since many electric utilities incentivize customers to charge more slowly
and during the grid’s off-peak period at night. Overhead pantograph depot chargers are capable of
charging at higher power than their plug-in counterparts—from 150–600kWh.66 Operators may also
consider charging the fleet in smaller batches to avoid demand charges associated with charging all
buses at the same time, although this may require staff present to shift buses on and off chargers.
Charge management software with automated load management capabilities can help agencies reduce
peak loads to be within the limits of a facility’s existing power capacities and help avoid the cost of labor
associated with shifting buses around the facility to access chargers overnight.
Figure 18: Power Converters at Mountain Line Transit, Missoula, MT
64 US Department of Transportation, Office of Policy Development, Strategic Planning and Performance. Retrieved
from www.transportation.gov/urban-e-mobility-toolkit/e-mobility-basics
65 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2021). Electrifying Transit: A Guidebook for Implementing Battery
Electric Buses. Retrieved from: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/76932.pdf
66 ABB. Retrieved from new.abb.com/ev-charging/products/pantograph-down
`
56
Figure 19: Individual Depot Plug-in Chargers at Mountain Line Transit, Missoula, MT
Figure 20: Overhead Depot Chargers at Foothill Transit
OPPORTUNITY CHARGING
Opportunity charging usually takes place on-route at a transfer center or layover location where
operators have scheduled breaks. These chargers, often termed “fast chargers,” tend to have a higher
electrical output than depot chargers do, ranging from 250 kWh to 600 kWh, but often are at the higher
end of this range. As BEBs cycle through the facility where fast chargers are installed, they connect to
the charger for 10 to 20 minutes per charge.67 This allows a BEB to stay in service longer by replenishing
charge throughout the day while the bus is in service. If layover times are insufficient to provide the BEB
with a meaningful charge, then scheduling changes may need to be made. In addition, the energy costs
associated with fast charging are higher due to the intensity of electricity. Alternatively, opportunity fast
charging may allow for charging during off-peak periods.
On-route chargers come in two styles: inductive and pantograph. Like the use in depots, pantograph
charging uses direct contact between an overhead structure on top of the bus and an articulated
structure mounted on either the bus or the overhead structure. The types of pantographs used for on-
67 National Renewable Energy Laboratory. (2021). Electrifying Transit: A Guidebook for Implementing Battery
Electric Buses. Retrieved from: www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/76932.pdf
`
57
route charging typically have a higher electrical output than the pantographs used for depot charging,
with some models having an output of up to 600 kWh.
In 2020, the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) published J-3105 Electric Vehicle Power Transfer
System Using Conductive Automated Connection Devices Recommended Practices to outline standards
of conductive direct current (DC) power transfer to heavy-duty vehicles.
Inductive charging consists of a power pad buried beneath a stop or layover point that the bus then
parks over to charge without contact. Current inductive charging implementations provide outputs of up
to 300 kWh. Both on-route charging installations require electrical equipment such as switchgear and a
transformer to ensure enough electrical capacity. The tradeoffs between the two methods of on-route
charging are detailed in Table 15.
Figure 21: Overhead Pantograph Chargers, Park City Transit, UT
Figure 22: Inductive Charging Pad at Antelope Valley Transit Authority68
68 WAVE Wireless Charging. (2023). WAVE Wireless Charging Propels AVTA to Zero emission Milestone. Retrieved
from: waveipt.com/wave-wireless-charging-propels-avta-to-zero emission-milestone/
`
58
Table 15 depicts the advantages and disadvantages of each type of charging and Table 16 highlights the
observed costs of BEB charging infrastructure. The costs of BEB chargers can vary due to the type of
equipment and necessary labor to install the infrastructure.
Table 15: BEB Chargers' Advantages and Disadvantages
CONFIGURATION TYPICAL USE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Ground Mounted
Plug-In
Depot • Most ubiquitous charging
solution with many
implementations nationwide
• The charging cabinet is
accessible at ground level for
maintenance or replacement
• Lowest-cost charging
equipment
• Open Charge Point Protocol
(OCPP)-compliant chargers
widely available (industry
standardized)
•
in existing parking
areas to protect
ground-mounted
equipment
• Requires operator to
plug in heavy
charging cord
• The charging cord
must be managed
for the risk of
damage from buses
driving over
• Requires trenching
throughout the site
to distribute power
to cabinets and
dispensers—major
operational impacts
during install
• Reconfiguration of
charger layout
based on fleet
`
59
Overhead Drop-Down
Plug-In Cord or
Pantograph
Depot
(Overhead
Drop-Down
Plug-In Cord or
Pantograph)
On-Route
(Pantograph)
•
overhead structures
• No operator interaction with
the charging process is required
(pantograph)
• Minimal footprint in the
parking areas allows for highest
site capacity
• Rapid reconfiguration of
charging positions possible via
remounting pantographs with
no trenching required; capable
of adjusting with fleet
• Lowest amount of trenching to
the site; distribution is carried
via overhead conduit
•
remain at ground
level, there are no
longer conduit runs
to dispensers (if
charging cabinets
are mounted on the
roof, conduit runs
are minimized, thus
minimizing cost)
• Must confirm any
existing structures
are compatible and
capable of; if not, an
independent
support frame is
required
Ground-Mounted
Induction
On-Route • No requirement for new
overhead structure/frame or
mounting equipment above
• Charging cabinet is accessible at
ground level for maintenance
• Can include multiple charging
units, providing more system
resilience as compared to a
single pantograph
•
portion of vehicle
parking and reduces
site capacity
• Requires new curbs
in existing parking
areas to protect
ground-mounted
equipment
• Requires trenching
throughout the site
to distribute power
to cabinets and
dispensers—major
operational impacts
during install
• Equipment must be
mounted 50–100
feet from the
induction pad
(varies by vendor)
• Requires driver
compliance to
engage the charging
equipment and
`
60
Table 16: BEB Charging Infrastructure Costs69, 70
EQUIPMENT TYPE
control module) 480–500
Plug-In Charger 50–200 costs amortized on a per cost basis)
Depot Charger
(AVTA) 80 $55,000 (installation)
On-Route
Inductive/Wireless
(
50 $250,000 (installation)
Depot Charger
(King County) 150
On-Route Overhead
Charger (King County) 300 $240,000 (installation)
Depot Charger
(City of Seneca) Unknown $60,000 (equipment)
$8,000 (installation)
On-Route Overhead
Charger (City of Seneca) Unknown $600,000 (equipment)
$225,000 (installation)
Depot Charger
Generic, no agency N/A $2,000–$100,000 (equipment)
$2,000–$64,000 (installation)
On-Route (fast charger)
Generic, no agency N/A $330,000–$600,000 (equipment)
$50,000–$400,000 (installation)
FACILITIES CONSIDERATIONS
The following are design considerations for the facilities where BEB chargers would be installed:
• Requires trenching to distribute power to ground-mounted cabinets
• Requires space dedicated to charging cabinets and dispensers, as well as cable management (to
avoid risk of cable damage)
• May require placement of new curbs or bollards to protect power modules and other above-ground
equipment
• Requires that operators plug in vehicles to begin charging
• Charging cabinets are at ground level and are therefore easier to access and maintain when needed
• For overhead charging, must ensure overhead structures are able to accommodate the weight of
conduit and other charging elements
69 Sacramento Regional Transit District. (2021). Zero emission Bus Rollout Plan.
70 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Battery Electric Buses State of the Practice
`
61
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Infrastructure
To fuel FCEBs, required infrastructure includes a hydrogen storage tank, a hydrogen pump and
vaporizer, a compressed hydrogen storage tank, and a dispenser. Storing hydrogen in liquid form allows
for a higher storage capacity. From the storage tank, the liquid hydrogen is processed by a pump and
vaporizer, which converts the liquid into a gas. The gas is then used to fuel buses via the dispenser,
which operates similarly to a CNG or diesel pump, which can refuel the bus in 10–20 minutes. A
schematic of the components needed for a hydrogen refueling system is shown in Figure 23.
Figure 23: Generalized Hydrogen Fueling Station Schematic71
Because of the expense of installing the necessary infrastructure, storing fuel, and receiving regular
shipments of fuel, a hydrogen fuel implementation is more cost-effective for larger fleets. In a study of
public transit agencies, Ballard Power reports that as fleet size increases, marginal costs for hydrogen
infrastructure decrease and costs for electrical infrastructure increase. The point at which fuel cell
infrastructure becomes more cost-effective per bus was found to be between 50–100 buses—well
beyond the Town’s fleet size. Even though the Town’s fleet may not be large enough to be considered
cost effective at this point, it is worth considering the increased infrastructure cost for the benefits of
longer range and better performance during the winter months.
Figure 24, Figure 25, and Figure 26 show hydrogen fuel storage and fueling infrastructure at
Champaigne-Urbana Mass Transit District’s fueling facility.
71 National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. (2021). Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)
Research Report 219: Guidebook for Deploying Zero emission Buses. Retrieved from
nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/25842/guidebook-for-deploying-zero emission-transit-buses
`
62
Figure 24: Hydrogen Dispenser and Hydrogen Storage Infrastructure at AC Transit
Figure 25: Champaign-Urbana Hydrogen Fueling Station
Figure 26: Champaign-Urbana Hydrogen Fueling Station and Storage
`
63
Safety Considerations
Because liquid hydrogen is flammable and potentially dangerous if not stored properly, there are some
safety considerations with an FCEB deployment. The installation of emergency shutoffs, gas detection
systems, and a rapid defueling system are standard for agencies operating FCEBs. Liquid hydrogen also
vaporizes and expands to fill enclosed spaces, displacing oxygen and acting as an asphyxiant, which
requires ample ventilation to prevent the accumulation of gas.72
In addition, the National Fire Protection Agency requires setbacks of at least 75 feet from property lines
and combustible/flammable liquids. The setbacks required for the storage and dispensing of hydrogen
fuel are highly variable based on the state of the fuel (liquid or gaseous hydrogen), the distance of
conveyance, the diameter of tubing, adjacent land uses and exposures (lot lines, air intakes, parked cars,
hazardous materials, flammable gas storage system, etc.), and the storage capacity of the equipment.
The setbacks can often be significantly reduced by using strategically placed fire barrier walls rated for
no less than two hours (height dependent on specifications of the fueling infrastructure set-up).73
FACILITIES CONSIDERATIONS
Table 17 highlights a sample of associated costs agencies have observed in constructing different
configurations of hydrogen fueling stations and related infrastructure.
Table 17: Hydrogen Fuel Station Sample Costs
EQUIPMENT TYPE SAMPLE COST (2024)
(not including compressors and reformers) 74
9,000 $500,000
15,000 $700,000
• Capacity: produces 65 kg green
hydrogen per day
• Ambient vaporizers
• IC-50 ionic compressor
• 360-kg high-pressure gaseous storage
• Two dispensers
9,000 (liquid
hydrogen) (total equipment and build cost)
Hydrogen Station Upgrade: 76
• Dual ADC MP-100 cryogenic pumps
• High-pressure vaporizers
• 360-kg high-pressure gaseous storage
• Two dispensers
15,000 (liquid
hydrogen) ($5,100,000 original build cost)
72 Calstart. (2016). Best Practices in Hydrogen Fueling and Maintenance Facilities for Transit Agencies. Retrieved
from: calstart.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Best-Practices-in-Hydrogen.pdf
73 National Fire Protection Agency. (2023). Hydrogen Technologies Code Section 7. Retrieved from:
http://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-standards/all-codes-and-standards/list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=2
74 Sacramento Regional Transit District, 2021
75 AC Transit, 2021
76 AC Transit, 2021
`
64
INITIAL FLEET AND ROUTE ASSESSMENT
The Town’s fleet currently consists of eight vehicles made up of three trolleys, four cutaways, and one
diesel bus. Table 18 provides an overview of the fleet as of April 2025.
Table 18: The Town’s Existing Fleet
OWNERSHIP
STATUS BUS MODEL
Owned Hometown Trolley
Villager Trolleybus 30’ Battery-Electric 24 2019
Owned Hometown Trolley
Villager Trolleybus 30’ Battery-Electric 24 2022
Owned Hometown Trolley
Villager Workhorse 30’ Gas 24 2004
Leased
Leased
Leased
Leased
Leased
The Town service consists of five routes that originate at the Estes Park Visitor Center (EPVC). Service
options include a downtown trolley that runs seven days a week, typically from Memorial Day in May to
mid- to late-October, and four Town shuttles that run daily from early summer to early fall, and on
weekends only in fall, as shown in Table 19.
Table 19: The Town's Service Provision as of 2025
ROUTE VEHICLE FREQUENCY HOURS OF SERVICE
DAILY
DISTANCE
Red
Blue
Gold
Silver
Brown
Performance of Current Electric Fleet
The Town currently operates two electric trolleys along the Red Route, with each vehicle traveling a
total of 38 miles over a day’s service. Throughout the past year, it was found that the two electric
trolleys used an average of 1.19 kWh per mile, but under strenuous conditions, the trolleys were
observed to use up to 1.37 kWh per mile. These efficiencies cannot be extrapolated out to model the
Town’s other routes due to the unique service characteristics of the Red Route, where the long hours of
service and short distance covered represent a unique service.
`
65
Route Transition Feasibility Assessment
FCEBs, while more equipped to handle the long blocks currently scheduled by the Town, are challenged
by fuel availability in Colorado and the greater Mountain West. Hydrogen fuel would need to be trucked
in from another state at regular intervals. The relatively high cost of procuring hydrogen fuel and the
costs for installing specialized hydrogen refueling infrastructure would be prohibitive for a fleet the size
of the Town’s. For these reasons, this analysis considers only the battery electric technology, which is
more widely available.
When planning for battery electric technology, understanding how BEBs work with the Town’s existing
routes is a key factor to determine the feasibility of continued BEB deployment.
The feasibility model used for this analysis accounts for battery degradation of up to 20% of the original
battery capacity, representing a bus operating with 80% of the battery’s original capacity. While
batteries can degrade well beyond 80% of their original capacity, this threshold was chosen based on
warranty practices in the current market.
The analysis below models the effects of moderate HVAC usage, which is estimated to affect an
approximate 20% reduction in range. This conservative approach to modeling allows for the bus’s
efficiency to fluctuate without overestimating what the bus may be capable of doing on a day-to-day
basis. Due to the unique conditions present on each of the Town's routes and the established practice of
assigning one vehicle per route, the initial analysis has been conducted on a route-by-route basis. The
following sections explore the feasibility of each route’s transition to a ZEV and introduce solutions to
address range constraints with the goal of accomplishing the conversion of all vehicles to ZEV.
RED ROUTE FEASIBILITY
The Red Route is currently served by an electric vehicle and therefore does not need to be transitioned
(Table 20). In the future, if the daily demands of the Red Route increase, battery capacity constraints
could be addressed through procuring a similar vehicle with a larger battery capacity.
Table 20: Red Route Feasibility Using Trolley
ROUTE DAILY DISTANCE
DRIVEN (MILES) REVENUE REMAINING ELECTRIFICATION
38 14 25%
`
66
BLUE ROUTE FEASIBILITY
The Blue Route is currently served by a single cutaway vehicle in daily service. To assess the feasibility of
a ZEV transition of this route, the analysis relies on modeling how a market-available comparable vehicle
(selected for passenger capacity and length) would perform at the task. This analysis assumes the
following:
• The comparable vehicle is the Optimal EV S1LF low floor shuttle bus (126 kWh battery)
• The battery has experienced degradation to 80% of its total energy storage capacity
• A moderate HVAC demand reduces the efficiency of the vehicle by 20%
• These factors are estimated to reduce the vehicle's range from the OEM-stated 125 miles to 80
miles
Table 21 shows that this vehicle would not be sufficient to serve the route as a 1:1 replacement for the
gas cutaway currently serving the Blue Route.
Table 21: Blue Route Feasibility
ROUTE DAILY DISTANCE
DRIVEN (MILES) REVENUE REMAINING ELECTRIFICATION WITH
Blue 164 12 -105% No
Given the topography and neighborhood context of portions of the Blue Route, it would be infeasible to
convert this route to be served by a larger vehicle type with a larger battery capacity and longer range,
such as a heavy-duty transit bus.
Strategies for Addressing Blue Route Infeasibility:
There are two strategies to account for the lack of battery capacity to complete a day of service:
opportunity charging and additional vehicles. Each strategy is covered below.
Opportunity Charging: Charging while at a layover location on-route allows for the bus to gain
additional charge throughout the day and should be implemented where the vehicle may spend
significant layover time, such as the EPVC. To gain enough charge to supplement the range of the
vehicle, layover times of at least 20 minutes are ideal. The critical failure point of this strategy is that
there are currently no pantograph or inductive charging solutions available for cutaways. Opportunity
charging for this route would require that the bus be plugged in and unplugged during the opportunity
charging times. This would likely have impacts on the reliability and on-time performance of the Blue
Route and renders opportunity charging infeasible for this route.
Additional Vehicles: Based on the projected performance of vehicles on this route, at least two
vehicles would be required to serve the route under normal conditions. Under strenuous conditions
(very hot or very cold weather during service, where energy efficiency would be further derated), three
vehicles would be required.
GOLD ROUTE FEASIBILITY
The Gold Route is also currently served by a single cutaway vehicle in daily service. To assess the
feasibility of a ZEV transition of this route, the analysis relies on modeling how a market-available
`
67
comparable vehicle (selected for passenger capacity and length) would perform at the task. This analysis
assumes the following:
• The comparable vehicle is the Optimal EV S1LF low floor shuttle bus (126 kWh battery)
• The battery has experienced degradation to 80% of its total energy storage capacity
• Moderate HVAC demand reduces the efficiency of the vehicle by 20%
• These factors are estimated to reduce the vehicle's range from the OEM-stated 125 miles to 80
miles
Table 22 shows that this vehicle would not be sufficient to serve the route as a 1:1 replacement for the
gas cutaway currently serving the Gold Route.
Table 22: Gold Route Feasibility Using Electric Cutaway
ROUTE DISTANCE
DRIVEN
DAILY
REVENUE
HOURS
SOC
REMAINING
(CUTAWAY)
FEASIBLE FOR
ELECTRIFICATION WITH
COMPARABLE VEHICLE
Gold 192 12 -140% No
While the Gold Route may have more flexibility changing vehicle types than the Blue and Silver Routes
due to physical characteristics of the route, it sees the second lowest ridership of all the Town’s transit
services. This would render the market-available standard transit bus body alternative grossly oversized
for the ridership trends observed and projected.
Strategies for Addressing Gold Route Infeasibility:
There are two strategies to account for the lack of battery capacity that would be needed to complete a
day of service on the Gold Route: opportunity charging and additional vehicles. Each strategy is covered
below.
Opportunity Charging: Charging while at a layover location on-route allows for the bus to gain
additional charge throughout the day and should be implemented where the vehicle may spend
significant layover time, such as the EPVC. To gain enough charge to supplement the range of the
vehicle, layover times of at least 20 minutes are ideal. The critical failure point of this strategy is that
there are currently no pantograph or inductive charging solutions available for cutaways. Opportunity
charging for this route would require that the bus be plugged in and unplugged during the opportunity
charging times. This would likely have impacts on the reliability and on-time performance of the Gold
Route and renders opportunity charging infeasible for this route.
Additional Vehicles: Using three electric cutaway vehicles over the course of a day could make this
route feasible for conversion to ZEV on days with normal operating conditions. Under strenuous
conditions (very hot or very cold weather during service, where energy efficiency would be further
derated), it is possible that four vehicles would be required.
`
68
SILVER ROUTE FEASIBILITY
The Silver Route is currently served by a single cutaway vehicle in daily service. To assess the feasibility
of a ZEV transition of this route, the analysis relies on modeling how a market-available comparable
vehicle (selected for passenger capacity and length) would perform at the task. This analysis assumes
the following:
• The comparable vehicle is the Optimal EV S1LF low floor shuttle bus (126 kWh battery)
• The battery has experienced degradation to 80% of its total energy storage capacity
• A moderate HVAC demand reduces the efficiency of the vehicle by 20%
• These factors are estimated to reduce the vehicle's range from the OEM-stated 125 miles to 80
miles
Table 23 shows that this vehicle would not be sufficient to serve the route as a 1:1 replacement for the
gas cutaway currently serving the Silver Route.
Table 23: Silver Route Feasibility Using Electric Cutaway
ROUTE DISTANCE
DRIVEN
DAILY REVENUE
HOURS
SOC REMAINING
(CUTAWAY)
FEASIBLE FOR
ELECTRIFICATION WITH
COMPARABLE VEHICLE
Silver 136 12 -70% No
Like the Blue Route, the topography and surrounding context of the Silver Route make it infeasible to
convert this route to be served by another vehicle type, which could be procured with a larger battery
capacity and longer range.
Strategies for Addressing Silver Route Infeasibility
There are two strategies to account for lack of battery capacity to complete a day of service on the Silver
Route: opportunity charging and additional vehicles. Each strategy is covered below.
Opportunity Charging: Charging while at a layover location on-route allows for the bus to gain
additional charge throughout the day and should be implemented where the vehicle may spend
significant layover time, such as the EPVC. To gain enough charge to supplement the range of the
vehicle, layover times of at least 20 minutes are ideal. The critical failure point of this strategy is that
there are currently no pantograph or inductive charging solutions available for cutaways. Opportunity
charging for this route would require that the bus be plugged in and unplugged during the opportunity
charging times. This would likely impact the reliability and on-time performance of the Silver Route.
Additional Vehicles: Based on the projected performance of vehicles on this route, at least two
electric cutaway vehicles would be required to serve the Silver Route. Under strenuous conditions (very
hot or very cold weather during service, where energy efficiency would be further derated), it is possible
that up to three vehicles would be required.
BROWN ROUTE FEASIBILITY
The Brown Route is currently served by a single 35’ Diesel El Dorado Bus vehicle in daily service. To
assess the feasibility of transitioning this route to a ZEV, the analysis relies on modeling how a market-
`
69
available comparable vehicle (selected for passenger capacity and length) would perform at the task.
This analysis assumes the following:
• The model vehicle is the Gillig Low Floor Battery Electric Bus 35’ (686 kWh battery),
representing the largest battery available at this vehicle length
• The battery has experienced degradation to 80% of its total energy storage capacity
• A moderate HVAC demand reduces the efficiency of the vehicle by 20%
• These factors are estimated to reduce the vehicle's range from the OEM-stated 239 miles to
153 miles
Table 24: Brown Route Feasibility Using 35' BEB
ROUTE DAILY DISTANCE
DRIVEN (MILES) REVENUE REMAINING ELECTRIFICATION WITH
Brown 135 12 12% Yes
Under normal operating conditions, Table 24 shows that the Brown Route would be feasible for
electrification using a single 35’ heavy-duty transit bus (assumed to have battery of 686kWh), but it
would be wise to have an option in place in the case that the battery degrades faster than expected or
the bus faces strenuous conditions more frequently than modeled. Under strenuous conditions, a single
electric heavy-duty transit bus would struggle to complete a full day’s required distance.
Strategies for Addressing Brown Route Infeasibility in Strenuous Conditions
There are two strategies to account for the scenarios in which the bus experiences heavier-than
expected drawdowns on the battery: opportunity charging and additional vehicles. Each strategy is
covered below.
Opportunity Charging: Charging while at a layover location on-route allows for the bus to gain
additional charge throughout the day and should be implemented where the vehicle may spend
significant layover time, such as the EPVC. To gain enough charge to supplement the range of the
vehicle, layover times of at least 20 minutes are ideal. This vehicle type has established opportunity
charging integrations available. This would be the preferred method of extending the range capabilities
of this route, as the cost of an opportunity charger and electricity is more economical than the purchase,
storage, and maintenance of a second vehicle. Depending on plans for other electrified transit services
to stop at the EPVC, there may be potential to share infrastructure.
Additional Vehicles: If no opportunity charging is available for this route, a second vehicle may be
needed on days where the bus faces strenuous conditions (very hot or very cold weather during service,
where energy efficiency would be further derated).
`
70
Route Transition Feasibility Assessment Summary
Except for the Red Route, which has a shorter daily distance that makes ZEV feasibility possible now and,
in the future, the inability of a single vehicle to handle most of the Town's daily tasks on other routes
poses a significant challenge to transitioning to BEBs.
ERROR! REFERENCE SOURCE NOT FOUND.
• Blue Route
o Requires two electric cutaway vehicles to be feasible for transition to zero emission
technology under normal operating conditions, but under strenuous conditions three
vehicles would be required. Opportunity charging is not feasible for this vehicle type.
• Gold Route
o Requires at least three electric cutaway vehicles to transition to electric vehicles under
normal operating conditions. Under strenuous conditions, up to four vehicles would be
required. Opportunity-charging is not feasible for this vehicle type.
• Silver Route
o Requires two electric cutaway vehicles to sustain current operations. Under strenuous
conditions, up to three vehicles would be required. Opportunity charging is not feasible
for this vehicle type.
• Brown Route
o Feasible with one 35’ heavy-duty transit bus under normal operating conditions, but it
would be wise to have an option in place in case the battery degrades faster than
expected or the bus faces strenuous conditions more frequently than modeled for. In
the case of strenuous conditions or extreme degradation, it will be necessary to either
run a second vehicle or implement opportunity charging at a layover location.
`
71
Table 25: Summary of Fleet Expansion Necessary for ZEV Transition Under Current Service Provision
ROUTE CURRENT FLEET
DAILY SERVICE
OPPORTUNITY
CHARGING
NEEDED
Red (1) Electric Trolley (1) Electric Trolley (1) Electric Trolley Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Not Available
Yes
Total
Vehicles
Operated 5 At Least 9 At Most 13
At a full ZEV build-out and without considering the spare ratio, this would require an expansion of the
fleet needed for a single day’s service from five vehicles to at least nine vehicles, assuming that normal
operating conditions, as seen in Table 25. The total number of vehicles would need to increase to
support continuous service on days under strenuous conditions, where the vehicles could experience
derated performance. The next stage of analysis will build upon route analysis to explore potential for
charging under different scenarios to support the Town’s ZEV transition.
Future Service Characteristics
The Town is currently finalizing a TDP that will likely result in several recommendations to evolve the
Town’s service in the future. These recommendations include incorporating more frequent service, a
longer span of service, and more days of service, along with proposed route changes.
The following improvement is proposed to be piloted during the following for the 2025 service year:
• Expand Town Shuttles (Gold, Silver, Brown, and Blue) to 150 service days up from 75 days (current)
to match the Red Trolley
The following improvements are planned to be piloted in the future:
• Extended daily service hours on Town Shuttles
• Extended daily service hours on the Red Route
• Add a limited winter/holiday service days on the Red Route
• Add an additional vehicle to the Red Route for more frequency and reliability
• Add an additional vehicle to the Brown Route for more frequency
`
72
YEARLY SERVICE SPAN
Future service may see these routes expand service provision as follows in Figure 27. Given that this
recommendation from the 2025 TDP does not extend into seasons of extreme hot or cold weather, or
weather conditions that do not drastically differ from those seen under the current service provision, it
is not anticipated that this change would affect the ZEV transition plans.
Figure 27: Planned 2025 Months of Service Comparison (2025 TDP)
DAILY SERVICE SPAN AND FREQUENCY
The 2025 TDP recommends providing more daily hours of service on the Town Shuttles as well as the
Red Route. This would expand the hours of service for the Town Shuttles from 12 to 14.5 hours (an
increase of 20%), and from 14 to 14.5 hours for the Red Route (Figure 28).
`
73
Figure 28: Expanded Daily Hours of Service (2025 TDP)
To assess the feasibility of conversion of the Town Shuttles to ZEV, future analysis will assume that the
total distance traveled by a single vehicle during the day will increase by 20%. This is expected to have
the largest potential impact on the identification of feasibility for conversion to ZEV technology. An
initial assumption of the increase in daily miles traveled by a vehicle serving a route under this service
expansion follows in Table 26.
Table 26: Expanded Daily Hours of Service Mileage Impacts
ROUTE DAILY DISTANCE
(CURRENT)
ESTIMATED DAILY
DISTANCE
(LONGER HOURS OF
38 40
164 197
192 230
136 163
135 162
`
74
ZERO EMISSION TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION
RECOMMENDATION
Next Steps
Transitioning to a full ZEV fleet presents significant challenges for the Town, particularly regarding range
limitations. To address these issues effectively, this memo recommends a gradual transition to ZEV. This
approach allows for incremental technological improvements that will make vehicles more efficient and
affordable over time. By adopting a phased strategy, the Town and stakeholders can ensure a smoother
and more sustainable shift towards a fully ZEV fleet without disrupting current and future operations.
The next stage of analysis will analyze two charging strategies to address the identified need for a
greatly expanded fleet and to arrive at a recommendation that balances investments in the fleet,
facilities, and operations.
`
75
APPENDIX B: ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY
Public Engagement
The Town completed engagement with the public regarding the Zero Emission Bus Transition Plan at the
Town Farmers Market on June 5th, 2025. Town staff and representatives engaged with hundreds of
members of the public, hearing the following:
- Generally, members of the public support the transition to ZEV technology.
- Approximately 10 members of the public were curious about the details of the transition and
Town representatives provided a detailed explanation.
- Members of the public were concerned about potential increases to their taxes—Town
representatives explained the cost considerations within the plan and funding opportunities to
support the future transition.
- Town representatives distributed approximately 50 informational flyers, included as the next
page within the document.
Stakeholder Engagement
Town staff leading the ZEV transition planning effort created a technical working group of Town Staff
and stakeholders to ensure the plan was comprehensive and built on a broad base of knowledge. The
technical working group convened twice throughout the planning process, once at the conclusion of the
effort to select the most feasible technology and again at the creation of the draft transition plan and
strategy. The working group consisted of Town staff members from the transportation, fleet, community
development, and power divisions, as well as stakeholders such as the school district.
Town representatives were also able to engage with operators currently driving the electric trolleys
owned by the Town. Operators noted the need for the ZEV fleet to be reliable and able to accomplish
the daily demands of the various routes within the Town.
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Memo
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Derek Pastor, Project Manager
Department: Internal Services
Date:
Subject:
Type:
August 26, 2025
Resolution 81-25 Contract with Freedom Homes, LLC for the
Museum Annex Addition Project $358,500 Budgeted
Contract/Agreement, Resolution
Objective:
Consideration by and approval of the Town Board is sought for a contract with Freedom
Homes, LLC for the construction of a 950sqft addition to the Museum Annex for artifact
collection and storage.
Present Situation:
Currently, the Museum Annex does not have adequate physical storage space for its
inventory. In addition, the current Museum Annex space is not equipped with (i) a
concrete pad upon which heavy items are best stored; or (ii) doors adequately sized to
accommodate large items. Some of these items include a baby grand piano, hand-
made fire mitigation chemical cart, and a modified bed of a truck pertinent to the Old
Man Mountain Summer Ski Jump (referred to as the "snow cart"). In order to meet the
Museums current and long-term needs associated with the preservation of and access
to artifacts, a concrete slab addition that includes bay door access would be most
beneficial.
Design services were secured and utilized to develop a design for an addition to the
Museum Annex. An Invitation to Bid for the construction of a Museum Annex addition
was advertised for four weeks, with seven (7) proposals received and opened on
Wednesday, July 31, 2025 (there were 10 attendees at the pre-proposal meeting).
Proposals were evaluated by members of the Internal Services Department, the
Updated by staff on
August 26, 2025
Museum Director and support staff. Included in this report is the summary of those
rankings.
Proposal:
Town staff proposes approval of the Construction Contract with Freedom Homes, LLC
for the construction of the Museum Annex Addition and authorizes the Internal Services
Director to sign, without additional Board action, change orders that total up to but do
not exceed ten percent of the construction contract value within the project budget. The
proposal is below the approved budget. While Freedom Homes is the lowest bidder by
17% compared to the second lowest bidder, staff is comfortable moving forward.
The project will be managed by the Internal Services Department Project Manager
(PM). The PM and General Contractor will have weekly status updates to monitor
progress and address any issues to ensure the timelines and milestones are met. The
PM will also perform daily site visits to monitor progress.
Advantages:
•This additional room will allow increased capacity for historical artifacts relevant to
the Estes Valley.
•Additional artifacts can lead to an increased level of public interest.
Disadvantages:
•There is a significant cost for project (design and construction), but all aspects have
been below the approved budget.
Action Recommended:
Town staff recommends the Town Board approve the attached Construction Contract
with Freedom Homes, LLC in the amount of $358,500 and authorize the Internal
Services Director to spend up to $394,350 under this contract.
Upon approval, the contractor can begin the permitting and submittal process and
ordering of equipment and materials. Construction, which will be weather-dependent, is
anticipated to be complete in late December 2025/early January 2026.
Finance/Resource Impact:
The total Town allocated project funds in the amount of $600,000 are in the Town’s
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Design related expenses totaled $142,372.95, leaving
the remaining available balance for construction related expenses of $457,627.05. The
construction amount proposed is $358,500 ($394,350 with a ten percent contingency).
Future Ongoing Impacts:
•After the one-year warranty period for labor and equipment, the Facilities Division
will coordinate any maintenance or repairs through the General Fund Operating
Budget.
•Daily operations and expenses will be handled by the Museum Staff.
Level of Public Interest:
The level of public interest in the project is expected to be medium. The construction of
the building itself will have minimal public impact, but the increased capacity and
offerings by the Museum could increase visibility and traffic to the Museum.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of r esolution 81-25)
Attachments:
1.1 Resolution 81-25_ Museum Annex Addition
2.2 Construction Contract - Museum Annex Addition_Freedom Homes
3.3 Museum Annex Addition Bid Results and Rankings
4.4. Museum Annex Addition Rendering
RESOLUTION 81-25
APPROVING A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH FREEDOM HOMES, LLC FOR A
MUSEUM ANNEX ADDITION
WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to enter into a construction contract
referenced in the title of this resolution for an addition to the Museum Annex for artifact
storage and collection; and
WHEREAS, the cost of the contract with Freedom Homes LLC is $358,500; and
WHEREAS, the Board intends to authorize the Internal Services Director to sign,
without additional Board action, change orders that total up to but do not exceed ten
percent of the construction contract value within the project budget.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the construction contract
referenced in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before the Board.
The Board authorizes the Internal Services Director to spend up to $394,350 under this
contract.
DATED this day of , 2025.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Town of Estes Park Proposal Summary
Project: Museum Annex Addition
Date: July 31, 2025
Project Budget:
Based Bid Ranking Based on Cumulative Base Bid Base Bid + Project Duration
Classic Contractors 6 7
Dohn Construction 5 1
Freedom Homes 1 2
Growling Bear Co 7 6
Kinley Built 2 5
PG Arnold 4 3
TCC Corp 3 4
Average Cost Average Cost Average Duration
$437,392.43 $457,811.14 102
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jason Fredrick, Water Superintendent
Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director
Department: Utilities Water Division
Date: August 26, 2025
Subject: Consider directing staff to decline our right to
purchase PRPA Windy Gap Water rights
Type: Other:_N/A
Objective:
Staff’s objective is to support Platte River Power Authority’s (PRPA’s) public sale of
water rights to help lower wholesale electric rate pressures.
Present Situation:
PRPA is selling “unfirmed”, i.e., no storage/reservoir to hold it, Windy Gap water units. A
2017 agreement with PRPA gives the Town a Right Of First Refusal (ROFR) to
purchase these water units at market value, a minimum of $4.2 million for each unit of
100 acre-feet.
The Town’s water portfolio does not require additional water rights. The Town’s existing
portfolio includes enough water for the ultimate build-out, which is restricted by
geography, National Forest, and the National Park. The Town’s water portfolio is
detailed in section one of the 2015 Comprehensive Water Master Plan.
Proposal:
Staff proposes the Town Board direct staff to decline to exercise its ROFR to purchase
PRPA’s unfirmed Windy Gap water Units.
Advantages:
●Streamlines PRPA’s sale of these water rights which improves a buyer’s
confidence the purchase transaction will be completed.
●PRPA’s wholesale electric rate pressure will be lowered because the proceeds
from the sale will offset PRPA expenditures.
●Allows the front range municipalities an opportunity to secure water rights for
future needs
Disadvantages:
●None
Action Recommended:
Direct staff to decline to exercise the ROFR.
Finance/Resource Impact:
N/A
Level of Public Interest:
Low
Sample Motion:
This item is on consent. If pulled from consent:
I move for the approval/denial of directing staff to decline our ROFR to purchase Windy
Gap water units from PRPA
Attachments:
1. 2017 Agreement Regarding Exercise of Rights of First Refusal to Acquire Windy
Gap Water Units from Platte River Power Authority
2.2015 Water Master Plan Section 1, Water Rights
Attachment 1
Town of Estes Park Page 7
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
SECTION 1: WATER RIGHTS - SUMMARY OF CURRENT PORTFOLIO AND
CONSIDERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL CHANGES TO
WATER SYSTEM
1. INTRODUCTION
The focus of this Comprehensive Water Master Plan is long term operational reliability, quality and
efficiency. Changes to the water system were evaluated that allow the town to divert water from the Big
Thompson River for treatment at either Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant (GCWTP) or Mary’s Lake
Water Treatment Plant (MLWTP). In support of this evaluation, FEI was asked to review the Town’s
water rights portfolio and consider what adjustments may be required to operate new point(s) of diversion
from the Big Thompson River.
2. WATER RIGHTS PORTFOLIO SUMMARY
The Town’s water rights portfolio as of the date of this report includes a combination of contractual and
direct flow water rights. These water rights are used through GCWTP and MLWTP to supply the Town’s
water service area. Figure 1 presents a map showing the general location of the main components of the
Town’s raw water system and decreed points of diversion of the Town’s water rights.
The Town’s water rights are listed as follows, and detailed further within this report:
Bureau of Reclamation Contract – 500 acre-feet (AF);
Colorado Big Thompson Allotment – 1,217 units (1,217 AF);
Windy Gap Allotment – 3 units (300 AF);
Glacier Creek Pipeline – 2 cubic feet per second (cfs);
Estes Park Town Company Pipeline and Estes Park Water Company Pipeline – 2 cfs total
Estes Park Fall River Cascade Diversion – 1.55 cfs.
2.1. Bureau of Reclamation Contract (“Bureau Water”)
The base of the Town’s water supply is 500 AF of water derived through a contract with the United
States Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Reclamation (“Bureau”). This water is referred to as
the “Bureau Water”. The details of this water supply, including the history, terms and conditions of
the current contract, and potential risks are summarized below.
Attachment 2
Town of Estes Park Page 8
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
This page was left blank intentionally
Date: 2/3/2015 File: DiversionPoints.mxd
TOWN OF ESTESPARKWATERMASTERPLAN
DIVERSION LOCATIONS AND WATER RIGHTS
3Q
3Q
2
2
2
2
2
2!!2
2
Estes ParkSanitationApproximatePointofDischarge Upper ThompsonSanitationApproximatePointofDischarge
Estes ParkCascadeDiversion
GlacierCreekDiversions
PotentialIntakeLocation1
PotentialIntakeLocation2
MarysLakeWaterTreatmentPlantDiversion
LAKE ESTES
MARYSLAKE
FishCreek
BuckCreek
Big ThompsonRiver
BigThompsonRiver
EastForkFishCreek
FishCreek
BeaverBrook
Beaver Brook
BlackCanyonCreek
FallRiver
FallRiver
FallRiver
BigThompson River
AspenBrook
GlacierCreek
MillCreek
WindRiver
LittleThompsonRiver
DryGulch
UV7
UV66
36
34
36
34
36
0 2,000 4,000Feet00.5 1
Miles
2 Diversion Points
Bureau Delivery &
Recording Point
WastewaterDischargePoint
3Q WaterTreatmentPlant
Streams
Lakes
CBT System Line
Town Boundary
Rocky MtnNationalPark
YMCA Boundary
This product is forreferencepurposesonlyandisnottobeconstruedasalegaldocumentorsurveyinstrument.
Annual
Amount
Daily Limit (
mgd)
Annual
Estimated Firm
Yield1
Daily
Estimated
Firm Yield
Point of Use
500 AF 500 AF Marys Lake
WTP4
1,217 AF No daily
mgd limit 608.5 AF2 No daily limit Marys Lake
WTP4
3 Units (
300 AF)
No daily
mgd limit 150 AF3 No daily limit Marys Lake
WTP4
2 cfs 1,448 AF 1.29 mgd Glacier Creek
WTP5
2 cfs 1,448 AF 1.29 mgd Glacier Creek
WTP5
1.55 cfs 1,122 AF 1.0 m gd Fall River6
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Note: 2014 treatment was 1,628 AF, 2034 projection is 2,348 AF
M ust be moved through Water Court.
Water Right Summary Table
Estes Park Cascade
Diversion
Annual volume and maximum day volume requirements must be met. Limitations exist on these
rights which reduce the yield.
608.5 is based on a 50% quota.
Requires "Integrated Operations" in Windy Gap Carriage contract, aka "In lieu program" (40 year
contract signed 19 December 2014).
Annual firm water at Marys WTP is 1,285 AF which is not enough to supply the Town, i.e. Marys
WTP needs additional water to be reliable all year.
M ax daily available water at Glacier WTP is 2.4 mgd, short of future demand, i.e. Glacier WTP
needs additional water & expanded capacity to be reliable all year.
Water Right Name
Bureau of Reclamation
ContractColoradoBigThompson
Allotment
Windy Gap Allotment
Glacier Creek Pipeline
Estes Park Town
Company Pipeline and
Estes Park Water
Company Pipeline
Loveland, CO | 970-667-0501www.invisiongis.com
Town of Estes Park Page 10
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
2.1.1 Bureau Water - Current Contract Terms and Conditions
The 1994 amendatory contract supersedes and replaces the 1939 agreement, and provides for the
following terms and conditions:
The contract provides for annual water supply of 500 AF from November 1 through
October 31, for 25 years after the execution of the contract (until 2019);
The Town has the option to renew the contract for an additional term of 25 years
taking the contract out until 2044) by written request to the Bureau two years prior to
the 2019 expiration (written request due in 2017);
Prior to renewal, all terms and conditions can be renegotiated, excluding the 500 AF
amount, which is not negotiable;
The water is to be delivered and measured at either the Estes Powerplant penstocks or
the Mary’s Lake Powerplant Gatehouse;
A power interference fee will be assessed to the Town based on where the water is
delivered, to compensate for reduced flows through the Bureau’s power plants; and
After the second 25-year period (in 2044), a new contract would need to be negotiated
with the Bureau. At this point there is no guarantee of a 500 AF supply going forward.
The Bureau Water supply is one-time use water that was previously challenged by the Town (and
upheld by the court). Return flows resulting from the one-time use of this supply cannot be
captured for re-use by the town. A summary of the pros, cons, annual yield, and location of
delivery of the Bureau Water is presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Bureau Water Summary of Key Information
Pros Cons
500 AF/year (through 2044).
Not subject to CBT quota.
Low cost.
System already in place for direct
delivery to MLWTP.
Contract renews in 2019 & 2044.
No guarantee of 500 AF yield with 2044 contract
renewal.
Single use water.
Based on current infrastructure, location of delivery
limited to MLWTP.
ANNUAL YIELD: 500 AF/year (Nov 1 – Oct 31)
LOCATION OF DELIVERY: To be delivered and measured at the Estes Powerplant penstocks or the
Mary’s Lake Powerplant Gatehouse
2.2. Colorado Big-Thompson Project Allotment
The Town currently possesses a contract with Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
Northern Water”) for 1,217 units in the CBT Project. The CBT Project, originally constructed by
the Bureau and managed by Northern Water, collects water from the upper Colorado River basin on
the west slope of the continental divide, and delivers it across the divide to the highly populated areas
of Colorado on the east slope. Eighty (80) percent of CBT Project water comes from snowmelt, and a
complex system of reservoirs, pumping plants, tunnels, pipelines, and power plants helps convey the
Town of Estes Park Page 11
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
water across the continental divide. A figure showing the components of the CBT Project is
presented in Figure 1. The Division 5 water rights associated with the CBT Project are listed below
in Table 5.
Table 5. Division 5 Colorado-Big Thompson Project Water Rights
Decree Structure Source Appropriation
Date Amount
CA2782
CBT Alva B Adams
Tunnel
North Fork
Colorado River 8/1/1935 550 cfs
CBT Granby Pump Canal North Fork
Colorado River 8/1/1935 1,100 cfs
CBT Willow Creek Feeder Willow Creek 8/1/1935 400 cfs
CBT Granby Reservoir North Fork
Colorado River 8/1/1935 543,758 AF
CBT Shadow Mtn Grand L North Fork
Colorado River 8/1/1935 19,669 AF
CBT Willow Creek
Reservoir Willow Creek 8/1/1935 10,553 AF
The CBT Project was designed to deliver 310,000 AF to its allottees on an annual basis, and there are
310,000 units of CBT Project water that are contracted by various irrigation, municipal, and industrial
users on the east side of the continental divide. Annually, Northern Water determines the CBT
quota,” which is the percentage of the maximum allotment unit-holders can expect to receive that
year. If the full 310,000 AF of yield is expected, that corresponds to a 100 percent quota and each
stakeholder will receive 1 AF per unit of CBT Project Water. If the quota is 60 percent, only 186,000
AF of yield is expected, and stakeholders will receive 0.6 AF per unit of CBT Project Water.
When the CBT Project was first realized, irrigators made up the vast majority of the stakeholders.
For this reason, the annual quota was determined in April so that the yield was as certain as possible
for the upcoming irrigation season. With more and more municipal and industrial entities obtaining
units of CBT Project Water, in 2002 Northern Water saw fit to issue a conservative initial quota in
November that would allow non-irrigation season users to better predict their CBT yield for the year.
If additional water is to become available after the initial quota, a supplemental quota is offered in
April, and if the quota requires further adjustment, an additional supplemental quota can be applied
after that as well. For example, in 2008 the November quota was 60%, the April quota was 10%, and
there was another supplemental quota in July for 10%, making for a total yearly quota of 80%.
Based on the Town’s ownership of 1,217 units of CBT Project Water, this ownership could
theoretically amount to 1,217 AF/yr but a 100% yearly quota has only occurred 10 times dating back
to the beginning of the project in 1957. The average quota over the lifetime of the project has been
74% and the lowest quota was 50% and occurred in 1983, 1990, 1996, 1998 and 2003. Based on this
information, it would be reasonable to expect the Town’s interest in CBT Project Water to be worth
between 608.5-1,217 AF/yr.
CBT Project Water is considered one-time use water. Return flows resulting from the one-time use of
this supply cannot be captured for re-use by the town. A summary of the pros, cons, annual yield, and
location of delivery of the CBT Project Water is presented in Table 6.
Town of Estes Park Page 12
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
Table 6. 1,217 CBT Project Units Summary of Key Information
Pros Cons
Senior water rights.
Low cost.
Excess water can be rented and/ or transferred.
System already in place for direct delivery to
MLWTP.
Annual yield is variable.
Single use water.
Based on current infrastructure, location
of delivery limited to MLWTP.
ANNUAL YIELD: 608.5 – 1,217 AF/year (Nov 1 – Oct 31)
LOCATION OF DELIVERY: Currently delivered and measured at Mary’s Lake Powerplant Gatehouse
2.3. Windy Gap Project Allotment
The Town was one of the original participants in the Windy Gap Project, and currently possesses 3
units with a maximum yield of 300 AF. The Windy Gap Project consists of a diversion dam on the
Colorado River, a 445 AF reservoir, pumping plant, and six-mile pipeline to Lake Granby. Windy
Gap water is stored in Lake Granby before it is delivered to water users via the CBT distribution
system. The Division 5 water rights associated with the Windy Gap project are listed below in Table
7.
Table 7. Division 5 Windy Gap Project Water Rights
Decree Structure Source Appropriation
Date Amount
CA1768 Windy Gap Pump PL Canal Colorado River 6/22/1967 300 cfs
conditional)
W-4001 Windy Gap Pump PL Canal Colorado River 7/9/1976 100 cfs
conditional)
80CW108 Windy Gap Pump PL Canal Colorado River 4/30/1980 200 cfs
conditional
89CW0298 Windy Gap Pump PL Canal Colorado River -- 600 cfs
absolute)
CA1768 Windy Gap Reservoir Colorado River 6/22/1967 1,546.14 AF
conditional)
88CW169 Windy Gap Reservoir Colorado River -- 445.00 AF
absolute)
The Windy Gap Project was designed to deliver an average of 48,000 AF/yr to participants, but if
Lake Granby is full, Windy Gap water is the first to spill from the reservoir. This can lead to Windy
Gap supplies being unreliable during wet years or any other time when Lake Granby is approaching
full capacity. The existing Windy Gap Reservoir was not intended for water storage, but acts as a
forebay for water before it is pumped to Lake Granby. The permits and legal decrees for the project
permit it to divert a maximum of 90,000 AF/yr, and Northern Water is attempting to firm up Windy
Gap supplies with the proposed Windy Gap Firming Project, which would include the proposed
90,000 AF Chimney Hollow Reservoir that is exclusively for storing Windy Gap Project water.
There are a total of 480 units of Windy Gap water. Each unit corresponds to 100 AF of potential
yield. The Town owns 3 units, or 300 AF maximum yield, of the total. At the present time, the
supply of Windy Gap is not firm. The Town’s interest in Windy Gap is presently worth 300 AF on an
annual basis. Until Chimney Hollow Reservoir is built there is potential a potential reduction in the
300 AF.
Town of Estes Park Page 13
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
Windy Gap water is considered reusable. Provided the Town can maintain dominion and control of
return flows, those return flows can be utilized by the Town for other decreed uses. The return flows
are at the two sewer district plant discharges. A summary of the pros, cons, annual yield, and location
of delivery of the Windy Gap water is presented in Table 8.
Table 8. 3 Units Windy Gap Summary of Key Information
Pros Cons
Senior water rights.
Fully consumable source.
Excess water can be rented and/ or transferred.
System already in place for direct delivery to
MLWTP.
Annual yield is variable.
Based on current infrastructure, location
of delivery limited to MLWTP.
High cost.
ANNUAL YIELD: 0* – 300 AF/year (Nov 1 – Oct 31)
When the carriage contract for Integrated Operations is finalized, the firm yield of the Windy Gap source of water
will increase to approximately 150 AF/YR.
LOCATION OF DELIVERY: Currently delivered and measured at Mary’s Lake Powerplant Gatehouse
2.4. Glacier Creek Pipeline Direct Flow Right
A water right for the Glacier Creek Pipeline was adjudicated on November 14, 1939 in Civil Action
No. 10077. Water rights for Estes Park Town Company Pipeline and Estes Park Water Company
Pipeline Extension were also decreed in this general adjudication.
In CA 10077, the Town of Estes Park was awarded a conditional water right for the Glacier Creek
Pipeline in the amount of 2 cfs for domestic and irrigation purposes. The appropriation date for the
Glacier Creek Pipeline water right is May 20, 1925. It is our understanding that the Glacier Creek
Pipeline conditional water right was made absolute on April 15, 1942. A summary of the decree
information for the Glacier Creek Pipeline direct flow water right is presented in Table 8.
Relative to other water rights in the South Platte Basin, the water right for Glacier Creek Pipeline is
relatively junior. To maximize the use of this water right as a source of water for the Town of Estes
Park, the Glacier Creek Pipeline water right was included in the Town of Estes Park Augmentation
Plan, decreed in Case 97CW0126. The details of this augmentation plan are described in further
detail below.
2.5. Estes Park Cascade Diversion Direct Flow Right
Case No. 90CW206 appropriated an absolute water right for the Estes Park Cascade Diversion
priority, as well as a 3.45 cfs conditional water right for an enlargement. Diligence for the 3.45 cfs
conditional water right was established in Case No. 98CW244. No diligence was filed subsequent to
Case No. 98CW244 and it is our understanding that this conditional water right has been abandoned.
The source of water for the Estes Park Cascade Diversion is Fall River. The absolute water right in
the amount of 1.55 cfs has an adjudication date of December 31, 1990 and an appropriation date of
December 31, 1959. The decreed uses for the Estes Park Cascade Diversion water right are all
municipal uses, including irrigation of golf courses and parks and other lands served by the Town’s
municipal water system, firefighting, domestic, commercial, industrial and piscatorial. A summary of
the decree information for the Estes Park Cascade Diversion direct flow water right is presented in
Table 8.
Town of Estes Park Page 14
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
Relative to other water rights in the South Platte Basin, the water right for Estes Park Cascade
Diversion is very junior. The Estes Park Cascade Diversion is included as an “exchange to point” in
the Town of Estes Park Augmentation Plan, decreed in Case 97CW0126. The details of this
augmentation plan are described in further detail below. Based on our review of the publically
available information related to Estes Park Cascade Diversion, it does not appear that an alternate
point of diversion has been decreed for this water right.
2.6. Estes Park Town Company Pipeline and Estes Park Water Company Pipeline Extension
Direct Flow Rights
The Estes Park Town Company Pipeline was originally decreed for irrigation and domestic use in the
amount of 2.00 cfs in Civil Action No. 10077; having an adjudication date of November 14, 1939 and
an appropriation date of September 25, 1905. The source of water for the original adjudication of the
Estes Park Town Company Pipeline was Black Canyon Creek, a tributary of the Big Thompson
River.
The Estes Park Water Company Pipeline Extension was originally decreed for irrigation and domestic
use in the amount of 1.73 cfs in Civil Action No. 10077; having an adjudication date of November 14,
1939 and an appropriation date of November 9, 1911. The source of water for the original
adjudication of the Estes Park Town Company Pipeline was Black Canyon Creek, a tributary of the
Big Thompson River.
A summary of the original decree information for Estes Park Town Company Pipeline and Estes Park
Water Company Pipeline Extension direct flow water rights is presented in Table 9.
The Town of Estes Park Augmentation Plan, decreed in Case 97CW0126, included a change of water
rights for the Estes Park Town Company Pipeline and the Estes Park Water Company Pipeline
Extension water rights. The changes decreed for these water rights in Case 97CW0126 included a
change in point of diversion to the Glacier Creek Pipeline on Glacier Creek and a reduction in the
total amount of diversion under the two rights to be limited to 2.00 cfs. The use of these water rights
in the Town of Estes Park Augmentation Plan is further described below.
Table 9. Decree Information for Park Direct Flow Water Rights
Name WDID Source Adjudication
Date
Appropriation
Date Decreed Use Amount
Glacier
Creek
Pipeline
0400648 Glacier
Creek 11/14/1939 5/20/1925 Domestic, Irrigation 2.0 cfs
Estes Park
Cascade
Diversion
0400700 Fall
River 12/31/1959 12/31/1959
Municipal purposes,
including irrigation of
golf courses and parks
and other lands served
by the Town’s
municipal water
system, firefighting,
domestic, commercial,
industrial and
piscatorial”.
1.55 cfs
Estes Park
Town 0400564
Black
Canyon
Creek
11/14/1939 9/25/1905
Domestic, irrigation,
and “manufacturing and
mechanical uses
2.0 cfsa/
Town of Estes Park Page 15
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
Name WDID Source Adjudication
Date
Appropriation
Date Decreed Use Amount
Company
Pipeline
ordinarily made of a
municipal water
supply”
Estes Park
Water
Company
Pipeline
Extension
0400661
Black
Canyon
Creek
11/14/1939 11/9/1911
Domestic, irrigation,
and “manufacturing and
mechanical uses
ordinarily made of a
municipal water
supply”
1.73 cfsa/
a/ Per Case No. 97CW0126, the total diversion amount under these two rights is limited to 2.00 cfs.
3. AUGMENTATION PLAN - CASE NO. 97CW0126
The direct flow water rights owned by the Town of Estes Park are junior relative to downstream water
rights on the South Platte River. As such, these water rights alone do not provide a reliable municipal
supply. In 1997, the Town of Estes Park filed an application in Water Court for an augmentation plan that
would allow the Town to continue taking delivery of its direct flow water rights even when being curtailed
by downstream senior water rights in Division 1.
The Town of Estes Park Augmentation Plan, decreed in Case No. 97CW0126, allows for three separate
claims. Together, these three claims allow for the Town to divert native water out -of-priority for municipal
use and replace any depletions so that downstream water rights are not injured. The three components
included in Case No. 97CW0126 are:
A change of water rights for Estes Park Town Company Pipeline and the Estes Park Water
Company Pipeline Extension,
A plan for augmentation, and
A conditional right of substitution and exchange.
The water district identifier used by the State Engineer’s Office to track the Town of Estes Park
Augmentation Plan is 0407000.
As described above, the change of water rights for Estes Park Town Company Pipeline and the Estes Park
Water Company Pipeline Extension included a change in point of diversion to the Glacier Creek Pipeline
on Glacier Creek and a reduction in the total amount of diversion under the two rights to be limited to 2.00
cfs. The decree in Case No. 97CW0126 includes a number of terms and conditions relating to this change
of water right, including but not limited to:
The total amount of diversion of the water rights will not exceed 2.00 cfs,
The in-priority diversion of the two water rights will be made exclusively at the Glacier Creek point
of diversion and not at the original points of diversion, and
Diversion of the water rights at the Glacier Creek point of diversion is to be limited to the amount
of water physically available in priority at the original points of diversion.
The plan for augmentation decreed in Case No. 97CW0126 is the crux of the Town’s municipal water
supply operations; the plan allows for diversions of native water through the Town’s water system at times
Town of Estes Park Page 16
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
when those diversions would otherwise be out of priority. The source of augmentation water for the Town’s
Augmentation Plan is the Town’s Windy Gap Project water. There are some specific aspects of the
augmentation plan worth noting:
When the direct flow water rights are diverted out-of-priority, the amount of water the Town must
replace is calculated as the product of the out-of-priority diversion and the monthly depletion factor
shown in Table 9.
Table 10. Depletion Factors Decreed in the Town's Augmentation Plan
Jan 6% Jul 13%
Feb 6% Aug 11%
Mar 6% Sep 10%
Apr 7% Oct 8%
May 12% Nov 6%
Jun 17% Dec 6%
When diverting out-of-priority, the Town is required to maintain accounting showing the daily
diversion and replacement requirements. At the end of each month the Town is to transfer an
amount of Windy Gap water equal to the out-of-priority depletion for the past month. However,
during the period of June 1st through September 30th of each year, at the request of the Water
Commissioner, the Town shall transfer the amount of Windy Gap water equal to the daily out-of-
priority depletion on a daily basis.
On average, the depletion factor for the Town’s replacement requirement is 9%; meaning, for every
1 AF diverted out-of-priority, the Town must use 0.09 AF of Windy Gap water to satisfy the
replacement requirements. Applying the same logic, an allocation of 200 AF of Windy Gap water
would allow for the out-of-priority diversion of approximately 2,222 AF.
Whenever the calling water right is decreed to the Foothills Conduit, the Town must provide
replacement water from sources that deliver to the Big Thompson River upstream of the diversion
point for the Foothills Conduit;
The third component of Case No. 97CW0126 is the exchange. The exchange exists so that Windy Gap
Project water delivered at either of the two points described above can be exchanged for diversions taking
place at the Town’s intakes. The exchange was decreed as a conditional water right at a maximum rate of
6.2 cfs with an appropriation date of March 31, 1997. The exchange from points include the Estes Park
Sanitation District Wastewater Treatment Plant outfall and the Upper Thompson Sanitation District outfall.
The exchange to points are the Estes Water Park Systems Intakes (any of the diversion points identified
above).
4. TOWN LEASES TO OTHER WATER USERS
In considering the supply of water that the Town of Estes Park has available to meet its municipal demand
it is important to consider the commitments that the Town has made to supply water to other entities. The
Town currently leases a portion of its water supplies to other water users. Because the source of supply for
these commitments is Windy Gap water, and Windy Gap water is fully consumable, these leases can be
satisfied by direct delivery of Windy Gap water or second use of the Windy Gap supply. Second use of the
Windy Gap supply is the return flow component of Windy Gap water delivered through the Town’s
municipal water supply system. A summary of these leases is provided below in Table 11.
Town of Estes Park Page 17
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
Table 11. Town Leases of Water Supplies to Other Users
Entity Source Amount Expiration Date Terms
Cheley Colorado
Camps, Inc.
Windy Gap
Project 8 AF December 31, 2032
Released monthly from Lake
Estes or by exchange at MLWTP
May - Oct
Continental Water
Bank, Inc.
Windy Gap
Project 8 AF September 27,
2025
Released by exchange in May
Requires coordination w/
NCWCD
Glacier View
Water System,
Inc.
Windy Gap
Project 1 AF December 2, 2023
Released by exchange in May
Requires coordination w/
NCWCD
Mary’s Lake
Campground Well
Windy Gap
Project 1 AF September 27,
2031
Released monthly from Lake
Estes or by exchange at MLWTP
May – Oct
5. HISTORY OF WATER USE
For the purpose of administering the Town’s augmentation plan in Case 97CW0126, an accounting form
was prepared. Among other things, this accounting form tracks the amount of water delivered to the water
treatment plants for treatment and the amount of Bureau Water, Windy Gap water, and CBT water used by
the Town.
Table 11 and Figure 2 below present the annual amount of water delivered for treatment at the two water
treatment plants in the Town of Estes Park, MLWTP and GCWTP. The ramp up between 2004 and 2006
is likely the delayed response of water demand increasing following the 2002 drought. Since 2006, the
demand for water and therefore the amount of water delivered to the Town’s treatment plants has ranged
from 1,500 AF/year to 1,646 AF/year.
Table 12. Delivery of Water to MLWTP and GCWTP
2004 749.3 706.5 1,455.8
2005 592.4 992.7 1,585.1
2006 653.4 1,015.6 1,669.0
2007 617.9 1,031.5 1,649.4
2008 626.0 992.9 1,618.9
2009 235.1 1,272.7 1,507.8
2010 816.3 792.3 1,608.6
2011 1,130.4 493.1 1,623.6
2012 649.2 996.8 1,646.0
2013 806.6 772.9 1,579.5
2014 802.7 830.7 1,633.4
Town of Estes Park Page 18
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
Figure 2. Estes Park Annual WTP Delivery
Table 13 and Figure 3 below present the annual use of Bureau Water, Windy Gap water, and CBT sources.
With the exception of 2009, when the MLWTP was offline for construction, the Town relies upon the
Bureau Water as the main source of supply at MLWTP
Table 13. Annual Use of Bureau Water, Windy Gap Water, and CBT Water
Irrigation
Year
Bureau Water
AF)
Windy Gap Water
AF)
CBT Sources
AF)
Sum of Bureau Water,
Windy Gap, and CBT
AF)
2004 500.2 90.7 159.9 750.8
2005 488.0 108.1 22.4 618.5
2006 500.1 163.9 38.0 702.0
2007 500.0 123.2 22.1 645.3
2008 500.3 126.4 27.5 654.2
2009 162.2 128.2 0.0 290.4
2010 500.1 92.4 223.1 815.6
2011 499.1 30.9 549.7 1,079.6
2012 500.0 84.3 104.0 688.3
2013 499.8 90.8 254.4 845.0
2014 499.9 69.4 232.9 802.3
Average 468.2 100.8 148.5 717.5
Town of Estes Park Page 19
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
Figure 3. Annual Use of Bureau Water, Windy Gap Water, and CBT Water
As described above, in an average year the Bureau Water, Windy Gap water, and CBT water could yield
approximately 1,552 AF (assumes 500 AF for Bureau Water, 200 AF for Windy Gap, and 852 AF for CBT
supply). This number represents the average annual amount of water that could be available for treatment
at MLWTP. Between 2004 and 2013, the average annual amount of water treated at the MLWTP was 717.5
AF/year. Based on the average annual supply of the Bureau Water, Windy Gap water, and CBT water,
there could be as much as an additional 835 AF or water available for treatment at MLWTP. This analysis
does not consider the treatment capacity of MLWTP or available capacity in the distribution system served
by MLWTP.
6. CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE USE
To address future water demands in Estes Valley, the Town is considering construction of a new point of
delivery off the Big Thompson River. The purposes of the new point of delivery would be to provide
redundancy in the system and allow for sources traditionally treated at GCWTP to be able to be treated at
MLWTP, and vis-versa, for sources traditionally treated at MLWTP to be able to be treated at GCWTP.
Based on our review of the Town’s water rights, the following is a list of items that should be further
considered as part of the investigation into this change.
According to the November 23, 1994 Amendatory Contract, it appears that the Bureau Water is to
be delivered and measured at either the Estes Powerplant penstocks or the Mary’s Lake
Powerplant Gatehouse. Other than delivering and measuring at either of these points, there do
not appear to be any limits on the place of treatment for the water. It is our recommendation that
the Town obtain a legal opinion as to if the Bureau Water can be treated at GCWTP if it is first
measured at one of the two delivery points.
If Bureau Water can be treated at GCWTP, two mechanisms to get the water to a new point of
delivery would be exchange or trade. Based on our review of the decree entered in Case
97CW0126, it is not clear if the Bureau Water or the CBT water can be used in the exchange
decreed in 97CW0126. If these sources of water cannot be used in the existing exchange, a new
water court case could be filed that would allow for the exchange of Bureau Water and CBT
water up to the Glacier Creek pipeline diversion or a new point of diversion off Big Thompson
Town of Estes Park Page 20
Comprehensive Water Master Plan
River. In the alternative, the Town, in connection with NCWCD, may be able to structure a trade
whereby NCWCD would make water available to the Town in Glacier Creek or Big Thompson
Creek upstream of the future point of diversion and the Town would then make water available to
NCWCD in Lake Estes. Provided NCWCD has a source of water it can reliably make available
to the Town upstream of the Town’s point of diversion, such a trade may be able to operate
without a water court proceeding.
The locations of the new points of delivery off the Big Thompson River currently being
considered are within the exchange reach conditionally decreed in Case 97CW0126. In
reviewing the final decree in this case, it is not clear if water can be diverted be exchange at point
that is in between the decreed exchange-to and exchange-from point. It is our recommendation
that the Town obtain a legal opinion on this matter.
Based on our review of the final decree in Case 97CW0126, it appears that the exchange utilized
by the Town was decreed as conditional and never made absolute. Based on accounting reviewed
in support of this analysis, it appears that the exchange has been operating since at least 2009. It
is our recommendation that the Town obtain a legal opinion as to the status of the exchange.
Prior to filing any water court application for a new alternate point of diversion for the Town’s
existing portfolio of water rights, a legal opinion should be obtained concerning the potential for
re-quantification of the water rights and the impact such re-quantification could have on the
Town’s existing decreed augmentation plan.
Larimer County Transportation
Town of Estes Park -August 26, 2025
TRANSPORTATION
Larimer County Transportation Priorities
Ensuring safety, resiliency, and
efficient mobility for travelers
•Nearly 900 miles of County roads and 421
bridges are used daily
•Local and regional access is essential for the
safety and wellbeing of our communities
•Many bridges are over 50 years old and fail
to meet current travel demands and safety
requirements
•Investing sooner saves on replacement costs
•Funds would allow county to match funds and
work with partners
Insert Picture Here
TRANSPORTATION
Safety Action and Transportation Plan
Safety Action Plan
•Adopted April 14, 2025
Transportation Plan
•Initially approved July 28 (BCC) –final
approvals in early September
TRANSPORTATION
Vision and Goals
Our vision is to secure long-term funding
that supports a safe and strong
transportation network. Efforts include
maintaining infrastructure, promoting a
range of transportation choices, ensuring
access, improving quality of life, and
connecting our region effectively.
TRANSPORTATION
Focus on Unincorporated County
The plan prioritizes transportation
needs within unincorporated
Larimer County, specifically
focusing on mainline County
Roads that are under County
jurisdiction and maintenance
responsibility –for:
-Roadway improvements
-Bicycle and pedestrian network
-Transit
TRANSPORTATION
Hundreds of Safety & Roadway Projects
Countywide (Estes Area)
•Improve congested roadways
•Enhance safety and mobility
Estes Area: Shoulders/Bike Improvements:
•CR 43 (Devil’s Gulch)
•CR 61 (Dry Gulch)
•CR 63 (Fish Creek)
•CR 67E (Riverside)
•CR 65 (Peakview)
•CR 63 (Fish Creek)
•CR 67W (High Drive)
•CR 69B (Tunnel Road)
Paving:
•CR 51B (Dunraven)
•CR 122 (Pole Hill)
Intersections:
•CR 13 & CR 30
•US 36 & CR 63
Bustang US 36
Safety Action
TRANSPORTATION
Roadway & Bike/Ped Improvements, Transit
•Roadway improvements including
addition or widening, intersections,
paving
•Climbing Shoulders on Mountain
Corridors
•Off-Street Shared Use Paths
•Transit strategies to coordinate
Roadway Bicycle & Pedestrian
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
Financial Snapshot -$650M Shortfall
Without the Sales and Use Tax
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
Community Outreach This Year
•Surveyed over 1,300 residents (March) and 1,600
(July)
•Met with over 30 stakeholders from across the County
•Launched an interactive informational website
•Shared information through social media and other
channels
•Met with and spoke with organizations and groups
(e.g., Windsor, Berthoud, Chambers, Fort Collins)
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
Informational Website: Invest in Larimer
•Full list of projects
•FAQs
•Factsheet
•Survey resultsInvestinLarimer.co
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
Aug. 12, 2025 Action
Board of County Commissioners approved:
-a Resolution describing a proposal for a 0.15% county-
wide transportation sales and use tax to fund road and
bridge and other transportation infrastructure
improvements focused on safety, congestion,
maintenance, and mobility
-referring a ballot issue to the 2025 Coordinated
Election Ballot
-calling an election
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
On the Ballot for November 2025
SHALL LARIMER COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED $17,400,000 ANNUALLY (ESTIMATED
FIRST FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE STARTING IN 2026), AND BY ANY ADDITIONAL
AMOUNT AS MAY BE RAISED EACH YEAR THEREAFTER, FOR A PERIOD OF 15 YEARS
THROUGH A 0.15% (15 CENTS ON 100 DOLLARS) COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION
SALES AND USE TAX, NOT APPLYING TO SALES OF FOOD FOR HOME CONSUMPTION,
GASOLINE, DIAPERS, PRESCRIPTION DRUGS AND OTHER ITEMS, FOR THE PURPOSES
OF:
•SAFER ROADS, BRIDGES, AND INTERSECTIONS, FOR MOTORISTS, PEDESTRIANS
AND CYCLISTS;
•BETTER MOBILITY AND RELIABILITY FOR ALL TRAVELERS;
•CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TRANSPORTATION
SYSTEM AS DESCRIBED IN THE ADOPTED COUNTY TRANSPORTATION PLAN AS
MAY BE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AFTER PUBLIC HEARING;
AND SHALL THE COUNTY BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND ALL
PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX WITHOUT LIMITATION BY ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS’ RESOLUTION REFERRING THIS BALLOT ISSUE APPROVED AUGUST
12, 2025?
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
➢Sales and use tax of 0.15%
•Voters would decide in November
•15 cents for every $100 purchased (excluding
groceries and other essentials)
•Would generate $15 million annually to cover
our immediate and priority transportation needs
through the next 15 years (sunsets)
➢Without funds -cuts
•Cutting essential transportation projects would
have both immediate and long-term impacts on
roads and bridges including cuts to safety, traffic
mitigation, road improvement projects, etc.
Voters Decide
Thank you! Questions?
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: David Greear, Public Works Director
Department: Public Works Department
Date: August 26, 2025
Subject: Resolution 82-25 Eighth Modification to the Reimbursable Agreement
(DTFH68-14-E-00004) with the Central Federal Lands Highway Division of
the Federal Highway Administration for the Downtown Estes Loop Project
Type: Resolution
Objective:
Public Works staff seek Town Board approval of Resolution 82-25 which amends the
period of performance contained in the existing Reimbursable Agreement (RA) with
Central Federal Lands Highway Division for the Downtown Estes Loop (DEL).
Present Situation:
In 2014 the Town, Central Federal Land Highway Division (CFLHD), Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT), and Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP)
entered into agreements to fund, design, and construct roadway and bridge
improvements to Elkhorn Avenue, Moraine Avenue, and West Riverside Avenue to
improve access to RMNP by reducing traffic congestion in downtown Estes Park.
These improvements were to be funded by a Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP)
grant and CDOT Responsible Acceleration of Maintenance and Partnerships (“RAMP”)
funds. Construction of the project was expected to occur in 2016.
Community controversy and a lengthy process for acquiring additional rights of way for
the project delayed construction to 2018, then to 2021. New Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) modeling and mapping procedures for the revised
floodplains within the project (triggered by the 2013 flood) further delayed submittal of
FEMA floodplain permit applications which delayed the projected construction period to
2022/2023.
In 2019 and 2020, CDOT acquired and demolished multiple commercial and residential
buildings on eight parcels to provide sufficient area to construct the realignment of W.
Riverside Avenue and a new bridge over the Big Thompson River for this project. Also
in early 2020, the Town requested additional revisions to the Memorandum of
Agreement (MoA) and RA to clarify refinements to the project scope, costs, schedule,
and funding responsibility. The Town also requested the insertion of a Taxpayer Bill of
Rights (TABOR) clause to confirm in writing that the MoA obligations comply with the
provisions of this state law.
In 2022, the Town and CFLHD signed Modification 3 to the MoA which capped the
Town’s contribution to the DEL at $1.5M.
Seven modifications to the Reimbursable Agreement (RA) have been approved since
2015. Construction of the project commenced in February 2023 and was substantially
completed in October 2024.
Proposal:
CFLHD requests Town approval of Modification #008 which extends the RA’s period of
performance to December 31, 2027.
Advantages:
This additional time extension is needed to complete the Letter of Map Revision
required by FEMA for the construction work done along the Big Thompson River.
CFLHD has agreed to manage this effort and is expected to pay 83% to 100% of the
cost. CFLHD may ask the Town to contribute 17.21% of the cost per the Memorandum
of Agreement. Such contribution is estimated to be around $50,000 and could be paid
with 1% sales tax funds collected for stormwater management if required.
Disadvantages:
• Ongoing public conversations about this project may reignite negative sentiment
toward the project for some community members.
• Extending the RA extends the time during which CFLHD may ask the Town to
share additional costs associated with the DEL.
Action Recommended:
Public Works staff recommend approval of Modification #008 to the RA.
Finance/Resource Impact:
This is a no-cost modification.
Level of Public Interest:
Staff expects a low level of public interest in this item.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 82-25.
Attachments:
1. Resolution 82-25
2. Modification #008 to Reimbursable Agreement DTFH68-14-E-00004
RESOLUTION 82-25
APPROVING THE EIGHTH MODIFICATION TO THE REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENT
WITH THE CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION OF THE FEDERAL
HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION FOR THE DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Town Board desires to amend the existing intergovernmental
agreement referenced in the title of this resolution (amending Reimbursable Agreement
DTFH68-14-E-00004) for the purpose of extending the period of performance for the
Downtown Estes Loop project; and
WHEREAS, this Modification #008 extends the Agreement’s period of
performance to December 31, 2027. This is a no cost modification.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the intergovernmental
agreement referenced in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before
the Board.
DATED this day of , 2025.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Attachment 1
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Lands Highway
AGREEMENT
DTFH68-14-E-00004
Modification #008
CO FLAP 36(1) Downtown Estes Park Loop
PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT
Reimbursing Organization Organization to be Reimbursed
Town of Estes Park, Colorado Federal Highway Administration
Central Federal Lands Highway Division
12300 West Dakota Ave
Lakewood, CO 80228
DUNS: 078355450 DUNS Number: 126129936
UEI (Unique Entity Identifier). UEI: TNG9SCVNCUW5
POINTS OF CONTACT FOR THE AGREEMENT
Reimbursing Organization Organization to be Reimbursed
Finance Point of Contact Finance Point of Contact
Name: Tammy Zimmerman Name: Suzanne Schmidt
Address: PO Box 1200 Address: 12300 West Dakota Ave
Estes Park, CO 80517 Lakewood, CO 80228
Phone: 970-577-3560 Phone: 720-963-3356
E-mail:tzimmermann@estes.orq E-mail: Suzanne.schmidt@dot.qov
Reimbursing Organization Organization to be Reimbursed
Program Point of Contact Program Point of Contact
Name: David Greear Name: Tammy Eggers
Address: PO Box 1200 Address: 12300 West Dakota Ave
Estes Park, CO 80517 Lakewood, CO 80228
Phone: 970-577-3581 Phone: 720-963-3687
E-mail: dqreear@estes.orq E-mail:tammy.eaaers@dot.qov
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE LEGAL AUTHORITY
From: March 12, 2014
To: Ser;itember 30, 2025 December 31, 2027
23 U.S.C. 201 and 204
TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT PAYMENT TERMS AND SCHEDULE
Original Total Agreement Amount: $4,200,000.00 EFT
Administrative Modification #001: $0.00
Administrative Modification #002: $0.00
Modification #003: $0.00
Modification #004: $0.00
Modification #005: $500,000.00
Modification #006: -($500,000.00)
Modification #007: $0.00
Modification #008: 0.00
Total Agreement Amount: $4,200,000.00
DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND DELIVERABLES
This Modification (#008) extends the Agreement's period of performance to December 31, 2027. This is a no
cost modification.
AUTHORIZED APPROVALS
For Reimbursing Organization For Organization to be Reimbursed
Signature Date
Signature Date
Contracting Officer
Revised 3/201 0
Attachment 2
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Steve Careccia, Director
Department: Community Development
Date: August 26, 2025
Subject: Ordinance 15-25 Temporarily suspending certain provisions of Chapter
17.66 of the Estes Park Municipal Code to regulate rather than prohibit
feather flag signs
Type: Public Hearing, Ordinance
Objective:
Town Board will consider adoption of Ordinance 15-25 approving a temporary
suspension of regulations pertaining to feather flags so that they may be temporarily
allowed under certain conditions.
Present Situation:
Municipal Code §17.66.060(8) states that wind signs shall not be permitted, erected, or
maintained in the Town. Wind signs are defined as “…a sign consisting on [sic] one (1)
or more pennants, ribbons, spinners, streamers or captive balloons, or other objects or
materials fastened in such a manner as to move upon being subjected to pressure by
wind or breeze, but does not include flags, supplemental or special event temporary
signs (Section 17.66.040).
At least two businesses in Town have requested that the Town Board review this
prohibition, citing the efficacy of wind signs in attracting business (feather flags in
particular). As such, a study session with the Town Board was held on August 12, 2025,
where the Board directed staff to specifically allow feather flags until the adoption of the
updated Development Code.
Proposal:
As proposed within the draft ordinance, regulations prohibiting the use of feather flag
wind signs would be temporarily suspended until December 31, 2026, which date
should coincide with the adoption of the updated Development Code. During this time
period, feather flags meeting the proposed definition and criteria established within the
draft ordinance would be permitted. Proposed criteria include allowing one feather flag
per lot, including the feather flag within overall sign calculations, limiting feather flag
height to 12 feet, and requiring a minimum sign setback of 12 feet from any street, alley,
or sidewalk. Feather flags would still be prohibited within all residential zoning districts
as well as within the Downtown Commercial zoning district. There would be no fee or
permit required for feather flags.
During this temporary suspension of regulations pertaining to feather flags, staff will be
working with the consultant to comprehensively address signage with the Development
Code update.
Advantages:
•Businesses would be provided with an additional advertising opportunity, at a
lower cost compared to permanent signage.
Disadvantages:
•Feather flags are prone to damage from the elements, especially wind, and thus
can quickly become visually unappealing. As such, aesthetics may become an
issue if these signs are not property maintained/replaced.
•Feather flags can be visually impactful and distracting.
•But criteria limiting the number of allowed signs, requiring those signs to be
located a certain distance from the public right-of-way, and prohibiting such signs
in residential and downtown areas can help mitigate such disadvantages.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends the Town Board adopt Ordinance 15-25 temporarily allowing feather
flags pursuant to the criteria established within the Ordinance.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None.
Level of Public Interest:
Moderate.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Ordinance 15-25.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance 15-25
ORDINANCE NO. 15-25
AN ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 17.66 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO TEMPORARILY
REGULATE RATHER THAN PROHIBIT FEATHER FLAG SIGNS
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has
determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to amend certain sections of the
Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, to temporarily allow feather flag
wind signs in certain areas, and to provide regulations for the duration they are allowed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The prohibition of wind signs under section 17.66.060(8) of the
Municipal Code is temporarily suspended to the extent described in this Ordinance.
Section 2: The suspension applies only to feather flag signs, defined as follows:
Feather flag means a freestanding, temporary fabric sign intended to be
inserted directly into the ground or into a mounting device that sits on the
ground, often with a feather-like shape. Other common names for feather
flags include blade flags, sail flags, quill flags, flutter flags, feather banners,
teardrop banners, and sail banners. (see figure below)
Section 3: During the period of suspension, feather flags shall be exempt from the
requirement of a sign permit in section 17.66.041(a).
Section 4: The suspension shall not apply within any residential zoning district, nor
the Downtown Commercial district.
Section 5: For the duration of the suspension, feather flags shall meet the following
requirements, which shall be considered part of chapter 17.66. Violation of any of the
following shall be considered a violation of the Municipal Code and subject to enforcement
under section 17.66.230:
Attachment 1
a. No lot may contain more than one feather flag.
b. Feather flags shall be included in calculations of maximum signage
or sign area for the purposes of other code provisions, and shall be
considered freestanding signs.
c. No feather flag may exceed 12 feet in height.
d. No feather flag may stand closer than 12 feet to any street, alley, or
sidewalk.
Section 6: All other provisions of the Municipal Code and Development Code
relevant to signs or structures, or which are pertinent by their own terms, shall apply to
feather flags.
Section 7: This suspension shall be effective through December 31, 2026, unless
earlier terminated or extended by the Board of Trustees. Upon conclusion of the
suspension, all feather flags will once again be prohibited and must be removed. This
Ordinance shall establish no right or expectation that a feather flag may remain on any
property within the Town beyond the period of the suspension, and no right or expectation
that the suspension will ultimately be of any particular duration.
Section 8: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this ____ day of _______________, 2025.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board
of Trustees on the day of ______, 2025 and published by title in a
newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the __ day
of _________, 2025, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. 15-25
AN ORDINANCE TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 17.66 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE TO TEMPORARILY
REGULATE RATHER THAN PROHIBIT FEATHER FLAG SIGNS
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has
determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to amend certain sections of the
Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, to temporarily allow feather flag
wind signs in certain areas, and to provide regulations for the duration they are allowed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: The prohibition of wind signs under section 17.66.060(8) of the
Municipal Code is temporarily suspended to the extent described in this Ordinance.
Section 2: The suspension applies only to feather flag signs, defined as follows:
Feather flag means a freestanding, temporary fabric sign intended to be
inserted directly into the ground or into a mounting device that sits on the
ground, often with a feather-like shape. Other common names for feather
flags include blade flags, sail flags, quill flags, flutter flags, feather banners,
teardrop banners, and sail banners. (see figure below)
Section 3: During the period of suspension, feather flags shall be exempt from the
requirement of a sign permit in section 17.66.041(a).
Section 4: The suspension shall not apply within any residential zoning district, nor
the Downtown Commercial district.
Section 5: For the duration of the suspension, feather flags shall meet the following
requirements, which shall be considered part of chapter 17.66. Violation of any of the
following shall be considered a violation of the Municipal Code and subject to enforcement
under section 17.66.230:
a.No lot may contain more than one feather flag.
b.Feather flags shall be included in calculations of maximum signage
or sign area for the purposes of other code provisions, and shall be
considered freestanding signs.
c.No feather flag may exceed 12 feet in height.
d.No feather flag may stand closer than 12 feet to any street, alley, or
sidewalk.
Section 6: All other provisions of the Municipal Code and Development Code
relevant to signs or structures, or which are pertinent by their own terms, shall apply to
feather flags.
Section 7: This suspension shall be effective through January 6, 2026, unless
earlier terminated or extended by the Board of Trustees. Upon conclusion of the
suspension, all feather flags will once again be prohibited and must be removed. This
Ordinance shall establish no right or expectation that a feather flag may remain on any
property within the Town beyond the period of the suspension, and no right or expectation
that the suspension will ultimately be of any particular duration.
Section 8: This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days after
its adoption and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,
Colorado this 26th day of AUGUST, 2025.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board
of Trustees on the 26th day of AUGUST, 2025 and published by title in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the 29th day of AUGUST,
2025, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Editors Note: This item was approved
with a modification of the expiration
date.
Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org>
Letter In Favor of Wind Signs & Moratorium on Enforcement
1 message
Ingrid Bush <ingrid@thebarrel.beer>Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 9:11 AM
To: Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org>
Estes Park Board of Trustees,
I am writing to respectfully express my support for amending the Town code to permit the use of wind-driven
flags by local businesses.
As a business owner in our community, I believe wind-driven flags and single sign panels are a simple yet
effective tool for drawing attention to storefronts and helping customers locate businesses, especially those
set back from the road or in busy commercial areas. Unlike permanent signage, these flags are temporary,
movable, and can be used tastefully without altering the character of our Town.
Allowing wind-driven flags and single sign panels would help small businesses like mine reach more
customers, increase foot traffic, and contribute positively to the local economy. At a time when many
businesses are working hard to remain competitive, providing us with this low-cost marketing option can
make a real difference.
I fully understand the need to balance aesthetics with business needs, and I encourage the Town to
establish clear guidelines on size, placement, and maintenance so that the flags remain an asset rather
than a distraction.
Additionally, I respectfully request that the Town Board consider enacting a moratorium on enforcement of
the existing prohibition against wind-driven flags and single sign panels until the revised Town code is
formally adopted.
Given that the Town is already reviewing and considering updates to the code regarding these flags, I
believe it is both practical and fair to pause enforcement during this transitional period. Doing so would
prevent unnecessary hardship for business owners while the new, more balanced regulations are being
finalized.
A moratorium would support the vitality of local businesses while also demonstrating the Town’s willingness
to work collaboratively with its business community. I urge the Town Board to adopt such a measure as
soon as possible.
Supporting small business visibility benefits not only individual business owners but the entire community. I
appreciate your attention and look forward to a positive outcome.
Public Comment Received 2025-08-19
Respectfully,
Ingrid Bush
Website Facebook Instagram
Please note that I check emails between 8:00am – 11am
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Carlie Bangs, Housing and Childcare Manager
Department: Town Administration
Date: August 26, 2025
Subject: Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) 2026 Colorado Legislative
Position Statement on Housing
Objective:
Consider a request from the Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) to support its
2026 Colorado Legislative Position Statement on Housing.
Present Situation:
The Town of Estes Park is a Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) member,
representing mountain resort communities throughout Colorado. CAST supports
targeted legislation to provide additional financial tools for Colorado mountain
communities to address housing needs.
The CAST Housing Task Force intends to engage other partner organizations, such as
the Colorado Municipal League, Colorado Counties, Inc., and Colorado Counties Acting
Together, to secure opportunities to address housing needs while preserving existing
means of serving and representing CAST communities.
The Town Board considered and approved CAST’s legislative position statement last
year. CAST is requesting re-affirmation of the approval from its members this year, so it
and its members can communicate continuing support for the legislation to partners and
legislators. Legislative proposals rarely succeed in the first year they are attempted, and
often require repeated efforts. No substantive changes have been made to any of the
proposals; the package reflects what was approved last year.
Proposal:
CAST requests that members consider lending their support once again to their position
on legislation that would give local governments more tools and revenue options to
address housing issues. The CAST Housing Task Force has developed these concept
areas through various working groups and has the support of the CAST Board of
Directors.
• Short-term Rental Taxes: Authorizes counties and municipalities to refer short-
term rental taxes to the voters with the proceeds of such revenues dedicated to
the local workforce and affordable housing.
• Local Vacancy Taxes: Allow municipalities and counties to refer residential
vacancy taxes to their voters. Also known as the “empty home tax”, to incentivize
homeowners to rent their homes to local residents rather than rent them at peak
times and leave them empty most of the year.
• Local Real Estate Transfer Fees: Allow municipalities and counties to adopt fees
on the transfer of real estate, with the fee revenues to fund local affordable and
workforce housing.
It is important to note that affirmative action on this item would only indicate support for
the legislature to provide jurisdictions with the ability to consider the creation of new
revenue sources to address housing issues. It does not obligate any jurisdiction to
actually create such revenue.
Advantages:
If passed, legislation would provide more options to create sources of revenue to
address housing needs.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Approval of the Town of Estes Park lending support to the 2026 Legislative Position
Statement on Housing presented by CAST.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None
Level of Public Interest:
Moderate
Attachments:
1. 2026 Colorado Legislative Position Statement on Housing
COLORADO ASSOCIATION OF SKI TOWNS
2026 COLORADO LEGISLATIVE POSITION STATEMENT ON HOUSING
OVERVIEW: The Colorado Association of Ski Towns (CAST) represents the mountain resort communities throughout
Colorado. Colorado’s ski industry generates $4.8 billion in annual economic output, supports more than 46,000 year-round
equivalent jobs, and generates $1.9 billion per year in labor income. (RRC Associates). The lack of available and attainable
housing for employees in Colorado mountain resort communities has reached a crisis level which is directly impacting the
provision of basic services as well as the ability to adequately staff and operate all businesses, from ski resort companies to
local, small businesses. CAST supports targeted legislation to provide additional financial tools for Colorado mountain
communities to address housing needs.
AUTHORIZE LOCAL SHORT-TERM RENTAL TAXES: Home rule municipalities, with the approval of their voters, have
long been able to set a tax on short term rentals (STRs). CAST supports legislation to specifically authorize statutory
counties and municipalities to refer short term rental taxes to the voters with the proceeds of such revenues to be dedicated
to affordable workforce housing for the local community. Such taxes would not be imposed by the legislation. Rather, each
community would be able to ask their local voters to consider such a tax.
AUTHORIZE LOCAL EMPTY HOMES TAXES CAST supports legislation to clearly allow municipalities and counties to
refer residential empty homes taxes to their voters. Such taxes would not be imposed by the legislation. Rather, each
community would be able to ask their local voters to consider such a tax. Census data shows residential vacancy rates
soaring above 40% in some Colorado mountain towns facing acute housing shortages. Empty homes taxes, also known as
vacancy taxes, incentivize homeowners to rent their homes to local residents rather than rent them at peak times and leave
them empty most of the year. Additionally, this would disincentivize the use of homes as investments and result in a higher
utilization as actual homes. This would help local jurisdictions capture the revenues normally generated through sales taxes
from residents for services provided regardless of occupancy. Revenue from the tax would fund affordable workforce
housing for the local community.
AUTHORIZE LOCAL REAL ESTATE TRANSFER FEES: The Colorado Constitution prohibits new taxes on the transfer of
real estate, but the courts have long held fees to be different from taxes. CAST supports legislation to expressly allow
municipalities and counties to adopt fees on the transfer of real estate, with the fee revenues to fund affordable workforce
housing for the local community. Such fees would not be imposed by the legislation. Rather, each community would be able
to adopt such fees at the local level. This can be a powerful tool; total revenues from legacy real estate transfer taxes in
CAST member municipalities have risen above $80 million annually.
CAST TO WORK WITH PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS: In supporting this position statement, CAST members support
CAST seeking to work with the Colorado Municipal League; Colorado Counties, Inc.; Colorado Counties Acting Together;
and any other organizations who agree to support these proposals, and members formally request these organizations and
state legislators initiate and pursue this legislation on their behalf.
CONTACT INFORMATION: For more information please contact, Margaret Bowes, Executive Director, Colorado Association of Ski Towns
August 2026
Attachment 1
The Town of Estes Park is committed to providing equitable access to our services. Contact us
if you need any assistance accessing material at 970-577-4777 or townclerk@estes.org.
Report
To: Honorable Mayor Hall & Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Carlie Bangs, Housing and Childcare Manager
Scott Moulton, Estes Park Housing Authority Executive Director
Department: Town Administration
Date: August 26, 2025
Subject: 2026 Annual Workforce Housing and Childcare Funding Plan Draft
Review
Objective:
Consider the proposed use of 6E Lodging Tax revenue in 2026, as outlined in the
attached draft Annual Workforce Housing and Childcare Funding Plan.
Present Situation:
The Annual Workforce Housing and Childcare Funding Plan, or “Annual 6E Funding
Plan”, which must be considered and approved annually by the Town Board and County
Commissioners, outlines the allocation of funds received from the 6E Ballot Initiative
passed by voters in November 2022. The plan demonstrates how the revenue received
will be used to address the housing and childcare challenges faced by the Estes Valley
workforce.
For 2026, staff is proposing to keep the same “split” as this year, allocating 80% of the
revenue to be used for workforce housing initiatives and 20% for childcare initiatives.
The priority objectives outlined in the ballot framework also remain the same:
•Land and built property acquisition
•Development of workforce housing
•Financial assistance for rental and home-ownership
•Staffing capacity at Estes Park Housing Authority
•Childcare tuition assistance
•Out-of-school programming for school-age children
•Support for childcare and early childhood staff
•Expansion and development of childcare facilities
Proposal:
Pending any requested edits to the proposed draft, the final draft of the 2026 Annual 6E
Funding Plan will be considered for approval by the Town Board at an upcoming
meeting and subsequently must be filed with Larimer County by November 1. The
Board of County Commissioners have until December 1 to review the Plan and either
approve or request changes.
Advantages:
The Annual 6E Funding Plan outlines the strategic use of 6E revenues to address
workforce housing and childcare issues in the Estes Valley.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Provide direction for the use of 6E Lodging Tax revenue in 2026 to be incorporated into
the draft Plan before coming back to the Town Board as an Action Item.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Outlines the use of received revenue from Workforce Housing and Childcare Lodging
Tax 270-0000-316.10-00
Level of Public Interest:
Moderate. Public forums and opportunities for feedback have allowed for input from
community members and key stakeholders and have been included in the plan.
Attachments:
1.Draft of 2026 Annual 6E Funding Plan
1 | Page
2026 Annual Funding Plan
6E Workforce Housing and Childcare Lodging Tax
Purpose
The Annual Workforce Housing and Childcare Funding Plan (Annual 6E Funding Plan) is an
outline of how the Town of Estes Park plans to distribute funds derived from the Lodging Tax
Extension (6E) to support housing and childcare for the Estes Valley workforce. The plan
demonstrates how the funds passed through from the Local Marketing District, which levies the
tax, to the Town is allocated between workforce housing and childcare initiatives, and how
decisions are made to address the needs in the Estes Valley in 2026 and beyond. The Annual
Funding Plan is considered and approved by the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County
Commissioners, and Visit Estes Park.
About 6E Lodging Tax
In November 2022, residents of the Visit Estes Park Local Marketing District voted to approve
Ballot Initiative 6E to increase the total lodging tax rate from 2% to 5.5%. This 3.5% increase in
tax provides approximately $5 million in funds to address workforce housing and childcare
needs in the Estes Valley. The Board of Visit Estes Park (VEP) decided to serve as a “pass-
through” of the funds and rely on the Town of Estes Park, in coordination with Larimer County,
to decide how to administer 6E revenue.
The Workforce Housing and Childcare Lodging Tax funds received by the Town are
administered in accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the County
and Town of Estes Park by the Housing and Childcare Manager. The Housing and Childcare
Manager works hand-in-hand with the Estes Park Housing Authority to strategically identify
future needs and outline how they will be addressed, resulting in the proposed Annual 6E
Funding Plan.
A memorandum of understanding between the Town and Estes Park Housing Authority,
originally entered into in July 2023, formalized the Housing Authority’s role as administrator of
the Lodging Tax revenue dedicated to workforce housing. The Town’s Housing and Childcare
Manager administers the distribution of funds retained by the Town to address childcare.
Attachment 1
2 | Page
The Annual 6E Funding Plan is drafted based on the initial framework presented in the ballot
language in 2022. The initial framework included priorities consistent with the present workforce
housing and childcare initiatives outlined below.
Ballot Issue 6E
1. Construction or purchase of workforce housing or the purchase of land to provide sites
for workforce housing;
2. Development and operation of programs to support workforce access to affordable
housing; and
3. Develop and operate programs to support affordable workforce childcare services.
Changes to the framework and process can be made at any time based on mutual agreement of
the Town and Larimer County.
2026 Overview and Projections
In January of each year, a lump sum is retained by the Town for personnel and operating
expenses related to the position of Housing and Childcare Manager. Throughout the year, a
predetermined percentage of the revenue is transferred directly to EPHA every month. This
percentage is presented in the Annual 6E Funding Plan each year.
Funding decisions are made based on the evaluation of needs in the community and the
consideration of maximizing the impact of Workforce Housing and Childcare Lodging Tax (6E
Lodging Tax) funds. All funding decisions are made in accordance with the Intergovernmental
Agreement between Larimer County and the Town of Estes Park and the adopted Annual 6E
Funding Plan (including this plan for 2026).
The 2026 Annual 6E Funding Plan is informed by and builds upon foundational reports such as
the 2023 Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan, the 2024 Childcare Needs
Assessment and Strategic Plan, the Childcare and Housing Task Force report conducted by the
Town of Estes Park, previous Annual 6E Funding Plans and Impact Reports, and community
outreach. The Annual 6E Funding Plan acts as a framework for how EPHA and the Town utilize
6E Lodging Tax funds to implement and measure the success of strategies. The Town monitors
the impact of 6E Lodging Tax funds on both housing and childcare in the Estes Valley, which is
reported in an “Annual 6E Impact Report” in the spring. Community feedback supports the draft
of the Annual 6E Funding Plan and is compiled through direct outreach, public forums, and a
feedback survey as presented in Exhibit A “Community Input”.
The original 6E ballot framework was intentionally designed to provide flexibility in allocating
revenues between workforce housing and childcare initiatives, ensuring that funding could adapt
to evolving community priorities. Early stakeholder input, including from the Estes Park Housing
Authority, acknowledged that workforce housing needs were both urgent and costly, warranting
3 | Page
a greater share of initial resources. At the same time, there was a shared understanding that
childcare funding needs would expand as program capacity, facilities, and capital projects
developed over time. In alignment with this long-term vision, the allocation shifted in 2025 from
88% for housing/12% for childcare to 80%/20%, respectively, increasing the allocation to
childcare initiatives while continuing to address critical housing needs. Maintaining this
allocation in 2026 reflects a strategic commitment to building a more balanced and sustainable
approach to meeting both housing and childcare demands in the Estes Valley based on need.
Projected total 6E Passthrough to the Town in 2026 (provided by Visit Estes Park): $5,500,000
● 80% Workforce Housing: $4,400,000
● 20% Childcare: $1,100,000
All dollar figures are approximations contingent on several factors, including actual collections
each year.
Approval by the Town Board is required for the creation of funding programs for both childcare
and workforce housing, as outlined in the MOU with EPHA. Reporting on the use of funds is
conducted at least annually and upon request by either the Town Board, County
Commissioners, or Visit Estes Park. A detailed expenditure report for the previous year is
presented to both elected boards by April 15 each year.
Childcare Initiatives
6E Lodging Tax revenue will be used to address the varied challenges faced by families in need
of childcare, as well as the workforce challenges providers, early childhood teachers, and
support staff experience. The Town will retain 20% of the expected revenue in 2026, projected
to be approximately $1,100,000.
In June 2025, the Town Board considered revisions to Town Policy 225: Childcare Funding
Guidelines, which provided guidelines for the distribution of funding and introduced a new
Priority Grant framework, Childcare Stability Initiative, and Childcare Assistance funding
opportunities. The Town Board’s approval of these revisions formalized programs and
distribution methods to be considered with the approval of this Funding Plan. The proposed
2026 Priority Grant framework and budget allocations may be reviewed in Exhibit B.
Exhibit C depicts the overall projected revenue and expenditures for childcare funding in 2026.
The estimated revenue, expenditures, and projected budget for childcare is an approximation
and is subject to change based on opportunities that arise and variations in 6E Lodging Tax
revenue. All funds that are not spent each year may carry over to the following year.
4 | Page
Priority Areas and Targets:
1. Tuition Assistance
Affordable childcare is essential for supporting working families, enabling parents to balance
their careers and caregiving responsibilities.
2. Out-of-School Programs
When school is not in session, provide a safe and engaging environment for children outside of
school hours, promoting social interaction, learning, and personal growth.
3. Childcare Workforce
Supporting the childcare workforce is essential for ensuring high-quality care and education,
enabling caregivers to thrive and positively impact the development of children.
4. Facility Expansion
New facilities and facility improvements are designed to create nurturing and stimulating
environments to enhance early childhood development and increase capacity.
2024
(Baseline)
Home Providers 2 4 4 4
Infant Classrooms 0 0 1 1
Toddler Classrooms 1 2 2 2
Preschool Classrooms 3 3 4 4
To meet these targets, the following objectives direct the use of 6E Funds in 2026 for the priority
areas as defined above:
Tuition Assistance
2026 Objective:
Expand and evaluate childcare affordability by increasing eligibility to include low- to middle-
income households and school-age children.
With the launch of the Estes Valley Childcare Fund (EVCF) in 2025, additional children and
families are eligible for childcare financial assistance in 2026. The program is fully funded for the
5 | Page
2025-26 program year (August-July) and is projected to support between 10 and 20 children of
middle-income working parents in the Estes Valley.
The Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCAP) is expected to remain frozen through
2026, allocating 6E Lodging Tax funds to childcare financial assistance critical to maintaining
affordability for working families. CCAP typically serves families with children up to age 13. With
the assistance program frozen, requests from low-to middle-income families during the school
months have increased. While the YMCA of the Rockies and the Boys and Girls Club of Larimer
County offer reduced tuition and scholarships for their summer out-of-school programs, demand
for assistance continues to grow. Evaluation of these programs, along with the distribution of
funds through EVICS Family Resource Center, will be essential for planning future School-Age
Tuition Assistance needs. Based on anticipated demand, it is likely that additional funding or a
separate program will need to be developed to meet these needs effectively if CCAP continues
to be frozen.
While tuition assistance has been a central priority for the first three years of 6E funding, 2026
will serve as a focused evaluation year. Collaboratively with EVICS Family Resource Center
(EVICS) and the Early Childhood Council of Larimer County (ECCLC), this evaluation will
measure the reach and impact of tuition assistance on family financial stability and the overall
sustainability of the local early childhood system. Findings will inform future funding priorities,
ensuring that investments are both responsive to current needs and aligned with long-term
vision for a stronger, more equitable infrastructure in the Estes Valley.
Tuition Assistance Goal 1:
Program creates a more equitable childcare system in the Estes Valley through improved
policies and increased access to childcare assistance.
Tuition Assistance Goal 2:
Improve financial stability for underserved communities by offsetting the cost of childcare for
families.
2024
Expenditure Proposed
80% AMI and below $250,000 60 50 $250,000
80-110% AMI $150,000 15 15 $100,000
School-age Summer
110% and below
$50,000 20 $50,000
*as of August 2025
6 | Page
Out-of-School Programming
2026 Objective:
Provide grant funding to support and expand capacity in out-of-school care programs, including
new pilot initiatives offering care during teacher professional development days and
holiday/school breaks.
Through Priority Grants and the Childcare Stability Initiative, funding will continue to address
year-round childcare needs for school-age children. This includes care during the summer
months, before- and after-school hours, and on out-of-school days such as teacher professional
development days, holidays, and school breaks.
Out-of-school care providers are eligible for the Childcare Stability Initiative, offering predictable,
ongoing funding that supports operational sustainability. Administrators of both school-year and
summer-based programs can also apply for the Out-of-School Programming Priority Grant to
support pilot programs, prioritizing new programs that serve children on teacher professional
development days and school breaks.
A dual funding pathway for Out-of-School programs enables both the development of new pilot
programs and strengthens existing organizations, ensuring Estes Valley families have reliable
childcare throughout the year for children up to age 13.
2024
(Baseline)
After-school 52 91 104 104
Summer 163 264 264 228
Childcare Workforce Support
2026 Objective:
Support wage increases and benefits for early childhood and childcare professionals closer to a
livable wage, and incentivize licensed childcare providers to establish childcare as a more
lucrative profession in the Estes Valley.
6E Lodging Tax Funds will be allocated to grants, incentives, and collaborative initiatives that
directly strengthen the childcare workforce. The Childcare Assistance program is available for
Family Childcare Home Providers to support expenses related to health and safety
improvements, as well as start-up costs for new providers. Funding may be used for
7 | Page
childproofing, fencing, equipment, materials, and other essential needs that enable providers to
meet licensing requirements and operate safely.
To further incentivize licensing, Family Childcare Home (FCCH) providers who become licensed
and enroll in the Early Childhood Council of Larimer County Coaching Program to achieve a
Colorado Shines Quality Level 2 rating will receive a $1,000 bonus. ECCLC and EVICS Family
Resource Center offer training, networking opportunities, coaching, and technical support to
Family, Friend, and Neighbor (FNN) providers and licensed exempt providers to strengthen
professional skills, promote quality improvement, and encourage licensing.
Additional workforce support strategies introduced in the 2025 Annual Funding Plan – including
mortgage and rental assistance for providers, access to healthcare, and the integration of early
childhood education into the high school Career and Technical Education program –will be
evaluated and included in the 2025 Annual Impact Report.
Childcare Stability Initiative:
In June 2025, revisions to Town Policy 225: Childcare Funding Guidelines established the
Childcare Stability Initiative, replacing the Annual Childcare Workforce Subsidy while retaining
its core intent: to provide consistent, dependable funding to stabilize the workforce and help
bridge the gap between what providers can afford to pay staff and what constitutes a livable
wage.
The Annual Childcare Workforce Subsidy, introduced in 2023, was an early effort to address
wage gaps and improve retention of childcare employees, and received positive feedback from
providers and demonstrated measurable success in increasing wages and stabilizing the
workforce. However, program evaluation highlighted the need for a more reliable and flexible
funding structure that providers could incorporate into long-term planning.
The Childcare Stability Initiative builds on these lessons by providing an annual, framework-
driven funding mechanism for licensed childcare providers and entities offering essential
services. Applicants submit requests as part of the Annual Funding Plan process, using a
structured workbook to document operational needs, workforce strategies, and any proposed
solutions addressing critical gaps in the community. Requests are reviewed and approved with
the annual budget, ensuring predictability for providers while aligning allocations with broader
community priorities.
Funds awarded through the Childcare Stability Initiative directly influence the funding available
for Priority Grants and Childcare Assistance in the following year, creating a balanced and
integrated funding approach.
2026 Childcare Stability Initiative Funding Requests:
● Mountaintop Childcare
8 | Page
● YMCA of the Rockies Preschool
● Park Place Preschool
● YMCA of the Rockies Day Camp
● Boys and Girls Club of Larimer County
● Estes Valley Recreation and Park District
A complete description of the Childcare Stability Initiative, including application criteria, funding
framework, requests, and staff recommendations, is provided in Exhibit D.
Capital and Facilities
2026 Objective:
Development of a Childcare Facility Master Plan for the Estes Valley, demonstrating the
expansion of additional childcare facilities to ensure adequate space and resources to meet the
current and future demand for quality early childhood care. Continue to collect and save funds
year-to-year to remain flexible and reactive to opportunities as they arise.
The Town will continue to direct funds toward capital and facility improvements to meet the
demand for increased childcare spots in the Estes Valley. By establishing a healthy reserve, the
Town will remain flexible and responsive to emerging opportunities. By allocating and
preserving funds year-to-year, the Town can make strategic investments in property acquisition,
construction, or major renovations in alignment with long-term facility goals. In 2026, the Town
intends to develop a Childcare Facility Master Plan to help guide these investments, providing a
comprehensive blueprint for expanding and optimizing facilities across the Estes Valley.
The facility housing Mountaintop Childcare (1250 Woodstock Drive) was purchased by the
Town in 2024 to retain the business and preserve the 40 childcare spots at that location. By
leasing the facility back to the childcare provider, the Town has an additional revenue stream
aside from the 6E Lodging Tax revenue to support the maintenance of Town-owned childcare
facilities. The “Childcare Facility Account” does not utilize 6E Lodging Tax revenue unless
identified in the Annual Funding Plan for specific projects. The Town Board will consider the use
of $30,000 in 6E Lodging Tax dollars to address ADA accessibility and upgrades to the building,
in addition to the use of received grant funds. More information about the Childcare Facility
Account and the proposed budget can be found in Exhibit E
In parallel with the accumulation of flexible reserve funds and long-term planning, the Childcare
Facility and Capital Funding Priority Grant will continue to provide licensed childcare providers
with funding to support facility renovations, equipment purchases, and other capital
improvements that expand capacity and improve quality.
Housing Initiatives
The Estes Park Housing Authority (EPHA) exists to create and facilitate housing opportunities in
the Estes Valley. In July 2023, the Town entered into a memorandum of understanding to
9 | Page
transfer Workforce Housing and Childcare Lodging Tax (6E Lodging Tax) funds dedicated to
workforce housing to EPHA. EPHA has the authority to make purchasing decisions as outlined
in the MOU and to administer and manage the various programs presented in the Annual 6E
Funding Plan. All expenditures by the EPHA are subject to regular audits.
The Estes Park Housing Authority was created by the Town and is a quasi-governmental entity.
The EPHA Board Members are appointed by the Town Board, and it is subject to the same
auditing requirements as other public entities in Colorado.
Decisions regarding distribution will be made in collaboration with the Estes Park Housing
Authority, and specifics are informed by the Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic Plan,
conducted in 2023, and the Annual Housing Supply Plan drafted by EPHA, which provides
insight into the organization’s future planning for housing development.
The estimated revenue, expenditures, and projected budget for housing is an approximation
and is subject to change based on opportunities that arise and variations in 6E Lodging Tax
revenue. All funds that are not spent each year may carry over to the following year.
Priority Areas and Targets:
1. Land Banking
Strategically acquire and hold vacant or underutilized land for future development of workforce
housing, ensuring long-term availability of new development in the Estes Valley.
2. Development
Increasing the quantity of housing available for the workforce through new construction to
support workers who need housing within a reasonable proximity to their jobs.
3. Assistance Programs
Bridge the affordability gap, reducing the financial impact that rising housing costs make to
many members of the local workforce.
4. Staffing Capacity- remove as a priority. Increased number of staff at the Estes Park
Housing Authority are necessary to provide essential services and administer programs
to fulfil housing initiatives.
2025 2026 Goal 2028 Target
Acquisition preserved or
10 | Page
Assistance per year
The following objectives inform the use of 6E Funds in 2026 to meet the targets and priority
areas outlined defined above:
Land Banking
2026 Objective:
Remain flexible in the ability to acquire and preserve existing homes, properties, and
strategically located land- both vacant and underutilized- to support the development and
conversion of workforce housing.
The Estes Park Housing Authority is focused on being proactive and flexible with respect to
property acquisition, enabling the ability to respond quickly to emerging opportunities. Land
banking was a key strategy proposed in the 2023 Housing Needs Assessment and Strategic
Plan, which EPHA immediately took advantage of with 6E Lodging Tax revenue. Since 2023, an
additional 117 housing units have been added to the community through the conversion of
existing properties that were previously utilized as short-term rentals, restricting them to use by
the local workforce. With the financial resources that EPHA has access to, the rental rates at
those properties are under market-rate, making them affordable for the workforce.
Targeted growth for increased housing units by 2028 is 300-400 units. The acquisition and
conversion of the 117 units brings us closer to that goal. Moving into 2026, EPHA will shift its
primary focus toward the development and predevelopment of properties owned by the Town
and EPHA. Ground-up construction remains a top priority, while maintaining the flexibility to act
on high-impact opportunities that strengthen the community’s long-term housing supply.
Development
2026 Objective:
Advance the conceptual planning and initiate ground-up development of new housing units for
both rent and sale. Efforts will align with the Estes Valley Housing Needs Assessment and
Comprehensive Plan to ensure strategic, data-informed growth that meets local demand.
The Estes Park Housing Authority projects the creation of approximately 291 units through the
development of four capital development projects within the next five years. These projects are
dependent upon market forces and the availability of funding sources beyond 6E revenue. All
projects are under the direct control of the EPHA or the Town of Estes Park. 6E Lodging Tax
funds, in partnership with various Prop 123 initiatives, or other available federal and state
11 | Page
funding sources, will support the development of these projects. Property owned by the Town of
Estes Park, slated for concept work and possibly the development of housing in upcoming
years, include the Fish Hatchery Housing Development and 179 Stanley Circle Drive. In addition
to Town-owned property, EPHA is in the pre-development stage for property they own on
Riverside Drive.
The Fish Hatchery Housing Development has been in predevelopment since 2021, but the
Town stepped back from pursuing a workforce rental development at that location due to
changes in the financial market, construction costs, and market demand. EPHA and the Town
will continue to work together to jumpstart a redevelopment of mixed-income workforce housing
at the site. EPHA anticipates pursuing Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) to develop the
site in coordination with development partners. As of August 2025, EPHA has filed a formal
development plan with an amended rezoning application to the Town of Estes Park. This will
position them to apply for low-income housing tax credits in 2026.
Assistance Programs
2026 Objective:
Implement and evaluate programs that financially support the rental and ownership of workforce
housing, while exploring the potential incentives for the development of accessory dwelling units
(ADUs) and private development of new workforce housing.
The Workforce Rental Assistance (WFRA) program launched in 2024 as a pilot program and
concluded in April 2025, transitioning out of the pilot phase in May 2025. 54 households
received assistance during the pilot program, and the evaluation of the pilot program
demonstrated that a change in eligibility should include a higher income-to-housing ratio. The
new program year began in May 2025, and with the launch of the new program nine additional
applicants have been approved for the program. While attrition is expected, renewal of
applications is expected in 2026. Renewal applications coincide with the recipient’s lease
renewal, and updated employment information is required to ensure the applicant still falls within
the guidelines of the program structure.
To date, the priority has been to provide stability for the workforce in rental markets. In 2026 will
evolve to include home-ownership programs by offering a Down Payment Assistance Program.
The program will launch in 2025, with a goal to serve five households. The existing Down
Payment Assistance Program assisted one household in 2025.
The Trailhead Homeownership Down Payment Assistance Program will be available to Estes
Valley households who qualify for the program later this year. Qualified households may receive
up to a 20% down payment shared equity loan. A shared equity loan does not require monthly
payments by the household but requires that the loan be paid back upon the sale of the home,
12 | Page
including the shared appreciation sum. The administration of the program and the loan issuance
will be administered by the Impact Development Fund.
Staffing Capacity
In 2026, this will be removed as a priority. The staffing has been expanded at EPHA, providing
systems that meet the needs of the increased scope of work that 6E funds created.
6E Lodging Tax revenue transferred to EPHA will support the staffing needed to administer the
work associated with the additional objectives EPHA now must implement, specifically the roles
of the Housing Program Manager and the Real Estate Development Director positions. EPHA
utilizes 6E Lodging Tax funds to cover the administrative costs associated with the verification
of housing and covenants that the Housing Program Manager oversees.
Final Summary
This year’s funding plan reflects a strategic shift in 6E Lodging Tax allocation to respond to
evolving community needs and market conditions. In housing, the focus shifted from primarily
expanding availability of workforce housing through the conversion, preservation, and
acquisition of property to an approach that combines targeted assistance programs, such as
rental and down payment support, with investment in new construction and mixed-income
developments. This dual strategy addresses immediate affordability while building supply for the
future.
In childcare, the priority was workforce stability and financial stability through tuition assistance
programs, operational support for providers, and initiatives to retain and strengthen the early
childhood workforce. Moving forward, funding will be directed toward increasing childcare
capacity through investments in facilities, capital projects, and long-term infrastructure that can
meet current and projected demand. This shift ensures continued availability of quality care
while laying the foundation for sustained growth in the sector.
Performance measures indicate significant progress in increasing the availability and
affordability of both housing and childcare, while also laying the groundwork for sustained long-
term impact. Moving forward, the outcomes of this year’s plan will continue to inform funding
strategies, leverage partnerships, and adapt to emerging needs, ensuring that our community
remains resilient, inclusive, and economically strong.
13 | Page
Exhibit A: Community Input
While drafting the annual funding plan, the Town engages with the public in several ways to
gauge the direction of the proposed plan for the next year. In July and August 2025, the Town
discussed strategies and alignment of the objectives and targets proposed in this plan through
various methods including:
• One-on-one meetings with key stakeholders, such as EVICS Family Resource Center
• Two public outreach forums (18 individuals attended in-person, 6 virtually)
• Online Feedback Form (15 responses)
The same feedback form has been distributed, with minor edits, for the last three years and
includes the following questions:
1. After reviewing the previous year’s plan and impact report, what suggestions do you
have for the 2026 Funding Plan?
2. What are your key takeaways from the use of 6E Lodging Tax funds for workforce
housing/childcare to date?
3. What additional reporting mechanisms or data points would you like to see in the Annual
Impact Report?
4. How do you feel about the distribution of funds between childcare and housing?
(80%/20% split)
5. Please share your reasoning for suggesting any increases or decreases between the
two focus areas.
6. Decreasing/No Change/Increasing funding for each workforce housing priority area:
Land Banking, Development, Assistance Programs, and Staffing
7. Decreasing/No Change/Increasing funding for each workforce childcare priority area:
Tuition Assistance, Out-of-School, Workforce Challenges, and Capital/Facilities
8. Recipients have the opportunity to ask questions and include their contact information,
otherwise the form is anonymous.
The feedback form is provided to interested community members who may not be able to attend
a forum, where many of their questions may have been answered. The following points were
taken from the feedback form and discussions during the forums:
• Childcare and Housing Focus: Several respondents suggested increasing funding for
childcare, with some believing it needs more attention than housing. There is a
significant need for affordable and quality care, especially for infants.
• Seasonal Worker Housing: A significant suggestion was to address the lack of housing
for J1 and seasonal employees, proposing options like dorm-style housing and utilizing
6E funding for seasonal workers, as much seasonal housing has converted to short-term
rentals.
• Funding and Oversight: Suggestions included moving middle-income tuition assistance
to EVICS, increasing citizen involvement in fund distribution, and reviewing leadership
and practices related to 6E funding.
14 | Page
• Alternate Housing Solutions: Suggest increasing the focus on housing affordability
issues and giving money back to the community for homebuyer programs and down
payment assistance.
• Housing Expansion Concerns: Some respondents recommended slowing down
workforce housing expansion due to perceived inefficiency and economic slowdown.
There were comments about the high amount of funding that’s gone to housing and the
rapid growth of EPHA.
• Childcare Workforce: Incentivize the local workforce and focus on attracting and
adequately compensating high-quality childcare workers.
15 | Page
Exhibit B: Childcare Priority Grant Framework and Allocations
Priority Grant opportunities offer 6E Lodging Tax revenue to address specific childcare
challenges in the Estes Valley by targeting objectives and outcomes presented in this Annual
Funding Plan, including but not limited to, tuition assistance programs, out-of-school program
expansion, capital projects and facilities, and addressing challenges in the early childhood
workforce.
Childcare Facility and Capital Funding Grant
Childcare Facility and Capital Funding Grants are dedicated to supporting new facilities and
facility improvements that are designed to create nurturing and stimulating environments to
enhance early childhood development.
• Application Window: June 15- September 1
• Funding Allocation: $100,000
Out-of-School Funding Grant
Out-of-School Funding Grant supports the expansion of existing programs serving children 0-
13 years old when school is out of session. Funds must be used to increase capacity and serve
more children in the Estes Valley after-school and when school is out of session.
• Application for School-year: July 15- October 1
• Application for Summer: March 15- May 1
• Funding Allocation: $50,000
Childcare Stability Initiative
Childcare Stability Initiative provides eligible entities with a direct subsidy to support the early
childhood and childcare workforce, and general operations and overhead of entities that play a
critical role in providing childcare capacity in the Estes Valley.
• Applications due July 1.
• Funding Allocation: $300,000
Tuition Assistance Funding
6E Lodging Tax revenue is available through the Childcare Assistance application, or by
direction of the Town Board, to fund low- to middle-income families in the Estes Valley.
Requests for funding over $50,000 must be approved by the Town Board.
Funding Allocation: $300,000
New License Incentive Program
Family Childcare Home (FCCH) providers who become licensed and enroll in the Early
Childhood Council of Larimer County Coaching Program to achieve a Colorado Shines Quality
Level 2 rating will receive a $1,000 bonus.
16 | Page
Funding Allocation: $5,000
Exhibit C: Proposed 6E Childcare Budget
Based on projected revenue and allocated funds for developed funding programs, the following
budget provides a proposed use of 6E revenue and expenditures throughout the year.
2026 Projected Childcare Budget
Revenue
Total $1,852,500
Expenditures
Total $780,000
An allocation of funds for each grant funding program ensures that funds are available to
distribute and directs the prioritization of awards. These programs do not represent the total
expected revenue in 2026. Funds may be distributed up to the amounts outlined in the proposed
program budget and may change throughout the year. By vote of the Town Board, expenditures
may exceed funding allocations outlined below.
2026 Program Funding Allocation
Total $750,000
17 | Page
Exhibit D: Childcare Stability Initiative
Applicant Amount Recommendation
The total amount requested has been recommended for 2026. A total distribution of $290,000
will be awarded in January 2026.
18 | Page
Exhibit E: Childcare Facility Account
As presented in Policy 225: Childcare Funding Guidelines, the Childcare Facility account that
was established with revenue from the rental of a Town-owned facility to a childcare provider.
The Childcare Facility account is used to fund future maintenance, repairs, expansion, and
acquisition of childcare facilities to be owned by the Town. 6E Lodging Tax revenue may be
allocated to the Childcare Facility account with approval by the Town Board.
Expenditures from the Childcare Facility expense account for Town-owned childcare facilities
will be presented and approved through the Town’s annual budget approval process and Annual
6E Funding Plan.
1250 Woodstock Rent
Grant*
6E Transfer
$25,000
$30,000
EXPENSES $5,000
Exterior
Signage
Lawn Maintenance
Gutter Extension
Interior
Paint
Electric Upgrades
$1,000
$1,000
$250
$1,000
$1,750
GRANT PROJECTS
ADA Ramp and Playground
$30,000
$30,000
FACILITY ACCOUNT BALANCE EOY $100,201
Staff recommend investing in upgrades to the outdoor ramp and playground area to meet ADA
compliance and enhance the space to meet the needs of all children. The Town has applied for
grant funding, but recommends transferring $30,000 in 6E Lodging Tax revenue to the
Childcare Facility Account to begin work on these projects, regardless of whether the project is
awarded.
Additional ROM expenses are projected in 2026 as outlined in the above budget.
19 | Page
Childcare Licensing:
Regulations and License-exempt Providers
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC
Introduction
Early Childhood Council of Larimer County
Karly Kampe Quiroz, Early Childhood Workforce Manager
EVICS Family Resource Center
Town of Estes Park
Carlie Speedlin Bangs, Housing and Childcare Manager
Key Questions
What does it mean to be licensed or licensed-exempt?
What are the implications for public policy?
How can the Town support both licensed and licensed-exempt providers?
What 6E-funded programs should require licensure? Specifically, tuition assistance.
What is Childcare Licensing?
Colorado Office of Early Childhood
Purpose:
●Child Safety
●Quality Standards
●Oversight
Key Licensing Requirements
●Facility inspections and safety codes
●Staff-to-child ratios and group size
●Health and safety protocols
●Background checks and training
requirements
●Recordkeeping and reporting
Common Examples
●Family, Friend, and Neighbor
(FFN) care
●Providers serving fewer children
than licensing threshold
●Religious or part-day programs
not required to be licensed
Why Families Use
Licensed-Exempt Care
●Accessibility and affordability
●Flexible hours or drop-in
availability
●Cultural/language familiarity and
trust
●Shortage of licensed care in rural
or low-income areas
What does License-Exempt Mean?
A family care home where less than 24-hour care is provided
•for four (4) or fewer children ages birth to 18 years old and no
more than two (2) of the children are under the age of two (2)
years old. The children are not required to be related to each
other or to the caregiver. Note: If the provider is caring for their
own child(ren), their child(ren) is included in the four (4)
children limit.
•for children who are directly related to the caregiver.
•the children are siblings from one (1) family, and may or may
not be related to the caregiver.
Permissible by law but not regulated or monitored in the same way.
Pros & Cons
of Licensed-Exempt Care
Pros
●Lower cost
●More personal
●More flexibility
●Easier to start up
Cons
●No oversight or quality
standards
●No mandatory safety or
training requirements
Local Landscape
Local data:
SIX licensed childcare providers
●Two Facility-based Childcare Centers
●Four Family Childcare Home (FCCH)
THREE licensed-exempt providers
Approximately 15 children are currently being served by
licensed-exempt childcare providers
Implications for Public Policy
●Funding eligibility (subsidies, tuition
assistance, priority grants)
●Workforce initiatives (professional
development, wages, recruitment)
●Health and safety concerns
●Regulatory flexibility vs. quality assurance
Strategic Considerations
How can the Town support
both licensed and exempt
providers?
●Outreach, training, and
resources
●Incentives for licensing
●Partnerships with ECCLC
and EVICS
Proposal
●Requiring licensure for childcare providers for programs
such as Tuition Assistance and Childcare Stability Funding
demonstrates the Town’s desire to incentivize licensed
childcare providers that meet regulations demonstrating
quality and safety.
●Licensed-exempt providers may be eligible for grants that
reinforce the Town’s desire for high-quality care.
●The eligibility requirements for grants funded by 6E
Lodging Tax revenue will be considered annually by the
Town Board with the approval of the Annual Funding Plan.
Tuition Assistance
●Providers are required to be licensed for CCAP (when
available), LCCF, and the Estes Valley Childcare Fund.
●Licensed-exempt providers are currently included in
tuition assistance administered by EVICS Family
Resource Center.
Assistance is currently available for families
experiencing hardship for households up to 110% AMI.
Verification of eligibility for these recipients is
conducted every 90 days.
We are seeking direction on:
What does it mean to be licensed or licensed-exempt?
What are the implications for public policy?
How can the Town support both licensed and licensed-exempt providers?
What 6E-funded programs should require licensure?
Childcare Licensing:
Regulations and License-exempt Providers
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC
Introduction
Early Childhood Council of Larimer County
Karly Kampe Quiroz, Early Childhood Workforce Manager
EVICS Family Resource Center
Town of Estes Park
Carlie Speedlin Bangs, Housing and Childcare Manager
Key Questions
What does it mean to be licensed or licensed-exempt?
What are the implications for public policy?
How can the Town support both licensed and licensed-exempt providers?
What 6E-funded programs should require licensure? Specifically, tuition assistance.
What is Childcare Licensing?
Colorado Office of Early Childhood
Purpose:
●Child Safety
●Quality Standards
●Oversight
Key Licensing Requirements
●Facility inspections and safety codes
●Staff-to-child ratios and group size
●Health and safety protocols
●Background checks and training
requirements
●Recordkeeping and reporting
Common Examples
●Family, Friend, and Neighbor
(FFN) care
●Providers serving fewer children
than licensing threshold
●Religious or part-day programs
not required to be licensed
Why Families Use
Licensed-Exempt Care
●Accessibility and affordability
●Flexible hours or drop-in
availability
●Cultural/language familiarity and
trust
●Shortage of licensed care in rural
or low-income areas
What does License-Exempt Mean?
A family care home where less than 24-hour care is provided
•for four (4) or fewer children ages birth to 18 years old and no
more than two (2) of the children are under the age of two (2)
years old. The children are not required to be related to each
other or to the caregiver. Note: If the provider is caring for their
own child(ren), their child(ren) is included in the four (4)
children limit.
•for children who are directly related to the caregiver.
•the children are siblings from one (1) family, and may or may
not be related to the caregiver.
Permissible by law but not regulated or monitored in the same way.
Pros & Cons
of Licensed-Exempt Care
Pros
●Lower cost
●More personal
●More flexibility
●Easier to start up
Cons
●No oversight or quality
standards
●No mandatory safety or
training requirements
Local Landscape
Local data:
SIX licensed childcare providers
●Two Facility-based Childcare Centers
●Four Family Childcare Home (FCCH)
THREE licensed-exempt providers
Approximately 15 children are currently being served by
licensed-exempt childcare providers
Implications for Public Policy
●Funding eligibility (subsidies, tuition
assistance, priority grants)
●Workforce initiatives (professional
development, wages, recruitment)
●Health and safety concerns
●Regulatory flexibility vs. quality assurance
Strategic Considerations
How can the Town support
both licensed and exempt
providers?
●Outreach, training, and
resources
●Incentives for licensing
●Partnerships with ECCLC
and EVICS
Proposal
●Requiring licensure for childcare providers for programs
such as Tuition Assistance and Childcare Stability Funding
demonstrates the Town’s desire to incentivize licensed
childcare providers that meet regulations demonstrating
quality and safety.
●Licensed-exempt providers may be eligible for grants that
reinforce the Town’s desire for high-quality care.
●The eligibility requirements for grants funded by 6E
Lodging Tax revenue will be considered annually by the
Town Board with the approval of the Annual Funding Plan.
Tuition Assistance
●Providers are required to be licensed for CCAP (when
available), LCCF, and the Estes Valley Childcare Fund.
●Licensed-exempt providers are currently included in
tuition assistance administered by EVICS Family
Resource Center.
Assistance is currently available for families
experiencing hardship for households up to 110% AMI.
Verification of eligibility for these recipients is
conducted every 90 days.
We are seeking direction on:
What does it mean to be licensed or licensed-exempt?
What are the implications for public policy?
How can the Town support both licensed and licensed-exempt providers?
What 6E-funded programs should require licensure?
Questions & Discussion
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC
PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED ON 8/26/2025
Board of Trustees Public Comment
Name: Kelly Kessler
Stance on Item: Neutral
Agenda Item Title: 2026 Annual Workforce Housing and Childcare Funding Plan Draft Review
Public Comment:
I am fortunate to have grown up in Estes Park, where I now live with my four-year-old daughter and am
expecting another child. My family operates a seasonal business that has served this community since the
1950s. We have relied on both licensed and licensed-exempt childcare providers, and the flexibility of
licensed-exempt care has been essential—allowing us to operate during high-demand weekends while
ensuring our daughter is cared for. With another child on the way, we will be fully dependent on licensed-
exempt providers. Without them, it would be nearly impossible to balance raising a family and running our
business. I respectfully urge the Board of Trustees to recognize licensed-exempt providers as vital to our
community and to extend 6E funding opportunities and programs to them as well. Families and businesses
like mine pay taxes just like everyone else, and these funds should support all providers meeting the needs
of local families.
File Upload
Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for
the item which it references.
Files are limited to PDF or JPG.
25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting.