The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Town Board Study SessionInformal discussion among Trustees and staff concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 4:15 p.m. Town Board of Trustees Study Session February 10, 2026 from 4:30 p.m. – 6:45 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 link for more information on Digital Accessibility. Public comment Public comments are not typically heard at Study Sessions, but may be allowed by the Mayor with agreement of a majority of the Board. Agenda 4:30 p.m. Parks Master Plan Update Presented by Supervisor Berg 5:15 p.m. Break for Dinner 5:30 p.m. Water Master Plan Presented by Director Bergsten 6:30 p.m. Trustee and Administrator Comments and Questions 6:40p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items 6:45 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting 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: Brian Berg, Parks Supervisor David Greear, PE, Public Works Director Department: Public Works Date: February 10, 2026 Subject: Parks and Open Space Master Plan Update Purpose of Study Session Item: Design Workshop, consultant for the Parks and Open Space Master Plan, will provide the Town Board with an update on the progress of the Plan and the feedback to date. Presenting will be Ashley Hejtmanek, Senior Associate, and Anna Laybourn, Principal with Design Workshop. Town Board Direction Requested: This presentation is meant to be a workshop with the Town Board. The goal is to update the Board on status and direction of the plan and gain feedback before moving forward with the draft plan. Present Situation: The Parks and Open Space Master Plan began in May 2025. Public engagement started in July with a series of focus group discussions. Additional outreach occurred in August and September through Pop-Up discussions at the Farmers Market, followed by another engagement opportunity at the Pumpkins and Pilsners event. An online survey was live from September through November and received strong participation, with 665 completed surveys submitted. Proposal: The update will present an overview of the project background, a summary of community engagement efforts, the planning framework, and key themes and opportunities for discussion. Advantages: Some advantages of the Parks and Open Space Master Plan include: • Direction for the Town’s Parks Division for the next ten to twenty years. • Gaining valuable community input on what they want most out of their experiences within the Town’s parks and open spaces. • Identify investment focus preferences. Disadvantages: There are no disadvantages to discussing this study session topic. Finance/Resource Impact: The Parks and Open Space Master Plan was included in the 2025 budget. Level of Public Interest: The level of public interest for this project is high due to the residents and guests who utilize these spaces year-round. Attachments: 1. Estes Park, Parks and Open Spaces Master Plan, Town Board Workshop 2. Estes Park Survey Summary V ESTES PARK TOWN BOARD WORKSHOP FEBRUARY 10, 2026 Attachment 1 Anna Laybourn Park System Planning and Design Ashley Hejtmanek INTRODUCTIONS + MEETING TOPICS Project Background Community Engagement Summary Plan Framework and Themes Discussion Vision Planning Draft Plan April – Public Draft Plan Review Final Master Plan Engagement Window 3 May – Town Board Presentation May/June – Town Board Adoption Needs Assessment Plan Framework Engagement Window 2 February – Town Board Study Session – Youth Engagement Project Launch Inventory Assessment Past Plan Reviews Engagement Window 1 July – Focus Groups August – Farmer’s Market Pop-Up September – Farmer’s Market Pop-Up October – Pumpkins and Pilsners September-November – Survey Establishing a Foundation of Understanding Plan Creation Evaluation and Exploration of Ideas PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 March - June 2026January - March 2026May - December 2025 PROJECT TIMELINE Create a shared vision and focus for the community’s parks and open space resources and clearly define the Parks Division role in providing services to the community. Capture an understanding of current community needs and desires. Address community changes. Identify new policies, maintenance approaches, community services, and prioritize investments. Guide decisions with a long-term vision for 20+ years. WHY A PARKS AND OPEN SPACES PLAN? Cover Executive Summary Chapter 1: Introduction to the System • Planning Context • Community Profile • Plan Alignment Chapter 2: Park System Evaluation • Inventory • Conditions Assessment • Classifications, Walkshed • Ecological Mapping • Outreach Summary • Operations and Maintenance Chapter 3: A 20-Year Vision • Plan Framework • Guiding Themes • Property Potentials • Goals/Strategies WHAT WILL THE PLAN CONTAIN? PARKS AND OPEN SPACE STUDY AREA MAP 1: PARKS AND OPEN SPACES SYSTEM INVENTORY DOWNTOWN PARKS WEST •George Hix Riverside Plaza •Mrs. Walsh’s Garden •Peacock Park •Performance Park •Riverside / Baldwin Park •Tregent Park •Wiest Park DOWNTOWN PARKS EAST •Big Thompson Recreational Area •Bond Park •Children’s Park •Riverwalk •Veterans Monument Park •Women’s Heritage Plaza NATURAL AREAS •Centennial Open Space at Knoll Willows •Thumb Open Space TOWN-OWNED PARCELS •Fish Hatchery Property •Scott Ponds Area TOWN-OWNED PARCELS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY •Stanley Park •Estes Golf Course The Town of Estes Park overlooks the following parks and civic spaces: 0 0.25 .5 1 Mile PARKS AND OPEN SPACE SYSTEM STUDY AREA LEGEND Town of Estes Park Boundary Study Area - Parks Study Area - Conservation Easements Study Area - Town-Owned Parcels Town-Owned Parcels Town Owned Parking Lots Conservation Easements Federal Parks U.S. National Forest MAP 2: DOWNTOWN PARKS AND OPEN SPACES LEGEND Town of Estes Park Boundary Study Area - Parks Study Area - Conservation Easements Study Area - Town-Owned Parcels Town-Owned Parcels Town Owned Parking Lots Conservation Easements Federal Parks 0 .25 Miles DOWNTOWN PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Parks, Open Space and Natural Areas Amenities Thumb Open Space Centennial Open Space at Knoll Willows Mrs. Walsh’s Garden Bond Park George Hix Riverside Plaza Performance Park Tregent Park Wiest Park Peacock Park Women’s Monument/ Children’s Veteran’s Monument Big Thompson Recreation Area Riverwalk Riverside / Baldwin Park Scott Ponds Area Fish Hatchery Property Accessible Path/Trail Amphitheater or Large Event Space Benches Building Other Climbing/Bouldering Drinking Fountain Educational Site Flower Beds Grills Hiking Trails Interactive Art Interpretive Signage Large Pavilion Monument or Heritage Site Native Landscaping Area Nature Playscape Off-Street Parking Spaces Permanent Restroom Facility Picnic Tables Total Playgrounds 1 1 1 1 Play Equipment Ages 2 to 12 Play Equipment Ages 2 to 5 Play Lawn Pond or Lake River or Stream Small (Gazebo) Statue or Sculpture Swimming Area or Water Access PARKS AND OPEN SPACE SYSTEM INVENTORY LEGEND Developed Low Intensity Developed Medium Intensity Developed High Intensity Town of Estes Park Boundary MAP 3: INTENSITY OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS Source: National Land Cover Database (NLCD) GIS Data, Larimer County GIS Data 0 0.25 .5 1 Mile COMMUNITY PROFILE TOWN OF ESTES PARK TOTAL POPULATION TOWN OF ESTES PARK DAYTIME POPULATION 5,926 9,375 LEGEND 15 Minute Walking Distance to a Public Park Single Family Residences Multiple Unit Residences Town of Estes Park Boundary 0 0.25 .5 1 Mile MAP 4: WALKSHED ANALYSIS Source: DW Analysis, Town of Estes Park GIS Data, Larimer County GIS Data 76% PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLDS ARE WITHIN A 15-MINUTE WALK TO A PARK LEGEND MAP 5: ECOLOGICAL HAZARDS COMPOSITE ANALYSIS Wildfire Severity (Very High) Steep Slopes (30% or Higher) 100-Year Flood Fringe (Zone AE, 1% Chance Event) 500-Year (Zone X, 0.2% Chance Event) Rivers, Streams and Lakes Town of Estes Park Boundary Source: FEMA, Town of Estes Park GIS Data, Larimer County GIS Data 0 0.25 .5 1 Mile • The downtown river corridors function as the central spine for the Town’s parks, open space, and community activity. • 76% of households are within a 15-minute walk of a park or open space. »Single-family neighborhoods within the walkshed are largely centered near downtown and along the river corridor, while many outside the walkshed are located on the Town’s outer edges with limited proximity to town parks. »Multi-unit housing are more frequently located within the walkshed, particularly near downtown and along primary corridors. • Many outer-lying neighborhoods have access to federal lands and national park or forest, but have limited access to smaller neighborhood or civic parks. • Environmental constraints are widespread across the system, with many parks and open spaces located within wildfire risk areas, floodplains, steep slopes, and riparian corridors. • Development intensity is highest in and around downtown, overlapping with many of the Town’s parks and open spaces. »There is also higher development intensity along major transportation corridors. ANALYSIS TAKEAWAYS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 26 OVERALL ATTENDEES, JULY 17, 2025 FOCUS GROUP CONVERSATIONS: 1. Staff and Operations 2. Natural Resources and the Environment 3. Events, Culture, and Visitation 4. Outdoor Recreation • The Parks Division is understaffed and concerned about the impacts of long-term longevity, retention and succession. • There is a need to better connect ideas and organizations working towards common goals. • Balancing management and attraction can improve visitor use by activating underutilized spaces and dispersing users. FOCUS GROUP TAKEAWAYS • The park and open space system is responding to more intensive year-round activity. • Closing trail gaps is important for safely connecting neighborhoods to downtown and parks. • Safe trail connections are especially important for youth access. • There is interest in expanding pocket parks outside of downtown to support neighborhood needs. EVENTS, CULTURE, AND VISITATION FOCUS GROUPSTAFF AND OPERATIONS FOCUS GROUP FOCUS GROUPS COMMUNITY SURVEY: WHO DID WE HEAR FROM? 48% Full Time Residents 11% Part Time Residents 14% Estes Valley 6% Larimer County 2% Work in Estes Park but live elsewhere 18% Other • 665 Completed Surveys • 700 Responses to Open-Ended Questions SEPTEMBER 1, 2025, TO NOVEMBER 3, 2025 WHO’S SERVED WELL? Locals, visitors, and seniors WHAT’S WORKING WELL? Natural features and scenic views are top-rated amenities across responses for parks and open space FUTURE PRIORITIES • More wildlife habitat • Better trail connectivity • Enhanced ADA access • Limit overdevelopment DOWNTOWN NEEDS • Shade, Benches, Trees, Picnic areas GROWING CONCERN • Overcrowding causing wildlife conflicts and environmental impact HOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICSHOUSEHOLD DEMOGRAPHICS WHERE DO SURVEY PARTICIPANTS LIVE? • 59% Adults 55+ • 35% Dogs • 22% 22-54 • 11% Child under 12 • 8% Child under 12 • 8% Person with a disability SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS CONDITIONS AND AMENITIES... Identified Top Amenity Conditions/ High Importance More wildlife habitat Better trail connectivity Enhanced ADA access Identified Low Amenity Conditions/ High Importance Shade, Benches, Trees, Picnic areas RATE THE CONDITIONS OF AMENITIES (responses combined for all park locations) SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS FINDINGS OPEN-ENDED RESPONSE OVERVIEW Strong support for protecting and enhancing natural areas. • Respondents emphasized preserving wildlife habitat, improving environmental resilience, and maintaining Estes Park’s nature- centered identity and unique character. Concerns about overuse and visitation impacts. • Requests expressed for better management of parks and open spaces to balance conservation with meaningful outdoor access and connectivity. #1 Choice: Acquiring open space #2 Choice: Undertaking community resilience projects #3 Choice: Providing more parks in walking/biking distance #4 Choice: Increasing maintenance and repair of current parks and open space #5 Choice: Reduce or sustain current park and open space focus. INVESTMENT FOCUS PREFERENCES: PLAN FRAMEWORK & THEMES THEMESTHEMES GOALSGOALS STRATEGIES ACTION ITEMS CONCEPT PLANS BROADBROAD SPECIFICSPECIFIC TOWN OF ESTES PARK PARKS AND OPEN SPACE MASTER PLAN PLAN GUIDING FRAMEWORK • • Themes (Organizing principle of future goals)(Organizing principle of future goals) • • Goals (What we are trying to achieve) • • Strategies (Listed opportunities – how we achieve goals)(Listed opportunities – how we achieve goals) • • Action Items Action Items (Specific steps – Included in the implementation chapter)(Specific steps – Included in the implementation chapter) • • Example: CIP Projects DRAFT PLAN THEMES THE DOWNTOWN THE DOWNTOWN EXPERIENCEEXPERIENCE CO-EXISTENCE OF VISITORS AND WILDLIFE PARKS ENGAGING EVERYONEEVERYONE NATURAL AREAS AND OPEN SPACES MAINTENANCE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS DOWNTOWN AS A “LINEAR PARK” AMENITIES FOR COMFORT • Shade, benches, and picnic areas INTERACTIONS WITH THE RIVER • River front opportunities (i.e. access to water, viewing areas) ART, INTERACTION, AND BEAUTIFICATION • Iconic scenery experiences • Public art and displays • Character and aesthetic intention CONNECTION TO COMMERCE • Patio to the ‘shops’ WAYFINDING AND CONNECTIVITY • Gateways and Signage • Linking neighborhoods to downtown RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY / INTENSITY AREAS PARK SPACE IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES • Specific site needs, amenities, renovations, etc. THE DOWNTOWN EXPERIENCE 57% of respondents use parks for festivals, concerts, or markets. Downtown parks and the Riverwalk received some of the highest system-wide ratings for visual quality, natural features, and trails/walkways. Respondents identified needs for additional seating, shade, picnic areas, ADA accessibility, and restroom facilities. POTENTIALS • Create a Master Plan for a cohesive visitor experience from the Visitors Center and Parking Garage to the Riverwalk. » Add trailhead and play feature amenities »Riverbank stabilization / riparian restoration • Update paving materials in plaza spaces (i.e. Riverwalk, George Hix, Performance Park, Riverside/Baldwin Park, Tregent Park, Weist Park) » Simplify amount of varying types of materials »Repair uneven walking surfaces for improved accessibility • Update Play Features (Children’s Park, Riverside/Baldwin Park) »Universally-accessible »Contextually relevant and representative of the community • Create a Master Plan for Baldwin Park and Moraine Ave/Hwy 36 Traffic Circle • Renovate dated spaces that can offer more user amenities (i.e. Tregent Park, Weist Pocket Park) THE DOWNTOWN EXPERIENCE WILDLIFE AND HUMAN CONFLICTS • Safety • Visitor Management »Viewing areas / spreading users out • Operational adaptations to co-exist with wildlife » Addressing and deterring wildlife impacts on the park system / beautification • Considering Wildlife in park decision-making • Define and protect wildlife corridors HUMAN IMPACTS ON THE PARK SYSTEM • Overcrowding and visitation »Visitation growth, distribution of crowds, peak usage • Trash, cleanliness, maintenance • High use areas / intensity PARTNERSHIP ALIGNMENT EDUCATION CO-EXISTENCE OF VISITORS AND WILDLIFE 63% of survey respondents identified acquiring more natural areas for wildlife habitat conservation as the top investment priority. Open-ended responses frequently noted concerns about wildlife disturbance, habitat impacts, and human–wildlife conflicts. POTENTIALS • Reinforce native ecologies • Wildlife deterring landscape treatments • Engage a CPW officer CO-EXISTENCE OF VISITORS AND WILDLIFE CURRENT AND FUTURE RESIDENT PARK NEEDS PHYSICAL CONNECTIVITY • Trail connectivity and mobility options to neighborhoods and community spaces (traffic reduction) • Youth and Teen Mobility SEASONAL ACTIVITIES EVENT SPACES AND PROGRAMMING ADAPTIVE SPORTS / ACCESSIBILITY PARKS ENGAGING EVERYONE 34% of respondents rated ADA accessibility as only Fair or Poor, reinforcing the need for improved accessibility and safer connections. Visitors and seniors received the highest “Excellent” and “Good” ratings for how parks serve their needs. Teens, young adults, and individuals with disabilities showed lower ratings for how parks serve their needs. POTENTIALS • Acquire / aspire to more neighborhood parks to serve residents • Performance Park » Expand opportunities for seating and accessibility »Formalize and promote the Fall River Trail trailhead • Thumb Open Space » Create trail to support off-road wheelchairs and/or electric bikes for adaptive athletes and other users with physical disabilities to access the site. • Program more winter activities PARKS ENGAGING EVERYONE CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT • Role of the Town in conservation (management, acquisitions/disposals) • Land Trust partnerships NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT • Big Thompson and Fall Rivers RESILIENCY • Wildfire resiliency • Flooding • Native ecologies • Urban forestry • Riparian Habitats • Habitat disturbance • Noxious weed management FUTURE ACQUISITION PRIORITIES CONSERVATION EASEMENTS OPEN SPACES SUPPORTING NEIGHBORHOODS • Scott Ponds • Fish Hatchery • Under-served neighborhoods, meeting growth NATURAL AREAS AND OPEN SPACES 91% of respondents use parks and open spaces to enjoy nature and wildlife, making natural areas the most important function of the system. Open-ended responses emphasized a strong desire to preserve natural, undeveloped open spaces and limit overdevelopment or heavy programming. Focus groups participants emphasized active stewardship and management of natural areas, including habitat protection, wildfire resilience, and invasive species control. POTENTIALS • Fish Hatchery »Create a Master Plan that describes opportunities for education, interpretation, and future recreation development. NATURAL AREAS AND OPEN SPACES STAFFING • Skillsets and titles • Strategies for retention and succession • Staff resources • Maintenance levels GROWTH: EQUIPMENT, BUILDINGS, MAINTENANCE YARDS CAPITAL PLANNING EVENT IMPACT FEES FUTURE PARKS GROWTH • Service Levels MODERNIZATION/SYSTEM ADVANCEMENT • Benchmark comparisons of management LANDSCAPE AND BEAUTIFICATION MANAGEMENT POLICY UPDATES • E-Bikes, non-motorized transportation, dogs Natural features and trails received the highest condition ratings, while restrooms, play equipment, and ADA accessibility received fewer “Excellent” and “Good” ratings. Focus group participants identified staffing and maintenance capacity as key priority for long-term system performance, stewardship, and safety. Focus group participants noted more intensive, year- round use, increasing demands on maintenance, staffing, and facilities. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS POTENTIALS • Disperse maintenance equipment for ease of access at other parts of town • Reclassify “maintenance worker” titles to reflect roles • Maintain an amenity replacement schedule MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS • What is your feedback on the Plan Themes and areas of improvements? Do you agree? What would you change? • What is the desired role for the Parks Division over the next decade? • Did we miss anything for park and open space improvements over the next decade? DISCUSSION TOPICS THANK YOU! SCOTT PONDS Town of Estes Park: Parks and Open Spaces Plan Page 1 Memo: Park Classifications To: Town of Estes Park From: Design Workshop Date: November 17, 2025 Project Name: Parks and Open Spaces Plan Project #: 8608 Subject: Online Survey Summary Introduction The online survey for the Parks & Open Space Master Plan gathered a total of 655 responses, with residents and visitors providing input on park use, conditions, and future priorities. The survey was advertised through multiple approaches, including advertisements at specific park locations, fliers, and social media. Participants were able to provide feedback on multiple specific park locations, as well as provide general feedback on the system-wide offerings. The survey was open from September 1, 2025, to November 3, 2025. Feedback indicates a community that deeply values access to nature, wildlife conservation, and the preservation of existing open spaces, while also recognizing the need for additional amenities such as shade, benches, restrooms, and connectivity improvements. Summary Takeaways •Overwhelming desire to preserve natural areas and protect what already exists. •Amenities like natural features, as well as visual quality and aesthetics, are well-liked. Amenities relating to accessibility, restroom and picnic facilities, and play equipment scored lower. •The parks and open spaces serve visitors, locals, and seniors comparatively well. Teens, young adults, and individuals with disabilities are perceived as not as well served. •Nature and wildlife, spending time with family, and relaxing outdoors are the top ways participants enjoy the Town’s parks and open spaces. •Acquiring more natural areas for wildlife habitat conservation is a top priority for future investments. •Preserving natural and undeveloped areas is a top priority for the future, expressing a desire to limit overdevelopment or heavy programming. •Future priorities emphasize support for pedestrian and bike linkages, trail and sidewalk connectivity, and better ADA accessibility. •There is a desire for more park amenities, such as shade, benches, trees, and picnic areas, especially at downtown park sites. •There are concerns for wildlife and user conflicts and human impact on the park system as visitation and overcrowding increases. Landscape Architecture Planning Urban Design Strategic Services Environmental Graphic Design 22860 Two Rivers Road #1 Basalt, Colorado 81621 970.925.8354 designworkshop.com Attachment 2 Town of Estes Park: Parks and Open Spaces Plan Page 2 Survey Questions Q1: Please indicate which park you are visiting or want to comment on. You will have the opportunity to evaluate up to three spaces. (717 total responses) Key Takeaways There were 717 survey responses where participants indicated which park or area they were visiting or wanted to comment on. This question allowed participants to take the survey multiple times for different site locations. The top responses for parks and open spaces were for Scott Ponds Park (140), Knoll Willows Open Space (110), Downtown West Parks (92), Downtown East Parks (92), and Bond Park (77). Overall, the most frequently selected option was “No specific park / general comments” (163), suggesting that many respondents preferred to provide broad feedback rather than tie it to a particular site. Q2: Please rate the conditions of any amenities you experienced at the park, open space or town-owned area you are currently evaluating (Results for all locations). (452 responses) Key Takeaways Overall, scores were highest for natural features and spaces, as well as visual quality and aesthetics. Amenities relating to accessibility, facilities, and play equipment scored lower. Amenities that are working well for the parks and open space system include nature and wildlife habitats, trails/walkways, trees, flowers, and vegetation, as well as cleanliness and maintenance, with the highest ratings being Excellent and Good. Access to rivers or ponds is also serving the system well, with the highest rating for Excellent. Many of the options for general site amenities, such as shade, bench seating, directional signage, art displays, and trailheads, were rated middle of the road. Some of the lower-scoring 92 92 77 110 43 140 163 Downtown Parks West: Riverside / George Hix /… Downtown Parks East: Riverwalk / Visitor Center / Others Bond Park Knoll Willows Open Space Thumb Open Space Scott Ponds Area I do not want to comment on a specific space / I would like… Total Responses Town of Estes Park: Parks and Open Spaces Plan Page 3 amenities include play equipment, ADA accessibility, and restroom facilities, with fewer responses indicating an Excellent or Good rating. The “Other” written text responses have 54 responses that reflect a range of comments. Many responses showed a strong appreciation for natural features and general upkeep, along with mixed feelings about amenities, facilities, and how parks serve both locals and visitors. Key Takeaways by Park Location for the written responses: Bond Park: Desire for more local activities and an acknowledgement of wildlife. There were mixed feelings about crowding and festival activities. Downtown Parks East: Riverwalk / Visitor Center / Others: Comments centered on lawn and tree maintenance and a desire for more seating and picnic tables. Other comments noted a desire for more river access and appreciation for well-maintained, clean walkways. Downtown Parks West: Riverside / George Hix / Performance Park / Others: Several comments noted parking challenges, access to additional recreation opportunities like climbing, and more native landscaping. Town of Estes Park: Parks and Open Spaces Plan Page 4 Knoll Willows Open Space: Many responses supported leaving Knoll Willows Open Space a natural area and expressed concerns about fire risk and erosion. Other responses noted amenities such as views and social trails. Thumb Open Space: Many comments indicated an appreciation for the natural character. Some of the comments raised concerns about development and the volume of visitor impacts. Scott Ponds Area: Several comments noted that this space is peaceful. There were mixed comments regarding recreation, wildlife impacts, and how this space is used. The full list of “Other” responses is featured in the appendix. Q3: What do you like and what is working well about this space today? (359 responses) Key Takeaways for Open Response Question This open-ended question received 359 written responses that are featured in the appendix. Overall, respondents indicated that the most valued aspects of the Town's parks and open spaces are the natural features, scenic quality, and access to nature. Comments expressed appreciation for the wildlife, views, peacefulness, and trails, as well as access to water, walking paths, and opportunities for passive recreation. Some comments positively highlighted the overall maintenance, cleanliness, and general upkeep of many park areas. Many comments expressed appreciation for the park's activities and events, as well as informal gathering places and family-friendly spaces. There were positive mentions of several downtown parks and Bond Park for their community events, activities, and social gathering spaces, but comments also raised concerns about crowds, noise, and parking strains. Open spaces like Knoll Willows, Scott Ponds, and Thumb Open Space consistently prompted appreciation for their natural character and a desire to keep them as natural spaces. There were some comments expressing concerns about overuse, wildlife-user conflicts, and environmental issues such as erosion and fire risk. Park-Specific Takeaways: Bond Park What people like / What’s working well • Central gathering space with a lively atmosphere • Good for events, community activities, and socializing • Easy access to nearby shops, dining, and walkable areas Other Comments and Suggestions Town of Estes Park: Parks and Open Spaces Plan Page 5 • Too many events at times; can feel crowded or overly programmed • Desire for more space that serves the local community • Some concerns about noise and congestion during festivals. Downtown Parks East: Riverwalk / Visitor Center / Others What people like / What’s working well • Great river access and well-maintained walkways • Beautiful landscaping and seating areas • Area is clean, easily accessible and enjoyable for walking Other Comments and Suggestions • Overall downtown congestion • Parking availability Downtown Parks West: Riverside / George Hix / Performance Park / Others What people like / What’s working well • Relaxing environment, great for social gatherings • Scenic river corridor and walkability • Appreciation for amenities like public art, shade, and connectivity Other Comments and Suggestions • Concerns about losing the natural character • Lack of parking Knoll Willows Open Space What people like / What’s working well • Strongly value that it’s a natural undeveloped space • Excellent wildlife viewing • Scenic views • Peaceful walking environment and quiet atmosphere Other Comments and Suggestions • Wear and tear on the trails • Environmental hazards like erosion and wildfires • Concerns about future development diminishing the natural feel Thumb Open Space What people like / What’s working well • People like the outdoor recreation opportunities like climbing, hiking and natural exploration • Excellent rugged landscape, dramatic views and rock formations • Undeveloped character that feels wild Other Comments and Suggestions • Concerns around environmental impacts and habitat disturbance Town of Estes Park: Parks and Open Spaces Plan Page 6 • Can have overcrowding and heavy recreational use in certain areas Scott Ponds Area What people like / What’s working well • Surrounding natural setting, popular for nature and wildlife views • Great for low-impact recreation and walking paths • Peaceful and quiet, less crowds Other Comments and Suggestions • Water level instabilities • Concerns about habitat impacts • Disturbance to wildlife if it becomes overused Q4: What would you change or what ideas do you have for the future of this space? (341 responses) This open-ended question received 341 written responses that are featured in the appendix. Key Takeaways for Open Response Question There was a common theme across all parks and open spaces emphasizing preservation over development, with many comments explicitly discouraging new construction, protecting wildlife corridors, maintaining natural character, and keeping spaces as natural as possible. Some comments on open spaces expressed strong concerns about turning them into heavily programmed or commercialized areas. Concerns about park spaces included tourism pressure, overuse, crowding, frustrations around e-bike speeds, parking availability, and dog control issues. Many comments about amenities expressed a desire for enhancements, including benches, shade, better restroom access, and safer or more accessible pathways. Overall Ideas Across All Parks • Preserve natural areas and wildlife habitats/corridors • Desire to keep open spaces “as it is” • People enjoy the parks and open spaces for peaceful and quiet experiences • Overload of events and programming, especially at Bond Park • Concern with strains from tourism • Desire for more shade, trees, picnic tables, and benches • Support for signage improvements for safety, wildlife, or trail etiquette • Maintenance improvements for trash removal, weed control, and trail surface repairs • Better accessibility to park sites and safer crossings or connections Town of Estes Park: Parks and Open Spaces Plan Page 7 Park-Specific Takeaways (Future-Focused): Bond Park • Many comments indicated they want Bond Park to stay mostly the same • Desire for adding amenities such as shade, seating, picnic tables, benches, and trees. • Suggestions for a permanent stage or amphitheater, lighting, or improvements for concerts and events. • Some comments wanted less or smaller activities/festivals due to congestion. • A few comments recommended expanding Bond Park by closing part of Virginia Drive. Downtown Parks East: Riverwalk / Visitor Center / Others • Overall support for maintaining the Riverwalk • Desire for more ADA accessible seating, benches and picnic areas • Many comments desired more art, interactive features or educational elements • Improvements for trail signages specifically with connections to downtown and through the tunnel. • Support for maintenance, native plantings, and addressing environmental concerns. • Access to the river including play areas • Requests for more lighting, trash bins and restroom upgrades Downtown Parks West: Riverside / George Hix / Performance Park / Others • Very strong support for upgrading the infrastructure at Performance Park • Desire to expand art and cultural offerings, specifically weekday performances • Better connectivity from the Visitor Center to Performance Park • Restroom and water fountain maintenance • Pathways or connections for e-bikes or other multi-modal transportation Knoll Willows Open Space • Very strong opinions to keep it natural, not wanting programmed activities or added facilities. • Some comments indicated a desire for trail maintenance, minimizing erosion, and passive wayfinding. • Small desire for benches or picnic tables Thumb Open Space • Significant support for creating a trail loop or extending the trail to the Prospect Mountain summit. • Comments wanting more trail maintenance, better signage, and vegetation protection. • Mixed opinions on amenities such as benches and restroom. Town of Estes Park: Parks and Open Spaces Plan Page 8 • Desire to keep space natural and undeveloped. Scott Ponds Area • Strong desire to keep Scott Ponds natural, but support for small safety and access improvements. • Strong support for enhancing and expanding the loop trail especially on the north side. • Desire for amenities such as benches, shade, and shelter, specifically near the playground. • Concerns of overcrowding and wildlife conflicts if it becomes a destination park • Comments supporting protection of wildlife habitats and restoring pond edges Overall Questions Q5: How well are all parks and open spaces serving these groups? (377 responses) Key Takeaways Overall, the responses suggest that parks and open spaces serve visitors, locals, and seniors well. Visitors received the highest rating of "Excellent." Locals and seniors had the majority of the ratings at Good or Excellent levels, while children had more middle-range scores. Responses indicated that teens and young adults, as well as individuals with disabilities, are the least served by the parks and open space system. Town of Estes Park: Parks and Open Spaces Plan Page 9 The other written responses (14) show that the Town’s parks and open spaces are generally appreciated for supporting wildlife, local families, and outdoor recreation. The comments also suggest that certain groups may be underserved, including individuals with disabilities, locals affected by heavy tourist activity, and those dependent on the bike and trail network. The full list of “Other” responses is featured in the appendix. Q6: How have you used the Town's parks, trails and/or open spaces? (select all that apply) (373 responses) Key Takeaways The top uses for how people utilize the Town's parks, trails, and/or open spaces are enjoying nature/wildlife (91%), spending time with family/friends (72%), and relaxing or meditating (66%). Organized sports (5%) and rock climbing (7%) were the least common. The other written responses (21) show that people use Estes Park’s parks, trails, and open spaces primarily for walking, hiking, biking, and outdoor recreation. Several comments mentioned using these spaces for activities like birding, fishing, photography and enjoying the festivals. Town of Estes Park: Parks and Open Spaces Plan Page 10 The full list of “Other” responses is featured in the appendix. Q7: What investment focus do you prefer the Town give to park and open space improvements over the next ten years? (369 responses) Key Takeaways The responses indicated a strong emphasis on acquiring more natural areas for wildlife habitat conservation (63%), which received significantly higher responses by a wide margin compared to the other categories. Other responses for investments show some support for community resilience projects (10%), more parks within walking or biking distance from people’s homes (8%) and increasing maintenance and repair of existing parks and open spaces (5%). Expanding and improving unpaved trails, adding more park features or recreation and increasing community gathering spaces received the least support. Town of Estes Park: Parks and Open Spaces Plan Page 11 The Other written text responses (46) reflect a strong preference for investing in preservation, stewardship, and natural resource protection rather than expanding built amenities. In line with the graph, wildlife habitat conservation and protection of the natural environment were recurring themes. Many comments also indicated a desire for improved trail connectivity, neighborhood linkages, and safer bike and pedestrian routes. The full list of “Other” responses is featured in the appendix. Q8: What else should be considered for parks, trails and open spaces in Estes Park for the next 20 years? (151 responses) This open-ended question received 151 written responses that are featured in the appendix. Key Takeaways Overall, survey respondents overwhelmingly want the next 20 years to focus on protecting natural areas, caring for what already exists, and enhancing connectivity and accessibility. Many comments highlighted the need to protect natural areas, preserve wildlife habitats, and improve environmental resilience. Additionally, respondents indicated a desire for Estes Park to remain an environment-centered community, preserving the Town's unique character while maintaining its nature-focused identity. Many comments expressed concern about overuse in parks and open spaces as visitation increases, suggesting a focus on managing human impact while continuing to provide meaningful outdoor experiences for locals and visitors. There is a strong desire to expand non-motorized transportation connections, including trail connectivity and more accessible bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Additional comments expressed a desire for improved ADA accessibility, environmental education, wildlife safety, and a balance between ecological sustainability and recreational use. Across the open spaces, comments consistently emphasized preserving the natural character of Knoll Willows Open Space, Thumb Open Space, and the Scott Ponds Area. Comments expressed concerns about erosion, overuse of trails, and overdevelopment. For park use, many comments indicate a desire for better accessibility, more seating, signage, shade areas, and maintenance, specifically at Bond Park and the Riverwalk. There were concerns about overcrowding and managing heavy visitation use, especially during festivals and events. Several comments suggested trail connection opportunities specifically around Lake Estes, Dry Gulch, and Devil's Gulch. Town of Estes Park: Parks and Open Spaces Plan Page 12 DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS Demographic Key Takeaways • Most of the survey respondents were local residents. • Older adults make up the majority of survey respondents. • Survey respondents indicated most households include older adults and dogs. Q1: Where do you live? (374 responses) Nearly half (48%) of respondents are full-time residents of the Town of Estes Park, with another 14% from Estes Valley. About 18% live outside the area, confirming both local and visitors participated in the survey. The full list of “Other” responses is featured in the appendix. Q2: What is your age? (377 responses) The distribution shows older adults as the dominant respondent group. The largest age group was 65 - 74 years (32%), followed by 55 - 64 years (21%), showing older adults as the dominant respondent group. Only about 10% were under 45, highlighting an opportunity to reach more younger residents in future engagement. Town of Estes Park: Parks and Open Spaces Plan Page 13 Q3: Do any of the following live in your household? (Select all that apply) (345 responses) The largest household age group was Adults older than 55 years (59%), followed by dog owners (31%). This shows older adults are a more common household demographic, alongside many dog owners within Estes Park. Only about 22% mentioned they have an adult between the ages of 22 and 54 within their household. 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: Reuben Bergsten, Director; Jacqueline Wesley, Project Manager; and Jason Fredricks, Water Superintendent Department: Utilities Date: February 10, 2026 Subject: Water Master Plan Update and Recommendations Purpose of Study Session Item: Update the Town Board on the findings from the Water Master Plan Update and receive initial input from the Board on the path forward before the Board approves the Master Plan. Town Board Direction Requested: 1. Does the Town Board support moving the Master Plan into the public and stakeholder outreach phase? 2. Does the Town Board support the continued exploration of the recommended plan, including preliminary design work, an analysis of rate impacts, and funding options? Present Situation: The Water Master Plan Update builds on the 2015 Water Master Plan and incorporates updated system data, population and demand projections, regulatory requirements, and asset condition assessments. Its primary objective is to guide capital investment to meet current and future water demands while maintaining high-quality and reliable service for residents, businesses, and guests. The updated master plan reviews the water system's general performance and discusses key vulnerabilities, including aging infrastructure, limited treatment redundancy, seasonal raw water constraints, and increasing regulatory and resiliency challenges. The 2015 Water Master Plan population and water demand projections have been replaced with a detailed analysis using current conditions. To address the issue that neither of the Town’s existing water treatment plants can reliably operate year-round on a standalone basis due to raw water supply limitations, treatment process constraints, and asset condition. The Water Master Plan recommends construction of a new water treatment plant that meets our industry's best practices for redundancy and safety. To address significant needs in the distribution system, the Master Plan recommends a long-term, systematic distribution system improvement program, including replacement of aging pipelines, increased system looping to improve water quality and reliability, targeted storage tank replacements, and pump station upgrades. The cost to implement the recommended improvements requires financing, and the estimated debt payment will be fed into our current rate study. Proposal: Staff propose continuing to refine the recommended alternatives (treatment and distribution), developing a more detailed cost opinion, completing the rate study to determine financial impacts from implementing the recommended plan, and initiating pre-design activities. Advantages: ● Enables the rate consultant to refine the financial model, providing the Board and public with an understanding of rate impacts and funding requirements. ● Transparency & Engagement: Initiates a public outreach process to inform the public and gather critical feedback. ● Provides staff the ability to engage a consultant to support plan development ● Allows staff to address immediate operational needs at existing plants while maintaining momentum on the long-term plan. ● Positions the Town to competitively pursue grants and low-interest loans by demonstrating "shovel readiness" or planning progress. Disadvantages: ● Implies agreement with the final recommendations from the Water Master Plan; but the desired outcome of the study session is direction from the Board for staff to begin public outreach to gather more information to help inform the Board before taking a vote on approval of the Water Master Plan. Finance/Resource Impact: To be determined based on planning and the rate study results Level of Public Interest: Moderate Attachments: 1.Presentation Town Board Study Session We are committed to providing equitable access to our services. If you need any assistance, please email digitalaccessibility@estes.org. Water Master Plan FEBRUARY 10, 2026Attachment 1 Agenda ▪Development of the Water Master Plan ▪Existing Conditions and Current Infrastructure Needs ▪Future Conditions and Infrastructure Recommendations ▪Capital Improvement Plan ▪Funding Options and Financial Impact ▪Path Forward Approach to Master Plan Update ▪Used information from our on-call task orders ▪Engaged staff with knowledge of our assets ▪Focused on planning level decisions ▪Defined a path forward Population & Demand Projections (Harvey Econ.) Asset Inventory – Pipeline and Tanks (Water Division) Chemical Evaluation TM (HDR) Performance Evaluation & Condition Assessment (AE2S) Water Use Charact- erization & Planning (AE2S) Design Parameters & Evaluation Criteria (AE2S) Raw Water Alignment Assessment (HDR) Constructive Controversy (Town) Flowmeter Grounding Trouble- shooting (Plummer) SCADA Upgrades TM (Huffman) Power Protection Upgrades TM (Plummer) Organization of the Master Plan Section 1: Background and Purpose of Water Master Plan ‒Purpose and need for the master plan update ‒Key drivers Section 2: Basis of Planning ‒Planning horizon and population/demand forecasts ‒Data sources for the master plan Section 3: Water Rights ‒Summary of existing water rights ‒Comparison of water rights against future demands Section 4: Condition Assessment of Existing Water Assets ‒Condition of assets ‒Risk and consequence of failure Section 5: Alternatives to Meet Future Treatment Needs ‒Alternatives and criteria for comparison ‒Scoring and recommended alternative Section 6: Alternatives to Meet Distribution and Storage Needs ‒Pipeline replacement and system looping projects ‒Storage upgrades Section 7: Financial Analysis ‒Water CIP and cost range ‒Funding sources and options Section 8: Implementation Plan ‒Phased implementation plan ‒Schedule for CIP Population and Demand Projections Higher Growth Scenario Year Total Demand (MG) Demand (MGD) Peak Day Demand (MGD) 2024 621.0 1.7 3.3 2035 701.1 1.9 3.8 2045 780.9 2.1 4.2 Lower Growth Scenario Year Total Demand (MG) Demand (MGD) Peak Day Demand (MGD) 2024 621.0 1.7 3.3 2035 682.7 1.9 3.7 2045 705.9 1.9 3.8 Results of population and demand forecasting study completed by Harvey Economics, 2025. For treatment needs, use the mid-point of 4 MGD with consideration of expansion for projection uncertainties. Existing Conditions Treatment •Plant conditions: fair to poor •No/limited redundancy •Process treatment limitations •Single source of raw water •Chemical storage & handling •Electrical, surge, and grounding vulnerabilities •Structural deterioration MLWTP GCWTP Distribution •Pipe conditions: good (newer) to poor (older) •Frequent leaks due to older pipe condition •Level of service does not meet best practice •Limited looping •Significantly varying pressures Pumping and Storage •Tank conditions -generally moderate to poor •Lack of redundancy and limited controls •Level of service does not meet best practice •Tank optimization of operations More Stringent & Evolving Regulations As science advances our ability to detect contaminants in treated and raw water and our understanding of the impacts of even low level of pollutants on public health increases, the water regulations continue to become more stringent. “Forever chemicals” Challenging to remove from water Monitoring & treatment to part-per-trillion Replace lead service lines Manmade and naturally occurring pollutants (microplastics, cyanotoxins, pharmaceuticals, etc.) Monitor, treat with advanced technologies Lower action level Increased scrutiny & requirements Better overall data management Lead and Copper CEC Cyber security Cross connection control Storage PFAS Modifies measurement methods “at the tap” water quality Distribution System management and storage changes Prioritization of Infrastructure Needs Highest Priorities: Public health and regulatory requirements Balanced Priorities: system needs, level of service, planning for future, environmental/ conservation, and impact to customers Efficiency Security Reliability Automation Redundancy Resiliency Optimization Sustainability Treating CEC Level of Service Asset Management Treatment Alternatives Alternative 1 Required improvements at MLWTP & GCWTP −Structural, electrical, I&C, and HVAC −Chemical systems −Redundancy −Reliability GCWTP: −Redundancy −Safety & personnel −Sanitary & utility service MLWTP −Storage tank −Safety & personnel Alternative 2 Upgrade MLWTP operate year- round, decommission GCWTP −Raw water −Pretreatment −Redundancy −Reliability −Storage tank −Structural, electrical, I&C, HVAC −Chemical systems −Redundant treated water connection −Safety & personnel Alternative 3 Upgrade GCWTP to operate year- round, improve MLWTP −Structural, electrical, I&C, HVAC −Chemical systems −Reliability −Safety & personnel GCWTP: −Raw water −Pretreatment −Redundancy −Distribution system −Safety and personnel −Sanitary & utility service Alternative 4 Replace GCWTP to operate year- round, decommission MLWTP −Raw water −New treatment plant −Site reconfiguration −Pretreatment −Redundant treated water connection −Sanitary & utility service −Distribution system Alternative 5 New year-round, WTP, improve MLWTP, decommission GCWTP −Redundant raw water −New treatment plant −Full redundancy −Sanitary & utility service −Distribution system MLWTP −Similar to Alternative 3 Treatment Alternatives Outcome Alternative Comments 1: Modify MLWTP and GCWTP Alternative does not meet the goal of at least one plant that can operate year- round with an alternative water source. The cost to upgrade both plants to meet required reliability and redundancy is cost prohibitive. 2: Upgrade/year-round MLWTP, decommission GCWTP Cost to deliver alternative water supply and to upgrade the existing MLWTP will be significant. Constructability for redundancy adds cost to this alternative. 3: Upgrade/year-round GCWTP, modify MLWTP Cost to upgrade both plants to meet redundancy and reliability requirements and to provide an alternative raw water source to at least one plant is cost prohibitive when compared to other alternatives. 4: Replace/year-round GCWTP, decommission MLWTP Alternative recommendation from treatment scenario planning. Implementation requires utility upgrades, alternative water supply to site, and consideration of maintenance of plant operations during construction. 5: New year-round WTP, modify MLWTP, decommission GCWTP Preferred alternative identified during treatment scenario planning with staff and planning level comparison of alternatives considering cost, ease of implementation, O&M impacts, social and environmental impacts, and integration with the existing distribution system. Distribution/Storage Improvements Drivers ▪Pipeline replacement program to renew pipe every 100 to 120 years ▪Condition of asset ▪Looping for water quality ▪Pressure Zone fire flow storage ▪Peak hour demand attenuation ▪Water loss reduction/wasting of water ▪Reduction in O&M Pi p e L e n g t h Year by Decade Pipe replacement lengths based on age of pipe 2020 -2030 to date or in process: approx. 51.6k LF (9.7 miles) Distribution and Storage CIP Fiscal constraints guide our implementation planning. Immediate/Near-Term Thunder Mountain Tank Replacement – Tank concrete analysis indicates need to replace the tank, progressing toward tank failure. Big Thompson Tank Replacement Phase 1 –the existing tank is undersized for our desired LOS and is critical to our largest pressure zone Fall River Estates PS & PRV –relocation from floodplain and increase LOS Planned Crags Crossing –undersized interconnection feeding large pressure zone Various looping projects – improve water quality and LOS Pipeline replacement program – replace undersized and aged pipelines, renew pipes every 100 to 120 years. Recommendations –Integrated Water CIP Near-Term (0 to 3 years) Planning for new WTP and raw water supply MLWTP: Electrical and I&C upgrades, structural rehabilitation, storage tank modification, safety enhancements, and chemical feed and storage GCWTP: As needed structural repairs, electrical improvements, chemical feed enhancements Thunder Mountain Storage Tank replacement Big Thompson Tank replacement (Phase 1 of 2) Fall River Estates PRV and PS Replacement Mid-Term (+3 years) New water treatment plant and raw water supply Pipe replacement and renewal program Preliminary Planning Level Opinion of Cost1 Funding Needs Estimated Cost to Implement2 New WTP with redundant raw water supply, associated distribution system improvements $88M -$115M Thunder Mountain Tank Replacement $1M -$3M Improvements to MLWTP $8M -$12M Improvements to GCWTP $0.8M –$1.5M Big Thompson Tank Replacement, Phase 1 $4M -$6M Fall River Estates PS/PRV Replacement/Relocation $3M -$5M Pipe Replacement Program, annual cost3 $2.5M -$3M 1Additional cost development for budgeting and financing will be completed upon acceptance of master plan recommendations. 2Estimated costs are in 2026 dollars and must be escalated for final budgeting. Estimates will be updated during planning and development. 3Pipe replacement program is based on a 100-year program to upgrade and/or replace pipes. Life expectancy is 100 to 120 years. Funding Options and Financial Impacts Potential Funding Support Sources Pros and Cons Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Flexible repayment terms, long loan period, delayed payment options Market interest rate, high administrative requirements, Federal requirements, cost for delayed payments State Revolving Fund Lower interest rates (2025 was 85% of market rate), long term options, State managed established program Administrative requirements, BABA, AIS, loan specific obligations, capped at $30M each US Department of Agriculture –Rural Development (USDA-RD) Long payback period, fixed rate, Town familiarity with program requirements Administrative requirements, AIS and potentially other obligations, Federal availability and operations impacts Municipal Revenue Bonds No BABA or AIS requirements, can seek multiple competitive packages, well established practice Loan terms and interest rates may vary, dependent in water fund revenue, financial reporting/auditing Staff will continue to review grant opportunities to assist with funding. Path Forward 2026 Adopt Water Master Plan Update Complete Rate Study and Implement Recommendations in 2027 Select consultant and complete design of Thunder Mountain Tank Replacement Select consultant for Big Thompson Tank Replacement Start RFQ to select a consultant for improvements to existing WTPs, new WTP 2027 Develop and implement funding approach and update costs for CIP Planning for New WTP including Siting, Water Rights Actions as needed Design of improvements to existing WTPs Design for Big Thompson Tank Replacement Phase 1 Construct New Thunder Mountain Tank 2028 Preliminary Engineering for new WTP (late 2028/early 2029) Construct Big Thompson Tank Replacement –Phase 1 Design Fall River Estates PS and PRV Replacement Construct improvements to existing WTPs 2029 Construct Fall River Estates PS and PRV Replacement Final Design and permitting of New WTP Construction of New WTP Start Annual Waterline Replacement Program 2030+ Discussion 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. Future Study Session Items February 13, 2026 (Special Session) • Wildfire Resiliency Code Joint Session with Estes Valley Fire Protection District February 24, 2026 • 2026 Street Improvement Program Overview • Whimsadoodle/Big Horn Parking Lot Update • Public Comment Policy March 10, 2026 • Exemption of Certain Products from Sales Tax • Vendor Fee Rate for Sales Tax Collection • Plaque Honoring Civic Service/Art in Public Places March 24, 2026 • Annexation of Enclaves • Policy 102 (Town Committees) Liaison Review • Policy 102 (Town Committees) Focus Groups Draft April 14, 2026 • Murals and Sign Code • Growth Management Areas Overview Items Approved - Unscheduled • Police Department Facility Financing • Commercial Loading Permit Post-Season Assessment • Liquor License Process Items for Town Board Consideration • None