HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2020-02-11The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services
for the benefit of our citizens, guests, and employees, while being good stewards
of public resources and our natural setting.
The Town of Estes Park will make reasonable accommodations for access to Town services,
programs, and activities and special communication arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Please call (970) 577-4777. TDD available.
BOARD OF TRUSTEES - TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Tuesday, February 11, 2020
7:00 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
(Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance).
AGENDA APPROVAL.
PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address).
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2. Town Board Minutes dated January 28, 2020.
3. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated November 21, 2019 and December 19, 2019
(acknowledgement only).
4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated November 20, 2019 and December 18,
2019 (acknowledgement only).
ACTION ITEMS:
1. ORDINANCE 01-20 AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL
CODE CONCERNING MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. Town Clerk Williamson.
Continued from January 28, 2020. To align the Estes Park Municipal Code with the
Colorado Revised Statutes related to deadlines for write-in candidates and
cancellation of the election.
2. CONTRACT WITH HOST COMPLIANCE FOR VACATION HOME MONITORING
SERVICES. Town Clerk Williamson.
To consider the 2020 contract with Host Compliance to provide vacation home
compliance, address identification, trend monitoring and 24/7 hotline.
3. ORDINANCE 02-20 AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A USDA WATER REVENUE
BOND. Director Hudson.
To finance the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company system
improvements.
4. ORDINANCE 03-20 CONVERTING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE
TO THE ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE. Director Hunt.
Amending to the Estes Valley Development Code to make it applicable only within the
Town of Estes Park and clarifying certain sections therein.
ADJOURN.
Prepared 01-31-2020
*Revised
1
1
2
2
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, January 28, 2020
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 28th day of January, 2020.
Present: Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Ron Norris, Mayor Pro Tem
Trustees Carlie Bangs
Eric Blackhurst
Marie Cenac
Patrick Martchink
Ken Zornes
Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Absent: None.
Mayor Jirsa 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 (Zornes/Norris) to approve the Agenda, and it passed
unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS.
John Meissner/Town citizen commented on the recent change on how Larimer County
Health rates restaurants. The simplified process makes it easier for customers to
understand. He suggested a process used in other communities should be considered
for Estes Park restaurants in which a sticker is placed on the door to inform the public of
the County rating.
TOWN BOARD COMMENTS
Trustee Martchink stated he attended and emceed the recent Estes Park Nonprofit
Resource Center fundraising event. He also attended the Pizza and Politics event with
other members of the Town Board at the high school. He announced his candidacy for
Trustee.
Trustee Cenac stated she attended the Pizza and Politics event and found it enjoyable
and rewarding.
Trustee Bangs thanked the candidates running for mayor and trustee at the upcoming
Municipal Election. She stated the Transportation Advisory Committee met to discuss
how to prioritize items for 2020.
Mayor Jirsa reminded the public of the upcoming Kindness project to be held in Estes
Park on February 5 and 6, 2020. He encouraged those interested to register for the event
through the Library.
Mayor Pro Tem Norris also thanked candidates running for mayor and trustee. The
Family Advisory Board would meet on February 13, 2020.
Trustee Zornes recommended citizens read the Kindness Diaries.
Trustee Blackhurst stated the Estes Valley Planning Commission would not bring forward
code changes until the new Planning Commission has been established. DRAFTm. and all m. and desiring to do so, reo so, r
/Norris) /N to approve the Agenpprove
commented on on the recent chathe recent cha
The simplified The simplified process maproc
sted a prsted a ocess used in other cocess used in
rants in which a sticker isrants in which a sticker is plac p
RD COMMENTS D COMMENTS DRartchink stated he attended artchink stated he att
ce Center fundraising event. Hce Center fundraising event.
members of the Town Board members of the Town Board
ee
ac stated she aac stated she
3
3
Board of Trustees – January 28, 2020 – Page 2
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT.
Administrator Machalek reviewed the quarterly report for Policy Governance Policy 3.3
Financial Planning. He stated full compliance with the policy guidelines.
1. CONSENT AGENDA:
1. Bills.
2. Town Board Minutes dated January 14, 2020 and Town Board Study Session
Minutes dated January 14, 2020.
3. Estes Valley Planning Commission Minutes dated November 19, 2019
(acknowledgment only).
4. Family Advisory Board Minutes dated November 7, 2019 and December 5, 2019
(acknowledgement only).
5. Family Advisory Board 2020 Focus Area.
6. Federal Transit Administration Title VI Program Plan.
7. Approval to Submit a Grant Application to Colorado Department of Transportation
for the Multimodal Options Fund for Fall River Trail.
8. Parks Advisory Board Appointments:
x Geoffrey Elliot, Reappointment, 3-year term expiring December 31, 2022.
x J Rex Poggenpohl, Reappointment, 3-year term expiring December 31, 2022.
9. Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Monitoring Report.
It was moved and seconded (Martchink/Cenac) to approve the Consent Agenda
Items,and unanimously.
2. LIQUOR ITEMS:
1. CHANGE OF LOCATION FOR A HOTEL & RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE
HELD BY TWIN OWLS INC. DBA THE TWIN OWLS STEAKHOUSE FROM 800
MACGREGOR AVE TO 3110 SOUTH ST. VRAIN AVE, ESTES PARK, CO
80517. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the application and stated all paperwork
and fees had been submitted for the change of location. The applicants purchased
the Taharaa Mountain Lodge and transferred the Lodging and Entertainment liquor
license at the Town Board meeting on July 23, 2019 with the intent of surrendering
the license once the Twin Owls Steakhouse was relocated to the lodge. Approval
of the change of location would coincide with the surrendering of the current liquor
license held at the Taharaa Mountain Lodge. It was moved and seconded
(Norris/Martchink)to approve a Change of Location for the Hotel and
Restaurant liquor license held by Twin Owls Inc. dba Twin Owls Steakhouse
from 800 MacGregor Avenue to 3110 South St. Vrain Avenue, and it passed
with Trustee Bangs abstaining.
2. NEW HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE FILED BY BLACK
CANYON CATERING, INC. DBA THE HOMESTEAD, 800 MACGREGOR AVE,
ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the application and
stated all paperwork and fees had been submitted. With the Board’s approval to
change the location of the current liquor license held at the premise by Twin Owls
Steakhouse, the applicants are requesting approval of a new Hotel and Restaurant
liquor license on the premise. Darin Cuscik/Food & Beverage Manager for the
Black Canyon Catering Inc. dba The Homestead stated the complex would be an
event and wedding facility only and would not be open to the public. It was moved
and seconded (Martchink/Zornes) to approve the Hotel and Restaurant Liquor
License filed by Black Canyon Catering, Inc. dba The Homestead, 800
MacGregor Ave, and it passed with Trustee Bangs abstaining.DRAFTand Deand D
m Plan.m Pla
Colorado Department of TranColorado Department of Tran
l River Trail.River Trail.
ts:
ment, 3-yearment, term expiring Decrm expr
ppointointment, 3-year term expirinment, 3-year term ex
ministratoor Policy Governancer Policy Governanc
condedconded (Martchink/Cenac) (Martchink/C to
ously. ously.
S:RGE OF LOCATION FOR A HGE OF LOCATIO
DRLD BY TWIN OWLS INC. DBALD BY TWIN OWLS IN
DRMACGREGOR AVE TO 3110MACGREGOR AVE TO 31DR80517.805 Town Clerk Williamserk WilliamsDand fees had been submitand fees had been su
Taharaa Mountain LTaharaa Mountain
e at the Town Be at the Town
se once tse once t
ge oge o
4
4
Board of Trustees – January 28, 2020 – Page 3
3. NEW HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE FOR WAY FINDER INC.
DBA WAY FINDER, 900 MORAINE AVE, UNIT 301, ESTES PARK, CO 80517.
Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the application and stated all paperwork and fees
had been submitted. A liquor license was previously held at the location by Cadeso
Inc. dba The Other Side Restaurant. The license was not renewed in December
2019 and staff was notified by the property owner the company had lost
possession of the property. The applicants submitted the liquor license in
December in conjunction with the expiration of the current liquor license. Jared
Ramos/applicant stated he would complete TIPS training within the next two
weeks. It was moved and seconded (Cenac/Martchink) to approve the Hotel &
Restaurant Liquor License filed by Way Finder Inc. dba Way Finder, 900
Moraine Avenue, Unit 301, and it passed unanimously.
4. NEW TAVERN LIQUOR LICENSE FOR ESTES PARK POST NO. 119,
AMERICAN LEGION DBA ESTES PARK POST NO. 119, AMERICAN LEGION,
850 NORTH SAINT VRAIN AVE, ESTES PARK, CO 80517. Town Clerk
Williamson reviewed the application and stated all paperwork and fees had been
submitted. The American Legion has requested a change in class of license from
a Club liquor license to a Tavern liquor license. A change in class requires a new
liquor license application be submitted, and if approved, the current Club license
would be surrendered. This change would allow the American Legion to hold more
than 15 special events per year, and would eliminate the need for Special Event
Liquor License applications, fees and staff processing time for special events. It
was moved and seconded (Norris/Zornes) to approve the new Tavern Liquor
License filed by Estes Park Post No. 119, American Legion dba Estes Park
Post No. 119, American Legion, 850 North Saint Vrain Avenue, and it passed
with Trustee Bangs abstaining.
3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
1. ACTION ITEMS:
A. RESOLUTION 08-20, AMENDED PLAT NO. 1, ESTES PARK RESORT
TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION, 1700 BIG THOMPSON AVENUE, MOUNTAIN
VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT LLC, OWNER/APPLICANT. Planner Woeber
reviewed the application and stating two lots within the platted townhome
subdivision would be removed with the amended plat. The applicant
determined a minor reconfiguration was needed to provide additional distance
between the accommodation units. The elimination of the two lots would
provided the needed space. It was moved and seconded (Cenac/Norris) to
approve Resolution 08-20, and unanimously.
4. ACTION ITEMS:
1. RESOLUTION 09-20 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS.
Administrator Machalek stated staff determined the position could be approved by
the Town Administrator through Policy Governance because it would be a limited
term position and could be funded with current budget funds. It was moved and
seconded (Norris/Cenac) to postpone indefinitely Resolution 09-20, and it
passed unanimously.
2. THE HISTORIC STANLEY HOME FOUNDATION OFF-CYCLE FUNDING
REQUEST. Town Administrator Machalek stated the Historic Stanley Home
Foundation has requested a one-time request of $75,000 to fund the gap between
anticipated first year revenues and the costs to startup the Historic Stanley Home
Museum and Education Center.
David Batey/County citizen and member of the Historic Stanley Home Committee
Advisory Group thanked the Board for considering the startup cost for the Historic
Stanley Home Museum and Education Center. He stated the project would
advance the Town’s strategic plan by supporting a robust economy, provide
exceptional guest services, and outstanding community service. The group has DRAFTAMAM
T 80517 805
Terwork and feerwork
ange inange in class of li c
change in class requirechange in clas
approved, the current Club licapproved, the curren
ow the American Legion to holdow the American Legion t
ld eliminate the need for Specld eliminate the need for Spe
taff processing time taff processing ti for specia
Zornes) es) to approve the to approv new T
t No. 119, Am9, American Legion eri
n, 850 North Saint Vrain Aven, 850 North Saint
g.
ITEMS: RATION 08-20, AMENDED PLTION 08-20, AMENDED P ARAHOME SUBDIVISION, 1700 BOME SUBDIVISION, 1700 BRAGE DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT LLC, LLC,DRviewed the application and sviewed the applic
subdivision would be remosubdivision would be
determined a minor reconfdetermined a minor recon i
between the accommodaccommod
provided the needed provided the need
approve Resolutioapprove Resolu
EMS: EMS: D5
5
Board of Trustees – January 28, 2020 – Page 4
raised $1.53 million from 402 donors in the past 12 months. The additional funds
to purchase the home would be in the form of a mortgage through the Bank of
Colorado. The Town’s support of this project would demonstrate additional local
support for the project and strengthen current and future grant applications to
maintain and renovate the home.
Board discussion followed and has been summarized: Trustee Blackhurst stated
the bank would have first position and collateral, therefore, he recommended the
bank fund the startup costs; he further questioned why the organization did not
apply for a community grant in 2019; the Board stated the Town has a list of
unfunded 2020 budgetary items, including competing items related to housing and
childcare, and questioned if the Board should consider this item outside of the
March review of the list; Board members stated support for the project but could
not support the project without reviewing the current list of unbudgeted items.
Tom Shamburg/Historic Stanley Home Foundation President & CEO stated the
organization did not meet the requirements for the Community Service grant in the
fall of 2019.
John Meissner/Town citizen stated opposition to the Town funding the foundation
for the operation of the Historic Stanley Home Museum and Education Center
because of the unresolved issues related to F.O. Stanley’s past pertaining to
racism. Tom Shamburg stated a report has been completed by Tom Pickering and
Tom Widawski reviewing the F.O. Stanley racism claims.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Norris/Martchink) to table
the request for $75,000 in startup funding for the Historic Stanley Home
Foundation to the March 24, 2020 meeting, and it passed with Trustee
Blackhurst voting “No”.
3. RESOLUTION 10-20 SETTING THE ELECTION FOR THE SALE OF DANNELS
FIRE STATION. The Town constructed the Dannels Fires Station in 1996 and
operated the facility until the formation of the Fire District in 2010. The Town has
leased the facility to the Fire District at no cost since 2010. The Fire District
currently maintains, repairs and insures the building. Staff has been in discussion
with the Fire District on transferring the building to the District to eliminate further
expenses related to maintenance and repair of the building, parking lot and
landscaping; provides the District with an asset which could be collateralized; and
the Fire District would manage and maintain the Special Use Permit (SUP) with
the Bureau of Reclamation. The Colorado Revised Statute requires the sale of the
Dannels Fire Station through a referred measure. Staff presented a Resolution to
set the ballot language for a referred measure on the April 7, 2020 ballot.
Discussion followed with Trustee Blackhurst questioning the value of the building;
questioned if the Town should sell the station for a $1 when the depreciated value
is approximately $800,000; and questioned how the station could be collateralized
if the building can only be used as a fire station through the SUP with the Bureau
of Reclamation.
After further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Martchink/Bangs) to
approve Resolution 10-20, and it passed with Trustee Blackhurst voting “No”.
4. ORDINANCE 01-20 AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
CONCERNING MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. Town Clerk Williamson reviewed the
proposed changes to the code which would align with the Colorado Revised
Statute dates for write-in candidates and for the cancellation of elections. In
addition, staff requested additional language be added to Section 2.04.030 to allow
the Board a formal process for cancelling a referred measure. It was moved and
seconded (Blackhurst/Norris) to continue the public hearing to the February
11, 2020 meeting to provide an Ordinance with the redline revisions for the
Board’s consideration.DRAFTdent & dent
munity Servicmunit
o the Town fundio the Town funding the foundng t
me Museum and Education me Museum and Educa
d d to F.O. Stanley’s past perto F.O. Stanley’s past pe
has been completed by Tom Phas been comple
anley racism claims. y racism claim
moved and secondedmoved and seconde (Norris
startup fundistartup fund ng for the Hior the
ch 24, 2020 meeting, 4, 2020 meeting and and
20 SETTING THE EL20 SETTING THE ELECTION
RAThe Town constructed the DThe Town constructed
Rfacility until the fofacility until the f rmation of thn of
facility to the Fire District atacility to the Fire District at
y maintains, repairs and insureins, repairs and insure
he Fire District on transferring he Fire District on t
penses related to maintenancpenses related to maint
andscaping; provides the Distrandscaping; provides the Dis
the Fire District would manathe Fire District would mana
he Bureau of Reclamatiohe Bureau of Reclam
nnels Fire Station thnnels Fire Station
e ballot languae ballot langua
follofollo
6
6
Board of Trustees – January 28, 2020 – Page 5
5. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS:
1.PLANNING TRANSITION ORDINANCE DISCUSSION. Director Hunt provided a
review of the items which would need to be addressed prior to the
intergovernmental agreement expires on March 31, 2020. Items include the
following:
x Adopt the Estes Valley Development Code as the Estes Park Development
Code with a blanked statement that “Valley” would be replaced with “Park” in
the code.
x Create an Estes Park Planning Commission and an Estes Park Board of
Adjustment. The EPPC would be a five-member board and provide for alternate
members to the Commission to ensure a quorum can be met. The EPBOA
would be proposed as a three-member Board.
x The vacation home code language related to the current cap of 588. Staff
recommended the final cap for the Town and the County be determined once
the 2020 renewal process has been completed on March 31, 2020. The Town
Clerk would verify the number of registered residential vacation homes within
town limits as of April 1, 2020 and established the new Town cap moving
forward.
x Zoning map would remain enforce. The County has stated the current map
would be maintained in the unincorporated area.
x Provide a transitional process for applications submitted prior to March 31,
2020.
Whereupon Mayor Jirsa adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Todd Jirsa, Mayor
Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
DRAFTd prd pr
n be metn be
he current cap of 5he current
the County be determinethe County be d
eted on March 31, 2020. The eted on March 31, 202
red residential vacared re tion homesion ho
esestablished the new Town catablished the new Town ca
ce. TThe County has stated thhe County
incorporated area.d area
ess for applicess for ations submittedons su
journed journed the meeting at 9:25 p.eeting a
RATodd JTodd J
DRWilliamson, Town ClerkWilliamson, Town Clerk
7
7
8
8
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 21, 2019
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Museum Conference Room of the Estes
Park Museum on the 21th day of November, 2019.
Present Merle Moore
Vicki Papineau
Ron Wilcocks
Rex Poggenpohl
Dewain Lockwood
Also
Present: Elias Wilson, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Patrick Martchink, Town Board Liaison
Brian Berg, Parks Supervisor
Absent: Geoffrey Elliot
Chair Merle Moore called the meeting to order at 8:40 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
GENERAL BUSINESS:
Chair Moore stated that at the bottom of page three and the top of page four references
a recommendation made by Mrs. Walsh’s Garden Committee. Moore suggested the
addition of the specific recommendation provided in a handout which states the
MWGAC requests that the Town Board authorize an RFP to identify a contractor who is
qualified, has the appropriate expertise, and who has demonstrated an ability to develop
an overall garden master plan that incorporates planting areas designed specifically for
site-appropriate native plant materials. The RFP is also to include a specific site
development plan for the pond and waterfall areas and a construction bid for that
portion. Supervisor Berg suggested the portion referencing a request to the Town Board
be eliminated from the recommendation. Chair Moore requested that a copy of the
adapted minutes be emailed out to all of the PAB members. A motion was made and
seconded (Papineau/Poggenpohl) to approve the September meeting minutes with the
amendment and all were in favor.
Gateway to Estes Park Memorial Plaque
Chair Moore gave the floor to Kathy Groesbeck of the Estes Park Rotary. Groesbeck
stated that she has been working on the plaque project since Rodger Thorp passed
away. She mentioned that the Rotary club cleaned the sign several years ago. After the
cleaning the sign was noticeably cleaner after this work. To honor his memory the
Rotary Club thought it would be wonderful to place the plaque on the Welcome to Estes
Park Sign. The sons of Rodger drew up the plans for the plaque. Groesbeck stated that
the PABs approval is necessary to install the plaque. The family chose the rock in the
proposal because they believed the location best recognized Rodger Thorp’s work.
9
9
Parks Advisory Board – November 21, 2019 – Page 2
Supervisor Berg questioned why the specific rock in the proposed design was chosen.
Groesbeck replied that the family believe it would be out of the way of pictures but still
be noticeable for individuals to read. Supervisor Berg expressed concern that the
plaque will always be visible in pictures and that the plaque would experience significant
wear and tear due to the number of people climbing on the rock. The parks department
discussed the possibility of placing the plaque on the farthest rock to the right. There,
the plaque wouldn’t be climbed on but would still recognize Rodger Thorp.
Groesbeck mentioned that right after the sign was installed there was a car that
flattened some of the rocks.
Member Wilcocks stated that he likes Supervisor Berg’s idea of having the plaque
placed on the rock farthest to the right so that when you walk to the sign it will showcase
the design.
Groesbeck stated that the location of the plaque can be wherever the PAB prefers. She
also stated that she believes the plaque would fit on the rock located on the far right.
Chair Moore asked if there would is a potential for the car to hit the sign.
Member Poggenpohl stated that if the sign if placed high enough a bumper will not hit it.
Supervisor Berg commented that there will be 10,000 feet walking on the plaque if it is
placed on the proposed rock.
Groesbeck shared that Thorp won an AIA award for the design of the sign which he
envisioned and drew on a napkin at Poppy’s Pizza and Grill.
Chair Moore asked if it would be possible to do a clean cut on the edge where people
do park and add rock mulch of the same color as the sign to define where people can
and cannot park. Berg responded that adding rock mulch to this area would require a
CDOT Right-of-Way permit and that it is difficult to predict how long that could take.
Member Wilcocks shared that in the TAB meeting on November 20th, 2019 a CDOT
representative shared that CDOT allows almost anything to be done in their Right-of-
Way if maintenance responsibilities are accepted by the applying party.
Poggenpohl suggested that PAB ask Supervisor Berg to follow up on the gravel idea.
Chair Moore questioned if the sign should be included in the inventory of Public Art and
that he would call it a stone sculpture. Berg mentioned that the other replica signs
located around town would also need to be considered.
Chair Moore asked if there is a motion.
Member Wilcocks motioned to allow the rotary to move forward with the proposed
plaque project with the plaque being installed on the rock to the far right. Member
Poggenpohl seconded the motion. All were in favor.
Supervisor Berg asked Groesbeck if the Rotary Club would like the Parks Division to
install the plaque. Groesbeck stated that this would be greatly appreciated.
Berg asked Groesbeck to ensure the plaque has two threaded studs for installation.
Groesbeck stated that this is wonderful and she will let Rodger’s wife and boys know.
She thanks the PAB for their time.
Mrs. Walsh’s Garden Committee Update
Chair Moore shared that Supervisor Berg, the Chair of MWGAC and himself met to
begin working on an RFP. There is ongoing discussion about what would be the
appropriate scientific names to place on plant labels. Moore stated that once the RFP is
out the hope will be to identify a simple master plan. A proposal for the waterfall is also
10
10
Parks Advisory Board – November 21, 2019 – Page 3
being developed. Moore shared that weekly articles about the plants in the garden were
produced in the summer and fall. The kiosk in the garden will also be updated. Moore
stated that he believes the garden is functioning how the original owner intended.
Supervisor Berg shared that there were five events and a small graduation ceremony
held in the garden this year.
Parks Updates
Supervisor Berg shared that over the last month the tables near Weist were delivered
and installed. Berg mentioned that the Parks Division wanted the tables to be off to the
sides so that the space had the ability to have future performances. The ADA table is
very well done.
Eli Ertl began working for the Parks Division since the last PAB meeting. Eli has her
Master’s Degree in Forestry and for the past nine years has been working for RMNP.
Berg stated that the Parks Division is extremely lucky to have Eli and that she is more
than qualified for the job.
The Parks Department is putting out an RFP for the completion of baseline controllers.
Supervisor Berg shared that the Build Grant Application was unsuccessful. The Parks
Division was waiting to see if this grant was successful before addressing the irrigation
situation along the Riverwalk. Berg confirmed that the new Trailblazer Broadband will be
coming down the Riverwalk and that they will be going down 16 inches deep. Berg is
working with Light and Power to determine how everything will work out. He shared that
the backflow currently runs from Children’s Park to the Tunnel and that they are
considering coming in off of the line where Pepper’s is and going across to Kind Coffee.
When the LOOP Project is completed the planting beds at the Dairy Queen Lot will no
longer exist making it important to have water access on the kind coffee side.
Supervisor Berg shared that if the Thumb Open Space Proposal is accepted that this
space will fall under the Parks Division. The proposal will be discussed at the Town
Board Study Session on December 3rd, 2019 and the Town Board will make a decision
on December 10th, 2019.
Chair Moore asked if the budget for 2020 included any funding for a new greenhouse
complex. Supervisor Berg responded that this was not included in the budget.
Chair Moore also questioned if there was money designated to the production of the
ELSA booklets. Trustee Liason Martchink replied that there has been money dedicated
to the ELSA. Papineau commented that $2,500 to $2,700 was dedicated for ELSA
booklets and monitored weed drop offs. Berg stated that he has the ability to change
smaller allocations under $5,000. Chair Moore shared that in a conversation with the
Mayor he understood that the budgetary cost may be supplemented.
Supervisor Berg shared that every year the Parks Division gets a little bit better at
getting what they need and that the approved allocations can be moved without going
for a line item. Trustee Liason Martchink shared that moving a few thousand dollars
from here to there is a common practice throughout all departments of the town.
Supervisor Berg commented that with any budget process citizens have the opportunity
to speak to the Town Board. Martchink shared that the final budget meeting will take
place on Tuesday November 26th, 2019 and he encouraged everyone to come.
Member Poggenpohl questioned if there was a line item for the Tree Board. Berg
replied that he found out that there had never been any funds allocated for the tree
11
11
Parks Advisory Board – November 21, 2019 – Page 4
board. The funds leveraged are 2 dollars per capita. The town is not required to allocate
any funding.
Member Poggenpohl stated that an AIPP reserve account had been established. He
then asked if it shows up as a line item. Berg replied that no one has ever asked to have
money placed into the account and that the account has not been formally established.
Chair Moore asked Berg if the hole in the ground behind Mama Rose’s had been
addressed. Berg replied that the hole had been taken addressed.
Papineau asked if the drainage had been addressed at the tunnel. Supervisor Berg
stated that there is drifting occurring in the area but the drainage is working well with no
signs of ice.
Trustee Liason Martchink shared that it is important to remember that the Town is not
the deciding factor on the Thumb Open Space because of the dependence on the
GOCO grant. Member Poggenpohl asked how much the Parcel costs and the amount
the grant would provide. Financial impacts to the town will be discussed at the next
Town Board Study Session.
Chair Moore asked about the progress of the grant for the picnic shelter. Berg replied
that another application was submitted this year for GOCO and that the town will find
out in March if the application was successful. Moore questioned if it worth exploring
new grants for a new greenhouse facility. Berg stated that he is nervous about an
expansion of the greenhouse. With wind and snow we may have to take down the
current one to add on. Berg stated that a lot will depend on Eli’s desires moving forward
and that the Parks Division may experiment with a non-permanent hoop house. The
current greenhouse is almost 30 years old and it currently is used as a house for all of
the pots. Trustee Liaison Martchink shared that the Town Board has decided to help the
school district with the construction for their CTE building and that this facility will
include a greenhouse. He stated that hopefully there is a potential for resource sharing
in the future and that if we are dedicating money to help our students, hopefully the
school would be willing to help the town. Chair Moore stated that it is remarkable that
our displays can be pulled off with the current greenhouse facility.
AIPP FUNDING RESEARCH
Member Poggenpohl shared that he recently visited Marfa, Texas. Marfa is the world’s
most famous small town for art with thousands of acres dedicated for large scale pieces
of artwork. Poggenpohl commented that there are currently two different foundations
operating in the town and that he was able to speak with a director of one of the
foundations. He also shared that he was recently appointed by the State as one of four
reviewers of artwork to operate in Northern Colorado. The language of the Draft
Ordinance establishes funding for AIPP through the construction costs of capital
projects by the town. At the Federal there has been a longtime program where a ½
percent is spent on artwork. This proposal asks the town to commit 1 percent of capital
project funds to artwork. Poggenpohl explained that there is currently a proposed cut off
at $5 million and then only a ½ percent is committed. Poggenpohl is recommending that
$5,000 be put aside by the town annually. He suggested that this should be an
amendment to the existing ordinance. Member Poggenpohl said that the Town’s
Finance Director has mentioned before that he would hate to see any town funds going
towards art.
Chair Moore asked Trustee Liaison Martchink if the language of the ordinance should
be rewritten and who the Parks Advisory Board should work with to get this
12
12
Parks Advisory Board – November 21, 2019 – Page 5
accomplished. Martchink stated that the Town Board is aware that the Parks Advisory
Board is exploring possible changes and that it does not matter where this starts
because Brian and Jackie will both get this to the right place. Supervisor Berg
questioned if anything in the ordinance is directed towards funding. Member
Poggenpohl said that there language addressing funding. Berg stated that he would
look at the wording in that situation. Martchink commented that it does not matter for the
Town Board because everything in the ordinance will be reviewed. Berg indicated that
he would be the one to write the memo, sit down with the ordinance and figure out the
exact wording. He would then bring it to the Parks Advisory Board. Berg also shared
that he is fearful of not having the wording solidified before approval.
Member Poggenpohl stated that is does not make sense for an amendment to be
written. Chair Moore stated that the Parks Advisory Board should be prepared to
present an ordinance change including specific guidelines to be approved all at once.
Supervisor Berg asked if the Town Trustees have been educated on the topic.
Poggenpohl asked if this should go to a study session. Trustee Liaison Martchink stated
that this should absolutely go to a study session and that it will be important to look at
the makeup of the Town Board. Sometimes you have a board that will simply be against
the idea.
Member Poggenpohl says that it will be important to discuss the reasons that other
towns have adopted this method and why Estes Park should adopt it. He also shared
that the Town Trustees were the ones who originally pushed for the Parks Advisory
Board to look at Art in Public Places. Poggenpohl suggested that he and Chair Moore
take time to look at the language and bring this language to the Parks Advisory Board to
adjust and adapt. Supervisor Berg questioned if multi-year projects that are rolled over
would be asked to expand their budgets after their approval. Poggenpohl stated that
there would be a contingency and that change orders would make it easy to adapt the
budgets. Berg stated that he hopes that to not have any negatives before it starts.
Chair Moore stated that he doesn’t expect the Town to change the current budget
based on the experience with the weed management ordinance. Moore stated that it
would be a big push to get this through. Trustee Liaison Martchink shared that the
questions being asked are all likely to come up in future board meetings. Poggenpohl
said that maintenance projects will be exempt and that it would only apply to new or
extended infrastructure. Member Wilcocks said that he understands both sides of the
argument and suggested that the language allow for the exemption of a project.
Member Poggenpohl shared that what is currently on the table allows and exemption to
portions of a project when the funding of the project exempts funds going beyond the
project. Poggenpohl asked if the Parks Advisory Board would want to lower the cut off
to $2 million. Trustee Liaison Martchink suggested that the artwork be connected to the
project in some way. Chair Moore asked if the board is comfortable proceeding down
this road. There were no objections.
Historic Women of Estes Subcommittee Update
Member Wilcocks shared that the subcommittee has held two meeting so far to identify
stakeholders, develop ideas and define the type of artwork that is desired. He
mentioned that everyone he has reached out to so far has been supportive and wanted
to be involved at some level. Wilcocks stated that he would share the minutes from the
13
13
Parks Advisory Board – November 21, 2019 – Page 6
meeting with Administrative Assistant Wilson to distribute to the Parks Advisory Board
and any questions can be sent directly to Wilson. Wilcocks said that the subcommittee
has begun discussing possible funding sources and are targeting January to put forward
specific ideas. Member Papineau questioned if there are examples of other projects that
have been discussed. Wilcocks stated that there have been some examples discussed
and looked at. Chair Moore commented that as shareholders are identified it is
important to reference AIPP guidelines and that it would be ideal not to have too many
performance artists. Wilcocks stated that the subcommittee is trying to honor the
Women of Estes Park and not showcase people with performance skills. Wilcocks
stated that he wants to make sure that the Subcommittee is following the desires of the
Parks Advisory Board and that the proper steps are being followed. Supervisor Berg
stated that the Parks Advisory Board will be almost the last step in the process and that
if the Subcommittee identifies property that is not town owned the project will not have
to come to the Parks Advisory Board. Chair Moore commented that the deadline being
August 18th, 2020 which is the 100th Anniversary of the 19th Amendment, is ambitious.
Supervisor Berg shared that since the Build Grant was not received there is now
$500,000 set aside for one time expenditures and perhaps this project could be one of
the expenditures.
OTHER BUSINESS
Wilcocks shared that the work on proposed Arts Committee will be asking PAB for
further direction.
Chair Moore stated that he forgot to mention in the MWGAC update that a historical
sign is in the park and is weathered. This sign will be updated and a new one will be
installed.
Chair Moore also shared that Administrative Assistant Van Hoozer contacted the Estes
Park Code Enforcement Officer Madachy and Lieutenant Life to see if they would
provide an update to the PAB regarding noxious weed enforcement but she did not hear
back from either. Papineau shared that individuals not in compliance could be fined for
over $2,000. Moore wanted on the record that he is “put off” that an update was
requested from the Police Department and the update was not provided.
Dewain commented that the little house utility box in bond park is very well done. He
mentioned that at the Walmart in Loveland there is a new painted utility box that is
painted and is well done and would be worth a look if in the area.
With no other business to discuss, a motion was made and seconded (Moore/Johnston)
to adjourn the meeting at 10:19 a.m. and all were in favor.
Recording Secretary
Elias Wilson, Public Works
14
14
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 19th, 2019
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Parks Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park,
Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Museum Conference Room of the Estes
Park Museum on the 19th day of December, 2019.
Present Merle Moore
Vicki Papineau
Ron Wilcocks
Rex Poggenpohl
Geoffrey Elliot
Also
Present: Elias Wilson, Public Works Administrative Assistant
Patrick Martchink, Town Board Liaison
Brian Berg, Parks Supervisor
Kevin McEachern, Public Works Operations Manager
Absent: Dewain Lockwood
Chair Merle Moore called the meeting to order at 8:37 a.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
No public comment.
Member Poggenpohl asked if the PAB is still lacking a member. Supervisor Berg shared
that no applications for the vacant seat have been received.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made and seconded (Papineau/Wilcocks) to approve the November
meeting minutes and all were in favor.
MRS WALSH’S GARDEN COMMITTEE UPDATE
Chair Moore shared that the MWGC, with help from Supervisor Berg, is putting together
a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Garden Master Plan, including a construction plan
for the waterfall and pond area. Moore stated that the committee intends to get the RFP
published after the first of the year in order to get feedback from contractors in a timely
manner. The plan is to start construction in Spring of 2020. Member Poggenpohl asked
if there is an estimated cost for the Master Plan. Supervisor Berg said there is currently
no estimated cost. Chair Moore commented that there is an excess of $60,000 available
and that most Master Plans he has seen are in the $30,000 range. He shared that in the
first year little was spent from this fund and in the second year, minor upgrades were
made to the garden which leaves a significant amount of funding available.
Chair Moore shared that the committee is considering having a presence at the 2020
Mountain Heritage Festival.
Member Poggenpohl asked if all native plants existing in MWG are on the list of plants
recommended by the Town. Chair Moore replied that not all of the plants in the garden
are suitable. Supervisor Berg said that some of the species are harder to maintain than
15
15
Parks Advisory Board – December 19, 2019 – Page 2
others. Poggenpohl questioned if all of the Town-recommended species are suitable.
Berg confirmed this to be true. Chair Moore stated that the Mission of Mrs. Walsh’s
Garden is to provide knowledge and education of native plants to help individuals
determine suitability for their situations.
HISTORIC WOMEN OF ESTES SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE
Member Wilcocks shared there are 32 key stakeholders on-board who represent
various groups throughout the town. Wilcocks shared that the group is excited and that
the subcommittee is making good progress. Voting is under way to determine the type
of art, the location, and the nominees. Voting will close on January 1st, 2020. Wilcocks
will bring the results to the next PAB meeting. Member Poggenpohl asked if there was a
target budget. Wilcocks replied that a budget for the project would be created after the
type of art is determined. Supervisor Berg said that the Town has no budgeted funds for
this project.
Member Papineau asked about the voting process being used and if it was open-ended.
Wilcocks stated that the subcommittee has narrowed the field to the most popular ideas.
He explained that each person will have multiple votes which will help identify the
artwork most desired by the group. Berg suggested that, as the location gets narrowed
down, Wilcocks bring these results to PAB. Poggenpohl commented that the
subcommittee will be unable to apply for grants in 2020. Trustee Liaison Martchink
shared that he believes Wilcocks has done a good job at identifying different funding
streams. Wilcocks shared that if a Fundraising Chair is put in place, they will likely
approach the Town for funding, but stated that several other funding sources are
available to them.
Chair Moore stated that in a worst-case scenario, the PAB would announce the artwork
by next year. Wilcocks said that a schedule will be needed to seek approval from the
PAB and Town Board. Berg shared that he was impressed with the work that has been
done so far by the subcommittee.
AIPP FUNDING ORDINANCE
Member Poggenpohl shared that the State of Colorado has finalized its grant process.
He shared a list of organizations that are ineligible to apply in 2020. Poggenpohl also
provided a list of awardees from Boulder and Larimer Counties. Poggenpohl explained
that the final draft includes two proposals. The first is an amendment to the existing
ordinance which discusses a percentage of construction cost be dedicated. He also
proposed the idea of an Arts Advisory Council (AAC). There is no reference to this in
the ordinance because it sounds like the PAB is granted the flexibility to make the
determination.
Wilcocks shared that the proposed AAC has met three times and has reached out to
many in the art community. He commented that 35 individual artists are involved and
that he has made it clear that it is not an official committee. Wilcocks stated that the
artists involved understand that they are stakeholders and resources for the AAC, if
created.
Member Poggenpohl stated these kinds of programs often face an uphill battle.
Poggenpohl shared the current group of Trustees may or may not be in support of a
program such as this and that without a Master Plan and Town involvement, it will likely
not be successful.
16
16
Parks Advisory Board – December 19, 2019 – Page 3
Supervisor Berg said that he sees the situation from three different perspectives. He
expressed his concern about establishing an AAC to advise the PAB. Berg believes that
the establishment of an AAC to the Town Board may be the appropriate route to take.
Poggenpohl replied that the PAB needs to be advised by experts and that an AAC
would serve this purpose. Chair Moore said that he is hearing excitement about a very
wide variety of arts and perhaps if this proposed committee exists under AIPP it should
be have a well-defined role.
Member Wilcocks said that the development of an Arts Master Plan for the Town is
something for which all stakeholders have expressed excitement. Supervisor Berg said
that it sounds like an AAC is being conceptualized and that the PAB will want to seek
Town Board approval because there will be a need for staff resources. Berg said that he
doesn’t want PAB to grow another advisory committee without the support and approval
of the Town Board. Poggenpohl said that the PAB currently controls the money and
doesn’t need an AAC to do so but there is a need for expertise and advice. Wilcocks
said that he will not go forward without the support of the Town Board.
Berg encouraged the PAB to discuss the funding and wording separately when
speaking with the Town Board and he suggested the PAB bring this to a study session
to gauge the interest of the Town Board. Poggenpohl said that if the PAB doesn’t do the
AAC there is a chance the members of the arts community will organize and do it
themselves. Wilcocks said that if an AAC is formed but not commissioned by the Town
Board it will not have the gravitas. Poggenpohl asked what the best approach would be
to present this information. He commented that the PAB feels like they need technical
knowledge and expertise in this area.
Berg said he believes an AAC would be the proper path to take. He asked if the PAB
was expecting the proposed committee to be allocating money. Chair Moore
commented that a proposed AAC would deal with the AIPP only. Moore said that the
success of the Historic Women’s Subcommittee could convince the Town Board that
this program could be a valuable program for Estes Park. Wilcocks said that the ad hoc
committee isn’t going anywhere unless it is approved.
Trustee Liaison Martchink said that the problems the PAB is trying to solve may be
addressed by restructuring the PAB bylaws and requiring an arts expert be included on
the PAB. Poggenpohl said if we have the expertise on the PAB, we likely wouldn’t need
an AAC. Poggenpohl stated that it is easier to get people to act on an advisory
committee when needed than it is to get people to meet with an advisory board each
month. Member Papineau asked how the PAB would define expertise and how they
would fill the capacity. Papineau shared her concern about finding someone with this
expertise who would meet the needs of the PAB and represent the views of Estes Park
residents. Wilcocks then shared names of several different people and organizations
engaged in the process so far.
Wilcocks said he believes the PAB should be the one guiding the proposed AAC at first.
Poggenpohl said that Trustee Liaison Martchink’s suggestion to adapt the bylaws is an
easier way to make this happen. Moore said that he believes there should be a narrow
focus to guide the proposed committee on the role they would play in the process.
Papineau said that time will tell if the proposed committee will evolve into an advisory
board. Member Elliot said that the PAB will need to provide a defined scope to guide the
17
17
Parks Advisory Board – December 19, 2019 – Page 4
group. Wilcocks is confident that the group would still be excited even if the only thing
the Town approved was an Arts Master Plan. Berg clarified that the PAB is asking to be
advised on technical issues only. Chair Moore confirmed.
Berg asked if the proposed committee would use money to create a Master Plan.
Poggenpohl said that this would not be the case and the PAB would be responsible for
this process. Berg shared reservations to diving into art. He wants to make sure that this
is where the Town Board wants the PAB focused. Papineau asked if PAB should move
forward with the two proposals. Berg suggested only taking the $5,000 and the
percentage to discuss with the Town Board to start. Poggenpohl said that he thinks that
the PAB should remind the Town Board that they asked PAB to look at funding. He
stated that there is a need to have the Town commit funding and there needs to be a
Master Plan. Chair Moore shared that the Parks Division currently receives funding for
sculpture maintenance. Berg confirmed and shared that Power & Communications
Division pays for the Decorating Utility Boxes (DUB) program. Moore said that the
$5,000 for maintenance is in the wrong order and that an Art Master Plan should be the
initial goal. Wilcocks shared that Art Master Plans he has seen have a broad scope.
Poggenpohl said he would bring a few examples of Art Master Plans to the next PAB
meeting. Member Elliot asked if there was a way to see how they are governed. Berg
replied that this should be identified in the plans. Papineau asked for plans comparable
to the Town of Estes Park.
Moore stated he would like to continue working on the language. Poggenpohl and
Wilcocks agreed the PAB should reach out to the Town Board. Wilcocks will continue to
shepherd the ad hoc committee. Berg suggested if it isn’t successful with the current
Town Board of Trustees, it could be brought back when new Trustees are elected. Berg
stated that he will be more comfortable with the support of the Town Administrator.
PARKS UPDATES
Berg shared that the Town Board approved the funding which would be used in
conjunction with the possible GOCO grant funding for the purchase of the Thumb Open
Space (“Thumb”). The Town will find out in March 2020 if they were awarded the GOCO
grant funding for both the Thumb and the picnic shelter.
Thumb maintenance will be performed by the Parks Division and Berg stated that as a
Thumb Open Space Master Plan moves forward, community member engagement will
be needed to identify and address the needs, hopes and concerns
Berg stated that the Estes Park Museum asked the Parks Division to come up with a
kid-friendly area outside the museum. Musical instruments, as seen along the
Riverwalk, will be added to this space.
Berg also mentioned that he found some crosswalk designs he would like to experiment
with, but will explore other options.
OTHER BUSINESS
Noxious Weed Ordinance Letter: Supervisor Berg shared that he spoke with Lt. Rick
Life. Life stated he is planning to meet with Larimer County and that things are moving
slowly. He asked the PAB members to reflect on the study session held on April 23rd,
2019. Berg met with Lt. Life, Attorney Kramer, and Town Administrator Machalek.
18
18
Parks Advisory Board – December 19, 2019 – Page 5
Attorney Kramer suggested the approach to the ordinance language be reevaluated.
Berg explained that the approach is currently viewed as “heavy-handed”.
Berg again asked the PAB to view the Study Session and pay close attention to what
the Town Board asked the PAB to consider. Berg stated he would identify the exact
section in the minutes where the Town Board asked for specifics from the PAB.
Wilcocks asked if a memo from the PAB would help address the situation. Moore said
that providing the Town Board with writing would be ideal and that the PAB will spend
time reviewing the April 23rd, 2019 meeting. Papineau shared that the designers of the
ELSA booklets are experts on the subject and that the Police Department must learn
how to identify noxious weeds.
Berg reminded the PAB that the Chairperson is responsible for approving agenda items
before the packet is sent out.
Chair Moore thanked the PAB members for their time and service to the Town of Estes
Park.
Member Elliot mentioned that the Mountain Heritage Festival planning process is
beginning.
With no other business to discuss, a motion was made and seconded (Elliot/ Wilcocks)
to adjourn the meeting at 10:19 a.m. and all were in favor.
Recording Secretary
Elias Wilson, Public Works
19
19
20
20
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, November 20th, 2019
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 202 of Town Hall on
the 20th day of November, 2019.
Present: Belle Morris
Gordon Slack
Stan Black
Tom Street
Ron Wilcocks
Scott Moulton
Janice Crow
Ann Finley
Linda Hanick
Also Present: Trustee Carlie Bangs, Town Board Liaison
Vanessa Solesbee, Parking & Transit Manager
David Hook, Engineering Manager
Elias Wilson, Public Works Admin. Assistant
Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Admin. Assistant
Greg Muhonen, Public Work Director
Larry Haas, Region IV Traffic Engineer
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
No public Comment. Chair Morris welcomed Larry Haas from CDOT Region 4.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Member Street moved to approve the minutes and Member Moulton seconded.
All were in favor.
CDOT Question/Answer (Larry Haas, CDOT Region IV Traffic Engineer)
Chair Morris commented that in the last meeting we discussed questions for Larry Haas
CDOT Region 4 Traffic Engineer and those questions are included in today’s packet. Haas
works closely with the Estes Park Public Works Department to help keep traffic flowing
safely through the town.
Director Muhonen asked Haas what the first project he worked on was and Haas replied
that he worked with then Public Works Director Greg Seivers to put traffic signals and the
pedestrian crossing in at Manford and a signal at the intersection of Macgregor and 34
Hwy. Muhonen stated that Haas has seen more projects happen in Estes Park than
anyone in the room.
Chair Morris began going through the list of questions. The first questions was “what are
you looking for when motorists and cyclists blend together, on segments of the roadway,
which influence your decisions for the installation of bicycle facilities?” Haas replied that
CDOT is looking at the number of bicycles using the area and the number of incidents
between bicycles and vehicles that have occurred. He commented that the signs on the
road are a good start. Director Muhonen stated that there are no definite counts on bike
traffic. Haas shared that unfortunately CDOT often operates as a reactive agency and that
the agency often has to see the data before it is able to distribute funds. Typically a cost
benefit ratio is considered before a project is done or not. Member Moulton compared this
to the chicken or the egg scenario and stated that people make decisions on where to ride
based on the existing infrastructure so if the infrastructure doesn’t exist, the numbers of
21
21
Transportation Advisory Board – November 20th, 2019 – Page 2
riders that CDOT is looking for will not exist. Engineer Haas replied that the resources and
financial resources of CDOT are limited.
Chair Morris questioned if there are any other warrants. Haas said that CDOT would like
to add pedestrian and bicycle facilities where they can like on the 7 Hwy project but there
isn’t always space to do so. Director Muhonen presented the Lily Lake area of 7 Hwy as
an example and commented that there would be a enormous cost associated with adding
facilities to that stretch of road. Member Slack asked where the areas are that Haas
serves. Haas shared that he works in 13 different counties from Boulder to Kit Carson and
that this means he works in both the mountain areas and the plains from oilfield traffic to
farming traffic. Director Muhonen commented that it is helpful to know that Haas serves
so many areas so that when we question why CDOT isn’t fixing a certain issue we realize
the scope of their work.
Chair Morris shared that in 2019 the Estes Park Town Board unanimously passed a
Complete Streets Policy and now the Public Works Department is responsible for
investigating what it will take to add sidewalks and other amenities to streets in Estes Park.
Morris questioned what it would cost to calm traffic on 7 Hwy. She also stated that there
is a lot going on in that area with the fairgrounds, students walking to school, families, and
businesses being located all along that stretch. Haas replied that there is currently a speed
monitor device that alerts drivers to the speed reduction. Haas said that the largest number
of speed violators are the locals. He stated that crosswalks require a balance because
when a crosswalk stops all traffic for one person to cross it slightly disrupts the flow but if
there are several crosswalks put into the same area traffic stops flowing. Haas stated that
it is better to congregate pedestrians to a specific intersection to cross. Chair Morris stated
that there is a need for a crosswalk across 7 Hwy from 3rd street and that the
Transportation Advisory Board requests that one be installed. Haas questioned if the kids
are not getting across or if anyone has been hit. Chair Morris shared that the
Transportation Advisory Board recently did a bike tour around town and on 7 Hwy they
witnessed traffic fly through the area when pedestrians were trying to cross. Morris stated
that there isn’t much warning for drivers. Haas commented that there are signs and
pavement markings say that there will be a crosswalk. Director Muhonen asked Haas is a
pedestrian refuge is an option. Haas replied that a pedestrian refuge would have to be
ADA compliant and it would depend on the amount of space available. He also shared
that electricity would have to be run to the pedestrian refuge in order to add a push button
and additional signs. Haas said that other things to consider would be if people would run
into the island and if it would get in the way of snow plowing. Muhonen questioned if there
would be funding available. Haas said that this would likely fall into Safe Routes to School
and that it would be based on how many children are crossing the road and the level of
interaction they have with traffic. Haas shared that there is a chance that the funding of
this project could fall entirely to the Town of Estes Park. Black questioned if a pedestrian
refuge would be the first solution that Haas would go to. Haas replied that he may first
attempt another approach such as a rumble strip or making the flashing beacons brighter
rather than building completely new infrastructure. Director Muhonen commented about
the role of enforcement. Haas stated that he is positive the EP police is aware of the
situation and that enforcement must play a part in addressing the issue. Haas suggested
that the Transportation Advisory Board talk to the Chief and Captain to see if they might
be able to do a blitz in the area and then work on education.
Chair Morris shared that with an increase in the number of businesses in the area and the
community center traffic has increased. Haas replied that it is unlikely that it would require
the addition of a traffic signal. He stated that perhaps a paid crossing guard, who
understands their duty to save lives, should be stationed in the area. Member Crow asked
what options would be available to pay crossing guards. Trustee Liason Bangs shared
how easy it is to miss the flashing lights and that she has caught herself entering a school
zone with flashing lights and has a delayed reaction to the fact that she needs to slow
down. Member Slack commented that he believes crossing guards sound like a very cost
effective and impactful solution to the issue. Director Muhonen shared that the use of
crossing guards would fall under the schools authority. Haas commented that if a crossing
guard is determined to be the best solution that Estes Park is welcome to go ahead with
it. Member Crow commented that a crossing guard position would be a great job for retired
individuals looking for a job. Manager Hook he would be able to start the conversation 22
22
Transportation Advisory Board – November 20th, 2019 – Page 3
about crossing guards. Hook stated that sidewalk improvements possibly increase the use
of the facilities and that this could be a motivator to start a crossing guard program.
Member Hanick commented that she likes the crossing guard idea. She also brought up
an idea about 3D paintings which look raised that are placed in the center of lanes to
encourage traffic to slow down. Hanick stated that this is a cheaper approach that would
have a calming aspect. Haas shared that these types of paintings would have to be a
community effort. He commented that the paintings may get your attention but CDOT
would prefer not to have these paintings on CDOT roads because there are no funds
available for maintenance. The town must be aware of what they will occur. Haas warned
that putting paintings on the street can be distracting leading to other issues. Slack
questioned if Haas had ever seen these paintings used in the area he serves. Haas had
not. Member Moulton suggested that the board move on to other items.
Chair Morris shifted the conversation towards the 34 Hwy Corridor. She shared with Haas
that the Transportation Advisory Board is interested in having a traffic study performed.
Morris shared that there is concern about a jaywalking issue from the Visitor Center to the
Stanley Shopping Center area to the north. Morris asked how open Haas and CDOT would
be to helping perform such a study. Haas replied that it might be possible and suggested
that the Transportation Advisory Board work with Director Muhonen who will communicate
with CDOT about what the needs of the study will be. Haas suggested that perhaps the
implementation of something such as a split rail fence could be used to steer pedestrian
traffic towards the crosswalks. Member Hanick commented that it is only a matter of time
until someone get hit in that area. Haas shared that CDOT can work with Director
Muhonen on performing a traffic study. Muhonen confirmed that a study can be done.
Member Slack requested that the traffic study be performed during the busy season.
Haas shared that when someone dies on one of his roadways he is the first person to ask
what could have been done to prevent the death.
Chair Morris shifted the conversation to talk about special events and festivals in Estes
Park. Morris asked Haas’ about his view on blocking state highways for events. Haas
replied that as long as Estes Park Police Department closes the road and a route is
established to get around it there is no issue. Member Black asked about a lengthy event
that takes place Saturday and Sunday. Member Slack suggested that traffic could be divert
up 4th street to event center parking lot and visitors to the event could be shuttled in. Slack
mentioned that Elk Fest was packed with cars on the shoulders of all roads and traffic to
the National Park was backed up to Mall Street. Haas said that these are all options as
long as the Estes Park Police Department executes the traffic plan. Member Hanick said
that the expectation is that FLAP will help reduce these issues.
Chair Morris stated that turning left out of the parking structure is starting to become an
issue. She asked if the traffic signal timing could provide a break to allow those exiting to
get out easily. Director Muhonen shared that the traffic study indicated that the parking
structure intersection would need to be address in the coming years. Member Street
commented that if it is already becoming an issue would it impede people from using the
structure. Member Slack suggested that an occasional police officer directing traffic in that
area would be a good option. Member Wilcocks shared that there is no signage which
alerts drivers to the available interceptor lane. He suggested that the addition of these
signs could alert drives that there is a safe option to turn left.
Chair Morris transitioned the conversation to Scott Avenue. Haas stated that he did not
understand the question about Scott Avenue. The question was asking about traffic
calming at Scott Avenue and 7 Hwy. Muhonen stated that the area is currently viewed as
rural and that perhaps it should now be considered urban which would warrant a speed
reduction. Director Muhonen shared that there is a group lobbying on the language of
speed warrants. Hass commented that people do not like speed and that if you set a speed
at 35 you end up setting a false speed limit. Muhonen stated that it is human behavior that
will keep people traveling at a faster speed. Haas said that what will need to happen is the
ingress and the egress will need to be looked, a determination will need to be made if the
area is residential and an accident history detailing the types of crashes will need to be
considered. Haas stated that the Police Department would be well aware of this 23
23
Transportation Advisory Board – November 20th, 2019 – Page 4
information. Member Slack asked if there is a sign which warns drivers of cross traffic.
Haas replied that there is not a sign. Slack commented that this issue is something that
will need to be watched over time. Haas commented that if Estes Park wants a change for
the peak season it must be okay with it for the off season as well.
Chair Morris asked what the steps would be to implement restrictions on large trucks and
RVS traveling on Elkhorn Ave downtown. She suggested the implementation of a delivery
time where trucks are allowed to drop off goods to the businesses. Morris questioned if
this is something that CDOT would want to be involved in. Haas replied that this is
something CDOT would absolutely be involved with and informed the board that a
proposal would need to be submitted. He stated that once approved and sign installation
is complete it would become and education and enforcement issue. He shared that a
change such as this will require buy-in from the businesses who will need to be ensured
that they will get their deliveries. Haas commented that FLAP will likely serve the needs of
visitors driving an RV. Director Muhonen shared that signs for a specific route could be
put up but most people will trust their phone’s directions rather than the sign. Haas
commented that most people use the sign to confirm what they are being told by their
phone.
Chair Morris thanked Haas for attending the meeting and answering the questions of the
Transportation Advisory Board. Haas shared that he will be retiring at the end of January
and that it has been a pleasure working with the town for the past 30 years. Member Slack
asked a final question about the rutting on 36 Hwy and what the overlay plan is and Haas
directed Slack to contact Ed Gentry who is responsible for overlay. Haas did share that he
is aware of a 10 year paving plan. Haas said if there are any further questions to please
field them through Director Muhonen. He enjoys working with the Estes Park community
and expects that CDOT will happily continue to work with Estes Park.
PROJECT UPDATES (V. Solesbee – Parking & Transit Manager)
Parking
Manager Solesbee shared that the Town Board passed paid parking for 2020. She
thanked the Transportation Advisory Board for their input. Solesbee shared that the
Town Board and Estes Park Community have high expectations. She is working on how
to staff and budget. Solesbee shared that an RFP was written and distributed. She
stated that she has spent a significant amount of time talking to programs about their
experience. Solesbee assured the Transportation Advisory Board that she would keep
them informed. She also shared that the goal is to hire local staff while working with a
professional company to ensure that paid parking will be well executed. Solesbee stated
that defining the permit program will be an important part of the process. Solesbee is
open to the Transportation Advisory Board’s involvement in the process. She stated that
it will be important to have the involvement of business owners end employees to gather
information about the need for parking permits and parking spaces. Defining the permit
options will be very important for the downtown area. Taking care of our locals is a top
priority. She shared that conversations are being had about what the implementation of
pay by phone, pay by text, kiosks or ambassador staff would look like for the town.
Solesbee want to be intentional about where people get directed to park and having
increased advertising the shuttle. The performance metrics will be adapted for next year
to ensure that paid parking is creating the type of change that we want to see. Solesbee
will ask for the input of Transportation Advisory Board on this subject at a later meeting.
Member Street asked if there is an issue with funding. Solesbee shared that she is
working to set up the fund with the financial officer. Director Muhonen stated that he
does not anticipate a funding issue going forward. The Town Board understands that a
supplement to the budget will be brought to them. Solesbee commented that if a heavily
mobile option is introduced it would be in the budgeted unlike a kiosk based program
that would require a significant capital investment. Member Hanick commented that the
parking garage signs which indicate the height of the ceiling do not match. Director
Muhonen shared that the ground level spaces have and 8ft clearance and everything
above that has a 7ft clearance.
Transit
24
24
Transportation Advisory Board – November 20th, 2019 – Page 5
Solesbee shared that transit will be directly connected to the implementation of
seasonal paid parking and that it will be a challenge because there is not more money
available next year. Solesbee is taking a data driven approach to route planning for next
year and closely looking at which routes were performing and underperforming.
Cellphone location data is being used to better understand where people are going.
Solesbee is working to reintroduce the express route. She shared that grant compliance
will require Estes Transit to provide on demand service within ¾ of a mile of each transit
stop. Solesbee hopes to bring routes recommendations to get advised on to the
December meeting and have the routes settled on by January. Overall there was a
6.8% decrease in ridership and ridership has been decreasing for the past six years.
Black asked Solesbee for ridership numbers from 2016. Solesbee shared that there
were approximately 101,000 riders in 2016.Member Hanick shared that one year the
trolley ridership was down because the trolley engine was having issues. Member Black
commented that there is an obvious downward trend. Solesbee said that she is unsure
of why the downward trend exists. Member Finley questioned why people would sit in a
shuttle in traffic rather than their own car. Member Crow shared that ridership in the
National Park has increased. Member Slack suggested that the motels where the
shuttle stops have increased advertisement. Member Crow suggested table topers.
Member Street asked if the downtown ridership decreased. Solesbee stated that all
routes saw a decrease and said that a non-scientific guess would be that increased
traffic caused a decrease in ridership. Member Hanick commented that it would be
important to have Visit Estes Park’s help with advertisement. Solesbee shared that Visit
Estes Park has been very responsive and helpful. Slack commented that parking and
shuttle are dependent on one another.
Project Updates (Public Works Director Greg Muhonen)
Director Muhonen shared that there is a neighborhood meeting from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30
p.m. for the Third Street neighborhood regarding traffic calming. There are 6 conceptual
designs being presented to the residents. He commented that the roadwork will begin in
2021. Member Slack questioned how this project came into the forefront. Muhonen
stated that during the Fourth Street Project and large number of complaints and
comments were made to the Town Board and Public Works Department concerning a
need for traffic calming. Manager Hook shared that the utility work that is being done
this winter and next spring will make this a prime time to look at making repairs to the
road. Slack questioned if the neighborhood is still interested in change. Muhonen stated
that the purpose of the neighborhood meeting is to gauge the interest of the residents.
Director Muhonen shared that the Town of Estes Park did not receive the Build Grant
which was intended for Phase II of the Loop Project. This raises questions about
stormwater and drainage management. Member Slack asked if there is any hope of
receiving the grant in the future. Muhonen stated that the plan is to have a post
application discussion and go for the Build Grant next year.
PROJECT UPDATES (D. Hook – Engineering Manager)
US 36 & Community Drive Roundabout:
Manager Hook shared that there is an environmental meeting with CDOT on November
21st, 2019.
The Brodie Avenue Project is going through final closing.
Hook stated that the Wayfinding project is starting up again.
He shared that the Steamer intersection traffic signal is being designed. Member Slack
asked if it will be synchronized with the light at 34 Hwy. Hook confirmed.
Hook shared that the Stanley Hotel is preparing to put in a film center.
Elkhorn lodge is in the process of developing ideas and is under contract. The prospective
new owner is working through the purchase process.
US 34 and Macgregor:
Director Muhonen shared that the final design for the roundabout is being completed and
will be put out for bid. It should be completed by May.
OTHER BUSINESS 25
25
Transportation Advisory Board – November 20th, 2019 – Page 6
With no other business to discuss, Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 2:03 p.m.
Recording Secretary
Elias Wilson, Public Works Department
26
26
Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, December 18th, 2019
Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of
Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 202 of Town Hall on
the 18th day of December, 2019.
Present: Belle Morris
Gordon Slack
Stan Black
Tom Street
Ron Wilcocks
Scott Moulton
Janice Crow
Linda Hanick
Also Present: Trustee Carlie Bangs, Town Board Liaison
Vanessa Solesbee, Parking & Transit Manager
David Hook, Engineering Manager
Elias Wilson, Public Works Admin. Assistant
Greg Muhonen, Public Work Director
Jennifer Waters, Public Works Engineer
Katrina Kloberdanz, CDOT
James Usher, CDOT
SHUTTLE COMMITTEE
Tom Moore
Julie Pieper
Eric Lund
Brooke Lloyd
Absent: Ann Finley
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
No public comment.
Chair Morris introduced the visiting Shuttle Committee members. Director Muhonen
spoke to the importance of volunteers and thanked the Shuttle Committee and TAB for
their input, hard work, effectiveness, and important impact on policy decisions. He
shared his appreciation of the different member aspects that make up the TAB as this
often leads to impactful change. Muhonen also expressed his gratitude for CDOT’s
support and recognized engineers James Usher and Katrina Kloberdanz for their
contributions to the Estes Park community.
Manager Solesbee thanked the TAB and Shuttle Committee for their hard work this year
and emphasized her gratitude for their support in the implementation of the Downtown
Parking Management Plan.
Manager Hook thanked the TAB and Shuttle Committee for all of their work. Hook then
introduced Jennifer Waters as the new Development Review Engineer and Flood Plain
Manager for the Public Works Department.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Black) to approve the November meeting
minutes and all were in favor.
27
27
Transportation Advisory Board – December 18, 2019 – Page 2
US HWY 34 & MACGREGOR AVE ROUNDABOUT
This project was identified in a plan several years ago and will take place at the intersection
of US Hwy 34 and Macgregor Ave. There exists a strong crash pattern that could be
corrected with the installation of a roundabout.
During the lifecycle cost analysis, a four-way stop, a traffic signal, and a roundabout were
considered, with the roundabout being found to be the most appropriate for this situation.
The goal is to improve safety for all modes of transportation in this area. A meeting
regarding the project scope was held in September of 2018 and a public open house was
held in December of 2018. Final design plans were completed a couple weeks ago and
will be released tomorrow. There will be a speed reduction to 25 mph within the
roundabout.
Utilizing a full road closure cuts the length of the project from six to three months. CDOT’s
James Usher stated there are penalties if the project is not completed by Memorial Day
and weekend work would only occur with an agreement from both CDOT and the Town.
Director Muhonen stated that both CDOT and the Town of Estes Park will contribute to
the project landscaping. The selected contractor will be responsible for submitting a formal
detour plan and six message boards will be used to direct traffic. Member Moulton shared
his concern about traveling on Big Horn Drive, stating Chapin may be a better option. He
shared that Big Horn has been used but his concern is related to the blind corner.
Muhonen stated that if all detour traffic is directed to Chapin there could be a potential
traffic issue for those turning left whereas Big Horn provides a signal. CDOT welcomes
input.
Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB) and a marked crosswalk will be available at
the new roundabout. Muhonen stated that modifying the crossing movement will be
assisted by a pedestrian island which doesn’t currently exist. Chair Morris asked if there
would be any other markings. CDOT stated white cross bars will be used but that no other
colors could be used, however green paint could be put between the white lines. Member
Hanick stated Bozeman, Montana is utilizing different colored lines. CDOT stated that not
only have studies shown this is unsafe, but that FHWA does not allow this practice. There
are experiments currently taking place with red paint being utilized for public transit.
CDOT further shared that their experience with pedestrian compliance within roundabouts
is good. Usher confirmed that once a contractor is selected, public involvement will be
initiated.
TOWN SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Community Development Director
Randy Hunt)
Chair Morris asked Hunt if there are ways to influence policy requiring private owners
install crosswalks as part of their development. Hunt stated there’ve been discussions
related to translating/incorporating the Complete Streets Policy concepts into the Estes
Valley Development Codes. Hunt stated that from reading the existing code language it
appears to be from the 1980s and 1990s and is mainly focused on vehicle traffic rather
than mass transit and other modes of transportation. Hunt’s goal is to bring into the picture
the fiscal realities. A balance must be achieved with the costs of developing in the Estes
Valley. Many of the multimodal methods are more cost effective for current residents.
An update to the Comprehensive Plan is needed as it is almost 24 years old. The
contemporary multimodal thoughts aren’t incorporated. Hunt stated it would be ideal to
have a valley-wide comprehensive plan which, as is typical practice, results in
development code updates. The Complete Streets policy gives us what is needed to help
with redevelopment projects. Section 7.12 of the development code is the Public Facilities
section dealing with transportation. In the future Hunt would like to end up with a more
thorough section. Hunt stated that he would gladly come back and discuss.
There is a proposal to have a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) that Hunt would like to
review. The key thing the TMP would do is identify priority areas.
28
28
Transportation Advisory Board – December 18, 2019 – Page 3
The Town is at the cusp of dealing with redevelopment of properties that are past maturity
which require rehabilitation. There is no mention in the existing code requiring
redevelopments incorporate newly implemented infrastructure requirements.
Member Slack shared his concern about another discussion related to bicycles on the
Town’s Riverwalk and the knowledge of the property owner views in the area. Hunt stated
that a multimodal corridor would be great but existing code doesn’t make it easy to require.
Manager Hook stated that bicycle facilities were incorporated at the river level during the
Moraine Avenue Bridge project. Wilcocks said that we can’t get to this type of work until
the river flooding from Riverside Dr. to US Hwy 36 is corrected. He stated this work should
be considered by the Town as critical to our transportation needs. Hunt stated the
Downtown Plan has general guidelines dealing with this but has not yet been included in
the code language. Wilcocks stated that it has been seven years since the flood and it
continues to prevent many projects in the downtown area.
Co-Chair Street shared that most cities have an issue with requiring more parking for
developments. If more parking is being required than necessary it creates less space.
Street asked if the parking standards will be reviewed. Hunt stated that the commercial
and retail requirements are not applicable today.
Hunt stated that the Town needs to have an integrated concept of how to get from the
front door of a building to a certain location. Redesign of parking lots will be a piece of this
as well. Muhonen stated that site development standards are private, and that street
standards are what defines what needs to be done in the public right of way. Hunt said the
ability of doing a private improvement that meets these needs are the goal.
PROJECT UPDATES (Parking & Transit Manager Vanessa Solesbee)
Seasonal Paid Parking
An RFP was issued for a Parking Management Firm to implement paid parking. There
was quick turnaround time for bid submissions. Five proposals were received and the
top three firms, as identified by the selection committee, will be interviewed tomorrow.
Solesbee is very pleased with the proposals and resumes received.
2020 Shuttle Program Update
The Town has been working to complete the action items from CDOT. All is on track to
receive the electric trolley in the next couple weeks. By 2021, the Town should be in
possession of the second trolley.
Solesbee shared that the charging station for the electric trolley will be located on Elm
Road on existing Town property. Solesbee is working with the Power &
Communications Division to determine the best times to charge the trolley. The Town
will continue to pursue funding for a second charging station, stop signage, benches,
reconfiguration of the Visitor Center parking lot, and access gates for the parking
structure.
Solesbee credited the Shuttle Committee for their work in helping to determine 2020
routes. Visit Estes Park (VEP) has been helpful in identifying where people are going
within Estes Park. Solesbee wants to ensure fiscal responsibility in shuttle operations.
Member Wilcocks stated that an HOA is requesting information on what a parking spot
is worth. Muhonen said $30,000 is the one-time cost to build a parking spot in a lot.
Wilcocks shared that there are HOAs who would like the Town to buy their parking lots
(i.e. Kind Coffee, etc.) and asked about permitting. Solesbee said that when a Parking
Management Firm is brought on board, decisions will begin to be made.
PROJECT UPDATES (Public Works Director Greg Muhonen)
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) will present the Downtown Estes Loop
updates at the January 14, 2020 study session.
Muhonen shared with the group that he went through his files and found a TAB job
description. He spoke with the Town Clerk’s office and they felt it would be very 29
29
Transportation Advisory Board – December 18, 2019 – Page 4
beneficial. The document has been sent to Chair Morris and TAB discussion will occur
at the regularly scheduled January meeting.
PROJECT UPDATES (Engineering Manager David Hook)
Manager Hook stated that the US Hwy 34 & Steamer Drive signal is still in the design
phase.
The Wildfire development project has the construction plans submitted and roadway
improvements are part of the development.
Two grants have been awarded for the Fall River Trail project. Construction is
anticipated to begin in 2020 from east of Fish Hatchery Road to Rocky Mountain
National Park (RMNP). An RFP will be issued in January with a construction timeframe
yet to be determined.
The Downtown Wayfinding is being resurrected and will be focused on making paid
parking successful. An RFP will soon be published to finish the plan that was started.
Construction plans will be developed to utilize the allocated funding. The next version of
the plan will be brought to the TAB in January or February.
Member Slack asked about the upcoming development project on CO Hwy 7. Hook
stated the land use approval is done but construction plans have not been received.
Director Hunt shared that the developer does one project at a time and, hopefully,
construction plans will come in soon.
OTHER BUSINESS
With no other business to discuss, Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 1:48 p.m.
Recording Secretary
Elias Wilson, Public Works Department
30
30
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on ACTION ITEM 1.
ORDINANCE 01-20 AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE ESTES PARK
MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information
presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, public comment,
and written comments received on the application.
Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public
hearing which may be responded to at that time.
Mayor declares the Public Hearing open.
2. STAFF REPORT.
Review the staff report.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT.
Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the
Ordinance. All individuals must state their name and address for the record.
Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per
person.
4. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the Ordinance which are not in the Board packet.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the
Ordinance.
Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications
presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Declare the public hearing closed.
Request Board consider a motion.
31
31
7. SUGGESTED MOTION.
Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report.
8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
Discussion by the Board on the motion.
9. VOTE ON THE MOTION.
Vote on the motion or consideration of another action.
32
32
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: February 11, 2020
RE: Ordinance 01-20 Amending Chapter 2.04 of Estes Park Municipal Code
Concerning Municipal Elections, continued from January 28, 2020
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
The item was continued from January 28, 2020 to include the red-line version as called
out in the ordinance. Review, and if appropriate, adopt Ordinance No. 01-20 which
amends Chapter 2.04 Board of Trustees, specifically Municipal Code Section 2.04.20
Write-in candidate affidavit and Section 2.04.030 Cancellation of elections.
Present Situation:
The Colorado Revised Statutes have been updated throughout the years to allow mail
ballot elections as well as poll elections. In order to facilitate a mail ballot election, the
timeline/deadlines have been updated for nomination petitions, write-in candidates,
UOCAVA mailings, cancellation of elections, etc.
In reviewing the Town’s Municipal Code, it was discovered the Town originally adopted
statute specific code language for write-in candidates and cancellations of elections.
These references have not been updated to reflect the new deadlines outlined in the
Colorado Revised Statutes 31-10-507, 31-10-306, and 31-10-912.
Proposal:
To adopt the proposed Ordinance to align the Town’s Municipal Code with the Colorado
Revised Statutes for write-in candidates and cancellation of elections. Section 2.04.020
would be updated to reflect a write-in candidate must file an application no later than
sixty-four (64) days before the day of the election. Section 2.04.030 would be updated
to state an election can be cancelled on the sixty-fourth (64) day if there are not more
candidates than offices.
Staff is recommending additional language for Section 2.04.030 to provide the Board a
formal process for cancelling a referred measure. The impetus for the change was the 33
33
initial lack of candidate petitions submitted to the Clerk’s office before the packet
material was finalized for the January 28, 2020 meeting, and the Resolution to set a
referred measure for the sale of the fire station to the Fire District on the April 7, 2020
ballot.
Advantages:
To align the Town’s Municipal Code with the Colorado Revised Statute for write-in
candidates and cancellation of an election.
Disadvantages:
None.
Action Recommended:
Adoption of Ordinance 01-20 as presented.
Budget:
None.
Level of Public Interest:
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move to adopt/not adopt Ordinance 01-20.
Attachments:
Ordinance 01-20
34
34
ORDINANCE NO. 01-20
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.04 OF THE
ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park ("Town") is a statutory municipality having all
powers conferred by Article XX of the Colorado Constitution and the Colorado Revised
Statues; and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of Trustees has determined that it is necessary to
amend Chapter 2.04 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park to align with
Colorado Revised Statues sections 31-10-507 (Election may be cancelled – when), 31-
10-306 (Write-in candidate affidavit), and 31-10-912 (Write-in candidate affidavit in mail
ballot elections).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
1. In this ordinance, ellipses indicate material not reproduced as the Board intends
to leave that material in effect as it now reads.
2. Section 2.04.020 of the Estes Park Municipal Code shall be amended by
adding underlined material and deleting stricken material, to read as follows:
2.04.020 - Write-in candidate affidavit.
In any special or regular election of any member to the Board of Trustees, no
write-in vote for any person shall be counted unless an affidavit of intent has
been filed with the Town Clerk at least twenty (20) days prior to the date ofnot
later than sixty-four (64) days before the day of the election, by the person
whose name is written in, indicating that such person desires the office and is
qualified to assume the duties of that office, if elected.
3. Section 2.04.030 of the Estes Park Municipal Code shall be amended by
adding underlined material and deleting stricken material, to read as follows:
2.04.030 - Cancellation of elections.
In any special or regular election for a member or members to the Board of
Trustees, if the only matter before the voters is the election of persons to office
and if, at the close of business on the nineteenth sixty-fourth (64) day before
the election there are not more candidates than offices to be filled at such
election, including candidates filing affidavits of intent, the Town Clerk, if
instructed by resolution of the Board of Trustees, shall cancel the election and
the candidates shall be deemed elected. Furthermore, prior to an election the
35
35
Board may by resolution provide for the cancellation of the referral of a referred
measure, as described in section 31-11-111(2), C.R.S., to the electorate.
4. 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 _______________, 2020.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the ________day of _____________, 2020 and published in a
newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the
day of __________________, 2020.
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
36
36
TOWN CLERK Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk
Date: February 11, 2020
RE: 2020 Contract with Host Compliance for Vacation Home Services
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Continue an annual contractual agreement with Host Compliance, LLC to provide
services in connection with administration and enforcement of vacation home
regulations within the Town of Estes Park.
Present Situation:
The Town has contracted with Host Compliance, LLC since January 1, 2017 to provide
vacation home compliance and enforcement through address identification, trend
monitoring and 24/7 hotline. Larimer County has shared in the cost of the contract
50/50 for the past three years. In 2019, the cost of the joint contract was $30,000.
In 2020, the County has elected to establish a separate contract with Host Compliance to
monitor vacation homes in the unincorporated area of the Estes valley. The County has
notified the Town Clerk’s office they will begin registering and monitoring vacation homes
located within the unincorporated Larimer County as of April 1, 2020.
In May 2018, the cap of 588 VHs in residential zoning districts was met. There are
approximately 60 applications, both Town and County properties, on a waitlist. It is
extremely important the Town continues to monitor the vacation home rentals to ensure
only those properly registered are operating. Host Compliance identifies those non-
compliant vacation homes which would otherwise be left undetected.
The County staff stated they plan to recommend to the Larimer County Commissioners
the cap of 588 residential vacation homes would remain in place with the cap being
divided by the number of Town and County registered vacation homes currently in place
as of April 1, 2020. This issue will be discussed by the Town Board at the February 11,
2020 meeting during the consideration of an Ordinance to establish the Estes Valley
Development Code as the Estes Park Development Code. 37
37
Proposal:
The amended contract for 2020 would include properties/vacation home listings within
the town limits only at a cost of $34,000 for services January 1, 2020 through December
31, 2020. The increase in cost is due to the increase in vacation rentals and the
number of listings.
In 2017, the Town averaged 750 listing and in 2019 the listings have grown to over
1500. Each listing is monitored by Host Compliance and maintained in a database for
use by the Town and code enforcement. This correlates to an increase in the number
of rental units as well with approximately 550 units in 2017 and over 800 in 2019. The
number of units include both residential and commercial units.
Advantages:
Provides a continuous and efficient way to monitor vacation home operations.
Provide citizens the ability to report concerns or obtain information with a central
point of contact available 24/7.
Disadvantages:
Cost of the service.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends approval of the contract as drafted.
Finance/Resource Impact:
$34,000.00 for 2020 contract.
Level of Public Interest
Low.
Sample Motion:
I move that the Town Board of Trustees approve/deny the Host Compliance Services
Agreement for 2020.
Attachments:
Host Compliance Contract
38
38
Third Amendment to the Host Compliance Services Agreement
Between Host Compliance LLC and Town of Estes Park
THIS THIRD AMENDMENT is entered effective as of the 1st day of January 2020
between HOST COMPLIANCE, LLC a Delaware Limited Liability Company, authorized to do
business in the State of Colorado, hereinafter “HOST COMPLIANCE” or “CONSULTANT”
and TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a Colorado municipal corporation, hereinafter “TOWN”.
WHEREAS, the contract between HOST COMPLIANCE and the TOWN was entered
into January 1, 2017; and
WHEREAS, the contract between HOST COMPLIANCE and the TOWN was amended on
December 7th, 2018 and on December 3rd 2018:
WHEREAS, HOST COMPLIANCE agrees to license to the TOWN certain hosted
software and provide all other services necessary for the TOWN’s productive use of such
software; and.
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto, for valuable consideration and the mutual
promises between the parties, hereby amend its agreement as follows:
1. The Town and Host Compliance hereby agree to renew the Agreement for a renewal term
of one (1) year commencing on January 1st, 2020 for the services as described in Schedule 1.
2. The existing Schedule 1 to the Agreement is hereby supplemented with the attached
Schedule 1 for the renewal term from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020.
3. This Amendment is subject to the fiscal provisions of The Town of Estes Park Municipal
Code, and this Amendment will terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in
the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a
fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds
for this Amendment are no longer available. This Section shall take precedence in the event of a
conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Amendment.
4. All other terms and conditions of the January 1, 2017 agreement, as amended. between
the parties, shall remain in full force and effect.
39
39
IN WITNESS WHEREOF Host Compliance and the Customer have executed this Amendment as of
the Effective Date.
TOWN
Town of Estes Park by its authorized signatory:
Todd Jirsa
Mayor
Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Town Attorney
Billing Contact: Deb Holgorsen
Billing Email: dholgorsen@estes.org
Billing Direct Phone: (970) 577-3566
CONSULTANT
Host Compliance LLC by its authorized signatory:
Name:
Title:
Date:
Account Executive: Helene Gaglioti
Account Executive Email: Helene.gaglioti@hostcompliance.com
Account Executive Phone: 415-529-6291
40
40
Schedule 1 for the renewal term from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020
Scope of Services:
Trend Monitoring
Monthly email-delivered report and live web-delivered dashboard with aggregate statistics on the
short-term rental activity in the Estes Park town limits (“jurisdiction”):
Active monitoring of jurisdiction's short-term rental listings across 25+ STR websites
Monthly analysis of jurisdiction's STR activity scale, scope and trends
Address Identification
Monthly email-delivered report and live web-delivered dashboard with complete address information
and screenshots of all identifiable STRs in the jurisdiction:
Up-to-date list of jurisdictions’ active STR listings
High resolution screenshots of all active listings (captured weekly)
Full address and contact information for all identifiable STRs in jurisdiction
All available listing and contact information for non-identifiable STRs in jurisdiction
Compliance Monitoring
Ongoing monitoring of the short-term rentals operating in Town of Estes Park's jurisdiction for zoning
and permit compliance coupled with systematic outreach to non-compliant short-term rental property
owners (using Town of Estes Park's form letters)
● Ongoing monitoring of STRs for zoning and permit compliance
● Pro-active and systematic outreach to unpermitted and/or illegal short-term rental
operators (using jurisdiction's form letters)
● Monthly staff report on jurisdiction's zoning and permit compliance:
● Up-to-date list of STRs operating illegally or without the proper permits
● Full case history for non-compliant listings
7/24 Short-term Rental Hotline
24/7 staffed telephone and online hotline for neighbors to report non-emergency problems related to
STR properties:
● Incidents can be reported by phone or online
● Full documentation of all reported incidents
● Digital recordings and written transcripts of all calls
● Ability for neighbors to include photos, video footage and sound recordings to document
complaints
● Real-time outreach to owners of problem properties (whenever owner's contact info is
known)
● Weekly staff reports containing:
○ The # and types of reported incidents
○ List of properties for which incidents have been reported
● Custom reports and analysis of hotline related activities
Total Annual Subscription Service Price $34,000
41
41
Cost-effective solutions to Town of Estes Park's short-term rental
December 2019
monitoring and compliance problems
1
LListings
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
2017
2018
2019
Listing growth 2017-2019
Town of Estes Park Estes Valley Dev Area
2 42
RRental Units
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
2017
2018
2019
Rental Unit growth 2017-2019
Town of Estes Park Estes Valley Dev Area
3
•Address Identification: Online dashboard with complete address
information and screenshots of all identifiable STRs in Estes Park's
jurisdiction
•Compliance Monitoring: Ongoing monitoring of STRs for zoning and
permit compliance coupled with systematic outreach to illegal short-term
rental operators (using Estes Park's form letters)
•Rental Activity Monitoring and Tax Collection Support: Ongoing monitoring
of Estes Park's STR listings for signs of rental activity. Enables data-informed
tax compliance monitoring and other enforcement practices that require
knowledge of STR activity level
•Dedicated Hotline: 24/7 staffed telephone hotline for neighbors to report
non-emergency STR problems
•Mobile Enabled Permitting and Registration: Mobile/web forms and
back-end systems for streamlining Estes Park's permitting and
registration processes and capturing payments, signatures and required
documents
Services Reminder
4 43
Renewal Pricing for 2019 for Estes Park
Renewal of Services:
Additional Services Available:
Address Identification $30,105 /yr
$8,393 /yr
$11,190 /yr
$6,714 /yr
Total: $45,212 /yr
Discounted total: $34,000 /yr
Compliance Monitoring
Rental Activity Monitoring
24/7 Dedicated Hotline
Mobile Registration $5,968 /yr
We have identified on average within the past 12 months 1,338 listings and 746
unique short-term rental units within Estes Park. Multi-year renewals available.
Lock in pricing and receive future discounts.
Prices based in USD.
5
Contact info
Please feel free to contact us anytime if you have any
questions!
Ulrik Binzer
binzer@hostcompliance.com
857.928.0955
Paul Hetherington
paulh@hostcompliance.com
604.763.7285
www.hostcompliance.com
6 44
7
45
42
46
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on ACTION ITEM 3.
ORDINANCE 02-20 AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF A USDA WATER
REVENUE BOND.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information
presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, public comment,
and written comments received on the application.
Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public
hearing which may be responded to at that time.
Mayor declares the Public Hearing open.
2. STAFF REPORT.
Review the staff report.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT.
Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the
Ordinance. All individuals must state their name and address for the record.
Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per
person.
4. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the Ordinance which are not in the Board packet.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the
Ordinance.
Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications
presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Declare the public hearing closed.
Request Board consider a motion.
43
47
7. SUGGESTED MOTION.
Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report.
8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
Discussion by the Board on the motion.
9. VOTE ON THE MOTION.
Vote on the motion or consideration of another action.
44
48
FINANCE Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director
Date: February 11, 2019
RE: Ordinance 02-20 Authorizing Issuance of a USDA Water Revenue Bond
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Adopt a Water Enterprise Fund Revenue Bond ordinance authorizing issuance of bonds
to USDA to finance improvements to the former Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and
Water Company (PEMPWCO) water distribution infrastructure.
Present Situation:
In 2016, the Town accepted a letter of conditions and bond commitment from USDA to
help finance the upgrade and repairs to PEMPWCO’s water distribution system in order
for the Town to take over operations and maintenance of it. In May 2018, the Town
adopted resolution 08-18 accepting various bond provisions and assertions. This project
has now been completed and the Town is ready to close on the bond. The bond
amount is $658,000 at an annual interest rate of 2.25% amortized over a 40 year term
with monthly payments of approximately $2,086. The bond will be repaid by a special
user charge to be added to the monthly utility bills of the 18 former customers of the
PEMPWCO water distribution system. Use of this USDA bond financing and a
matching USDA grant will help minimize any impact to other existing customers of the
Town’s Water Enterprise Fund.
Proposal:
Adoption of this bond ordinance will allow the Town to close on the USDA bond in mid-
March and get reimbursed for the construction costs incurred to complete the project.
Upon bond closing, the impacted customers will have the opportunity to pay off their
pro-rata share of the bond estimated at $36,556, thereby avoiding the future interest
expense. If not paid off within the first month, a special user charge estimated at $116
will be added to their monthly bills until the loan is paid off in approximately 40 years.
45
49
USDA has not been clear on how any prepayments will work so these are the two
payment options we came up with at the outset. These amounts will be finalized upon
final closing on the bond and receipt of the final amortization schedule expected in mid-
March.
Advantages:
The Town has already incurred the construction costs and this bond will just allow the
Water Enterprise to reimburse itself from the bond proceeds. This also allows the Town
to assist these 18 customers as PEMPWCO ceases operations without significantly
impacting other customers of the Water Enterprise.
Disadvantages:
This issuance imposes debt service obligations on the Water Enterprise Fund for the
next 40 years.
Action Recommended:
Adopt the proposed bond ordinance authorizing the issuance of the bonds and delegate
authority for document execution at the time of bond closing to the Mayor, Town
Administrator and Finance Director.
Finance/Resource Impact:
Reimburse the project construction costs and bond issuance costs in the amount of the
bond proceeds of $658,000.
Level of Public Interest
Completion of this project and bond financing is strongly desired by the former
customers of PEMPWCO.
Sample Motion:
I move for the approval/denial of Ordinance 02-20 authorizing the issuance of
$658,000 in Water Enterprise Fund revenue bonds for the purpose of financing the
PEMPWCO water distribution system improvements.
Attachments:
Attachment A: USDA Bond Ordinance 02-20
Attachment B: Draft Bond Amortization Schedule
Attachment C: Resolution 08-18
Attachment D: USDA Letter of Conditions dated 8-11-2016
Attachment E: USDA Amendment to Letter of Conditions dated 10-13-2016
46
50
4829-4357-3337.4
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS WATER ENTERPRISE
ORDINANCE NO. 02-20
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, ACTING
BY AND THROUGH ITS WATER ENTERPRISE, AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE OF A WATER REVENUE BOND TO EVIDENCE A LOAN
FROM THE RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE RURAL DEVELOPMENT TO
REIMBURSE THE TOWN FOR A PORTION OF THE COST OF
CONSTRUCTING A FUNCTIONAL REPLACEMENT OF THE DRINKING
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SERVING THE PARK ENTRANCE
ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD; PROVIDING THE FORM AND OTHER
DETAILS IN CONNECTION WITH THE BOND; PROVIDING FOR THE
PAYMENT OF THE BOND FROM A CAPITAL COST FEE TO BE PAID
MONTHLY IN ADDITION TO THE TOWN’S WATER SERVICE RATES BY
THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE PARK ENTRANCE ESTATES
NEIGHBORHOOD; AND MAKING CERTAIN COVENANTS AND
APPROVING CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE LOAN.
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the “Town”), is a statutory town and
political subdivision duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado
(the “State”): and
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the Town has formally established a
Water Enterprise (the “Enterprise”) pursuant to Ordinance No.08-99; and
WHEREAS, the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise operates and maintains a
municipal water system within the Town and surrounding areas for the distribution of treated
water; and
WHEREAS, such municipal water system has been and continues to be operated by the
Enterprise as a government-owned business, which is authorized to issue its own revenue bonds
and receives under 10% of annual revenue in grants from all Colorado state and local
governments combined, and it is hereby determined that the Enterprise is an enterprise within the
meaning of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution; and
WHEREAS, the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, for years provided treated
water to the Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline and Water Company (PEMPWCO) as a bulk water
customer, and PEMPWCO distributed such water through its own distribution system to property
owners in the Park Entrance Estates neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, PEMPWCO’s system needed replacing in order to provide improved water
quality, pressure and fire flow volume, and to meet Town standards and requirements for water
distribution systems; and
47
51
2
4829-4357-3337.4
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 31-35-402, Colorado Revised Statutes, the Town has the
power to operate and maintain water facilities for use within and without the boundaries of the
Town, and to accept loans or grants or both from the United States for the construction of
necessary water facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Town has applied for and received approval of a loan and grant to be
administered by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the United States Department of
Agriculture Rural Development (collectively, “USDA”), for the construction by the Town, acting
by and through the Enterprise, of a functional replacement of PEMPWCO’s aging drinking water
distribution system (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Town and PEMPWCO entered into a Water System Transfer Agreement
dated February 20, 2018, for the transfer of PEMPWCO’s system to the Town and the
construction of the Project by the Town; and
WHEREAS, the Town has constructed and completed the Project and the Town, acting
by and through the Enterprise, now seeks to authorize the issuance of a Water Revenue Bond
(the “Bond”) to USDA in order to obtain the loan from USDA and to use the proceeds of such
Bond and the loan to reimburse the Town for a portion of the cost of the Project; and
WHEREAS, none of the members of the Board have any potential conflicting interests in
connection with the authorization, issuance, or delivery of the Bond, or the use of the proceeds
thereof; and
WHEREAS, the Board, acting as the governing body of the Enterprise, desires to
authorize the issuance and sale of the Bond and, as provided in Title 11, Article 57, Part 2,
C.R.S., delegate to the Town Administrator or the Finance Director of the Town the authority to
determine certain provisions of the Bond to be set forth in the final executed Bond, in accordance
with the provisions of this Bond Ordinance;
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES
PARK, COLORADO, ACTING AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF ITS WATER
ENTERPRISE:
Section 1. Definitions. The following terms shall have the following meanings as used
in this Ordinance:
“Authorized Denomination” means the outstanding principal amount of the Bond.
“Bank” means a national banking association duly organized and existing under the laws
of the United States of America, being a member of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
and duly qualified and acting under the Public Deposit Protection Act of the State.
“Board” means the Board of Trustees of the Town.
“Bond” means the Water Revenue Bond, Series 2020, dated as of the Dated Date and
authorized hereby.
48
52
3
4829-4357-3337.4
“Bond Account” means the Bond Account created in the section hereof titled “Bond
Account” for the purpose of paying the principal of and interest on the Bond.
“Bond Counsel” means (a) as of the date of issuance of the Bond, Kutak Rock LLP, and
(b) as of any other date, Kutak Rock LLP or such other attorneys selected by the Town with
nationally recognized expertise in the issuance of municipal bonds.
“Bond Ordinance” means this ordinance which authorizes the issuance of the Bond,
including any amendments properly made hereto.
“Business Day” means any day other than (a) a Saturday or Sunday or (b) a day on which
banking institutions in the State are authorized or obligated by law or executive order to be
closed for business.
“Certified Public Accountant” means an independent certified public accountant within
the meaning of § 12-2-115, C.R.S. and any amendment thereto, licensed to practice in the State.
“C.R.S.” means the Colorado Revised Statutes, as amended and supplemented as of the
date hereof.
“Dated Date” means the original dated date for the Bond as determined in the Bond
Details Certificate and set forth in the executed Bond.
“Enabling Law” means this Bond Ordinance; Title 31, Article 35, Part 4, C.R.S.; Title 11,
Article 57, Part 2, C.R.S.; and all other laws of the State enabling the issuance of the Bond.
“Event of Default” means any of the events specified in the section hereof titled “Events
of Default.”
“Holder” means USDA as of the Dated Date, and thereafter, following a transfer and
exchange of the Bond, if any, the Person in whose name the Bond is registered on the
registration books maintained by the Paying Agent.
“Interest Rate” means the rate of 2.25% per annum, unless a different rate is established
in the Bond Details Certificate, as set forth in the executed Bond.
“Maturity Date” means the date for the final payment of the Bond, as determined in the
Bond Details Certificate and set forth in the executed Bond, which shall be no later than forty
years following the Dated Date.
“Parity Obligations” means any bonds, Bonds or other obligations (which may or may
not be multiple fiscal year financial obligations) with a lien on the Pledged Revenues that is
equal and on a parity with the lien of the Bond on the Pledged Revenues.
“Park Entrance Estates Neighborhood” means the Park Entrance Estates Addition to the
Town of Estes Park, Colorado.
“Paying Agent” means the Town Treasurer.
49
53
4
4829-4357-3337.4
“Payment Date” means monthly dates determined in the Bond Details Certificate and set
forth in the executed Bond for payment of the principal of and interest on the Bond.
“Permitted Investments” means any lawful investment permitted for the investment of
funds of the Town by the laws of the State, subject to any restrictions or limitations established
from time to time by USDA or other applicable federal regulations.
“Person” means a corporation, firm, other body corporate, agency, partnership,
association or individual and also includes an executor, administrator, trustee, receiver or other
representative appointed according to law.
“Pledged Revenues” means a capital cost fee to be paid monthly per lot by the users of
the System in the Park Entrance Estates Neighborhood.
“Project” means the design, engineering and construction of a functional replacement of
the aging drinking water system in the Park Entrance Estates Neighborhood and any other
purpose for which proceeds of the Bond and other legally available moneys of the Town may be
expended under the Enabling Law for replacement of such drinking water system.
“Public Deposit Protection Act” means Title 11, Article 10.5, Part 1, C.R.S.
“Record Date” means the fifteenth day of the calendar month next preceding each
Payment Date.
“Required Reserve” means, with respect to the Bond, an amount equal to at least the
annual loan installment ($25,032.00 unless a different amount is established in the Bond Details
Certificate).
“Reserve Account” means a special account established by the provisions hereof for the
purpose of paying, if necessary, the principal of and interest on the Bond or for expenses as
authorized by USDA.
“State” means the State of Colorado.
“System” means the water distribution system, including all rights of way and easements,
acquired by the Town and located in the Park Entrance Estates Neighborhood, including, without
limitation, the Project.
“USDA” means the United States Department of Agriculture.
“USDA Loan Resolution” means the RUS Bulletin 1780-27 (Loan Resolution – Public
Bodies) also adopted by the Board in conjunction with the issuance of the Bond.
Section 2. Authorization and Purpose of the Bond. Pursuant to and in accordance
with the Enabling Law, the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, hereby authorizes,
approves and orders that, as evidence of a loan from the USDA, there shall be issued by the
Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, the “Water Revenue Bond, Series 2020” for the
50
54
5
4829-4357-3337.4
purpose of reimbursing the Town for all or a portion of the costs of the Project. The Maturity
Date is not expected to exceed the useful life of the Project.
Section 3. Bond Details.
(a) Registered Form, Denominations, Dated Date and Numbering. The
Bond shall be issued as a single, fully registered Bond, which shall be dated as of the
Dated Date and registered in the name of the USDA, or if later transferred pursuant to the
Section hereof entitled “Registration, Transfer and Exchange of the Bond,” in the name
of the Person identified in the registration books of the Town maintained by the Paying
Agent. The Bond shall be issued in the Authorized Denomination. The Bond shall be in
substantially the form set forth in Appendix A hereto with such changes thereto, not
inconsistent herewith, as may be necessary or desirable and approved by the Town
officials executing the same (whose manual signatures thereon shall constitute conclusive
evidence of such approval). The Bond shall be numbered R-1, and if transferred
thereafter numbered consecutively beginning with the number “2.”
(b) Maturity Date, Principal Amount and Interest Rate. The Bond shall be
issued in the principal amount of $658,000 and shall mature on the Maturity Date. The
Bond shall bear interest at the Interest Rate (calculated based on an actual/365-day year)
from the later of the Dated Date or the latest Payment Date to which interest has been
paid in full and shall be payable on each Payment Date. The Board hereby delegates to
the Town Administrator or the Finance Director of the Town the authority to determine
(i) the Dated Date, (ii) the amount of principal of the Bond subject to payment and
redemption in any particular month and year, (iii) the Interest Rate, (iv) the Payment
Dates, (v) the amount of the Required Reserve and (vi) any other matters that, in the
judgment of the Town Administrator or the Finance Director of the Town, are necessary
or convenient to be determined and set forth in the executed Bond, and are not
inconsistent with the parameters established pursuant to this Bond Ordinance.
(c) Accrual and Dates of Payment of Interest. Interest on the Bond shall
accrue at the Interest Rate from the later of the Dated Date or the latest Payment Date (or
in the case of defaulted interest, the latest date) to which interest has been paid in full and
shall be payable on each Payment Date.
(d) Manner and Form of Payment. The principal of the Bond shall be
payable in lawful money of the United States of America to the Holder on the Maturity
Date or upon prior redemption in whole or in part. The interest on and principal of the
Bond is payable to the Holder at its address as it appears on the registration books
maintained by or on behalf of the Town by the Paying Agent.
Interest and principal payments shall be paid by check or draft of the Paying
Agent mailed on or before each Payment Date to the Holder. The Paying Agent may
make payments of interest and principal by alternative means, such as by wire transfer, as
may be mutually agreed to between the Holder of the Bond and the Paying Agent.
Without limiting the foregoing, the appropriate Town officer or official shall complete
and deliver to USDA form RD-3550-28 (or any similar replacement form to the
51
55
6
4829-4357-3337.4
“Authorization Agreement for Preauthorized Payments”) to allow for principal and
interest payments to be electronically debited from the Bond Account to USDA on the
dates that payments are due. All payments of the principal of and interest on the Bond
shall be made in lawful money of the United States of America.
Within thirty days following the date of the final payment of the Bond, in full, the
Holder of the Bond shall present the Bond to the Paying Agent, at the office of the Paying
Agent at 170 MacGregor Ave, Estes Park, Colorado 80517, or at such other address as
provided in writing by the Paying Agent to the Holder.
Section 4. Form of Bond. The Bond shall be in substantially the form set forth in
Appendix A hereto with such changes thereto, not inconsistent herewith, as may be necessary or
desirable and approved by the officials of the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise,
executing the same (whose manual signatures thereon shall constitute conclusive evidence of
such approval). Although attached as an appendix for the convenience of the reader,
Appendix A is an integral part of this Bond Ordinance and is incorporated herein as if set forth in
full in the body of this Bond Ordinance.
Section 5. Execution, Authentication and Delivery of the Bond.
(a) Execution. The Bond shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the
Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, with the manual signature of the Mayor,
shall bear a manual or facsimile of the seal of the Town and shall be attested by the
manual signature of the Town Clerk, both of whom are hereby authorized and directed to
prepare and execute the Bond in accordance with the requirements hereof. Should any
officer whose manual signature appears on the Bond cease to be such officer before
delivery of any Bond, such manual signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for
all purposes.
(b) Authentication. When the Bond has been duly executed, the officers of
the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, are authorized to, and shall, deliver the
Bond to the Paying Agent for authentication. No Bond shall be secured by or entitled to
the benefit of this Bond Ordinance, or shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose, unless
the certificate of authentication of the Paying Agent has been manually executed by an
authorized signatory of the Paying Agent. The executed certificate of authentication of
the Paying Agent upon any Bond shall be conclusive evidence, and the only competent
evidence, that such Bond has been properly authenticated hereunder.
(c) Delivery. Upon the authentication of the Bond, receipt of the principal
amount of the Bond (or confirmation of the availability of loan proceeds in said amount)
from the USDA and issuance of the approving opinion of Bond Counsel, the Paying
Agent shall be directed to release the Bond and deliver the same to the USDA in
accordance with the directions of the USDA.
Section 6. Registration, Transfer and Exchange of the Bond.
(a) Registration. The Paying Agent shall maintain a registration book in
which the ownership, transfer and exchange of the Bond shall be recorded. The Person in
52
56
7
4829-4357-3337.4
whose name the Bond shall be registered on the registration book shall be deemed to be
the absolute owner thereof for all purposes.
(b) Transfer and Exchange of the Bond. The Bond may be transferred at the
principal office of the Paying Agent or at such other location designated by the Paying
Agent for such purpose, for an Authorized Denomination of the same Maturity Date and
interest rate. Upon surrender for transfer of the Bond, duly endorsed for transfer or
accompanied by an assignment duly executed by the Holder or his or her attorney duly
authorized in writing, the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, shall execute and
the Paying Agent shall authenticate and deliver in the name of the transferee a new Bond.
Section 7. Replacement of Lost, Destroyed or Stolen Bond. If the Bond shall become
lost, apparently destroyed, stolen or wrongfully taken, it may be replaced in the form and tenor
of the lost, destroyed, stolen or taken Bond and the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise,
shall execute and the Paying Agent shall authenticate and deliver a replacement Bond upon the
Holder furnishing, to the satisfaction of the Paying Agent: (a) proof of ownership (which shall be
shown by the registration books of the Paying Agent), (b) proof of loss, destruction or theft,
(c) an indemnity to the Town with respect to the Bond lost, destroyed or taken, and (d) payment
of the cost of preparing and executing the new Bond.
Section 8. Redemption of the Bond Prior to Maturity.
(a) Optional Redemption.
(i) The Bond shall be subject to prior redemption in whole at the option of the
Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, on the Payment Date of any month,
upon payment of the unpaid principal amount of the Bond and accrued interest to
the date of redemption (without redemption premium).
(ii) Prepayment of any portion of scheduled installments of principal and interest
on the Bond may be made at any time at the option of the Town, acting by and
through the Enterprise, and shall, after payment of interest, be applied to the
installments last to become due under the Bond and shall not affect the obligation
of the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, to pay the remaining scheduled
installments.
(b) Regularly Scheduled Redemption. The principal amount of the Bond
shall be subject to payment and amortization on each Payment Date of the years and in
the principal amounts as determined in the Bond Details Certificate and set forth in the
executed Bond, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount thereof (with no
redemption premium), plus accrued interest to the redemption date.
(c) Notice of Redemption. No notice shall be required for regularly
scheduled redemption as provided in paragraph (b) of this Section 8. Not less than fifteen
days prior to the date established for optional redemption of the Bond, as provided in
paragraph (a) of this Section 8, the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, shall
notify USDA of its intent to exercise its optional redemption right.
53
57
8
4829-4357-3337.4
(d) Graduation Clause. Upon the request of USDA, the Town, acting by and
through the Enterprise, shall refinance the unpaid balance of the Bond if at any time it
shall appear to USDA that the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, is able to
refinance the Bond by obtaining a loan for such purposes from responsible cooperative or
private sources at reasonable rates and terms for loans for similar purposes and periods of
time as required by section 333(c) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act
(7 U.S.C. 1983(c).
Section 9. Bond Account. There is hereby established the Bond Account. Moneys in
the Bond Account shall be used solely for the purpose of paying the principal of and interest on
the Bond and on any Parity Obligations. On or before the Business Day preceding each Payment
Date, the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, shall credit to the Bond Account, from the
Pledged Revenues, an amount equal to the principal and interest to come due on the Bond and on
any Parity Obligations on the next succeeding Payment Date.
Section 10. Application of Proceeds of the Bond. The proceeds received by the Town,
acting by and through the Enterprise, from the USDA at the time of delivery of the Bond shall be
applied as a supplemental appropriation of the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, to
reimburse the Town for a portion of the cost of the Project.
Section 11. Reserve Account.
(a) Use of Moneys in the Reserve Account. There is hereby established the
Reserve Account, which account is irrevocably pledged and held for payment of the
Bond. Moneys in the Reserve Account shall be used, if necessary, only to prevent a
default in the payment of the principal of or interest on the Bond or for expenses as
authorized by USDA. In the event the amounts credited to the Bond Account are
insufficient to pay the principal of or interest on the Bond when due, the Town, acting by
and through the Enterprise, shall transfer from the Reserve Account to the Bond Account
an amount which, when combined with moneys in the Bond Account, will be sufficient to
make such payments when due.
(b) Funding and Maintenance of the Required Reserve. The Required
Reserve shall be funded and maintained from the Pledged Revenues by the deposit, on or
before December 31 of each year for 10 years following the issuance of the Bond or until
the Required Reserve is fully funded, of at least one-tenth (1/10th) of the total of the
twelve monthly payments on the Bond and thereafter shall be maintained in the amount
of the Required Reserve. If at any time after becoming fully funded, the amount in the
Reserve Account is less than the Required Reserve, the Town, acting by and through the
Enterprise, shall deposit to the Reserve Account, as soon as possible, from the Pledged
Revenues or other legally available monies, amounts sufficient to bring the amount in the
Reserve Account to the Required Reserve.
Section 12. Maintenance of Rates and Coverage. Subject to the issuance of the Bond,
the Board shall maintain a user rate schedule for the use of the System that provides adequate
income to meet the minimum requirements for operation and maintenance, debt service (other
than the Bond), and reserves. USDA requires, as a condition to the loan, that the Town, acting
54
58
9
4829-4357-3337.4
by and through the Enterprise, establish a short lived asset replacement reserve by depositing a
sum of $1,500 annually for the life of the loan to pay for repairs and/or replacement of major
system assets.
Section 13. Pledge and Lien for Payment of Bond.
(a) Pledge of Revenues. The Town, acting by and through the Enterprise,
hereby pledges the Pledged Revenues for the payment of the principal of and interest on
the Bond, and grants a first lien (but not necessarily an exclusive first lien) for such
purpose on the Pledged Revenues.
(b) Superior Liens Prohibited. The Town, acting by and through the
Enterprise, shall not pledge or create any other lien on the revenues and moneys pledged
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this Section that is superior to the pledge thereof or lien
thereon pursuant to such paragraph.
(c) Subordinate Liens Permitted. Nothing herein shall prohibit the Town,
acting by and through the Enterprise, from issuing subordinate lien obligations and
pledging or creating a lien on the revenues and moneys pledged and the lien created
pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section that is subordinate to the pledge thereof or lien
thereon pursuant to such paragraph, provided that no Event of Default shall have
occurred and be continuing.
(d) Parity Obligations Permitted with Consent. The Town, acting by and
through the Enterprise, shall not issue Parity Obligations without the prior written
consent of the Holder.
(e) Bond is a Special, Limited Obligation of the Town. The Bond is a
special, limited obligation of the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, payable
solely from the Pledged Revenues and secured solely by the sources provided in this
Bond Ordinance. The Bond shall not constitute a general obligation debt of the Town
within the meaning of any statutory or constitutional limitation.
(f) Perfection of Security Interest. The creation, perfection, enforcement,
and priority of the pledge of revenues to secure or pay the Bond as provided herein shall
be governed by Section 11-57-208, C.R.S. and the Enabling Law. The revenues pledged
for the payment of the Bond, as received by or otherwise credited to the Town, shall
immediately be subject to the lien of such pledge without any physical delivery, filing, or
further act. The lien of such pledge on the revenues pledged for payment of the Bond and
any Parity Obligations and the obligation to perform the contractual provisions made
herein shall otherwise have priority over any or all other obligations and liabilities of the
Town and of the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise. The lien of such pledge
shall be valid, binding, and enforceable as against all persons having claims of any kind
in tort, contract, or otherwise against the Town irrespective of whether such persons have
notice of such lien.
55
59
10
4829-4357-3337.4
Section 14. Investment of Monies. Any amount in any account established under this
Bond Ordinance may be invested in Permitted Investments until needed for the purpose for
which the account was established.
Section 15. Additional General Covenants. In addition to the other covenants of the
Town contained herein, the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, hereby further
covenants for the benefit of the Holder of the Bond that:
(a) Efficient Collection and Enforcement of the Pledged Revenues. The
Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, will manage the collection and enforcement
of the Pledged Revenues in the most efficient and economical manner practicable. The
Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, will promptly render bills for the Pledged
Revenues and for services furnished by or the use of the System, shall use all legal means
to assure prompt payment thereof, and shall take such action as may be necessary to
make delinquent Pledged Revenues, and user rates, fees and charges of the System a lien
upon the real property served.
(b) Inspection of Records. The Town, acting by and through the Enterprise,
will keep or cause to be kept such books and records showing the Pledged Revenues, in
which complete entries shall be made in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles, as applicable to governmental entities, and the Holder shall have the right at
all reasonable times to inspect all non-confidential records, accounts, actions and data of
the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, relating to the Bond, the Reserve
Account and the Pledged Revenues.
(c) Annual Audit and Budget. The Town will, in the time and manner
provided by law, cause an annual audit to be made of the books relating to the Pledged
Revenues, the Bond Account and the Reserve Account each year by a Certified Public
Accountant and shall furnish a physical or electronic copy thereof to the Holder. The
Town also shall provide the Holder with such additional information relating to the
expenditure of loan and grant funding as required by applicable federal regulations or as
USDA may request. In addition, at least once a year in the time and manner provided by
law, the Town will cause a budget to be prepared and adopted. Within thirty days after
the beginning of each fiscal year, the Town will submit an annual budget and projected
cash flow as directed by USDA. With the submission of the annual budget, the Town,
acting by and through the Enterprise, will provide a current rate schedule, and a current
listing of the Board members and their terms.
(d) Operation and Management. The Town, acting by and through the
Enterprise, will operate and manage the System in an efficient and economical manner in
accordance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, and keep and maintain
separate accounts of the receipts and expenses thereof in such manner that the Pledged
Revenues may at all times be readily and accurately identified.
(e) No Free Service. The Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, shall
require all customers to shall pay a fair and reasonable amount for services furnished by
or the use of the System and shall provide no free service for use of the System.
56
60
11
4829-4357-3337.4
(f) Sale or Alienation of System Property. The Town, acting by and through
the Enterprise, will not sell or alienate any of the property constituting any part or all of
the System in any manner or to any extent as might reduce the security provided for the
payment of the Bond.
(g) Insurance. The Town will carry such forms of general liability insurance,
workers’ compensation, position fidelity bonds, national flood insurance and real
property insurance as required by USDA and applicable federal regulations.
(h) Mandatory Hookups. As required by USDA and applicable federal
regulations, all customers within the System service area shall be required to hookup to
the System.
Section 16. Events of Default. Each of the following events constitutes an Event of
Default:
(a) Nonpayment of Principal or Interest. Failure to make any payment of
principal of or interest on the Bond when due hereunder;
(b) Breach or Nonperformance of Duties. Breach by the Town, acting by
and through the Enterprise, of any material covenant set forth herein or failure by the
Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, to perform any material duty imposed on it
hereunder and continuation of such breach or failure for a period of thirty days after
receipt by the Town Administrator of written notice thereof from the Holder; or
(c) Appointment of Receiver. An order or decree is entered by a court of
competent jurisdiction appointing a receiver for all or any portion of the revenues and
moneys pledged for the payment of the Bond pursuant hereto is entered with the consent
or acquiescence of the Town or is entered without the consent or acquiescence of the
Town but is not vacated, discharged or stayed within thirty days after it is entered.
Section 17. Remedies for Events of Default.
(a) Remedies. Upon the occurrence and continuance of any Event of Default,
the Holder of the Bond, or a trustee therefor, may protect and enforce its rights by proper
legal or equitable remedy deemed most effectual including, without limitation,
mandamus, specific performance of any covenants, injunctive relief, or requiring the
Board to act as if it were the trustee of an express trust, or any combination of such
remedies; including without limitation the acceleration of any payments due with respect
to the Bond.
(b) Failure to Pursue Remedies Not a Release; Rights Cumulative. The
failure of the Holder to proceed in any manner herein provided shall not relieve the Town
of any liability for failure to perform or carry out its duties hereunder. Each right or
privilege of the Holder (or trustee therefor) is in addition and is cumulative to any other
right or privilege, and the exercise of any right or privilege by or on behalf of the Holder
shall not be deemed a waiver of any other right or privilege thereof.
57
61
12
4829-4357-3337.4
Section 18. Amendment of Ordinance. The Town, acting by and through the
Enterprise, may not, without the prior written consent of the Holder, adopt amendments to this
Bond Ordinance.
Section 19. Findings and Determinations. Having been fully informed of and having
considered all the pertinent facts and circumstances, the Board does hereby find, determine, and
declare:
(a) The Board elects to apply all of the provisions of Title 11, Article 57,
Part 2, C.R.S., to the issuance of the Bond;
(b) the issuance of the Bond and all procedures undertaken incident thereto
are in full compliance and conformity with all applicable requirements, provisions and
limitations prescribed by the laws and the Constitution of the State, and other applicable
laws relating to the issuance of the Bond have been satisfied; and
(c) it is to the best advantage of the Town and its residents that the Bond be
authorized, issued and delivered at the time, in the manner and for the purposes provided
in this Bond Ordinance.
Section 20. Approval of Miscellaneous Documents. For a period of one year following
the adoption of this Bond Ordinance, the Town Administrator or the Finance Director of the
Town is authorized to make the determinations authorized in Section 3 above and provide for
delivery of the Bond. The members of the Board and all other officials of the Town are hereby
authorized and directed to execute all documents and certificates necessary or desirable to
effectuate the issuance of the Bond and the maintenance of the Project.
Section 21. Ratification of Prior Actions. All actions heretofore taken (not inconsistent
with the provisions of this Bond Ordinance) by the Board or by the officers and employees of the
Town directed toward the issuance of the Bond for the purposes herein set forth are hereby
ratified, approved and confirmed.
Section 22. Events Occurring on Days That Are Not Business Days. Except as
otherwise specifically provided herein with respect to a particular payment, event or action, if
any payment to be made hereunder or any event or action to occur hereunder which, but for this
section, is to be made or is to occur on a day that is not a Business Day, shall instead be made or
occur on the next succeeding day that is a Business Day.
Section 23. Limitation of Actions. In accordance with Section 11-57-212, C.R.S., no
legal or equitable action can be brought with respect to any legislative acts or proceedings in
connection with the authorization or issuance of the Bond more than thirty days after the
adoption of this Bond Ordinance.
Section 24. Headings. The headings to the various sections and paragraphs to this Bond
Ordinance have been inserted solely for the convenience of the reader, are not a part of this Bond
Ordinance, and shall not be used in any manner to interpret this Bond Ordinance.
58
62
13
4829-4357-3337.4
Section 25. Ordinance Irrepealable. After the Bond has been issued, this Bond
Ordinance shall constitute a contract between the Holder and the Town, acting by and through
the Enterprise, and shall be and remain irrepealable until the Bond and the interest accruing
thereon shall have been fully paid, satisfied, and discharged, as herein provided.
Section 26. Severability. It is hereby expressly declared that all provisions hereof and
their application are intended to be and are severable. In order to implement such intent, if any
provision hereof or the application thereof is determined by a court or administrative body to be
invalid or unenforceable, in whole or in part, such determination shall not affect, impair or
invalidate any other provision hereof or the application of the provision in question to any other
situation; and if any provision hereof or the application thereof is determined by a court or
administrative body to be valid or enforceable only if its application is limited, its application
shall be limited as required to most fully implement its purpose.
Section 27. Repealer. All orders, bylaws, ordinances and resolutions of the Town, or
parts thereof, inconsistent or in conflict with this Bond Ordinance, are hereby repealed to the
extent only of such inconsistency or conflict; provided however, in the event any provision of
this Bond Ordinance is inconsistent or in conflict with the USDA Loan Resolution, the terms and
provisions of the USDA Loan Resolution shall control.
Section 28. Recording and Authentication. This Bond Ordinance, immediately upon
its passage, shall be recorded in the Town book of Ordinances kept for this purpose, and shall be
authenticated by the signatures of the Mayor and of the Town Clerk.
Section 29. Effective Date. Following its adoption, this Bond Ordinance shall take
effect and be in force on a date that is 30 days after its publication.
INTRODUCED, READ BY TITLE, APPROVED AND ADOPTED on this 28th day of
January, 2020.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO,
ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS WATER
ENTERPRISE
By
Mayor
ATTEST:
By
Town Clerk
59
63
4829-4357-3337.4
APPENDIX A
FORM OF THE BOND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS WATER ENTERPRISE
WATER REVENUE BOND
SERIES 2020
R-1 $658,000.00
Interest Rate: Maturity Date: Original Dated Date:
2.25% ____________ __________________
REGISTERED OWNER: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ACTING THROUGH THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PRINCIPAL SUM: **SIX HUNDRED FIFTY-EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS**
The Town of Estes Park, Colorado (the “Town”), acting by and through its Water
Enterprise (the “Enterprise”), a duly organized and validly existing political subdivision of the
State of Colorado, for value received in the form of a loan, hereby promises to pay to the order of
the Registered Owner named above, or registered assigns, on the Maturity Date specified above
or upon prior redemption in whole or in part, the Principal Sum specified above. In like manner
the Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, promises to pay interest on the unpaid Principal
Sum (computed on the basis of a 365-day year) from the Payment Date next preceding the date
of registration and authentication of this Bond, except that interest paid on the first Payment Date
shall be computed from the Dated Date set forth above, at the Interest Rate per annum specified
above, payable monthly on ________ commencing on ________, 2020, until the outstanding
Principal Sum is paid in full.
Interest and principal payments shall be paid by check or draft of the Town Treasurer (as
the “Paying Agent”) mailed on or before each Payment Date to the Registered Owner hereof
whose name shall appear on the registration books of the Town maintained by the Paying Agent
(the “Holder”). The Paying Agent may make payments of interest and principal by alternative
means, such as by wire transfer, as may be mutually agreed to between the Holder of the Bond
and the Paying Agent. Without limiting the foregoing, the Town, acting by and through the
Enterprise, has covenanted to complete and deliver USDA form RD-3550-28 (or any similar
replacement form to the “Authorization Agreement for Preauthorized Payments”) to allow for
principal and interest payments to be electronically debited from the Bond Account to USDA on
the dates that payments are due.
60
64
A-2
4829-4357-3337.4
Within thirty days following the date of the final payment of the Bond, in full, the Holder
of the Bond shall present the Bond to the Paying Agent, at the office of the Paying Agent at 170
MacGregor Ave, Estes Park, Colorado 80517, or at such other address as provided in writing by
the Paying Agent to the Holder, as required by the ordinance authorizing the issuance of this
Bond (the “Bond Ordinance”). THE BOND ORDINANCE CONSTITUTES THE CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE REGISTERED OWNER OF THIS BOND AND THE TOWN, ACTING BY
AND THROUGH THE ENTERPRISE. THIS BOND IS ONLY EVIDENCE OF SUCH
CONTRACT AND, AS SUCH, IS SUBJECT IN ALL RESPECTS TO THE TERMS OF THE
BOND ORDINANCE, WHICH SUPERSEDES ANY INCONSISTENT STATEMENT IN
THIS BOND.
The Principal Sum of this Bond is subject to payment and amortization as provided in the
schedule attached hereto as Exhibit A.
This Bond shall be subject to prior redemption as provided in the Bond Ordinance.
This Bond is a special, limited obligation of the Town, acting by and through the
Enterprise, payable solely from and secured solely by the sources provided in the Bond
Ordinance and shall not constitute a general obligation debt of the Town within the meaning of
any statutory or constitutional limitation.
The Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, is authorized to grant a lien on a parity
with the lien for the payment of this Bond on the Pledged Revenues for the payment of other
Bonds, bonds or other obligations upon satisfaction of certain conditions set forth in the Bond
Ordinance. This Bond is issued under the authority of the Constitution of the State of Colorado;
Title 31, Article 35, Part 4, C.R.S. (the “Act”); Title 11, Article 57, Part 2, C.R.S. (the
“Supplemental Public Securities Act”); and all other laws of the State thereunto enabling; and
pursuant to the Bond Ordinance. It is hereby certified that all conditions, acts and things
required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Colorado, and the Bond Ordinance, to exist,
to happen and to be performed, precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond, exist, have
happened and have been performed, and that this Bond does not exceed any limitations
prescribed by said Constitution or laws of the State of Colorado, or the ordinances or resolutions
of the Town. Such recital shall conclusively impart full compliance with all of the provisions of
the Act and the Supplemental Public Securities Act, and this Bond issued containing such recital
shall be conclusive evidence of the validity and regularity of the issuance of this Bond and shall
be incontestable for any cause whatsoever after its delivery for value.
The Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, and the Paying Agent may deem and
treat the Registered Owner of this Bond as the absolute owner hereof for all purposes (whether or
not this Bond shall be overdue), and any notice to the contrary shall not be binding upon the
Town, acting by and through the Enterprise, or the Paying Agent.
This Bond may only be transferred at the principal office of the Paying Agent and only as
provided in the Bond Ordinance. This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any
purpose or be entitled to any security or benefit under the authorizing Bond Ordinance until the
certificate of authentication hereon shall have been signed by the Paying Agent.
61
65
A-3
4829-4357-3337.4
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, acting by and through its
Water Enterprise, has caused this Bond to be signed in the name and on behalf of the Town with
the manual signature of the Mayor of the Town, to be sealed with the seal of the Town or a
facsimile thereof and to be attested by the manual signature of the Town Clerk.
[MANUAL OR FACSIMILE SEAL] TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
ACTING BY AND THROUGH ITS WATER
ENTERPRISE
By (Manual Signature)
Mayor
ATTEST:
By (Manual Signature)
Town Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This is the Bond described in the within mentioned Bond Ordinance.
Town Treasurer, as Paying Agent
By
Date of Authentication:
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSFER
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, __________________________________, the undersigned,
hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto __________________________________ (Tax
Identification or Social Security No. ______________) the within Bond and all rights
thereunder, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints
_________________________________ attorney to transfer the within Bond on the books kept
for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated:
NOTICE: The signature to this assignment
must correspond with the name as it appears
upon the face of the within Bond in every
particular, without alteration or enlargement or
any change whatever.
62
66
4829-4357-3337.4
EXHIBIT A
PAYMENT SCHEDULE*
* To be determined by Town Administrator or Finance Director.
63
67
ϲϱϴ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬΨ
Ϯ͘ϮϱϬй
ϰϬ
Ϭ
ϰϬ
ϭϮ
ϯ͘ϭϳ
Ϯ͕Ϭϴϲ͘ϬϬΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϬ
WĂLJŵĞŶƚ /ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů ĂůĂŶĐĞ
ĞŐŝŶŶŝŶŐĂůĂŶĐĞ ϯϯϵ͕Ϯϲϱ͘ϱϲΨϲϱϴ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬΨϲϱϴ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϬ ϭ͕Ϯϱϳ͘ϰϭΨϴϮϴ͘ϱϵΨϲϱϳ͕ϭϳϭ͘ϰϭΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϬ ϭ͕Ϯϭϱ͘ϯϮΨϴϳϬ͘ϲϴΨϲϱϲ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϳϯΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϬ ϭ͕Ϯϱϰ͘ϭϲΨϴϯϭ͘ϴϰΨϲϱϱ͕ϰϲϴ͘ϴϵΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϬ ϭ͕ϮϭϮ͘ϭϳΨϴϳϯ͘ϴϯΨϲϱϰ͕ϱϵϱ͘ϬϲΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϬ ϭ͕ϮϱϬ͘ϵϬΨϴϯϱ͘ϭϬΨϲϱϯ͕ϳϱϵ͘ϵϲΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϬ ϭ͕Ϯϰϵ͘ϯϭΨϴϯϲ͘ϲϵΨϲϱϮ͕ϵϮϯ͘ϮϳΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϬ ϭ͕ϮϬϳ͘ϰϲΨϴϳϴ͘ϱϰΨϲϱϮ͕Ϭϰϰ͘ϳϯΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϬ ϭ͕Ϯϰϲ͘ϬϯΨϴϯϵ͘ϵϳΨϲϱϭ͕ϮϬϰ͘ϳϲΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϬ ϭ͕ϮϬϰ͘ϮϴΨϴϴϭ͘ϳϮΨϲϱϬ͕ϯϮϯ͘ϬϱΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭ ϭ͕ϮϰϮ͘ϳϰΨϴϰϯ͘ϮϲΨϲϰϵ͕ϰϳϵ͘ϳϵΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭ ϭ͕Ϯϰϭ͘ϭϯΨϴϰϰ͘ϴϳΨϲϰϴ͕ϲϯϰ͘ϵϮΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭ ϭ͕ϭϭϵ͘ϱϲΨϵϲϲ͘ϰϰΨϲϰϳ͕ϲϲϴ͘ϰϴΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭ ϭ͕Ϯϯϳ͘ϲϳΨϴϰϴ͘ϯϯΨϲϰϲ͕ϴϮϬ͘ϭϱΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭ ϭ͕ϭϵϲ͘ϭϳΨϴϴϵ͘ϴϯΨϲϰϱ͕ϵϯϬ͘ϯϮΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭ ϭ͕Ϯϯϰ͘ϯϱΨϴϱϭ͘ϲϱΨϲϰϱ͕Ϭϳϴ͘ϲϳΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭ ϭ͕ϭϵϮ͘ϵϱΨϴϵϯ͘ϬϱΨϲϰϰ͕ϭϴϱ͘ϲϮΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭ ϭ͕Ϯϯϭ͘ϬϭΨϴϱϰ͘ϵϵΨϲϰϯ͕ϯϯϬ͘ϲϯΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭ ϭ͕ϮϮϵ͘ϯϴΨϴϱϲ͘ϲϮΨϲϰϮ͕ϰϳϰ͘ϬϭΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭ ϭ͕ϭϴϴ͘ϭϰΨϴϵϳ͘ϴϲΨϲϰϭ͕ϱϳϲ͘ϭϱΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭ ϭ͕ϮϮϲ͘ϬϯΨϴϱϵ͘ϵϳΨϲϰϬ͕ϳϭϲ͘ϭϳΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭ ϭ͕ϭϴϰ͘ϴϵΨϵϬϭ͘ϭϭΨϲϯϵ͕ϴϭϱ͘ϬϲΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϮ ϭ͕ϮϮϮ͘ϲϲΨϴϲϯ͘ϯϰΨϲϯϴ͕ϵϱϭ͘ϳϮΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϮ ϭ͕ϮϮϭ͘ϬϭΨϴϲϰ͘ϵϵΨϲϯϴ͕Ϭϴϲ͘ϳϯΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϮ ϭ͕ϭϬϭ͘ϯϲΨϵϴϰ͘ϲϰΨϲϯϳ͕ϭϬϮ͘ϬϵΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϮ ϭ͕Ϯϭϳ͘ϰϴΨϴϲϴ͘ϱϮΨϲϯϲ͕Ϯϯϯ͘ϱϲΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϮ ϭ͕ϭϳϲ͘ϲϬΨϵϬϵ͘ϰϬΨϲϯϱ͕ϯϮϰ͘ϭϲΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϮ ϭ͕Ϯϭϰ͘ϬϴΨϴϳϭ͘ϵϮΨϲϯϰ͕ϰϱϮ͘ϮϰΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϮ ϭ͕ϭϳϯ͘ϯϬΨϵϭϮ͘ϳϬΨϲϯϯ͕ϱϯϵ͘ϱϰΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϮ ϭ͕ϮϭϬ͘ϲϳΨϴϳϱ͘ϯϯΨϲϯϮ͕ϲϲϰ͘ϮϭΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϮ ϭ͕ϮϬϵ͘ϬϬΨϴϳϳ͘ϬϬΨϲϯϭ͕ϳϴϳ͘ϮϬΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϮ ϭ͕ϭϲϴ͘ϯϳΨϵϭϳ͘ϲϯΨϲϯϬ͕ϴϲϵ͘ϱϴΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϮ ϭ͕ϮϬϱ͘ϱϳΨϴϴϬ͘ϰϯΨϲϮϵ͕ϵϴϵ͘ϭϰΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϮ ϭ͕ϭϲϱ͘ϬϱΨϵϮϬ͘ϵϱΨϲϮϵ͕Ϭϲϴ͘ϭϵΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ ϭ͕ϮϬϮ͘ϭϮΨϴϴϯ͘ϴϴΨϲϮϴ͕ϭϴϰ͘ϯϭΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ ϭ͕ϮϬϬ͘ϰϯΨϴϴϱ͘ϱϳΨϲϮϳ͕Ϯϵϴ͘ϳϱΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ ϭ͕ϬϴϮ͘ϳϯΨϭ͕ϬϬϯ͘ϮϳΨϲϮϲ͕Ϯϵϱ͘ϰϴΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ ϭ͕ϭϵϲ͘ϴϮΨϴϴϵ͘ϭϴΨϲϮϱ͕ϰϬϲ͘ϯϭΨ
ĂƚĞŽĨ>ŽĂŶůŽƐŝŶŐ
DŽŶƚŚůLJŵŽƌƚŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ&ĂĐƚŽƌΘŵŽƌƚŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ^ĐŚĞĚƵůĞĂůĐƵůĂƚŽƌ
ŶƚĞƌŽƌƌŽǁĞƌEĂŵĞ,ĞƌĞ
WĂLJŵĞŶƚƐƉĞƌzĞĂƌ
ŵŽƌƚŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ&ĂĐƚŽƌ
WĂLJŵĞŶƚ
>ŽĂŶŵŽƵŶƚ
/ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚZĂƚĞ;ĞŶƚĞƌĞĚĂƐĂƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞŝ͘Ğ͘ϯ͘ϲϮϱйͿ
dĞƌŵ
ηŽĨzĞĂƌƐŽĨWƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůĞĨĞƌƌĂů;^ĞůĞĐƚĨƌŽŵĚƌŽƉͲĚŽǁŶͿ
ŵŽƌƚŝnjĂƚŝŽŶWĞƌŝŽĚ
ΎΎŝƐĐůĂŝŵĞƌͲWůĞĂƐĞŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞ
ďƌĞĂŬĚŽǁŶŽĨƉƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůĂŶĚŝŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ
ƉĂLJŵĞŶƚƐƐŚŽǁŶĂƌĞĂŶĞƐƚŝŵĂƚĞŽŶůLJ
ĂŶĚĚŽŶΖƚĂĐĐŽƵŶƚĨŽƌůĞĂƉLJĞĂƌƐ͘ĐƚƵĂů
ĂŵŽƵŶƚƐĂƌĞĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚƵƉŽŶƚŚĞĂĐƚƵĂů
ĚĂƚĞŽĨĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶŽĨƉĂLJŵĞŶƚ͘/ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ
ĂĐĐƌƵĞƐĚĂŝůLJĨƌŽŵŽŶĞƉĂLJŵĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞ
ŶĞdžƚ͘DΨΨDϮϮΨΨDDϬϮϮϬϮϮ ΨΨDDϱͬϮϬϮϮϱͬϮϬϮϮ ΨDDϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϮϭͬϭϱͬϮ ΨDDRϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭϭϮͬϭϱ ΨDDRϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭϭϭͬϭϱͬϭ͕ϭΨDDRͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϭ ϭ͕ϭϴϴΨΨDDRͬϮϬϮϭͬϮϬϮϭ ϭ͕ϮϮϵ͘ϯϴΨΨDDRϮϭ ϭ͕Ϯϯϭ͘ϬϭϬϭΨΨΨ
DRRAϭ͕ϭϵϮ͘ϵϱϭ͕ϭϵϮ͘ϵϱΨΨΨRARAϭ͕Ϯϯϰ͘ϯϱϭΨΨRARAϭ͕ϭϵϲ͘ϭϳϭ͕ΨΨRARAϭ͕Ϯϯϳ͘ϲϳϭΨΨRARAϭ͕ϭϭϵ͘ϱϲϱϲΨΨRARAFϭ͕Ϯϰϭ͘ϭϯ͘ϭϯΨRAAFϭ͕ϮϰϮ͘ϳϰϮ͘ϳϰϴϰϴΨΨAAFϮϬϰ͘ϮϴϬϰ͘Ϯϴ ϴϴϭ͘ϳΨΨAAFTTTTTTϴ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬ
ϴϮϴ͘ϱϵϴϮϴ͘ϱϵΨΨ
ϴϳϬ͘ϲϴΨΨ
ϴϯϭ͘ϴϰΨΨ
ϴϳϯ͘ϴϯΨ
ϴϯϱ͘ϭϬϴϯΨ
ϴϯϲ͘ϲϵΨΨ
ϲ ϴϳϴ͘ϱϰΨΨ
ϲ͘Ϭϯϲ͘Ϭ ϴϯϵ͘ϵϳΨTTAFTTTTTFTFTFTFTAFTAFAFAFAFRARARARARADRDRDRDRDRDDDDD64
68
WĂLJŵĞŶƚ /ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů ĂůĂŶĐĞ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ ϭ͕ϭϱϲ͘ϱϳΨϵϮϵ͘ϰϯΨϲϮϰ͕ϰϳϲ͘ϴϴΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ ϭ͕ϭϵϯ͘ϯϱΨϴϵϮ͘ϲϱΨϲϮϯ͕ϱϴϰ͘ϮϯΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ ϭ͕ϭϱϯ͘ϮϬΨϵϯϮ͘ϴϬΨϲϮϮ͕ϲϱϭ͘ϰϯΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ ϭ͕ϭϴϵ͘ϴϲΨϴϵϲ͘ϭϰΨϲϮϭ͕ϳϱϱ͘ϯϬΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ ϭ͕ϭϴϴ͘ϭϱΨϴϵϳ͘ϴϱΨϲϮϬ͕ϴϱϳ͘ϰϰΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ ϭ͕ϭϰϴ͘ϭϲΨϵϯϳ͘ϴϰΨϲϭϵ͕ϵϭϵ͘ϲϭΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ ϭ͕ϭϴϰ͘ϲϰΨϵϬϭ͘ϯϲΨϲϭϵ͕Ϭϭϴ͘ϮϱΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ ϭ͕ϭϰϰ͘ϳϲΨϵϰϭ͘ϮϰΨϲϭϴ͕Ϭϳϳ͘ϬϭΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϰ ϭ͕ϭϴϭ͘ϭϮΨϵϬϰ͘ϴϴΨϲϭϳ͕ϭϳϮ͘ϭϯΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϰ ϭ͕ϭϳϵ͘ϯϵΨϵϬϲ͘ϲϭΨϲϭϲ͕Ϯϲϱ͘ϱϮΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϰ ϭ͕ϭϬϭ͘ϲϴΨϵϴϰ͘ϯϮΨϲϭϱ͕Ϯϴϭ͘ϮϬΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϰ ϭ͕ϭϳϱ͘ϳϴΨϵϭϬ͘ϮϮΨϲϭϰ͕ϯϳϬ͘ϵϳΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϰ ϭ͕ϭϯϲ͘ϭϳΨϵϰϵ͘ϴϯΨϲϭϯ͕ϰϮϭ͘ϭϰΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϰ ϭ͕ϭϳϮ͘ϮϮΨϵϭϯ͘ϳϴΨϲϭϮ͕ϱϬϳ͘ϯϲΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϰ ϭ͕ϭϯϮ͘ϳϮΨϵϱϯ͘ϮϴΨϲϭϭ͕ϱϱϰ͘ϬϴΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϰ ϭ͕ϭϲϴ͘ϲϱΨϵϭϳ͘ϯϱΨϲϭϬ͕ϲϯϲ͘ϳϰΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϰ ϭ͕ϭϲϲ͘ϵϬΨϵϭϵ͘ϭϬΨϲϬϵ͕ϳϭϳ͘ϲϰΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϰ ϭ͕ϭϮϳ͘ϱϲΨϵϱϴ͘ϰϰΨϲϬϴ͕ϳϱϵ͘ϮϬΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϰ ϭ͕ϭϲϯ͘ϯϭΨϵϮϮ͘ϲϵΨϲϬϳ͕ϴϯϲ͘ϱϭΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϰ ϭ͕ϭϮϰ͘ϬϴΨϵϲϭ͘ϵϮΨϲϬϲ͕ϴϳϰ͘ϱϵΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϱ ϭ͕ϭϱϵ͘ϳϭΨϵϮϲ͘ϮϵΨϲϬϱ͕ϵϰϴ͘ϯϬΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϱ ϭ͕ϭϱϳ͘ϵϰΨϵϮϴ͘ϬϲΨϲϬϱ͕ϬϮϬ͘ϮϱΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϱ ϭ͕Ϭϰϰ͘ϮϴΨϭ͕Ϭϰϭ͘ϳϮΨϲϬϯ͕ϵϳϴ͘ϱϯΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϱ ϭ͕ϭϱϰ͘ϭϴΨϵϯϭ͘ϴϮΨϲϬϯ͕Ϭϰϲ͘ϳϭΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϱ ϭ͕ϭϭϱ͘ϮϮΨϵϳϬ͘ϳϴΨϲϬϮ͕Ϭϳϱ͘ϵϯΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϱ ϭ͕ϭϱϬ͘ϱϰΨϵϯϱ͘ϰϲΨϲϬϭ͕ϭϰϬ͘ϰϳΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϱ ϭ͕ϭϭϭ͘ϳϬΨϵϳϰ͘ϯϬΨϲϬϬ͕ϭϲϲ͘ϭϳΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϱ ϭ͕ϭϰϲ͘ϴϵΨϵϯϵ͘ϭϭΨϱϵϵ͕ϮϮϳ͘ϬϲΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϱ ϭ͕ϭϰϱ͘ϭϬΨϵϰϬ͘ϵϬΨϱϵϴ͕Ϯϴϲ͘ϭϲΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϱ ϭ͕ϭϬϲ͘ϰϮΨϵϳϵ͘ϱϴΨϱϵϳ͕ϯϬϲ͘ϱϴΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϱ ϭ͕ϭϰϭ͘ϰϯΨϵϰϰ͘ϱϳΨϱϵϲ͕ϯϲϮ͘ϬϭΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϱ ϭ͕ϭϬϮ͘ϴϲΨϵϴϯ͘ϭϰΨϱϵϱ͕ϯϳϴ͘ϴϳΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲ ϭ͕ϭϯϳ͘ϳϰΨϵϰϴ͘ϮϲΨϱϵϰ͕ϰϯϬ͘ϲϮΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲ ϭ͕ϭϯϱ͘ϵϯΨϵϱϬ͘ϬϳΨϱϵϯ͕ϰϴϬ͘ϱϱΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲ ϭ͕ϬϮϰ͘ϯϲΨϭ͕Ϭϲϭ͘ϲϰΨϱϵϮ͕ϰϭϴ͘ϵϭΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲ ϭ͕ϭϯϮ͘ϬϵΨϵϱϯ͘ϵϭΨϱϵϭ͕ϰϲϱ͘ϬϬΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲ ϭ͕Ϭϵϯ͘ϴϭΨϵϵϮ͘ϭϵΨϱϵϬ͕ϰϳϮ͘ϴϬΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲ ϭ͕ϭϮϴ͘ϯϳΨϵϱϳ͘ϲϯΨϱϴϵ͕ϱϭϱ͘ϭϳΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲ ϭ͕ϬϵϬ͘ϮϬΨϵϵϱ͘ϴϬΨϱϴϴ͕ϱϭϵ͘ϯϳΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲ ϭ͕ϭϮϰ͘ϲϰΨϵϲϭ͘ϯϲΨϱϴϳ͕ϱϱϴ͘ϬϭΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲ ϭ͕ϭϮϮ͘ϴϬΨϵϲϯ͘ϮϬΨϱϴϲ͕ϱϵϰ͘ϴϭΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲ ϭ͕Ϭϴϰ͘ϴϬΨϭ͕ϬϬϭ͘ϮϬΨϱϴϱ͕ϱϵϯ͘ϲϭΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲ ϭ͕ϭϭϵ͘ϬϱΨϵϲϲ͘ϵϱΨϱϴϰ͕ϲϮϲ͘ϲϱΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲ ϭ͕Ϭϴϭ͘ϭϲΨϭ͕ϬϬϰ͘ϴϰΨϱϴϯ͕ϲϮϭ͘ϴϭΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϳ ϭ͕ϭϭϱ͘ϮϴΨϵϳϬ͘ϳϮΨϱϴϮ͕ϲϱϭ͘ϬϵΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϳ ϭ͕ϭϭϯ͘ϰϮΨϵϳϮ͘ϱϴΨϱϴϭ͕ϲϳϴ͘ϱϭΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϳ ϭ͕ϬϬϯ͘ϵϵΨϭ͕ϬϴϮ͘ϬϭΨϱϴϬ͕ϱϵϲ͘ϱϬΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϳ ϭ͕ϭϬϵ͘ϱϬΨϵϳϲ͘ϱϬΨϱϳϵ͕ϲϮϬ͘ϬϬΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϳ ϭ͕Ϭϳϭ͘ϵϬΨϭ͕Ϭϭϰ͘ϭϬΨϱϳϴ͕ϲϬϱ͘ϵϬΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϳ ϭ͕ϭϬϱ͘ϲϵΨϵϴϬ͘ϯϭΨϱϳϳ͕ϲϮϱ͘ϱϵΨ
ΨΨDϲϲΨΨDDϮϬϮϲϮϬϮϲ ΨΨDDϭϱͬϮϬϮϲϭϱͬϮϬϮϲ ΨDDϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲϯͬϭϱͬϮ ΨDDRϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲϮͬϭ ΨDDRϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϲϭͬϭϱͬϭ͕ϭϭΨDDRϭϱͬϮϬϮϱϭϱͬϮϬϮϱ ϭ͕ϭϬϮΨΨDDRϭ͕ϭϰϭ͘ϰϯ
DϮϬϮϱϮϬϮϱ ΨΨDDRϭ͕ϭϬϲ͘ϰϮϬϲ ϰϮΨDϮϱ RΨΨ
DRRAΨΨRAϭ͕ϭϰϱ͘ϭϬϭ͕ϭϰϱ͘ϭϬΨRARAΨΨRAϭ͕ϭϰϲ͘ϴϵϭ͕RARAΨΨRAϭ͕ϭϭϭ͘ϳϬϭ͕RARAΨΨRAϭ͕ϭϱϬ͘ϱϰϭ͕ϭϱϬ͘ϱϰRARAΨRAϭ͕ϭϭϱ͘ϮϮϮϮRARAFΨRAϭ͕ϭϱϰ͘ϭϴ͘ϭϴRAAFϭ͕Ϭϰϭ͕ϬΨΨAϭ͕Ϭϰϰ͘Ϯϴϰϰ͘Ϯϴ AAFϵϮϴ͘ϬΨΨAϭϱϳ͘ϵϰϱϳ͘ϵϰ
AAFϵϮϲ͘ϮϵΨAϵ͘ϳϭ FAFFTΨAFTϵϲϭ͘ϵϮΨAAFTFTΨAFTϵϮϮ͘ϲϵΨFTFTΨFTϵϱϴ͘ϰϰϵFTFTΨFTϵϭϵ͘ϭϬFTFTΨΨFTϵϭϳ͘ϯϱFTFTΨΨFTϵϱϯ͘ϮϴϴFTTΨΨ Tϵϭϯ͘ϳϴϵϭϯ͘ϳϴTTΨTϵϰϵ͘ϴϯϵϰϵ͘ϴϯTTΨTϬ͘ϮϮϬ͘ϮϮ
TTΨΨ
TϮϮ
TTTTTTFTFTFTFTAFTAFAFAFAFRARARARARARDRDRDRDRDDDDD65
69
WĂLJŵĞŶƚ /ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů ĂůĂŶĐĞ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϳ ϭ͕Ϭϲϴ͘ϮϭΨϭ͕Ϭϭϳ͘ϳϵΨϱϳϲ͕ϲϬϳ͘ϴϬΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϳ ϭ͕ϭϬϭ͘ϴϳΨϵϴϰ͘ϭϯΨϱϳϱ͕ϲϮϯ͘ϲϴΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϳ ϭ͕Ϭϵϵ͘ϵϵΨϵϴϲ͘ϬϭΨϱϳϰ͕ϲϯϳ͘ϲϳΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϳ ϭ͕ϬϲϮ͘ϲϵΨϭ͕ϬϮϯ͘ϯϭΨϱϳϯ͕ϲϭϰ͘ϯϲΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϳ ϭ͕Ϭϵϲ͘ϭϱΨϵϴϵ͘ϴϱΨϱϳϮ͕ϲϮϰ͘ϱϭΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϳ ϭ͕Ϭϱϴ͘ϵϲΨϭ͕ϬϮϳ͘ϬϰΨϱϳϭ͕ϱϵϳ͘ϰϳΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϴ ϭ͕ϬϵϮ͘ϯϬΨϵϵϯ͘ϳϬΨϱϳϬ͕ϲϬϯ͘ϳϳΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϴ ϭ͕ϬϵϬ͘ϰϬΨϵϵϱ͘ϲϬΨϱϲϵ͕ϲϬϴ͘ϭϳΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϴ ϭ͕Ϭϭϴ͘ϮϳΨϭ͕Ϭϲϳ͘ϳϯΨϱϲϴ͕ϱϰϬ͘ϰϱΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϴ ϭ͕Ϭϴϲ͘ϰϲΨϵϵϵ͘ϱϰΨϱϲϳ͕ϱϰϬ͘ϵϬΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϴ ϭ͕Ϭϰϵ͘ϱϲΨϭ͕Ϭϯϲ͘ϰϰΨϱϲϲ͕ϱϬϰ͘ϰϲΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϴ ϭ͕ϬϴϮ͘ϱϳΨϭ͕ϬϬϯ͘ϰϯΨϱϲϱ͕ϱϬϭ͘ϬϯΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϴ ϭ͕Ϭϰϱ͘ϳϵΨϭ͕ϬϰϬ͘ϮϭΨϱϲϰ͕ϰϲϬ͘ϴϮΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϴ ϭ͕Ϭϳϴ͘ϲϲΨϭ͕ϬϬϳ͘ϯϰΨϱϲϯ͕ϰϱϯ͘ϰϴΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϴ ϭ͕Ϭϳϲ͘ϳϰΨϭ͕ϬϬϵ͘ϮϲΨϱϲϮ͕ϰϰϰ͘ϮϮΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϴ ϭ͕ϬϰϬ͘ϭϰΨϭ͕Ϭϰϱ͘ϴϲΨϱϲϭ͕ϯϵϴ͘ϯϲΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϴ ϭ͕ϬϳϮ͘ϴϭΨϭ͕Ϭϭϯ͘ϭϵΨϱϲϬ͕ϯϴϱ͘ϭϲΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϴ ϭ͕Ϭϯϲ͘ϯϯΨϭ͕Ϭϰϵ͘ϲϳΨϱϱϵ͕ϯϯϱ͘ϰϵΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϵ ϭ͕Ϭϲϴ͘ϴϳΨϭ͕Ϭϭϳ͘ϭϯΨϱϱϴ͕ϯϭϴ͘ϯϲΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϵ ϭ͕Ϭϲϲ͘ϵϮΨϭ͕Ϭϭϵ͘ϬϴΨϱϱϳ͕Ϯϵϵ͘ϮϴΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϵ ϵϲϭ͘ϵϭΨϭ͕ϭϮϰ͘ϬϵΨϱϱϲ͕ϭϳϱ͘ϮϬΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϵ ϭ͕ϬϲϮ͘ϴϯΨϭ͕ϬϮϯ͘ϭϳΨϱϱϱ͕ϭϱϮ͘ϬϯΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϵ ϭ͕ϬϮϲ͘ϲϱΨϭ͕Ϭϱϵ͘ϯϱΨϱϱϰ͕ϬϵϮ͘ϲϴΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϵ ϭ͕Ϭϱϴ͘ϴϱΨϭ͕ϬϮϳ͘ϭϱΨϱϱϯ͕Ϭϲϱ͘ϱϯΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϵ ϭ͕ϬϮϮ͘ϳϵΨϭ͕Ϭϲϯ͘ϮϭΨϱϱϮ͕ϬϬϮ͘ϯϮΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϵ ϭ͕Ϭϱϰ͘ϴϱΨϭ͕Ϭϯϭ͘ϭϱΨϱϱϬ͕ϵϳϭ͘ϭϳΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϵ ϭ͕ϬϱϮ͘ϴϴΨϭ͕Ϭϯϯ͘ϭϮΨϱϰϵ͕ϵϯϴ͘ϬϱΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϵ ϭ͕Ϭϭϳ͘ϬϭΨϭ͕Ϭϲϴ͘ϵϵΨϱϰϴ͕ϴϲϵ͘ϬϲΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϵ ϭ͕Ϭϰϴ͘ϴϳΨϭ͕Ϭϯϳ͘ϭϯΨϱϰϳ͕ϴϯϭ͘ϵϯΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϵ ϭ͕Ϭϭϯ͘ϭϭΨϭ͕ϬϳϮ͘ϴϵΨϱϰϲ͕ϳϱϵ͘ϬϰΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬ ϭ͕Ϭϰϰ͘ϴϯΨϭ͕Ϭϰϭ͘ϭϳΨϱϰϱ͕ϳϭϳ͘ϴϴΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬ ϭ͕ϬϰϮ͘ϴϰΨϭ͕Ϭϰϯ͘ϭϲΨϱϰϰ͕ϲϳϰ͘ϳϮΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬ ϵϰϬ͘ϭϮΨϭ͕ϭϰϱ͘ϴϴΨϱϰϯ͕ϱϮϴ͘ϴϱΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬ ϭ͕Ϭϯϴ͘ϲϲΨϭ͕Ϭϰϳ͘ϯϰΨϱϰϮ͕ϰϴϭ͘ϱϭΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬ ϭ͕ϬϬϯ͘ϮϮΨϭ͕ϬϴϮ͘ϳϴΨϱϰϭ͕ϯϵϴ͘ϳϯΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬ ϭ͕Ϭϯϰ͘ϱϵΨϭ͕Ϭϱϭ͘ϰϭΨϱϰϬ͕ϯϰϳ͘ϯϮΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬ ϵϵϵ͘ϮϳΨϭ͕Ϭϴϲ͘ϳϯΨϱϯϵ͕ϮϲϬ͘ϱϵΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬ ϭ͕ϬϯϬ͘ϱϬΨϭ͕Ϭϱϱ͘ϱϬΨϱϯϴ͕ϮϬϱ͘ϬϵΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬ ϭ͕ϬϮϴ͘ϰϵΨϭ͕Ϭϱϳ͘ϱϭΨϱϯϳ͕ϭϰϳ͘ϱϴΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬ ϵϵϯ͘ϯϲΨϭ͕ϬϵϮ͘ϲϰΨϱϯϲ͕Ϭϱϰ͘ϵϰΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬ ϭ͕ϬϮϰ͘ϯϴΨϭ͕Ϭϲϭ͘ϲϮΨϱϯϰ͕ϵϵϯ͘ϯϮΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬ ϵϴϵ͘ϯϳΨϭ͕Ϭϵϲ͘ϲϯΨϱϯϯ͕ϴϵϲ͘ϲϵΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϭ ϭ͕ϬϮϬ͘ϮϱΨϭ͕Ϭϲϱ͘ϳϱΨϱϯϮ͕ϴϯϬ͘ϵϰΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϭ ϭ͕Ϭϭϴ͘ϮϮΨϭ͕Ϭϲϳ͘ϳϴΨϱϯϭ͕ϳϲϯ͘ϭϲΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϭ ϵϭϳ͘ϴϰΨϭ͕ϭϲϴ͘ϭϲΨϱϯϬ͕ϱϵϱ͘ϬϬΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϭ ϭ͕Ϭϭϯ͘ϵϱΨϭ͕ϬϳϮ͘ϬϱΨϱϮϵ͕ϱϮϮ͘ϵϰΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϭ ϵϳϵ͘ϮϱΨϭ͕ϭϬϲ͘ϳϱΨϱϮϴ͕ϰϭϲ͘ϮϬΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϵ͘ϳϴΨϭ͕Ϭϳϲ͘ϮϮΨϱϮϳ͕ϯϯϵ͘ϵϴΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϭ ϵϳϱ͘ϮϮΨϭ͕ϭϭϬ͘ϳϴΨϱϮϲ͕ϮϮϵ͘ϮϬΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϱ͘ϲϬΨϭ͕ϬϴϬ͘ϰϬΨϱϮϱ͕ϭϰϴ͘ϴϬΨDΨΨDϬϬΨΨDDϮϬϯϬϮϬϯϬ ΨΨDDϭϱͬϮϬϯϬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬ ΨDDϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬϱͬϭϱͬϮ ΨDDRϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬϰͬϭ ΨDDRϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬϯͬϭϱͬϵΨDDRϭϱͬϮϬϯϬϭϱͬϮϬϯϬ ϭ͕ϬϰϮΨΨDDRϭ͕Ϭϰϰ͘ϴϯ
DϮϬϯϬϮϬϯϬ ΨΨDDRϭ͕Ϭϭϯ͘ϭϭϯϭϭΨDϮϵ RΨΨ
DRRAΨΨRAϭ͕Ϭϰϴ͘ϴϳϭ͕Ϭϰϴ͘ϴϳΨRARAΨΨRAϭ͕Ϭϭϳ͘Ϭϭϭ͕RARARAϭ͕ϬϱϮ͘ϴϴϭ͕RARAΨΨRAϭ͕Ϭϱϰ͘ϴϱϭ͕Ϭϱϰ͘ϴϱRARAΨRAϭ͕ϬϮϮ͘ϳϵϳϵRARAFϭϭΨRAϭ͕Ϭϱϴ͘ϴϱ͘ϴϱRAAFϭ͕Ϭϱϭ͕ϬΨΨAϭ͕ϬϮϲ͘ϲϱϲ͘ϲϱ AAFϭ͕ϬϮϯ͘ϭϭΨΨAϬϲϮ͘ϴϯϲϮ͘ϴϯ
AAFϭ͕ϭϮϰ͘ϬϵΨA͘ϵϭ FAFFTΨAFTϭ͕Ϭϭϵ͘ϬϴΨAAFTFTΨAFTϭ͕Ϭϭϳ͘ϭϯϭ͕ΨFTFTΨFTϭ͕Ϭϰϵ͘ϲϳϭ͕ϬϰFTFTΨFTϭ͕Ϭϭϯ͘ϭϵFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕Ϭϰϱ͘ϴϲFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϬϬϵ͘Ϯϲϭ ϬϬϵ ϮϲFTTΨΨ Tϭ͕ϬϬϳ͘ϯϰϭ͕ϬϬϳ͘ϯϰTTΨTϭ͕ϬϰϬ͘Ϯϭϭ͕ϬϰϬ͘Ϯϭ
TTΨTϬϯ͘ϰϯϬϯ͘ϰϯ
TTΨΨ
Tϰϰϰϰ
TTTTTTFTFTFTFTAFTAFAFAFAFRARARARARARDRDRDRDRDDDDD66
70
WĂLJŵĞŶƚ /ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů ĂůĂŶĐĞ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϭ ϭ͕ϬϬϯ͘ϱϰΨϭ͕ϬϴϮ͘ϰϲΨϱϮϰ͕Ϭϲϲ͘ϯϰΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϭ ϵϲϵ͘ϭϲΨϭ͕ϭϭϲ͘ϴϰΨϱϮϮ͕ϵϰϵ͘ϱϬΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϭ ϵϵϵ͘ϯϰΨϭ͕Ϭϴϲ͘ϲϲΨϱϮϭ͕ϴϲϮ͘ϴϰΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϭ ϵϲϱ͘ϬϵΨϭ͕ϭϮϬ͘ϵϭΨϱϮϬ͕ϳϰϭ͘ϵϮΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϮ ϵϵϱ͘ϭϮΨϭ͕ϬϵϬ͘ϴϴΨϱϭϵ͕ϲϱϭ͘ϬϰΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϮ ϵϵϯ͘ϬϯΨϭ͕ϬϵϮ͘ϵϳΨϱϭϴ͕ϱϱϴ͘ϬϳΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϮ ϵϮϳ͘ϬϭΨϭ͕ϭϱϴ͘ϵϵΨϱϭϳ͕ϯϵϵ͘ϬϴΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϮ ϵϴϴ͘ϳϯΨϭ͕Ϭϵϳ͘ϮϳΨϱϭϲ͕ϯϬϭ͘ϴϭΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϮ ϵϱϰ͘ϴϬΨϭ͕ϭϯϭ͘ϮϬΨϱϭϱ͕ϭϳϬ͘ϲϮΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϮ ϵϴϰ͘ϰϳΨϭ͕ϭϬϭ͘ϱϯΨϱϭϰ͕Ϭϲϵ͘ϬϵΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϮ ϵϱϬ͘ϲϴΨϭ͕ϭϯϱ͘ϯϮΨϱϭϮ͕ϵϯϯ͘ϳϲΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϮ ϵϴϬ͘ϮϬΨϭ͕ϭϬϱ͘ϴϬΨϱϭϭ͕ϴϮϳ͘ϵϲΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϮ ϵϳϴ͘ϬϴΨϭ͕ϭϬϳ͘ϵϮΨϱϭϬ͕ϳϮϬ͘ϬϰΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϮ ϵϰϰ͘ϰϴΨϭ͕ϭϰϭ͘ϱϮΨϱϬϵ͕ϱϳϴ͘ϱϮΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϮ ϵϳϯ͘ϳϴΨϭ͕ϭϭϮ͘ϮϮΨϱϬϴ͕ϰϲϲ͘ϯϭΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϮ ϵϰϬ͘ϯϭΨϭ͕ϭϰϱ͘ϲϵΨϱϬϳ͕ϯϮϬ͘ϲϮΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϯ ϵϲϵ͘ϰϳΨϭ͕ϭϭϲ͘ϱϯΨϱϬϲ͕ϮϬϰ͘ϬϵΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϯ ϵϲϳ͘ϯϰΨϭ͕ϭϭϴ͘ϲϲΨϱϬϱ͕Ϭϴϱ͘ϰϮΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϯ ϴϳϭ͘ϳϵΨϭ͕Ϯϭϰ͘ϮϭΨϱϬϯ͕ϴϳϭ͘ϮϮΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϯ ϵϲϮ͘ϴϴΨϭ͕ϭϮϯ͘ϭϮΨϱϬϮ͕ϳϰϴ͘ϬϵΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϯ ϵϮϵ͘ϳϰΨϭ͕ϭϱϲ͘ϮϲΨϱϬϭ͕ϱϵϭ͘ϴϯΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϯ ϵϱϴ͘ϱϮΨϭ͕ϭϮϳ͘ϰϴΨϱϬϬ͕ϰϲϰ͘ϯϱΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϯ ϵϮϱ͘ϱϮΨϭ͕ϭϲϬ͘ϰϴΨϰϵϵ͕ϯϬϯ͘ϴϳΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϯ ϵϱϰ͘ϭϱΨϭ͕ϭϯϭ͘ϴϱΨϰϵϴ͕ϭϳϮ͘ϬϮΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϯ ϵϱϭ͘ϵϵΨϭ͕ϭϯϰ͘ϬϭΨϰϵϳ͕Ϭϯϴ͘ϬϭΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϯ ϵϭϵ͘ϭϴΨϭ͕ϭϲϲ͘ϴϮΨϰϵϱ͕ϴϳϭ͘ϭϵΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϯ ϵϰϳ͘ϱϵΨϭ͕ϭϯϴ͘ϰϭΨϰϵϰ͕ϳϯϮ͘ϳϴΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϯ ϵϭϰ͘ϵϮΨϭ͕ϭϳϭ͘ϬϴΨϰϵϯ͕ϱϲϭ͘ϲϵΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰ ϵϰϯ͘ϭϴΨϭ͕ϭϰϮ͘ϴϮΨϰϵϮ͕ϰϭϴ͘ϴϳΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰ ϵϰϬ͘ϵϵΨϭ͕ϭϰϱ͘ϬϭΨϰϵϭ͕Ϯϳϯ͘ϴϲΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰ ϴϰϳ͘ϵϱΨϭ͕Ϯϯϴ͘ϬϱΨϰϵϬ͕Ϭϯϱ͘ϴϭΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰ ϵϯϲ͘ϰϰΨϭ͕ϭϰϵ͘ϱϲΨϰϴϴ͕ϴϴϲ͘ϮϱΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰ ϵϬϰ͘ϭϬΨϭ͕ϭϴϭ͘ϵϬΨϰϴϳ͕ϳϬϰ͘ϯϲΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰ ϵϯϭ͘ϵϴΨϭ͕ϭϱϰ͘ϬϮΨϰϴϲ͕ϱϱϬ͘ϯϰΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰ ϴϵϵ͘ϳϴΨϭ͕ϭϴϲ͘ϮϮΨϰϴϱ͕ϯϲϰ͘ϭϮΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰ ϵϮϳ͘ϱϭΨϭ͕ϭϱϴ͘ϰϵΨϰϴϰ͕ϮϬϱ͘ϲϯΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰ ϵϮϱ͘ϯϬΨϭ͕ϭϲϬ͘ϳϬΨϰϴϯ͕Ϭϰϰ͘ϵϯΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰ ϴϵϯ͘ϯϬΨϭ͕ϭϵϮ͘ϳϬΨϰϴϭ͕ϴϱϮ͘ϮϯΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰ ϵϮϬ͘ϴϬΨϭ͕ϭϲϱ͘ϮϬΨϰϴϬ͕ϲϴϳ͘ϬϯΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰ ϴϴϴ͘ϵϰΨϭ͕ϭϵϳ͘ϬϲΨϰϳϵ͕ϰϴϵ͘ϵϴΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϱ ϵϭϲ͘ϮϵΨϭ͕ϭϲϵ͘ϳϭΨϰϳϴ͕ϯϮϬ͘ϮϲΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϱ ϵϭϰ͘ϬϱΨϭ͕ϭϳϭ͘ϵϱΨϰϳϳ͕ϭϰϴ͘ϯϭΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϱ ϴϮϯ͘ϱϳΨϭ͕ϮϲϮ͘ϰϯΨϰϳϱ͕ϴϴϱ͘ϴϴΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϱ ϵϬϵ͘ϰϬΨϭ͕ϭϳϲ͘ϲϬΨϰϳϰ͕ϳϬϵ͘ϮϴΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϱ ϴϳϳ͘ϴϵΨϭ͕ϮϬϴ͘ϭϭΨϰϳϯ͕ϱϬϭ͘ϭϳΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϱ ϵϬϰ͘ϴϰΨϭ͕ϭϴϭ͘ϭϲΨϰϳϮ͕ϯϮϬ͘ϬϭΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϱ ϴϳϯ͘ϰϳΨϭ͕ϮϭϮ͘ϱϯΨϰϳϭ͕ϭϬϳ͘ϰϴΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϱ ϵϬϬ͘ϮϳΨϭ͕ϭϴϱ͘ϳϯΨϰϲϵ͕ϵϮϭ͘ϳϰΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϱ ϴϵϴ͘ϬϬΨϭ͕ϭϴϴ͘ϬϬΨϰϲϴ͕ϳϯϯ͘ϳϱΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϱ ϴϲϲ͘ϴϰΨϭ͕Ϯϭϵ͘ϭϲΨϰϲϳ͕ϱϭϰ͘ϱϴΨDΨΨDϰϰΨΨDDϮϬϯϰϮϬϯϰ ΨΨDDϭϱͬϮϬϯϰϭϱͬϮϬϯϰ ΨDDϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰϳͬϭϱͬϮ ΨDDRϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰϲͬϭ ΨDDRϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϰϱͬϭϱͬϵΨDDRϭϱͬϮϬϯϰϭϱͬϮϬϯϰ ϵϯϲΨΨDDRϴϰϳ͘ϵϱ
DϮϬϯϰϮϬϯϰ ΨΨDDRϵϰϬ͘ϵϵϰϬ ϵϵΨDϯϰ RΨΨ
DRRAΨΨRAϵϰϯ͘ϭϴϵϰϯ͘ϭϴΨRARAΨΨRAϵϭϰ͘ϵϮRARARAϵϰϳ͘ϱϵ
RARAΨΨRAϵϭϵ͘ϭϴϴRARAΨRAϵϱϭ͘ϵϵϵϵRARAFϭϭΨRAϵϱϰ͘ϭϱ͘ϭϱRAAFϭ͕ϭϲϭ͕ϭΨΨAϵϮϱ͘ϱϮϱ͘ϱϮAAFϭ͕ϭϮϳ͘ϰϭΨΨAϵϱϴ͘ϱϮϱϴ͘ϱϮ
AAFϭ͕ϭϱϲ͘ϮϲΨA͘ϳϰ FAFFTΨAFTϭ͕ϭϮϯ͘ϭϮΨAAFTFTΨAFTϭ͕Ϯϭϰ͘Ϯϭϭ͕ΨFTFTΨFTϭ͕ϭϭϴ͘ϲϲϭ͕ϭFTFTΨFTϭ͕ϭϭϲ͘ϱϯFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϭϰϱ͘ϲϵFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϭϭϮ͘ϮϮϭ ϭϭϮ ϮϮFTTΨΨ Tϭ͕ϭϰϭ͘ϱϮϭ͕ϭϰϭ͘ϱϮTTΨTϭ͕ϭϬϳ͘ϵϮϭ͕ϭϬϳ͘ϵϮ
TTΨTϬϱ͘ϴϬϬϱ͘ϴϬ
TTΨΨ
TϮϮ
TTTTTTFTFTFTFTAFTAFAFAFAFRARARARARARDRDRDRDRDDDDD67
71
WĂLJŵĞŶƚ /ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů ĂůĂŶĐĞ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϱ ϴϵϯ͘ϰϬΨϭ͕ϭϵϮ͘ϲϬΨϰϲϲ͕ϯϮϭ͘ϵϴΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϱ ϴϲϮ͘ϯϴΨϭ͕ϮϮϯ͘ϲϮΨϰϲϱ͕Ϭϵϴ͘ϯϲΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϲ ϴϴϴ͘ϳϴΨϭ͕ϭϵϳ͘ϮϮΨϰϲϯ͕ϵϬϭ͘ϭϰΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϲ ϴϴϲ͘ϱϬΨϭ͕ϭϵϵ͘ϱϬΨϰϲϮ͕ϳϬϭ͘ϲϰΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϲ ϴϮϳ͘ϭϲΨϭ͕Ϯϱϴ͘ϴϰΨϰϲϭ͕ϰϰϮ͘ϴϬΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϲ ϴϴϭ͘ϴϬΨϭ͕ϮϬϰ͘ϮϬΨϰϲϬ͕Ϯϯϴ͘ϲϬΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϲ ϴϱϭ͘ϭϯΨϭ͕Ϯϯϰ͘ϴϳΨϰϱϵ͕ϬϬϯ͘ϳϮΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϲ ϴϳϳ͘ϭϰΨϭ͕ϮϬϴ͘ϴϲΨϰϱϳ͕ϳϵϰ͘ϴϲΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϲ ϴϰϲ͘ϲϭΨϭ͕Ϯϯϵ͘ϯϵΨϰϱϲ͕ϱϱϱ͘ϰϳΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϲ ϴϳϮ͘ϰϲΨϭ͕Ϯϭϯ͘ϱϰΨϰϱϱ͕ϯϰϭ͘ϵϯΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϲ ϴϳϬ͘ϭϰΨϭ͕Ϯϭϱ͘ϴϲΨϰϱϰ͕ϭϮϲ͘ϬϲΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϲ ϴϯϵ͘ϴϮΨϭ͕Ϯϰϲ͘ϭϴΨϰϱϮ͕ϴϳϵ͘ϴϵΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϲ ϴϲϱ͘ϰϯΨϭ͕ϮϮϬ͘ϱϳΨϰϱϭ͕ϲϱϵ͘ϯϮΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϲ ϴϯϱ͘ϮϲΨϭ͕ϮϱϬ͘ϳϰΨϰϱϬ͕ϰϬϴ͘ϱϴΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϳ ϴϲϬ͘ϳϭΨϭ͕ϮϮϱ͘ϮϵΨϰϰϵ͕ϭϴϯ͘ϮϵΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϳ ϴϱϴ͘ϯϳΨϭ͕ϮϮϳ͘ϲϯΨϰϰϳ͕ϵϱϱ͘ϲϳΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϳ ϳϳϯ͘ϭϴΨϭ͕ϯϭϮ͘ϴϮΨϰϰϲ͕ϲϰϮ͘ϴϱΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϳ ϴϱϯ͘ϱϮΨϭ͕ϮϯϮ͘ϰϴΨϰϰϱ͕ϰϭϬ͘ϯϳΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϳ ϴϮϯ͘ϳϬΨϭ͕ϮϲϮ͘ϯϬΨϰϰϰ͕ϭϰϴ͘ϬϳΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϳ ϴϰϴ͘ϳϱΨϭ͕Ϯϯϳ͘ϮϱΨϰϰϮ͕ϵϭϬ͘ϴϮΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϳ ϴϭϵ͘ϬϴΨϭ͕Ϯϲϲ͘ϵϮΨϰϰϭ͕ϲϰϯ͘ϵϬΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϳ ϴϰϯ͘ϵϲΨϭ͕ϮϰϮ͘ϬϰΨϰϰϬ͕ϰϬϭ͘ϴϲΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϳ ϴϰϭ͘ϱϵΨϭ͕Ϯϰϰ͘ϰϭΨϰϯϵ͕ϭϱϳ͘ϰϱΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϳ ϴϭϮ͘ϭϰΨϭ͕Ϯϳϯ͘ϴϲΨϰϯϳ͕ϴϴϯ͘ϱϵΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϳ ϴϯϲ͘ϳϴΨϭ͕Ϯϰϵ͘ϮϮΨϰϯϲ͕ϲϯϰ͘ϯϳΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϳ ϴϬϳ͘ϰϳΨϭ͕Ϯϳϴ͘ϱϯΨϰϯϱ͕ϯϱϱ͘ϴϱΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴ ϴϯϭ͘ϵϱΨϭ͕Ϯϱϰ͘ϬϱΨϰϯϰ͕ϭϬϭ͘ϳϵΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴ ϴϮϵ͘ϱϱΨϭ͕Ϯϱϲ͘ϰϱΨϰϯϮ͕ϴϰϱ͘ϯϰΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴ ϳϰϳ͘ϭϬΨϭ͕ϯϯϴ͘ϵϬΨϰϯϭ͕ϱϬϲ͘ϰϱΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴ ϴϮϰ͘ϱϵΨϭ͕Ϯϲϭ͘ϰϭΨϰϯϬ͕Ϯϰϱ͘ϬϰΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴ ϳϵϱ͘ϲϲΨϭ͕ϮϵϬ͘ϯϰΨϰϮϴ͕ϵϱϰ͘ϳϬΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴ ϴϭϵ͘ϳϭΨϭ͕Ϯϲϲ͘ϮϵΨϰϮϳ͕ϲϴϴ͘ϰϭΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴ ϳϵϬ͘ϵϯΨϭ͕Ϯϵϱ͘ϬϳΨϰϮϲ͕ϯϵϯ͘ϯϰΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴ ϴϭϰ͘ϴϮΨϭ͕Ϯϳϭ͘ϭϴΨϰϮϱ͕ϭϮϮ͘ϭϲΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴ ϴϭϮ͘ϯϵΨϭ͕Ϯϳϯ͘ϲϭΨϰϮϯ͕ϴϰϴ͘ϱϱΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴ ϳϴϯ͘ϴϯΨϭ͕ϯϬϮ͘ϭϳΨϰϮϮ͕ϱϰϲ͘ϯϴΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴ ϴϬϳ͘ϰϳΨϭ͕Ϯϳϴ͘ϱϯΨϰϮϭ͕Ϯϲϳ͘ϴϱΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴ ϳϳϵ͘ϬϲΨϭ͕ϯϬϲ͘ϵϰΨϰϭϵ͕ϵϲϬ͘ϵϭΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϵ ϴϬϮ͘ϱϯΨϭ͕Ϯϴϯ͘ϰϳΨϰϭϴ͕ϲϳϳ͘ϰϰΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϵ ϴϬϬ͘ϬϴΨϭ͕Ϯϴϱ͘ϵϮΨϰϭϳ͕ϯϵϭ͘ϱϭΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϵ ϳϮϬ͘ϰϯΨϭ͕ϯϲϱ͘ϱϳΨϰϭϲ͕ϬϮϱ͘ϵϰΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϵ ϳϵϱ͘ϬϭΨϭ͕ϮϵϬ͘ϵϵΨϰϭϰ͕ϳϯϰ͘ϵϱΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϵ ϳϲϲ͘ϵϴΨϭ͕ϯϭϵ͘ϬϮΨϰϭϯ͕ϰϭϱ͘ϵϮΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϵ ϳϵϬ͘ϬϮΨϭ͕Ϯϵϱ͘ϵϴΨϰϭϮ͕ϭϭϵ͘ϵϱΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϵ ϳϲϮ͘ϭϰΨϭ͕ϯϮϯ͘ϴϲΨϰϭϬ͕ϳϵϲ͘ϬϴΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϵ ϳϴϱ͘ϬϭΨϭ͕ϯϬϬ͘ϵϵΨϰϬϵ͕ϰϵϱ͘ϭϬΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϵ ϳϴϮ͘ϱϯΨϭ͕ϯϬϯ͘ϰϳΨϰϬϴ͕ϭϵϭ͘ϲϯΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϵ ϳϱϰ͘ϴϳΨϭ͕ϯϯϭ͘ϭϯΨϰϬϲ͕ϴϲϬ͘ϱϬΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϵ ϳϳϳ͘ϰϵΨϭ͕ϯϬϴ͘ϱϭΨϰϬϱ͕ϱϱϮ͘ϬϬΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϵ ϳϰϵ͘ϵϵΨϭ͕ϯϯϲ͘ϬϭΨϰϬϰ͕Ϯϭϱ͘ϵϵΨDΨΨDϴϴΨΨDDϮϬϯϴϮϬϯϴ ΨΨDDϭϱͬϮϬϯϴϭϱͬϮϬϯϴ ΨDDϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴϵͬϭϱͬϮ ΨDDRϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴϴͬϭ ΨDDRϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϯϴϳͬϭϱͬϳΨDDRϭϱͬϮϬϯϴϭϱͬϮϬϯϴ ϴϭϵΨΨDDRϳϵϱ͘ϲϲ
DϮϬϯϴϮϬϯϴ ΨΨDDRϴϮϰ͘ϱϵϰϱϵΨDϯϴ RΨΨ
DRRAΨΨRAϳϰϳ͘ϭϬϳϰϳ͘ϭϬΨRARAΨΨRAϴϮϵ͘ϱϱRARARAϴϯϭ͘ϵϱ
RARAΨΨRAϴϬϳ͘ϰϳϳRARAΨRAϴϯϲ͘ϳϴϳϴRARAFϭϭΨRAϴϭϮ͘ϭϰ͘ϭϰRAAFϭ͕Ϯϰϭ͕ϮΨΨAϴϰϭ͘ϱϵϰϭ͘ϱϵAAFϭ͕ϮϰϮ͘ϬϭΨΨAϴϰϯ͘ϵϲϰϯ͘ϵϲ
AAFϭ͕Ϯϲϲ͘ϵϮΨA͘Ϭϴ FAFFTΨAFTϭ͕Ϯϯϳ͘ϮϱΨAAFTFTΨAFTϭ͕ϮϲϮ͘ϯϬϭ͕ΨFTFTΨFTϭ͕ϮϯϮ͘ϰϴϭ͕ϮϯFTFTΨFTϭ͕ϯϭϮ͘ϴϮFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϮϮϳ͘ϲϯFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϮϮϱ͘Ϯϵϭ ϮϮϱ ϮϵFTTΨΨ Tϭ͕ϮϱϬ͘ϳϰϭ͕ϮϱϬ͘ϳϰTTΨTϭ͕ϮϮϬ͘ϱϳϭ͕ϮϮϬ͘ϱϳ
TTΨTϰϲ͘ϭϴϰϲ͘ϭϴ
TTΨΨ
Tϴϲϴϲ
TTTTTTFTFTFTFTAFTAFAFAFAFRARARARARARDRDRDRDRDDDDD68
72
WĂLJŵĞŶƚ /ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů ĂůĂŶĐĞ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϬ ϳϳϮ͘ϰϰΨϭ͕ϯϭϯ͘ϱϲΨϰϬϮ͕ϵϬϮ͘ϰϯΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϬ ϳϲϵ͘ϵϯΨϭ͕ϯϭϲ͘ϬϳΨϰϬϭ͕ϱϴϲ͘ϯϲΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϬ ϳϭϳ͘ϵϬΨϭ͕ϯϲϴ͘ϭϬΨϰϬϬ͕Ϯϭϴ͘ϮϲΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϬ ϳϲϰ͘ϴϬΨϭ͕ϯϮϭ͘ϮϬΨϯϵϴ͕ϴϵϳ͘ϬϲΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϬ ϳϯϳ͘ϲϵΨϭ͕ϯϰϴ͘ϯϭΨϯϵϳ͕ϱϰϴ͘ϳϱΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϬ ϳϱϵ͘ϳϬΨϭ͕ϯϮϲ͘ϯϬΨϯϵϲ͕ϮϮϮ͘ϰϱΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϬ ϳϯϮ͘ϳϰΨϭ͕ϯϱϯ͘ϮϲΨϯϵϰ͕ϴϲϵ͘ϭϵΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϬ ϳϱϰ͘ϱϴΨϭ͕ϯϯϭ͘ϰϮΨϯϵϯ͕ϱϯϳ͘ϳϳΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϬ ϳϱϮ͘ϬϯΨϭ͕ϯϯϯ͘ϵϳΨϯϵϮ͕ϮϬϯ͘ϴϬΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϬ ϳϮϱ͘ϯϭΨϭ͕ϯϲϬ͘ϲϵΨϯϵϬ͕ϴϰϯ͘ϭϭΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϬ ϳϰϲ͘ϴϵΨϭ͕ϯϯϵ͘ϭϭΨϯϴϵ͕ϱϬϰ͘ϬϬΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϬ ϳϮϬ͘ϯϮΨϭ͕ϯϲϱ͘ϲϴΨϯϴϴ͕ϭϯϴ͘ϯϭΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϭ ϳϰϭ͘ϳϮΨϭ͕ϯϰϰ͘ϮϴΨϯϴϲ͕ϳϵϰ͘ϬϯΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϭ ϳϯϵ͘ϭϱΨϭ͕ϯϰϲ͘ϴϱΨϯϴϱ͕ϰϰϳ͘ϭϴΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϭ ϲϲϱ͘ϮϵΨϭ͕ϰϮϬ͘ϳϭΨϯϴϰ͕ϬϮϲ͘ϰϳΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϭ ϳϯϯ͘ϴϲΨϭ͕ϯϱϮ͘ϭϰΨϯϴϮ͕ϲϳϰ͘ϯϯΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϭ ϳϬϳ͘ϲϵΨϭ͕ϯϳϴ͘ϯϭΨϯϴϭ͕Ϯϵϲ͘ϬϭΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϭ ϳϮϴ͘ϲϰΨϭ͕ϯϱϳ͘ϯϲΨϯϳϵ͕ϵϯϴ͘ϲϱΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϭ ϳϬϮ͘ϲϯΨϭ͕ϯϴϯ͘ϯϳΨϯϳϴ͕ϱϱϱ͘ϮϴΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϭ ϳϮϯ͘ϰϬΨϭ͕ϯϲϮ͘ϲϬΨϯϳϳ͕ϭϵϮ͘ϲϴΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϭ ϳϮϬ͘ϴϬΨϭ͕ϯϲϱ͘ϮϬΨϯϳϱ͕ϴϮϳ͘ϰϴΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϭ ϲϵϱ͘ϬϮΨϭ͕ϯϵϬ͘ϵϴΨϯϳϰ͕ϰϯϲ͘ϱϭΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϭ ϳϭϱ͘ϱϯΨϭ͕ϯϳϬ͘ϰϳΨϯϳϯ͕Ϭϲϲ͘ϬϰΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϭ ϲϴϵ͘ϵϮΨϭ͕ϯϵϲ͘ϬϴΨϯϳϭ͕ϲϲϵ͘ϵϲΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮ ϳϭϬ͘ϮϱΨϭ͕ϯϳϱ͘ϳϱΨϯϳϬ͕Ϯϵϰ͘ϮϬΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮ ϳϬϳ͘ϲϮΨϭ͕ϯϳϴ͘ϯϴΨϯϲϴ͕ϵϭϱ͘ϴϮΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮ ϲϯϲ͘ϳϲΨϭ͕ϰϰϵ͘ϮϰΨϯϲϳ͕ϰϲϲ͘ϱϴΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮ ϳϬϮ͘ϮϭΨϭ͕ϯϴϯ͘ϳϵΨϯϲϲ͕ϬϴϮ͘ϳϵΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮ ϲϳϳ͘ϬϬΨϭ͕ϰϬϵ͘ϬϬΨϯϲϰ͕ϲϳϯ͘ϳϵΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮ ϲϵϲ͘ϴϴΨϭ͕ϯϴϵ͘ϭϮΨϯϲϯ͕Ϯϴϰ͘ϲϳΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮ ϲϳϭ͘ϴϯΨϭ͕ϰϭϰ͘ϭϳΨϯϲϭ͕ϴϳϬ͘ϱϬΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮ ϲϵϭ͘ϱϮΨϭ͕ϯϵϰ͘ϰϴΨϯϲϬ͕ϰϳϲ͘ϬϮΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮ ϲϴϴ͘ϴϱΨϭ͕ϯϵϳ͘ϭϱΨϯϱϵ͕Ϭϳϴ͘ϴϳΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮ ϲϲϰ͘ϬϱΨϭ͕ϰϮϭ͘ϵϱΨϯϱϳ͕ϲϱϲ͘ϵϮΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮ ϲϴϯ͘ϰϳΨϭ͕ϰϬϮ͘ϱϯΨϯϱϲ͕Ϯϱϰ͘ϯϵΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮ ϲϱϴ͘ϴϯΨϭ͕ϰϮϳ͘ϭϳΨϯϱϰ͕ϴϮϳ͘ϮϮΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϯ ϲϳϴ͘ϬϲΨϭ͕ϰϬϳ͘ϵϰΨϯϱϯ͕ϰϭϵ͘ϮϴΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϯ ϲϳϱ͘ϯϳΨϭ͕ϰϭϬ͘ϲϯΨϯϱϮ͕ϬϬϴ͘ϲϱΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϯ ϲϬϳ͘ϱϴΨϭ͕ϰϳϴ͘ϰϮΨϯϱϬ͕ϱϯϬ͘ϮϮΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϯ ϲϲϵ͘ϴϱΨϭ͕ϰϭϲ͘ϭϱΨϯϰϵ͕ϭϭϰ͘ϬϳΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϯ ϲϰϱ͘ϲϮΨϭ͕ϰϰϬ͘ϯϴΨϯϰϳ͕ϲϳϯ͘ϳϬΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϯ ϲϲϰ͘ϯϵΨϭ͕ϰϮϭ͘ϲϭΨϯϰϲ͕ϮϱϮ͘ϬϵΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϯ ϲϰϬ͘ϯϯΨϭ͕ϰϰϱ͘ϲϳΨϯϰϰ͕ϴϬϲ͘ϰϭΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϯ ϲϱϴ͘ϵϭΨϭ͕ϰϮϳ͘ϬϵΨϯϰϯ͕ϯϳϵ͘ϯϯΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϯ ϲϱϲ͘ϭϴΨϭ͕ϰϮϵ͘ϴϮΨϯϰϭ͕ϵϰϵ͘ϱϭΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϯ ϲϯϮ͘ϯϳΨϭ͕ϰϱϯ͘ϲϯΨϯϰϬ͕ϰϵϱ͘ϴϴΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϯ ϲϱϬ͘ϲϳΨϭ͕ϰϯϱ͘ϯϯΨϯϯϵ͕ϬϲϬ͘ϱϲΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϯ ϲϮϳ͘ϬϯΨϭ͕ϰϱϴ͘ϵϳΨϯϯϳ͕ϲϬϭ͘ϱϵΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϰ ϲϰϱ͘ϭϰΨϭ͕ϰϰϬ͘ϴϲΨϯϯϲ͕ϭϲϬ͘ϳϯΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϰ ϲϰϮ͘ϯϵΨϭ͕ϰϰϯ͘ϲϭΨϯϯϰ͕ϳϭϳ͘ϭϮΨDΨΨDϯϯΨΨDDϮϬϰϯϮϬϰϯ ΨΨDDϭϱͬϮϬϰϮϭϱͬϮϬϰϮ ΨDDϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮϭϭͬϭϱͬϮ ΨDDRϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮϭϬͬϭ ΨDDRϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϮϵͬϭϱͬϲΨDDRϭϱͬϮϬϰϮϭϱͬϮϬϰϮ ϲϵϭΨΨDDRϲϳϭ͘ϴϯ
DϮϬϰϮϮϬϰϮ ΨΨDDRϲϵϲ͘ϴϴϲϴϴΨDϰϮ RΨΨ
DRRAΨΨRAϲϳϳ͘ϬϬϲϳϳ͘ϬϬΨRARAΨΨRAϳϬϮ͘ϮϭRARARAϲϯϲ͘ϳϲ
RARAΨΨRAϳϬϳ͘ϲϮϮRARAΨRAϳϭϬ͘ϮϱϮϱRARAFϭϭΨRAϲϴϵ͘ϵϮ͘ϵϮRAAFϭ͕ϯϳϭ͕ϯΨΨAϳϭϱ͘ϱϯϭϱ͘ϱϯAAFϭ͕ϯϵϬ͘ϵϭΨΨAϲϵϱ͘ϬϮϵϱ͘ϬϮ
AAFϭ͕ϯϲϱ͘ϮϬΨA͘ϴϬ FAFFTΨAFTϭ͕ϯϲϮ͘ϲϬΨAAFTFTΨAFTϭ͕ϯϴϯ͘ϯϳϭ͕ΨFTFTΨFTϭ͕ϯϱϳ͘ϯϲϭ͕ϯϱFTFTΨFTϭ͕ϯϳϴ͘ϯϭFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϯϱϮ͘ϭϰFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϰϮϬ͘ϳϭϭ ϰϮϬ ϳϭFTTΨΨ Tϭ͕ϯϰϲ͘ϴϱϭ͕ϯϰϲ͘ϴϱTTΨTϭ͕ϯϰϰ͘Ϯϴϭ͕ϯϰϰ͘Ϯϴ
TTΨTϲϱ͘ϲϴϲϱ͘ϲϴ
TTΨΨ
Tϭϭ
TTTTTTFTFTFTFTAFTAFAFAFAFRARARARARARDRDRDRDRDDDDD69
73
WĂLJŵĞŶƚ /ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů ĂůĂŶĐĞ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϰ ϱϵϴ͘ϯϲΨϭ͕ϰϴϳ͘ϲϰΨϯϯϯ͕ϮϮϵ͘ϰϴΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϰ ϲϯϲ͘ϳϵΨϭ͕ϰϰϵ͘ϮϭΨϯϯϭ͕ϳϴϬ͘ϮϳΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϰ ϲϭϯ͘ϱϳΨϭ͕ϰϳϮ͘ϰϯΨϯϯϬ͕ϯϬϳ͘ϴϰΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϰ ϲϯϭ͘ϮϬΨϭ͕ϰϱϰ͘ϴϬΨϯϮϴ͕ϴϱϯ͘ϬϰΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϰ ϲϬϴ͘ϭϱΨϭ͕ϰϳϳ͘ϴϱΨϯϮϳ͕ϯϳϱ͘ϭϵΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϰ ϲϮϱ͘ϲϬΨϭ͕ϰϲϬ͘ϰϬΨϯϮϱ͕ϵϭϰ͘ϳϵΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϰ ϲϮϮ͘ϴϭΨϭ͕ϰϲϯ͘ϭϵΨϯϮϰ͕ϰϱϭ͘ϲϬΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϰ ϲϬϬ͘ϬϭΨϭ͕ϰϴϱ͘ϵϵΨϯϮϮ͕ϵϲϱ͘ϲϮΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϰ ϲϭϳ͘ϭϳΨϭ͕ϰϲϴ͘ϴϯΨϯϮϭ͕ϰϵϲ͘ϳϵΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϰ ϱϵϰ͘ϱϱΨϭ͕ϰϵϭ͘ϰϱΨϯϮϬ͕ϬϬϱ͘ϯϰΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϱ ϲϭϭ͘ϱϮΨϭ͕ϰϳϰ͘ϰϴΨϯϭϴ͕ϱϯϬ͘ϴϲΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϱ ϲϬϴ͘ϳϬΨϭ͕ϰϳϳ͘ϯϬΨϯϭϳ͕Ϭϱϯ͘ϱϲΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϱ ϱϰϳ͘ϮϰΨϭ͕ϱϯϴ͘ϳϲΨϯϭϱ͕ϱϭϰ͘ϴϬΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϱ ϲϬϮ͘ϵϰΨϭ͕ϰϴϯ͘ϬϲΨϯϭϰ͕Ϭϯϭ͘ϳϯΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϱ ϱϴϬ͘ϳϰΨϭ͕ϱϬϱ͘ϮϲΨϯϭϮ͕ϱϮϲ͘ϰϴΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϱ ϱϵϳ͘ϮϯΨϭ͕ϰϴϴ͘ϳϳΨϯϭϭ͕Ϭϯϳ͘ϳϬΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϱ ϱϳϱ͘ϮϭΨϭ͕ϱϭϬ͘ϳϵΨϯϬϵ͕ϱϮϲ͘ϵϭΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϱ ϱϵϭ͘ϰϵΨϭ͕ϰϵϰ͘ϱϭΨϯϬϴ͕ϬϯϮ͘ϰϬΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϱ ϱϴϴ͘ϲϰΨϭ͕ϰϵϳ͘ϯϲΨϯϬϲ͕ϱϯϱ͘ϬϰΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϱ ϱϲϲ͘ϴϴΨϭ͕ϱϭϵ͘ϭϮΨϯϬϱ͕Ϭϭϱ͘ϵϮΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϱ ϱϴϮ͘ϴϳΨϭ͕ϱϬϯ͘ϭϯΨϯϬϯ͕ϱϭϮ͘ϳϵΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϱ ϱϲϭ͘ϮϵΨϭ͕ϱϮϰ͘ϳϭΨϯϬϭ͕ϵϴϴ͘ϬϴΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϲ ϱϳϳ͘ϬϵΨϭ͕ϱϬϴ͘ϵϭΨϯϬϬ͕ϰϳϵ͘ϭϳΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϲ ϱϳϰ͘ϮϬΨϭ͕ϱϭϭ͘ϴϬΨϮϵϴ͕ϵϲϳ͘ϯϳΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϲ ϱϭϲ͘ϬϯΨϭ͕ϱϲϵ͘ϵϳΨϮϵϳ͕ϯϵϳ͘ϰϬΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϲ ϱϲϴ͘ϯϭΨϭ͕ϱϭϳ͘ϲϵΨϮϵϱ͕ϴϳϵ͘ϳϭΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϲ ϱϰϳ͘ϭϳΨϭ͕ϱϯϴ͘ϴϯΨϮϵϰ͕ϯϰϬ͘ϴϵΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϲ ϱϲϮ͘ϰϳΨϭ͕ϱϮϯ͘ϱϯΨϮϵϮ͕ϴϭϳ͘ϯϲΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϲ ϱϰϭ͘ϱϭΨϭ͕ϱϰϰ͘ϰϵΨϮϵϭ͕ϮϳϮ͘ϴϳΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϲ ϱϱϲ͘ϲϭΨϭ͕ϱϮϵ͘ϯϵΨϮϴϵ͕ϳϰϯ͘ϰϴΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϲ ϱϱϯ͘ϲϵΨϭ͕ϱϯϮ͘ϯϭΨϮϴϴ͕Ϯϭϭ͘ϭϳΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϲ ϱϯϮ͘ϵϵΨϭ͕ϱϱϯ͘ϬϭΨϮϴϲ͕ϲϱϴ͘ϭϳΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϲ ϱϰϳ͘ϳϵΨϭ͕ϱϯϴ͘ϮϭΨϮϴϱ͕ϭϭϵ͘ϵϲΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϲ ϱϮϳ͘ϮϴΨϭ͕ϱϱϴ͘ϳϮΨϮϴϯ͕ϱϲϭ͘ϮϯΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϳ ϱϰϭ͘ϴϳΨϭ͕ϱϰϰ͘ϭϯΨϮϴϮ͕Ϭϭϳ͘ϭϭΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϳ ϱϯϴ͘ϵϮΨϭ͕ϱϰϳ͘ϬϴΨϮϴϬ͕ϰϳϬ͘ϬϯΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϳ ϰϴϰ͘ϭϬΨϭ͕ϲϬϭ͘ϵϬΨϮϳϴ͕ϴϲϴ͘ϭϯΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϳ ϱϯϮ͘ϵϭΨϭ͕ϱϱϯ͘ϬϵΨϮϳϳ͕ϯϭϱ͘ϬϰΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϳ ϱϭϮ͘ϴϰΨϭ͕ϱϳϯ͘ϭϲΨϮϳϱ͕ϳϰϭ͘ϴϴΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϳ ϱϮϲ͘ϵϯΨϭ͕ϱϱϵ͘ϬϳΨϮϳϰ͕ϭϴϮ͘ϴϭΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϳ ϱϬϳ͘ϬϱΨϭ͕ϱϳϴ͘ϵϱΨϮϳϮ͕ϲϬϯ͘ϴϲΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϳ ϱϮϬ͘ϵϯΨϭ͕ϱϲϱ͘ϬϳΨϮϳϭ͕Ϭϯϴ͘ϴϬΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϳ ϱϭϳ͘ϵϰΨϭ͕ϱϲϴ͘ϬϲΨϮϲϵ͕ϰϳϬ͘ϳϰΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϳ ϰϵϴ͘ϯϰΨϭ͕ϱϴϳ͘ϲϲΨϮϲϳ͕ϴϴϯ͘ϬϴΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϳ ϱϭϭ͘ϵϭΨϭ͕ϱϳϰ͘ϬϵΨϮϲϲ͕ϯϬϴ͘ϵϵΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϳ ϰϵϮ͘ϰϵΨϭ͕ϱϵϯ͘ϱϭΨϮϲϰ͕ϳϭϱ͘ϰϴΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϴ ϱϬϱ͘ϴϲΨϭ͕ϱϴϬ͘ϭϰΨϮϲϯ͕ϭϯϱ͘ϯϰΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϴ ϱϬϮ͘ϴϰΨϭ͕ϱϴϯ͘ϭϲΨϮϲϭ͕ϱϱϮ͘ϭϴΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϴ ϰϲϳ͘ϱϳΨϭ͕ϲϭϴ͘ϰϯΨϮϱϵ͕ϵϯϯ͘ϳϱΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϴ ϰϵϲ͘ϳϮΨϭ͕ϱϴϵ͘ϮϴΨϮϱϴ͕ϯϰϰ͘ϰϳΨDΨΨDϳϳΨΨDDϮϬϰϳϮϬϰϳ ΨΨDDϭϱͬϮϬϰϳϭϱͬϮϬϰϳ ΨDDϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϳϭͬϭϱͬϮ ΨDDRϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϲϭϮͬϭ ΨDDRϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϲϭϭͬϭϱͬϱΨDDRϭϱͬϮϬϰϲϭϱͬϮϬϰϲ ϱϯϮΨΨDDRϱϱϯ͘ϲϵ
DϮϬϰϲϮϬϰϲ ΨΨDDRϱϱϲ͘ϲϭϲϲϭΨDϰϲ RΨΨ
DRRAΨΨRAϱϰϭ͘ϱϭϱϰϭ͘ϱϭΨRARAΨΨRAϱϲϮ͘ϰϳRARARAϱϰϳ͘ϭϳ
RARAΨΨRAϱϲϴ͘ϯϭϭRARAΨRAϱϭϲ͘ϬϯϬϯRARAFϭϭΨRAϱϳϰ͘ϮϬ͘ϮϬRAAFϭ͕ϱϬϭ͕ϱΨΨAϱϳϳ͘Ϭϵϳϳ͘ϬϵAAFϭ͕ϱϮϰ͘ϳϭΨΨAϱϲϭ͘Ϯϵϲϭ͘Ϯϵ
AAFϭ͕ϱϬϯ͘ϭϯΨA͘ϴϳ FAFFTΨAFTϭ͕ϱϭϵ͘ϭϮΨAAFTFTΨAFTϭ͕ϰϵϳ͘ϯϲϭ͕ΨFTFTΨFTϭ͕ϰϵϰ͘ϱϭϭ͕ϰϵFTFTΨFTϭ͕ϱϭϬ͘ϳϵFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϰϴϴ͘ϳϳFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϱϬϱ͘Ϯϲϭ ϱϬϱ ϮϲFTTΨΨ Tϭ͕ϰϴϯ͘Ϭϲϭ͕ϰϴϯ͘ϬϲTTΨTϭ͕ϱϯϴ͘ϳϲϭ͕ϱϯϴ͘ϳϲ
TTΨTϳϳ͘ϯϬϳϳ͘ϯϬ
TTΨΨ
Tϰϴϰϴ
TTTTTTFTFTFTFTAFTAFAFAFAFRARARARARARDRDRDRDRDDDDD70
74
WĂLJŵĞŶƚ /ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů ĂůĂŶĐĞ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϴ ϰϳϳ͘ϳϲΨϭ͕ϲϬϴ͘ϮϰΨϮϱϲ͕ϳϯϲ͘ϮϯΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϴ ϰϵϬ͘ϲϭΨϭ͕ϱϵϱ͘ϯϵΨϮϱϱ͕ϭϰϬ͘ϴϰΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϴ ϰϳϭ͘ϴϰΨϭ͕ϲϭϰ͘ϭϲΨϮϱϯ͕ϱϮϲ͘ϲϴΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϴ ϰϴϰ͘ϰϴΨϭ͕ϲϬϭ͘ϱϮΨϮϱϭ͕ϵϮϱ͘ϭϲΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϴ ϰϴϭ͘ϰϮΨϭ͕ϲϬϰ͘ϱϴΨϮϱϬ͕ϯϮϬ͘ϱϴΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϴ ϰϲϮ͘ϵϮΨϭ͕ϲϮϯ͘ϬϴΨϮϰϴ͕ϲϵϳ͘ϱϬΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϴ ϰϳϱ͘ϮϱΨϭ͕ϲϭϬ͘ϳϱΨϮϰϳ͕Ϭϴϲ͘ϳϱΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϴ ϰϱϲ͘ϵϰΨϭ͕ϲϮϵ͘ϬϲΨϮϰϱ͕ϰϱϳ͘ϲϵΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϵ ϰϲϵ͘ϬϲΨϭ͕ϲϭϲ͘ϵϰΨϮϰϯ͕ϴϰϬ͘ϳϱΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϵ ϰϲϱ͘ϵϳΨϭ͕ϲϮϬ͘ϬϯΨϮϰϮ͕ϮϮϬ͘ϳϮΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϵ ϰϭϴ͘ϬϴΨϭ͕ϲϲϳ͘ϵϮΨϮϰϬ͕ϱϱϮ͘ϴϬΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϵ ϰϱϵ͘ϲϵΨϭ͕ϲϮϲ͘ϯϭΨϮϯϴ͕ϵϮϲ͘ϰϵΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϵ ϰϰϭ͘ϴϱΨϭ͕ϲϰϰ͘ϭϱΨϮϯϳ͕ϮϴϮ͘ϯϰΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϵ ϰϱϯ͘ϰϰΨϭ͕ϲϯϮ͘ϱϲΨϮϯϱ͕ϲϰϵ͘ϳϳΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϵ ϰϯϱ͘ϳϵΨϭ͕ϲϱϬ͘ϮϭΨϮϯϯ͕ϵϵϵ͘ϱϲΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϵ ϰϰϳ͘ϭϲΨϭ͕ϲϯϴ͘ϴϰΨϮϯϮ͕ϯϲϬ͘ϳϯΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϵ ϰϰϰ͘ϬϯΨϭ͕ϲϰϭ͘ϵϳΨϮϯϬ͕ϳϭϴ͘ϳϲΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϵ ϰϮϲ͘ϲϳΨϭ͕ϲϱϵ͘ϯϯΨϮϮϵ͕Ϭϱϵ͘ϰϯΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϵ ϰϯϳ͘ϳϮΨϭ͕ϲϰϴ͘ϮϴΨϮϮϳ͕ϰϭϭ͘ϭϲΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϰϵ ϰϮϬ͘ϱϱΨϭ͕ϲϲϱ͘ϰϱΨϮϮϱ͕ϳϰϱ͘ϳϭΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϬ ϰϯϭ͘ϯϵΨϭ͕ϲϱϰ͘ϲϭΨϮϮϰ͕Ϭϵϭ͘ϭϬΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϬ ϰϮϴ͘ϮϯΨϭ͕ϲϱϳ͘ϳϳΨϮϮϮ͕ϰϯϯ͘ϯϯΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϬ ϯϴϯ͘ϵϯΨϭ͕ϳϬϮ͘ϬϳΨϮϮϬ͕ϳϯϭ͘ϮϲΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϬ ϰϮϭ͘ϴϭΨϭ͕ϲϲϰ͘ϭϵΨϮϭϵ͕Ϭϲϳ͘ϬϲΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϬ ϰϬϱ͘ϭϮΨϭ͕ϲϴϬ͘ϴϴΨϮϭϳ͕ϯϴϲ͘ϭϵΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϬ ϰϭϱ͘ϰϮΨϭ͕ϲϳϬ͘ϱϴΨϮϭϱ͕ϳϭϱ͘ϲϬΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϬ ϯϵϴ͘ϵϯΨϭ͕ϲϴϳ͘ϬϳΨϮϭϰ͕ϬϮϴ͘ϱϯΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϬ ϰϬϵ͘ϬϬΨϭ͕ϲϳϳ͘ϬϬΨϮϭϮ͕ϯϱϭ͘ϱϯΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϬ ϰϬϱ͘ϴϬΨϭ͕ϲϴϬ͘ϮϬΨϮϭϬ͕ϲϳϭ͘ϯϮΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϬ ϯϴϵ͘ϲϬΨϭ͕ϲϵϲ͘ϰϬΨϮϬϴ͕ϵϳϰ͘ϵϮΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϬ ϯϵϵ͘ϯϰΨϭ͕ϲϴϲ͘ϲϲΨϮϬϳ͕Ϯϴϴ͘ϮϳΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϬ ϯϴϯ͘ϯϰΨϭ͕ϳϬϮ͘ϲϲΨϮϬϱ͕ϱϴϱ͘ϲϭΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭ ϯϵϮ͘ϴϳΨϭ͕ϲϵϯ͘ϭϯΨϮϬϯ͕ϴϵϮ͘ϰϳΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭ ϯϴϵ͘ϲϯΨϭ͕ϲϵϲ͘ϯϳΨϮϬϮ͕ϭϵϲ͘ϭϬΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭ ϯϰϵ͘ϬϬΨϭ͕ϳϯϳ͘ϬϬΨϮϬϬ͕ϰϱϵ͘ϭϬΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭ ϯϴϯ͘ϬϳΨϭ͕ϳϬϮ͘ϵϯΨϭϵϴ͕ϳϱϲ͘ϭϳΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭ ϯϲϳ͘ϱϲΨϭ͕ϳϭϴ͘ϰϰΨϭϵϳ͕Ϭϯϳ͘ϳϯΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭ ϯϳϲ͘ϱϯΨϭ͕ϳϬϵ͘ϰϳΨϭϵϱ͕ϯϮϴ͘ϮϲΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭ ϯϲϭ͘ϮϮΨϭ͕ϳϮϰ͘ϳϴΨϭϵϯ͕ϲϬϯ͘ϰϴΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭ ϯϲϵ͘ϵϳΨϭ͕ϳϭϲ͘ϬϯΨϭϵϭ͕ϴϴϳ͘ϰϱΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭ ϯϲϲ͘ϲϵΨϭ͕ϳϭϵ͘ϯϭΨϭϵϬ͕ϭϲϴ͘ϭϰΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭ ϯϱϭ͘ϲϴΨϭ͕ϳϯϰ͘ϯϮΨϭϴϴ͕ϰϯϯ͘ϴϮΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭ ϯϲϬ͘ϬϵΨϭ͕ϳϮϱ͘ϵϭΨϭϴϲ͕ϳϬϳ͘ϵϭΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭ ϯϰϱ͘ϮϴΨϭ͕ϳϰϬ͘ϳϮΨϭϴϰ͕ϵϲϳ͘ϭϵΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϮ ϯϱϯ͘ϰϲΨϭ͕ϳϯϮ͘ϱϰΨϭϴϯ͕Ϯϯϰ͘ϲϲΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϮ ϯϱϬ͘ϭϱΨϭ͕ϳϯϱ͘ϴϱΨϭϴϭ͕ϰϵϴ͘ϴϭΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϮ ϯϮϰ͘ϰϲΨϭ͕ϳϲϭ͘ϱϰΨϭϳϵ͕ϳϯϳ͘ϮϳΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϮ ϯϰϯ͘ϰϳΨϭ͕ϳϰϮ͘ϱϯΨϭϳϳ͕ϵϵϰ͘ϳϰΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϮ ϯϮϵ͘ϭϳΨϭ͕ϳϱϲ͘ϴϯΨϭϳϲ͕Ϯϯϳ͘ϵϭΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϮ ϯϯϲ͘ϳϴΨϭ͕ϳϰϵ͘ϮϮΨϭϳϰ͕ϰϴϴ͘ϲϵΨDΨΨDϭϭΨΨDDϮϬϱϭϮϬϱϭ ΨΨDDϭϱͬϮϬϱϭϭϱͬϮϬϱϭ ΨDDϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭϯͬϭϱͬϮ ΨDDRϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭϮͬϭ ΨDDRϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϭϭͬϭϱͬϯΨDDRϭϱͬϮϬϱϬϭϱͬϮϬϱϬ ϯϴϯΨΨDDRϯϵϵ͘ϯϰ
DϮϬϱϬϮϬϱϬ ΨΨDDRϯϴϵ͘ϲϬϴϵ ϲϬΨDϱϬ RΨΨ
DRRAΨΨRAϰϬϱ͘ϴϬϰϬϱ͘ϴϬΨRARAΨΨRAϰϬϵ͘ϬϬRARARAϯϵϴ͘ϵϯ
RARAΨΨRAϰϭϱ͘ϰϮϮRARAΨRAϰϬϱ͘ϭϮϭϮRARAFϭϭΨRAϰϮϭ͘ϴϭ͘ϴϭRAAFϭ͕ϳϬϭ͕ϳΨΨAϯϴϯ͘ϵϯϴϯ͘ϵϯAAFϭ͕ϲϱϳ͘ϳϭΨΨAϰϮϴ͘ϮϯϮϴ͘Ϯϯ
AAFϭ͕ϲϱϰ͘ϲϭΨA͘ϯϵ FAFFTΨAFTϭ͕ϲϲϱ͘ϰϱΨAAFTFTΨAFTϭ͕ϲϰϴ͘Ϯϴϭ͕ΨFTFTΨFTϭ͕ϲϱϵ͘ϯϯϭ͕ϲϱFTFTΨFTϭ͕ϲϰϭ͘ϵϳFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϲϯϴ͘ϴϰFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϲϱϬ͘Ϯϭϭ ϲϱϬ ϮϭFTTΨΨ Tϭ͕ϲϯϮ͘ϱϲϭ͕ϲϯϮ͘ϱϲTTΨTϭ͕ϲϰϰ͘ϭϱϭ͕ϲϰϰ͘ϭϱ
TTΨTϮϲ͘ϯϭϮϲ͘ϯϭ
TTΨΨ
TϵϮϵϮ
TTTTTTFTFTFTFTAFTAFAFAFAFRARARARARARDRDRDRDRDDDDD71
75
WĂLJŵĞŶƚ /ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů ĂůĂŶĐĞ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϮ ϯϮϮ͘ϲϴΨϭ͕ϳϲϯ͘ϯϮΨϭϳϮ͕ϳϮϱ͘ϯϴΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϮ ϯϯϬ͘ϬϳΨϭ͕ϳϱϱ͘ϵϯΨϭϳϬ͕ϵϲϵ͘ϰϱΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϮ ϯϮϲ͘ϳϮΨϭ͕ϳϱϵ͘ϮϴΨϭϲϵ͕ϮϭϬ͘ϭϳΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϮ ϯϭϮ͘ϵϮΨϭ͕ϳϳϯ͘ϬϴΨϭϲϳ͕ϰϯϳ͘ϬϵΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϮ ϯϭϵ͘ϵϳΨϭ͕ϳϲϲ͘ϬϯΨϭϲϱ͕ϲϳϭ͘ϬϱΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϮ ϯϬϲ͘ϯϴΨϭ͕ϳϳϵ͘ϲϮΨϭϲϯ͕ϴϵϭ͘ϰϯΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϯ ϯϭϯ͘ϭϵΨϭ͕ϳϳϮ͘ϴϭΨϭϲϮ͕ϭϭϴ͘ϲϮΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϯ ϯϬϵ͘ϴϬΨϭ͕ϳϳϲ͘ϮϬΨϭϲϬ͕ϯϰϮ͘ϰϮΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϯ Ϯϳϲ͘ϳϲΨϭ͕ϴϬϵ͘ϮϰΨϭϱϴ͕ϱϯϯ͘ϭϴΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϯ ϯϬϮ͘ϵϱΨϭ͕ϳϴϯ͘ϬϱΨϭϱϲ͕ϳϱϬ͘ϭϯΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϯ Ϯϴϵ͘ϴϴΨϭ͕ϳϵϲ͘ϭϮΨϭϱϰ͕ϵϱϰ͘ϬϭΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϯ Ϯϵϲ͘ϭϭΨϭ͕ϳϴϵ͘ϴϵΨϭϱϯ͕ϭϲϰ͘ϭϮΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϯ Ϯϴϯ͘ϮϱΨϭ͕ϴϬϮ͘ϳϱΨϭϱϭ͕ϯϲϭ͘ϯϳΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϯ Ϯϴϵ͘ϮϱΨϭ͕ϳϵϲ͘ϳϱΨϭϰϵ͕ϱϲϰ͘ϲϮΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϯ Ϯϴϱ͘ϴϭΨϭ͕ϴϬϬ͘ϭϵΨϭϰϳ͕ϳϲϰ͘ϰϯΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϯ Ϯϳϯ͘ϮϲΨϭ͕ϴϭϮ͘ϳϰΨϭϰϱ͕ϵϱϭ͘ϲϵΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϯ Ϯϳϴ͘ϵϭΨϭ͕ϴϬϳ͘ϬϵΨϭϰϰ͕ϭϰϰ͘ϲϬΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϯ Ϯϲϲ͘ϱϳΨϭ͕ϴϭϵ͘ϰϯΨϭϰϮ͕ϯϮϱ͘ϭϳΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϰ Ϯϳϭ͘ϵϴΨϭ͕ϴϭϰ͘ϬϮΨϭϰϬ͕ϱϭϭ͘ϭϰΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϰ Ϯϲϴ͘ϱϭΨϭ͕ϴϭϳ͘ϰϵΨϭϯϴ͕ϲϵϯ͘ϲϲΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϰ Ϯϯϵ͘ϯϵΨϭ͕ϴϰϲ͘ϲϭΨϭϯϲ͕ϴϰϳ͘ϬϰΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϰ Ϯϲϭ͘ϱϭΨϭ͕ϴϮϰ͘ϰϵΨϭϯϱ͕ϬϮϮ͘ϱϱΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϰ Ϯϰϵ͘ϳϬΨϭ͕ϴϯϲ͘ϯϬΨϭϯϯ͕ϭϴϲ͘ϮϱΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϰ Ϯϱϰ͘ϱϭΨϭ͕ϴϯϭ͘ϰϵΨϭϯϭ͕ϯϱϰ͘ϳϳΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϰ ϮϰϮ͘ϵϮΨϭ͕ϴϰϯ͘ϬϴΨϭϮϵ͕ϱϭϭ͘ϲϴΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϰ Ϯϰϳ͘ϰϵΨϭ͕ϴϯϴ͘ϱϭΨϭϮϳ͕ϲϳϯ͘ϭϳΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϰ Ϯϰϯ͘ϵϴΨϭ͕ϴϰϮ͘ϬϮΨϭϮϱ͕ϴϯϭ͘ϭϱΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϰ ϮϯϮ͘ϳϬΨϭ͕ϴϱϯ͘ϯϬΨϭϮϯ͕ϵϳϳ͘ϴϱΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϰ Ϯϯϲ͘ϵϮΨϭ͕ϴϰϵ͘ϬϴΨϭϮϮ͕ϭϮϴ͘ϳϳΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϰ ϮϮϱ͘ϴϱΨϭ͕ϴϲϬ͘ϭϱΨϭϮϬ͕Ϯϲϴ͘ϲϮΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱ ϮϮϵ͘ϴϯΨϭ͕ϴϱϲ͘ϭϳΨϭϭϴ͕ϰϭϮ͘ϰϱΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱ ϮϮϲ͘ϮϴΨϭ͕ϴϱϵ͘ϳϮΨϭϭϲ͕ϱϱϮ͘ϳϯΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱ ϮϬϭ͘ϭϳΨϭ͕ϴϴϰ͘ϴϯΨϭϭϰ͕ϲϲϳ͘ϵϭΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱ Ϯϭϵ͘ϭϯΨϭ͕ϴϲϲ͘ϴϳΨϭϭϮ͕ϴϬϭ͘ϬϯΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱ ϮϬϴ͘ϲϬΨϭ͕ϴϳϳ͘ϰϬΨϭϭϬ͕ϵϮϯ͘ϲϰΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱ Ϯϭϭ͘ϵϳΨϭ͕ϴϳϰ͘ϬϯΨϭϬϵ͕Ϭϰϵ͘ϲϭΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱ ϮϬϭ͘ϲϳΨϭ͕ϴϴϰ͘ϯϯΨϭϬϳ͕ϭϲϱ͘ϮϴΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱ ϮϬϰ͘ϳϵΨϭ͕ϴϴϭ͘ϮϭΨϭϬϱ͕Ϯϴϰ͘ϬϲΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱ ϮϬϭ͘ϭϵΨϭ͕ϴϴϰ͘ϴϭΨϭϬϯ͕ϯϵϵ͘ϮϲΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱ ϭϵϭ͘ϮϮΨϭ͕ϴϵϰ͘ϳϴΨϭϬϭ͕ϱϬϰ͘ϰϴΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱ ϭϵϯ͘ϵϳΨϭ͕ϴϵϮ͘ϬϯΨϵϵ͕ϲϭϮ͘ϰϱΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱ ϭϴϰ͘ϮϭΨϭ͕ϵϬϭ͘ϳϵΨϵϳ͕ϳϭϬ͘ϲϲΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϲ ϭϴϲ͘ϳϮΨϭ͕ϴϵϵ͘ϮϴΨϵϱ͕ϴϭϭ͘ϯϴΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϲ ϭϴϯ͘ϬϵΨϭ͕ϵϬϮ͘ϵϭΨϵϯ͕ϵϬϴ͘ϰϳΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϲ ϭϲϳ͘ϴϴΨϭ͕ϵϭϴ͘ϭϮΨϵϭ͕ϵϵϬ͘ϯϱΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϲ ϭϳϱ͘ϳϵΨϭ͕ϵϭϬ͘ϮϭΨϵϬ͕ϬϴϬ͘ϭϰΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϲ ϭϲϲ͘ϱϵΨϭ͕ϵϭϵ͘ϰϭΨϴϴ͕ϭϲϬ͘ϳϯΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϲ ϭϲϴ͘ϰϳΨϭ͕ϵϭϳ͘ϱϯΨϴϲ͕Ϯϰϯ͘ϮϬΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϲ ϭϱϵ͘ϰϵΨϭ͕ϵϮϲ͘ϱϭΨϴϰ͕ϯϭϲ͘ϲϵΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϲ ϭϲϭ͘ϭϯΨϭ͕ϵϮϰ͘ϴϳΨϴϮ͕ϯϵϭ͘ϴϮΨDΨΨDϱϱΨΨDDϮϬϱϱϮϬϱϱ ΨΨDDϭϱͬϮϬϱϱϭϱͬϮϬϱϱ ΨDDϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱϱͬϭϱͬϮ ΨDDRϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱϰͬϭ ΨDDRϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϱϯͬϭϱͬϮΨDDRϭϱͬϮϬϱϱϭϱͬϮϬϱϱ ϮϮϲΨΨDDRϮϮϵ͘ϴϯ
DϮϬϱϱϮϬϱϱ ΨΨDDRϮϮϱ͘ϴϱϱϴϱΨDϱϰ RΨΨ
DRRAΨΨRAϮϯϲ͘ϵϮϮϯϲ͘ϵϮΨRARAΨΨRAϮϯϮ͘ϳϬRARARAϮϰϯ͘ϵϴ
RARAΨΨRAϮϰϳ͘ϰϵϵRARAΨRAϮϰϮ͘ϵϮϵϮRARAFϭϭΨRAϮϱϰ͘ϱϭ͘ϱϭRAAFϭ͕ϴϯϭ͕ϴΨΨAϮϰϵ͘ϳϬϰϵ͘ϳϬAAFϭ͕ϴϮϰ͘ϰϭΨΨAϮϲϭ͘ϱϭϲϭ͘ϱϭ
AAFϭ͕ϴϰϲ͘ϲϭΨA͘ϯϵ FAFFTΨAFTϭ͕ϴϭϳ͘ϰϵΨAAFTFTΨAFTϭ͕ϴϭϰ͘ϬϮϭ͕ΨFTFTΨFTϭ͕ϴϭϵ͘ϰϯϭ͕ϴFTFTΨFTϭ͕ϴϬϳ͘ϬϵFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϴϭϮ͘ϳϰFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϴϬϬ͘ϭϵϭ ϴϬϬ ϭϵFTTΨΨ Tϭ͕ϳϵϲ͘ϳϱϭ͕ϳϵϲ͘ϳϱTTΨTϭ͕ϴϬϮ͘ϳϱϭ͕ϴϬϮ͘ϳϱ
TTΨTϴϵ͘ϴϵϴϵ͘ϴϵ
TTΨΨ
TϮϮ
TTTTTTFTFTFTFTAFTAFAFAFAFRARARARARARDRDRDRDRDDDDD72
76
WĂLJŵĞŶƚ /ŶƚĞƌĞƐƚ WƌŝŶĐŝƉĂů ĂůĂŶĐĞ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϲ ϭϱϳ͘ϰϱΨϭ͕ϵϮϴ͘ϱϱΨϴϬ͕ϰϲϯ͘ϮϲΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϲ ϭϰϴ͘ϴϬΨϭ͕ϵϯϳ͘ϮϬΨϳϴ͕ϱϮϲ͘ϬϲΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϲ ϭϱϬ͘ϬϲΨϭ͕ϵϯϱ͘ϵϰΨϳϲ͕ϱϵϬ͘ϭϮΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϲ ϭϰϭ͘ϲϰΨϭ͕ϵϰϰ͘ϯϲΨϳϰ͕ϲϰϱ͘ϳϲΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϳ ϭϰϮ͘ϲϰΨϭ͕ϵϰϯ͘ϯϲΨϳϮ͕ϳϬϮ͘ϰϭΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϳ ϭϯϴ͘ϵϯΨϭ͕ϵϰϳ͘ϬϳΨϳϬ͕ϳϱϱ͘ϯϰΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϳ ϭϮϮ͘ϭϯΨϭ͕ϵϲϯ͘ϴϳΨϲϴ͕ϳϵϭ͘ϰϳΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϳ ϭϯϭ͘ϰϲΨϭ͕ϵϱϰ͘ϱϰΨϲϲ͕ϴϯϲ͘ϵϮΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϳ ϭϮϯ͘ϲϬΨϭ͕ϵϲϮ͘ϰϬΨϲϰ͕ϴϳϰ͘ϱϯΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϳ ϭϮϯ͘ϵϳΨϭ͕ϵϲϮ͘ϬϯΨϲϮ͕ϵϭϮ͘ϱϬΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϳ ϭϭϲ͘ϯϱΨϭ͕ϵϲϵ͘ϲϱΨϲϬ͕ϵϰϮ͘ϴϰΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϳ ϭϭϲ͘ϰϲΨϭ͕ϵϲϵ͘ϱϰΨϱϴ͕ϵϳϯ͘ϯϬΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϳ ϭϭϮ͘ϳϬΨϭ͕ϵϳϯ͘ϯϬΨϱϳ͕ϬϬϬ͘ϬϬΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϳ ϭϬϱ͘ϰϭΨϭ͕ϵϴϬ͘ϱϵΨϱϱ͕Ϭϭϵ͘ϰϭΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϳ ϭϬϱ͘ϭϰΨϭ͕ϵϴϬ͘ϴϲΨϱϯ͕Ϭϯϴ͘ϱϱΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϳ ϵϴ͘ϬϴΨϭ͕ϵϴϳ͘ϵϮΨϱϭ͕ϬϱϬ͘ϲϯΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϴ ϵϳ͘ϱϲΨϭ͕ϵϴϴ͘ϰϰΨϰϵ͕ϬϲϮ͘ϭϵΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϴ ϵϯ͘ϳϲΨϭ͕ϵϵϮ͘ϮϰΨϰϳ͕Ϭϲϵ͘ϵϱΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϴ ϴϭ͘ϮϰΨϮ͕ϬϬϰ͘ϳϲΨϰϱ͕Ϭϲϱ͘ϭϵΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϴ ϴϲ͘ϭϮΨϭ͕ϵϵϵ͘ϴϴΨϰϯ͕Ϭϲϱ͘ϯϭΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϴ ϳϵ͘ϲϰΨϮ͕ϬϬϲ͘ϯϲΨϰϭ͕Ϭϱϴ͘ϵϱΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϴ ϳϴ͘ϰϲΨϮ͕ϬϬϳ͘ϱϰΨϯϵ͕Ϭϱϭ͘ϰϭΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϴ ϳϮ͘ϮϮΨϮ͕Ϭϭϯ͘ϳϴΨϯϳ͕Ϭϯϳ͘ϲϯΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϴ ϳϬ͘ϳϴΨϮ͕Ϭϭϱ͘ϮϮΨϯϱ͕ϬϮϮ͘ϰϭΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϴ ϲϲ͘ϵϯΨϮ͕Ϭϭϵ͘ϬϳΨϯϯ͕ϬϬϯ͘ϯϯΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϴ ϲϭ͘ϬϯΨϮ͕ϬϮϰ͘ϵϳΨϯϬ͕ϵϳϴ͘ϯϳΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϴ ϱϵ͘ϮϬΨϮ͕ϬϮϲ͘ϴϬΨϮϴ͕ϵϱϭ͘ϱϲΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϴ ϱϯ͘ϱϰΨϮ͕ϬϯϮ͘ϰϲΨϮϲ͕ϵϭϵ͘ϭϭΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵ ϱϭ͘ϰϰΨϮ͕Ϭϯϰ͘ϱϲΨϮϰ͕ϴϴϰ͘ϱϱΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵ ϰϳ͘ϱϱΨϮ͕Ϭϯϴ͘ϰϱΨϮϮ͕ϴϰϲ͘ϭϬΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵ ϯϵ͘ϰϯΨϮ͕Ϭϰϲ͘ϱϳΨϮϬ͕ϳϵϵ͘ϱϯΨ
ϰͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵ ϯϵ͘ϳϱΨϮ͕Ϭϰϲ͘ϮϱΨϭϴ͕ϳϱϯ͘ϮϴΨ
ϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵ ϯϰ͘ϲϴΨϮ͕Ϭϱϭ͘ϯϮΨϭϲ͕ϳϬϭ͘ϵϲΨ
ϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵ ϯϭ͘ϵϮΨϮ͕Ϭϱϰ͘ϬϴΨϭϰ͕ϲϰϳ͘ϴϴΨ
ϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵ Ϯϳ͘ϬϵΨϮ͕Ϭϱϴ͘ϵϭΨϭϮ͕ϱϴϴ͘ϵϳΨ
ϴͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵ Ϯϰ͘ϬϲΨϮ͕Ϭϲϭ͘ϵϰΨϭϬ͕ϱϮϳ͘ϬϮΨ
ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵ ϮϬ͘ϭϮΨϮ͕Ϭϲϱ͘ϴϴΨϴ͕ϰϲϭ͘ϭϰΨ
ϭϬͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵ ϭϱ͘ϲϱΨϮ͕ϬϳϬ͘ϯϱΨϲ͕ϯϵϬ͘ϳϵΨ
ϭϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵ ϭϮ͘ϮϭΨϮ͕Ϭϳϯ͘ϳϵΨϰ͕ϯϭϳ͘ϬϬΨ
ϭϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵ ϳ͘ϵϴΨϮ͕Ϭϳϴ͘ϬϮΨϮ͕Ϯϯϴ͘ϵϴΨ
ϭͬϭϱͬϮϬϲϬ ϰ͘ϮϴΨϮ͕Ϭϴϭ͘ϳϮΨϭϱϳ͘ϮϲΨ
ϮͬϭϱͬϮϬϲϬ Ϭ͘ϯϬΨϭϱϳ͘ϮϲΨϬ͘ϬϬΨ
ϯͬϭϱͬϮϬϲϬ Ϭ͘ϬϬΨϬ͘ϬϬΨDΨΨDϵϵΨΨDDϮϬϱϵϮϬϱϵ ΨΨDDϭϱͬϮϬϱϵϭϱͬϮϬϱϵ ΨDDϳͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵϳͬϭϱͬϮ ΨDDRϲͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵϲͬϭ ΨDDRϱͬϭϱͬϮϬϱϵϱͬϭϱͬΨDDRϭϱͬϮϬϱϵϭϱͬϮϬϱϵ ϯϵΨΨDDRϮϬϱϵϮϬϱϵ ϯϵ͘ϰϯΨΨDDRϰϳ͘ϱϱϳϱϱΨDϱϵ RΨΨ
DRRAΨΨRAϱϭ͘ϰϰϱϭ͘ϰϰΨRARAΨΨRAϱϯ͘ϱϰRARAΨΨRAϱϵ͘ϮϬRARAΨΨRAϲϭ͘ϬϯϯRARAΨRAϲϲ͘ϵϯϵϯRARAFϮϮΨRAϳϬ͘ϳϴ͘ϳϴRAAFϮ͕ϬϭϮ͕ϬΨΨAϳϮ͘ϮϮϳϮ͘ϮϮAAFϮ͕ϬϬϳ͘ϱϮΨΨAϳϴ͘ϰϲϳϴ͘ϰϲAAFϮ͕ϬϬϲ͘ϯϲΨA͘ϲϰ FAFFTΨAFTϭ͕ϵϵϵ͘ϴϴΨAAFTFTΨAFTϮ͕ϬϬϰ͘ϳϲϮ͕ΨFTFTΨFTϭ͕ϵϵϮ͘Ϯϰϭ͕ϵFTFTΨFTϭ͕ϵϴϴ͘ϰϰFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϵϴϳ͘ϵϮFTFTΨΨFTϭ͕ϵϴϬ͘ϴϲϭ ϵϴϬ ϴϲFTTΨΨ Tϭ͕ϵϴϬ͘ϱϵϭ͕ϵϴϬ͘ϱϵTTΨTϭ͕ϵϳϯ͘ϯϬϭ͕ϵϳϯ͘ϯϬ
TTΨTϲϵ͘ϱϰϲϵ͘ϱϰ
TTΨΨ
Tϲϱϲϱ
TTTTTTFTFTFTFTAFTAFAFAFAFRARARARARARDRDRDRDRDDDDD73
77
J’osiuon5RUSBULLETIN1780-27RESOLUTIONos-isAPPROVEDONtO.No.05724)121LOANRESOLUTION(PublicBodies)ARESOLUTIONOF THEBoardofTrusteesOFTHETownofEstesPark.Colorado,actingbyand throughtheTown’sWater Enterprise,AUTHORIZINGANDPROVIDINGFORTHEINCURRENCEOFINDEBTEDNESSFORTHEPURPOSEOFPROVIDINGAPORTIONOFTIlECOSTOFACQUIRING,CONSTRUCTING,ENLARGING,IMPROVING.AND.OREXTENDINGITSParkEntranceEstatesNeighborhoodWaterDistributionSystemFACILITYTOSERVEANAREALAWFULLYWITHINITSJURISDICTIONTOSERVE.WHEREAS,itisnecessaryfortheTownofEstesPark,Colorado,actingbyandthroughtheTown’sWaterEnterprise,(!itltjjc11(1(11(hereinaftercalledAssociation)toraiseaportionofthecostofsuchundertakingbyissuanceofitsbondsinthepriicipalamountof658,000ArticleX,Section20oftheColoradoConstitution,pursuanttotheprovisionsofTitle 31,Article35.Pail4.C.R.S.andTitle11,Article57,Part2.C.R.S.:andXVIIEREAS.theAssociationintendstoobtainassistancefromtheUnitedStates DepartmentofAgriculture.(hereincalledlieGovernment)actingundertheprovisionsoftheConsolidatedFarm andRuralDevelopmentAct(7U.S.C.I921ctseq.)intheplannino. financing,andsupervisionofsuchundertakingand thepurchasingofbondslawfullyissued,intIleeventthatnootheracceptablepurchaserforsuchbondsisbundbytheAssociation:NOWTHEREFORE,inconsiderationofthepremisesdieAssociationherebyrcsolCs:Tohavepreparedonitsbehalfandtoadoptanordinanceorresolutionlbrtheissuancet,fitsbondscont;iiningsuchitemsandtosuchfbnnsasarerequiredbyStatestatutesandasarcagreeableandacceptabletotheGocnhiiieot.2.Torefinancetheunpaidbalance,inwholeorinpart.ofitsbonds upontherequestoftheGovernmentifatanytimeitshallappeartotheGovernmentthat(lieAssociationisabletorefinanceitsbondsbyobtainingaloanforsuchpurposesfromresponsible cooperativeorprivate sourcesatreasonableratesandtermst’orloansforsimilarpurposesandperiodsoftimeasrequiredbysection333(c)ofsaidConsolidatedFarm and RuralDevelopmentAct(7L’..S.C.I953(c)).3.Topro’idefor,execute,andcomplywithFormRD400—4.“AssuranceAgreement.”andFormRD400—I,“EqualOpportunityAgreement,”includingan“EqualOpportunityClause.”whichclauseistoheincorporatedin,orattachedasariderto,eachconstructioncontractandsubcontractin’olvinginexcessofSI0,000.4.ToindemnifytheGovernmentforany’pamentsmadeorlossessufferedbytheGovernmenttinbehalfoftImeAssociation,Suchindemnificationshallbepayablefrom thesamesourceoffunds pledgedtopay thebondsoranyotherlegallyper—inissiblesource.5.Thatupoitdefaultinthepaymentsofanyprincipalandaccruedinterestonthebondsorintheperfoniianeeofanyeoenantoragreementcontainedhereinorintheinstrumentsincidenttomaknigorinsuringtheloan,theGoveraineittatits(mpttotimay(a)declaretheentireprincipalamountthenoutstandingandaccruedintcrestinutiediatelydue andpayable.(h) fordieaccountof(lieAssociation(payablefromthesourceoffundspledgedtopaythebondsoraiivotherlegallypennissihlesource),incurandpayreasonableexpensesforrepair.itianitenaitec,andoperationofthefacilityandsuchotherreasonableexpensesasmaybenecessarytocure thecauseofdefitult. andor(c)takepossessionofthetheility.repair,maintain,andoperateorrentit.Defaultundertheprovisionsofthisresolutionoranyitistrunientincidenttothemaking orinstinngofthe loan may heconstruedbytheGovernmenttoconstitute defaultunderanyother instrninentheldbytheGovernmentandexecutedorassumedbydieAssociation,anddefaultunderanysuchinstruntentntavheconstruedbytheGovernmenttoconstitutedefaulthereunder.6.Nottosell,transfer,lease,orotheriseencumbertheliicilmtvoranyportion thereof.or interesttherein, orpennitotherstodo so,withoutthepriorwrittenconsentoftheGovernment.7.Nottodefease(liebonds,ortoborrowHoney,enterintoanycontractoragreement.orotherwiseincuranyliabilitiesfor anypurposeinconnectionwiththefacility (exclusiveofnormalmaintenance)withouttheprior writtenconsentoftheGovernmentif suchundertakingwouldinvolvethesourceoffundspledgedtopay thebonds.8.ToplacetheproceedsofthebondsondepositinanaccountandinamannerapprovedbytheGovernment.FundsmayhedepositedininstitutionsinsuredbydieStateor FederalGovernmentor investedinreadilymarketable securitiesbackedbythefullfaithand creditofdieUnitedStates.Anyincomefromtheseaccountswillbeconsideredasrevenuesofthesystem.0.ToenniplywithallLipplicabIeStateandFederallawsandregulationsandtocontinualI>operateandmaintainthefoeiIityingoodcondition.0.Toprovideforthereceiptofadequate revenuestomeettherequirementsofdebtsen.ice,operationandmaintenance,andtheestablishmentofadequatereserves.Revenue accumulatedoverandabovethatneededtopayoperatmgandmaintelance,debtserviceandreservesmayonlybe retainedorusedtomakeprepaymentsontheloan.Revenuecannotbeusedtopay anyexpenseswhicharcnotdirectlyincurredfor thefacilityfinancedbyUSDA.Nofreeserviceoruseofthefacilitywillhepermitted.AccordingtothePapento,’%Rcductio,t-(ctof/995,anagencymmnotconductorsponsor,andapersonisnotrL’qrnri’dtorespondto.a collectionofin!ir,nationmlessitdisplaisaa/itt0,t!Bcontrolntinther.Thera/i,l0,1/Bcontrolnnotberfdrtltisin/donationcollectionIs0572—0111ThetOnereqttiretltocompletethishVbrt,taeioncollectionisestinuocdtoaieragtIhourperresponse,inc/tidingflu’time/orrelic,,loginstructions,scorchingexistingdarnsources,gatheringtint!maintainingthedataneeded,andco’m,plettngandrerietiingthecollectionofin/brotation.7478
-‘I-IIToacquireandiiiaintamsuchin soruneeandfidetyhondcoverageasinayhereqiiredbytheCs’veriliiient.I2ToestahIisliand manfliisoclihooksandrecordstelatingto(lieoperationofUtefiteliLyanditsIinaiciat afThirsandtoprovidelbrrequiredauditthereof.asrequired bytheCoveniment,toprovidetheCsivcr11Ilentacopyofeachsuchauditwithoutitsreq[test,andtoforwardtotheCovemuentsuchadditio HalHformationandreporisasitmayfromtilietoIttuerequire.I3.ToprovidetheCovernmemitatallrca55)nahIctimesaccesstoall hooksandrecordsrelatingto(lieflueIttyandaccesstothepropertyofthesystemsothattheCovemmentmayascertainthattheAssociationiscomplyingwiththeprotsiortsliereofandoftheinstrunicutsincidenttociICinakingoriosuringofthehia14.Thatif theCoveninientrequiresthatareserveaccountheestahlished,disbursementsfromthataccouttt(s)naybeused“liennecessaryforpaymentsdueonthehondifsufficientfundsarenototherwiseavailableandprior approvaloftheCoveroutentmsobtauted.Also,withthepriorwrittenapprovaloftheCovemment.fundsmayhewithdrawnandusedforsuchtltittgsasemergencymaintenance, extensionstofocihiticsandreplacciticutofshortlived assets.IS.Toprovide adequateservicetoaltpersons withintheserviceareawltocanfeasihhy aitdlegallyheservedandtoobtainUSDA’scoiteorrenceprIortorefusingneworadequateservicestosuchpersons.Uponfitiluretoprovideserviceswhicharefeasiblemidlegal.suchpersonsltallItaveadirectrightofactionagainst(lieAssociationorpublicbody.16.TocomplywithtltemeasuresdetitifledintheCovernnient’sentironmeittalimpactanalysisfortitisflietlityfortttepurposeoftwoidinmaorrediteingthead’erseenvironmentalimpactsofthe faclbtv’scoustnictmuorOperatiso)17.ToacceptagriuniHimnamountnottoexceedS658,000underthetertusiiffcredbytheCovemment:thattheTn&EstesPa,,cdow,actagbyand:teug’theTownsWatrEnteip’se.andaTawn,BordDiTrusteescimeTc-.n.andandactngaitheccv&ninqbyoftheAssociationareherebyauthorizedandempimeredtolakeallactionnecessaryorappropriateintheexecutionofallwritteninstrumentsasmayherequiredinregardtoorase’idenceofsuchgrant:andinoperatetltefitciIiLvundCrthetermssfferedinsaidgrailtagreement(s)-TheprovisionshereofandcIteproisionsofallinstrumentsincidenttothemakingortheinsuriigofthe loan,unlessothenisespecificallyprosidedhythetermsofsuchinstrument.shallbehindingupontheAssociationaslongas(liehondsare heldorinsuredbytheCovenimentorassignee.Theprovisionsofsections6through17hereofnayheprovidedforinmorespecificdetailintheboodresolotionorordinancetotheextentthattheprovisinscontainedins[tellbondress‘IutisinorordinancesIiouIdbefoundtoheinconsistentwith(lieprovisionshereof,theseprovis,onssIiallheeonstruedaseontrs,IIingheteentli eAssoCiationand theCovernmentorassignee.Theotesas;Veas1Nays_______________AbsentINWITNESSWHEREOF.theBoardofTrustees,oftiteTownofEstesPark,actingastheTown’sWaterEnterprise,litisduly adoptedthisresolutionandcauseditdavofMay_____________tobeexecutedby(lieolbeersbelowinduplicateonthis______________________—___________________(SEAL)ByAttest;_____________2018ToddJirsTitleMayorTitle0TownClerk7579
-3-CERTIFICATIONTOBEEXECUTEDATLOANCLOSINGI,theundersigned,TownC’erkoftheTownofEstesParkBoardofTrusteesactingasthegoverningbodyherebycertilSthattheofsuchAssociationiscomposedofseven________________________members,ofwhom,constitutingaiuoriiiiiwerepresentatameetinotliereofdulycalledandheldonthe_______________________________dayof________________________________andthattheforegoingresolutionwasadoptedatsuchmeetingbythevoleshownabove,IfurthercertifythatasofthedateofelosineofdieloanfromtheUnited StatesDepartmentofAgriculture.saidresolutionremainsineffectandhasnotbeenrescindedoramendedinallyway.Dated.this9dayof_________________________TitleOwnClerk7680
77
81
78
82
79
83
80
84
81
85
82
86
83
87
84
88
85
89
86
90
87
91
88
92
89
93
90
94
91
95
92
96
93
97
94
98
95
99
96
100
97
101
98
102
99
103
100
104
101
105
102
106
103
107
104
108
105
109
106
110
107
111
108
112
109
113
110
114
111
115
112
116
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC HEARING
Applicable items include: Rate Hearings, Code Adoption, Budget Adoption
1. MAYOR.
The next order of business will be the public hearing on ACTION ITEM 4.
ORDINANCE 03-20 CONVERTING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT
CODE TO THE ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE.
At this hearing, the Board of Trustees shall consider the information
presented during the public hearing, from the Town staff, public comment,
and written comments received on the application.
Any member of the Board may ask questions at any stage of the public
hearing which may be responded to at that time.
Mayor declares the Public Hearing open.
2. STAFF REPORT.
Review the staff report.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT.
Any person will be given an opportunity to address the Board concerning the
Ordinance. All individuals must state their name and address for the record.
Comments from the public are requested to be limited to three minutes per
person.
4. MAYOR.
Ask the Town Clerk whether any communications have been received in regard
to the Ordinance which are not in the Board packet.
Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the
Ordinance.
Indicate that all reports, statements, exhibits, and written communications
presented will be accepted as part of the record.
Declare the public hearing closed.
Request Board consider a motion.
113
117
7. SUGGESTED MOTION.
Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report.
8. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.
Discussion by the Board on the motion.
9. VOTE ON THE MOTION.
Vote on the motion or consideration of another action.
114
118
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director
Dan Kramer, Town Attorney
Date: February 11, 2020
RE: ORDINANCE 03-20 CONVERTING THE ESTES VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT CODE TO THE ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE
(Mark all that apply)
PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________
QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO
Objective:
Review, discuss, and adopt proposed amendment to Estes Valley Development Code.
Present Situation:
The Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for land-use planning between the Town of
Estes Park and Larimer County is due to expire at the end of the day on March 31,
2020. Inasmuch as the existing Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) is authorized
by the IGA, the Code needs to be amended to provide that beginning April 1, the Code
will be applicable within Town boundaries only. The new nomenclature can be
described as the Estes Park Development Code (EPDC).
Other specific elements in the EVDC also need modified to reflect the IGA’s expiration.
For example, the current Estes Valley Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment
are both joint bodies, with members appointed by both County and Town governing
bodies. It is necessary per Colorado Revised Statutes that a municipality without a joint
planning area and code appoint its own Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment.
Proposal:
The proposed ordinance is relatively simple and straightforward. A “blanket” change in
the ordinance basically states that, wherever the Code refers to Estes Valley, the Estes
Valley Planning Commission, and similar joint terminology, the language is construed to
refer to a Town-only Code, Planning Commission, and the like.
115
119
The ordinance also includes specifics regarding a Town Planning Commission (PC) and
Town Board of Adjustment (BoA). (Heretofore, the IGA contained a lot of these
specifics.) Details include:
• A five-member PC, appointed by Town Board, with six-year terms;
• A three-member BoA, appointed by Town Board, with three-year terms;
• Other housekeeping matters, such as authority for removal of PC and BoA
members and a requirement for approval of bylaws.
The ordinance specifies staggered terms of appointment for the BoA so that no single
future appointment cycle finds us with all members up for appointment at the same time.
There’s no parallel language in the Ordinance for the PC, but it is provided for
nonetheless because Colorado Revised Statutes require this staggered appointment
method for municipal Planning Commissions in general: C.R.S. §31-23-203(3) requires
that one-third of the members be appointed for two years, one-third for four years, and
one-third for six years. (For a five-person PC, that arithmetic may seem a little squirrelly,
but many other municipalities have sorted this out, and staff will be prepared to provide
precedents at appointment time on how it’s been done.)
Another area requiring some detail is the Vacation Home section. Essentially, the
language here provides that on April 1, following the closing of our 2020 registration
cycle, a specific number of registered Vacation Homes (VHs) will be known and
identified within the Town – some in residential zoning districts, others in non-residential
zoning. For the residentially zoned VHs, that existing number on April 1 will become the
cap. This is somewhat similar to the way the current 588 Valley-wide cap was
determined in 2016, except that the 588 was based on a best estimate rather than firm
data. Staff believes this April 1 determination is the best path forward so that waitlisted
applicants are treated equitably while not allowing the overall VH numbers to grow
beyond the existing pool on that date.
The ordinance will become effective April 1, 2020. Adoption in February will allow staff,
elected and appointed officials, and the public to learn and become familiar with its
provisions. Specifically, it will allow time for the Town to advertise for, interview, and
appoint new PC members in timely fashion. The goal is to have a quorum of (at least
three) appointees ready to meet on schedule on April 21. A parallel hoped-for goal is to
appoint at least two BoA members who can meet on schedule on April 7.
Advantages:
• Allows the Town to continue planning and land-use regulatory functions
efficiently and timely, while complying with State law and community
expectations.
Disadvantages:
• None identified at this time.
Action Recommended:
Staff recommends that the Estes Park Board of Trustees approve Ordinance 03-20 as
drafted.
116
120
Finance/Resource Impact:
Unknown, but not likely to be significant.
Level of Public Interest
High, regarding the IGA and various options for how land-use planning between Town
and County would be addressed; low, regarding this specific Ordinance.
Sample Motion:
I move that the Estes Park Town Board of Trustees approve Ordinance 03-20.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance 03-20 Converting the Estes Valley Development Code to the Estes
Park Development Code
117
121
1
ORDINANCE NO. 03-20
AN ORDINANCE CONVERTING THE ESTES VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CODE TO
THE ESTES PARK DEVELOPMENT CODE
WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park and the County of Larimer have heretofore
established a joint Estes Valley Development Code pursuant to an intergovernmental
agreement effective February 1, 2000, and subsequently amended six times;
WHEREAS, the Sixth Amendment authorized by the Town and the County
extended the term of the intergovernmental agreement to April 1, 2020, at which point it
will expire;
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined to retain the provisions of the
Development Code as they apply to the jurisdictional limits of the Town, effective upon
the expiration of the intergovernmental agreement, until the code can be further amended ;
and
WHEREAS, because the services of the joint planning commission and board of
adjustment are set to expire upon the expiration of the intergovernmental agreement, the
Board here provides for such a commission and board to serve the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. In this ordinance, ellipses indicate material not reproduced as the Board
intends to leave that material in effect as it now reads.
Section 2. The Estes Valley Development Code shall be amended by adding underlined
material and deleting stricken material, to read as follows:
. . .
§ 1.1 - Title
The regulations of this Land Development Code shall be officially known and cited
as the “Land Development Code of the Estes Valley, including the Town of Estes
Park, Colorado," although it may be referred to hereafter as the "Estes Valley
Development Code," “EVDC" or "this Code."
. . .
118
122
2
§ 1.13 - Transition to Estes Park Development Code
All references in this Code to the Estes Valley Development Code or the EVDC
shall be construed as references to this Code. Notwithstanding any statement in
the Code to the contrary, this Code shall apply only to land and development located
within the incorporated limits of the Town of Estes Park, or proposed to be annexed
into the Town. Accordingly, no matters addressed by this Code shall require action
by the Board of County Commissioners of Larimer County, or the staff, boards, or
commissions of the County. All references to the Estes Valley Planning
Commission or EVPC shall be construed as references to the Estes Park Planning
Commission. All references to the Estes Valley Board of Adjustment or BOA shall
be construed as references to the Estes Park Board of Adjustment. All references
to both Town and County officials shall be construed as references solely to the
Town counterpart. The Town Board intends that these references all be updated in
a subsequent ordinance.
. . .
§ 2.1 - Code Administration and Review Roles
. . .
C.Estes Park Planning Commission
The Planning Commission of the Town of Estes Park shall be organized pursuant
to part 2 of article 23 of title 31 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. It shall consist of
five members who are residents of the Town. For both new terms and vacancies,
members shall be appointed by the Board of Trustees. Bylaws for the Planning
Commission must be approved by the Board of Trustees. Removal of a member
from the Planning Commission for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in
office shall be only by the Board of Trustees.
D.Estes Park Board of Adjustment
The Board of Adjustment of the Town of Estes Park shall be organized pursuant to
part 3 of article 23 of title 31 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. It shall consist of
three members who are residents of the Town. For both new terms and vacancies,
members shall be appointed by the Board of Trustees. Bylaws for the Board of
Adjustment must be approved by the Board of Trustees. Removal of a member
from the Board of Adjustment for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in
office shall be only by the Board of Trustees. The respective terms of the members
first appointed shall be for one, two, and three years.
. . .
119
123
3
§5.1 - SPECIFIC USE STANDARDS
. . .
B.Vacation Home.
1.All vacation homes shall be subject to the following:
a.Annual Operating Registration.
. . .
(6)Effective December 16, 2016, vacation home operating registrations in
residential zoning districts (designated herein as zoning districts E, E-1, R, R-1,
R-2, RE, RE-1, and RM) shall be held at a maximum total ("cap") of 588
registrations in effect at any given time. This cap shall be reviewed annually by
the Planning Commission and governing Boards, in or near the month of April
beginning in or near April 2017. Applications received at any time such that their
approval would cause the cap to be exceeded shall be held and kept on file in
the order they are received and deemed complete by the Town Clerk's Office.
Registrations held on such list (the “waitlist”) shall be issued during the calendar
year as operating registrations may become available.
(6.1) Effective at the end of the business day as determined by the Town
Clerk, April 1, 2020:
(i)The number of the cap shall be reset to the number of
registrations in effect at such time within the Town limits. The number shall
include registrations within the Town limits that have been accepted off the
waitlist due to availability within the preexisting cap, even if further information,
inspection, or other confirmation is necessary before the registration becomes
complete and effective as an operating registration.
(ii)The cap shall no longer apply to registrations not within the
Town limits. Management of registrations outside the Town limits, including
registrations in effect and those held on the waitlist, shall no longer be the
responsibility of the Town, and the Town Clerk shall transmit the information
regarding such applications to Larimer County.
(iii)Henceforth the waitlist as managed by the Town shall only
include those registration applications for properties within the Town limits.
(iv)The Town Clerk shall communicate the re-established cap
number to the Board.
. . .
120
124
4
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force beginning April 1, 2020.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes
Park, Colorado this_______day of______________, 2020.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
_____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above ordinance was introduced and read at a meeting of
the Board of Trustees on the_____day of__________, 2020 and published in a
newspaper of general publication in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on
the________day of____________, 2020.
_____________________________
Town Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Town Attorney
121
125
2/25/2020
1
Ordinance 03‐20
Converting the Estes Valley Development
Code to the Estes Park Development Code
Key Points:
•“Blanket” changes to text, so that all Estes Valley Dev. Code references are to be
construed as references to the “Land Development Code of the Town of Estes
Park, Colorado”. (EPDC)
•Authorizes a newly formed Estes Park Planning Commission, with:
•Five members, all Town residents (req. by state law);
•Appointed by Board of Trustees;
•[Note: Ord. 03‐20 does not specify length of term, or staggered terms for initial
appointment, but state law does: Initial appts. for 2 years, 4 years, and 6 years; with
terms of 6 years after initial appt.]
•Bylaws approved by Board of Trustees;
•Removal of PC member for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in
office” only by Board of Trustees.
1
2
126
2/25/2020
2
Key Points (cont.):
•Authorizes a new Board of Adjustment, with:
•Three members, all Town residents;
•Other provisions similar to those for the new P.C.;
•Staggered initial terms of appointment: 1 year / 2 years / 3 years
•[Note: Ord. 03‐20 does not specify length of term after initial appt., but state law does:
3‐year terms]
Key Points (cont.):
•Vacation Homes:
•Current Valley‐wide cap in residential districts of 588 registrations will be split
between Town and County;
•Cap allocated to Town will depend on how many registrations (registered by
Mar. 31 + properties that move up from the waitlist following close of 2020
registrations on Mar. 31, acc. to Town Clerk records;
•Town will only manage VHs inside Town; County will manage their own VH
under rules to be established;
•New Town cap will continue to be a fixed number, which staff will relay to
Town Board and the community.
•Ord. to be effective April 1. Adoption now will allow PC/BoA appts.
earlier, following typical Town Board protocols.
3
4
127
2/25/2020
3
5
128
1
February 1, 2019
F. O. Stanley and Restrictive Racial Covenants:
An Evidentiary Report
Prepared by James H. Pickering and Thom Widawski
1. During the summer and fall of 2017 it was alleged in several news stories, one of which was
reported on Denver's ABC Channel 7, and then repeated in a letter to the editor of the Estes
Park Trail Gazette, that F. O. Stanley was responsible for a restrictive racial ("whites only")
covenant placed during the early 1940s on a lot in the Stanley Heights Subdivision, the 215.5-
acre area below and east of the Stanley Hotel. This allegation quickly became an accusation
that Freelan Oscar Stanley (1849-1940), long celebrated in Estes Park as an iconic figure, was
"essentially . . . a racist"--an accusation repeated as established fact in e-mails to Estes Park's
Mayor and members of the Estes Park Board of Trustees. Among the consequences, an August
2018 e-mail to Town Trustees from the Colorado Montana Wyoming State Conference of the
NAACP announcing its opposition to "the transformation of the F. O. Stanley home into a
museum without providing the proper historical context regarding Stanley's involvement in
racially-restrictive covenants on his property."
2. A close look at the available documentary evidence suggests a very different story.
3. The original allegation, as reported in the August 7, 2017 issue of Colorado Politics by staff
writer Joey Bunch, can be easily summarized: While researching information on Estes Park
native Georgia Graves,1 a talented contralto who performed with the Metropolitan Opera
Company, it was discovered that the 3-acre lot in the Stanley Heights subdivision that Georgia
Graves and her husband, Howard MacDonald, agreed to purchase from F.O. Stanley on August
31, 1940 came with a racially restrictive covenant.
4. Offered as proof in both the Colorado Politics and Channel 7 stories was a photographic copy
of the covenant in question. It reads: "None of said building sites or any part thereof shall at
any time be used or occupied by, or sold, leased, or given to any person or persons of any race
other than the white race, but this restriction shall not prohibit any of the occupants from
______________
1. Georgia Graves MacDonald (1901-1991) was the youngest of the three daughters of Estes Park farmer William Graves (1865-
1943) and his wife, Delilah (1872-1958). On September 8, 1933 she married Howard B. MacDonald (1898-1965) of Yonkers,
New York in Loveland. It was a second marriage: her earlier marriage to Frank Service of Estes Park, the son of pioneer grocer
Sam Service, who she had married in 1920 while still a conservatory student at Colorado Agricultural College (now CSU), had
ended in divorce in February 1927. The MacDonalds subsequently made their home in Yonkers, New York, north of New York
City, in the same house in which Howard, a graduate of Yale College, had lived as a child. Georgia Graves, who performed
under her maiden name, enjoyed a distinguished musical career. During one two-year period she gave some 120
performances at such venues as New York City's Carnegie Hall and Radio City Music Hall and with the Metropolitan Opera
2
Company, as well as in a number of foreign countries. Her engagement to Frank Service was announced at a well-attended
evening party at the Graves home. Estes Park Trail Talk (July 16, 1920), 4.
having employees who are not of the white race."
5. As the Bunch story noted, on October 2, 1940, "about five weeks" after agreeing to sell the
lot in Stanley Heights to Graves and her husband, and 10 days after returning from Estes Park,
F. O. Stanley died at his home in Newton, Massachusetts.
6. So much for the accusation. It is clear enough. But what exactly did Georgia Graves
MacDonald and her husband agree to, and what did F. O. Stanley insist upon, in their
agreement of August 31, 1940? Ironically, given the seriousness of the accusation, no one
seems to have asked.
7. The Stanley Estate Papers in the Colorado State Archives in Denver provide the answer.
They contain a copy of the signed 1940 agreement that the MacDonalds made with F. O.
Stanley. It reads in its entirety as follows:
This agreement, made this thirty-first day of August, nineteen hundred forty, between F. O. Stanley of
the first part and Howard B. MacDonald and Georgia G. MacDonald of the second part,
WITNESSETH: the party of the first part having sold to the parties of the second part,
Lot # 28, in the proposed Town Addition to Estes Park, Colorado, said addition to be known as Stanley
Heights, the description of said Lot #28 is as follows:
Lot #28 of Stanley Heights Subdivision, Larimer County, Colorado; more particularly described as
follows: Beginning at a point whence the West Quarter (W 1/4) of Section nineteen (19), Twp. 5 North,
Range 72 West of the 6th P.M., bears S. 530 05' W. a distance of 863.5 feet; thence N. 20 14' W. 228.1
feet; thence N. 10040' E. 6.7 feet; thence S. 890 04' E. 578.9 feet; thence S. 00 56 W. 227.8 feet; thence N
890 04' W,. 568.4 feet to the place of beginning. Containing 3.0 acres more or less.
The party of the first part agrees to have city water at the boundary of the lot, also electricity, in the
spring or early summer of 1941; also all the roads for ingress and egress will be platted according to
the present survey of the new Stanley Heights Subdivision. Specifications and limitations of buildings
to be constructed on this property will be in accordance with the Subdivision specifications as now
understood by both parties.
The purchase price of Lot #28 is $1800.00, of which $200 has been paid this date, receipt of which is
hereby acknowledged. The balance of $1600 to be paid by parties of the second part on or before
January 1, 1940. No interest on this payment to be charged.
In the case of default by party of the first part of any portion of this contract, parties of the second part
are to be entitled to full refund of the down payment of $200.00. If parties of the second part do not
fulfill the terms of the contract, said down payment of $200.00 will be forfeited.
Joint tenancy to this lot to remain in escrow at the Estes Park Bank or to be held by Mr. C. Byron Hall,
Estes Park, Colorado.
3
Party of the first part agrees to pay 1940 taxes due in 1941. Abstract to be available to parties of the
second part at a reasonable cost, to be paid by parties of the second part.
(sgd) C. BYRON HALL, F. O. STANLEY, Agent
Agent for party of the first part
(sgd). HOWARD B. MacDONALD, GEORGIA G. MacDONALD
Parties of the second part
Estes Park, Colorado.
(Stanley Estate Papers, Colorado State Archives, File #4489, Page 146. Note: The Stanley Estate
Papers are not numbered--the page numbers provided represent the pages as they appear
sequentially.)
Obvious here is the fact that other than the financial terms, and the commitment by F. O.
Stanley to provide the necessary infrastructure within a year, no conditions of any kind were
placed upon the transaction by either party, let alone a racially restrictive covenant.
At the time of purchase, the Stanley Heights Subdivision with its 54 lots did not yet legally exist.
It was only "proposed." Much of the essential work remained to be done. Water and
electricity needed to be brought to "the boundary of the lot" and "all the roads for ingress and
egress," while surveyed, had yet to be finally platted (or mapped) and recorded with Larimer
County. Moreover, the completion of this infrastructure was not expected until "the spring or
early summer of 1941." Preliminary work, the Stanley Estate Papers indicate, had been
performed by Edwin W. Wallace (1896-1988), a survey engineer living in Estes Park. Between
July 1939 and September 1940 Stanley had employed Wallace to "Survey . . . Stanley Heights
(laying out roads, dividing into lots, marking lot corners & preparing preliminary maps" for
which he was subsequently paid $749.71 by the Stanley estate. The complexity of Wallace's
task is suggested by the 1,034 survey stakes which Stanley himself purchased from the Estes
Park Lumber Company between July 8, 1939 and May 3, 1940. See Stanley Estate Papers, Pages
295, 297.
8. How then did a racially restrictive covenant come to be attached to lots sold in the Stanley
Heights Subdivision? That too is part of the Stanley story, though the evidence shows that it
had nothing to do with F. O. Stanley himself.2
9. Though he had sold the Stanley Hotel to transportation pioneer Roe Emery a decade earlier
in October of 1930, at the time of his death, in addition to homes in Estes Park and Newton, F.
O. Stanley still owned almost 1,400 acres of property in Estes Park, most of which was located
along Dry Gulch and Devils Gulch roads in the northern part of the Estes Valley. Those
properties were subsequently appraised at $57,954.60. They included the large 215.5-acre
_______________
2. The core of the Stanley Heights property was the 160.4-acre homestead claim originally filed with the Denver Land Office by
one Charles Fowler, whose identity is unfortunately lost to history. On May 4, 1876 for $500 Fowler then turned the property
4
over to Theodore Whyte, the Earl of Dunraven's resident agent and overseer, making it part of the Earl's Estes Park holdings
which F. O. Stanley and Burton D. Sanborn purchased in 1908. Stanley received sole title from Sanborn in September 1911. See
Book 242, Page 285, Office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder.
hillside parcel that would become Stanley Heights.
10. Oddly enough, considering his wealth, and the fact that he was a widower without children,
F. O. Stanley died "intestate," without a will. But he did have heirs. On July 7, 1941, nine
months after his death, nine of these heirs, all but one Stanley's nieces and nephews, entered
into a Trust Agreement with the International Trust Company of Denver3 for the purpose of
"selling and liquidating" F. O. Stanley's remaining Estes Park holdings. Those holdings were
separately listed under Schedule A of the Agreement. Specifically exempted was Lot 28 in what
would become the Stanley Heights Subdivision--the 3-acre parcel that Stanley had previously
"agreed" to sell to Georgia Graves MacDonald and her husband. This Trust Agreement is filed in
Book 743, Pages 239-257 in the office of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder. (This
document, and other County records referenced below, are available on-line and may be
viewed through the Easy Access Portal on the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder's Office
website.)
11. Under the terms of the Trust Agreement, the Stanley heirs agreed to "release, sell, convey,
and quit claim to the Trustee [the International Trust Company] the real estate more
particularly described in Schedule A, which is hereto attached" and granted to the Trustee "Full
and unrestricted discretionary power and authority to hold, manage, control, sell by contract . .
. the property of the trust estate. . . ." Further, it conferred upon the Trustee "every power of
management which might be conferred upon a trustee. . . ."
The Trust agreement was to run for 20 years after the death of the last heir or "until all the real
estate is sold and the last trust property distributed," though it could be terminated at any time
by a majority of the heirs (referred to throughout as "the Settlers").
12. In its subsequent Declaration of October 28, 1948, the International Trust Company made
clear what happened next. Acting on the basis of the July 7, 1941 Trust Agreement, it had
"caused said real estate to be designated as 'Stanley Heights,' and to be surveyed and divided
into streets; and did adopt and declare the restrictions, covenants, conditions, and easements
declared hereafter in this Declaration set forth and has heretofore sold and conveyed certain
lots in said 'Stanley Heights'. . . . "
What follows is the list of restrictions and covenants that the International Trust Company
placed upon the sale of the Stanley Heights lots. The 6th condition is the restrictive "whites
only" covenant"--exactly as it was reproduced as an illustration for the 2017 Colorado Politics
_______________
3. The International Trust Company was one of Denver's most prestigious financial institutions. Located at the corner of 17th
and California, in the heart of Denver's financial district ("the Wall Street of the West"), the International Trust Company
5
Building, erected in 1912, with its ornate Corinthian columns and rooftop balusters and balustrade, was considered one of the
city's architectural treasures. The Company's president was John Evans (1884-1966), the grandson of Colorado's territorial
governor and a prominent Denverite. Evans was also president of Denver's First National Bank, established in 1865 and located
nearby. Under Evans' leadership, the two institutions merged in 1958. Thereafter, the First National Bank became the
institution of record for Stanley Heights documents.
news story and for the story that appeared on Denver's Channel 7. (LCCR, Book 864, Pages 192-
198).
13. Attached to the 1948 Declaration is a list of the 28 individuals (or couples) who received
deeds for lots in Stanley Heights between November 12, 1941 and September 4, 1947.
Attached to Lot 28 are the names of Howard B. MacDonald and Georgia G. MacDonald, with
the record date of November 12, 1941. Also attached as Exhibit A is the original plat map4
of the Stanley Heights Subdivision. (LCCR, Book 864, Page 198).
How the MacDonalds first learned of F. O. Stanley's proposed subdivision we can only surmise,
though Stanley's intentions were clearly known in Estes Park and the project that surveyor
Wallace had been working on for more than a year was visible enough to anyone interested.
The promise of new and exclusive self-contained subdivision with large lots close to the village
of Estes Park clearly had its attractions for those contemplating a vacation home. Moreover,
the lot chosen was a choice one. Located on high ground, it came with a particularly fine view.
The MacDonalds, then presumably on vacation and paying a visit to Georgia's former
hometown (her parents were by then living in nearby Loveland), decided to become early
buyers even though, as their contract with Stanley noted, the installation of the necessary
utilities and entrance and exit roads was still a year away. The risks were minimal: the required
$200 down payment modest, with no interest on the balance. Like many vacation home buyers
before and since, the MacDonalds seized the opportunity.
14. As indicated above, the MacDonalds' agreement was negotiated and signed on F. O.
Stanley's behalf by Charles Byron Hall (1879-1944), a long-time Stanley employee. Hall had
helped build Stanley's Fall River hydroelectric plant beginning in 1908 and then managed that
facility for more than 20 years. Over the years, he became Stanley's confidante, and, later, the
administrator of both the Flora J. R. Stanley and F. O. Stanley estates. Hall also served as a
commissioned agent in the sale of F. O. Stanley's Estes Park holdings. Between 1937 and 1940,
Hall handled the sale of some 43 different tracts of Stanley land, totaling $54,403. These
included the August 1940 "contract for sale" with the MacDonalds.
15. Though they had reached their agreement with F. O. Stanley on August 31, 1940, and paid
the remaining $1600 owed on their lot on February 21, 1941, the MacDonalds' deed to that
property was not legally filed until November 12, 1941. On that date Charles Byron Hall, as the
administrator of Stanley's estate, filed an Administrator's Deed (by definition, a legal document
that transfers title to the property of an intestate individual) with Larimer County. It included
the Larimer County Court order filed two days earlier, on November 10, 1941, and signed by
County Judge Harry H. Hartman, directing him as administrator "to perform the Agreement
made by the deceased dated August 31, 1940" and "deliver a deed to said grantee." The court
order goes on to read: "In the said contract of sale it is provided that specifications and
6
______________
4. This plat map is not dated. It was completed by Carroll H. Coberly of Denver, a well-known consulting engineer, who was
undoubtedly hired by the International Investment Company to complete, and perhaps redo, the work that Edwin Wallace had
begun. A second plat map ("Stanley Heights--Addition B To the Town of Estes Park, Colorado") was completed in October 1945
by Howard F. Smith and recorded with Larimer County on January 1, 1946. See LCCR, Book 6, Page 6.
limitations of buildings to be constructed on this property will be in accordance with the
subdivision specifications as now understood by both parties. . . ." The next paragraph adds
that the purchasers, Howard B. and Georgia G. MacDonald, "have agreed that the form of deed,
'Exhibit B,' attached to said petition, is satisfactory to them." (LCCR, Book 734, Pages 337-342).5
16. "Exhibit B" is Hall's Administrator 's Deed, attached to which is the legal description of the
Stanley Heights property followed by the six restrictions, including the racial one, that
were to apply to its use and development. These restrictions are the same as those that later
appear in the 1948 Declaration referenced above.
Hall's Administrator's Deed, with these same attachments, is also included in the Stanley Estate
Papers, Pages 173-181. They are included with the "PETITION FOR SPECIAL PERFORMANCE
OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF REAL ESTATE TO HOWARD B. AND GEORGIA G. MACDONALD"
which Hall filed with the Larimer County Court on October 4, 1941. Also included, as "Exhibit
A," is the original August 31, 1940 contract for sale agreement with the MacDonalds (as
reproduced in Section 7, above).
17. What the Administrative Deed makes clear is that in accepting the legal deed to their
Stanley Heights lot the MacDonalds also accepted the restrictions that the International Trust
Company had imposed on all the lots in the Stanley Heights Subdivision under the broad
authority established by the Trust Agreement of July 7, 1941 with the Stanley heirs.
18. Despite evident expectations, lots in the Stanley Heights Subdivision did not sell quickly.
Perhaps because of World War II, the next recorded sale did not occur until May 26, 1944. Four
more lots were sold that year, all to Dorothy E. Kremser-Stoddard (1891-1960), the only
daughter of F. O. Stanley's sister Chansonetta Emmons, and one of the nine Stanley heirs.
Interestingly enough, two of her purchases were Lots 27 and 29, located on what is now West
Lane. These directly bordered the MacDonald lot on the south and east. On November 22,
1946, Dorothy Kremser-Stoddard also purchased Lots 39, 40, 41, and 42 in the Stanley Heights
Subdivision. By December of 1948, she had purchased the MacDonald lot as well. (See LCCR,
Book 889, Page 384). These purchases were doubtless seen at the time as investments, for
Dorothy Kremser-Stoddard's summer home was located on Lot 25 on Stanley Circle in Estes
Park's Little Prospect Subdivision. All of the Kremser-Stoddard lots in Stanley Heights were
subsequently sold. Ironically, Lot 28, the lot that has since occasioned so much controversy,
was never built on. It has since been combined with Lots 27 and 29.
19. However regrettable and offensive by the standards of our time, the racial restriction put in
place by the International Trust Company was considered to be among the best real estate
___________________
7
5. While Hall served as Administrator of the Stanley Estate, the legal work on behalf of the Stanley heirs was handled by W.
Clayton Carpenter and Thomas Keeley of the Denver law firm of Hughes & Dorsey. Though not the largest in the city, Hughes &
Dorsey was considered the so-called "Dean" of Denver's elite Seventeenth Street law firms. It handled legal work for both the
International Trust Company and Denver's First National Bank and was conveniently officed on the third floor of the
International Trust Company Building. Both of its principals, Clayton O. Dorsey and Gerald Hughes were sons of United States
Senators and the firm itself was considered a force to be reckoned with in Colorado business and political circles.
practices of the day both in Colorado and across the United States. Such racial restrictions are
found on the property deeds of several Estes Park subdivisions in addition to those originally
attached to deeds in Stanley Heights.6
Reduced to writing, such restrictions were subtle and made to seem eminently reasonable.
Consider, for example, Article 34 of the "Code of Ethics" published by the National Institute of
Real Estate Brokers of the National Association of Real Estate Boards in its Real Estate
Salesman's Handbook, Second Revised Edition (Chicago 1954). It reads as follows under Part III,
Page 25 ("Relations to Customers and the Public"): "Protector of Neighborhood Values. A
Realtor should never be instrumental in introducing into a neighborhood a character of
property or occupancy, members of any race or nationality, or any individuals whose presence
will clearly be detrimental to property values of that neighborhood."
20. Though none should be needed, there is additional exculpatory evidence. Stanley had
begun selling off his Estes Park holdings as early as 1913, and, as the agreement with the
MacDonalds indicates, continued to do so until the eve of his death. There are literally scores
of surviving deeds, including those for the 43 transactions negotiated on Stanley's behalf by
Charles Byron Hall between 1937 and 1940. Very few of these carry restrictions; none are of a
racial nature.
21. At the time of his death, F. O. Stanley still owned some 14 lots in the Little Prospect
Mountain Subdivision, the area surrounding today's Stanley Circle. This subdivision of single
family homes, though smaller in lot size, is not unlike Stanley Heights. First platted on August
11, 1927, its 40 lots were created out of a 107-acre tract of land that had originally belonged to
Stanley. The original platting and the initial sale of lots was, however, the work of an entity
called the Stanley Corporation, a syndicate of investors that included George Frederick Bond of
Estes Park, the younger son of another Estes Park icon, Town founder Cornelius H. Bond. The
previous year the Stanley Corporation had agreed to pay F. O. Stanley $800,000 for all his Estes
Park holdings. These included not only the Stanley Hotel, but the Stanley power plant on Fall
River and the undeveloped land on Little Prospect Mountain. In 1930, after the Stanley
Corporation defaulted on its obligations, Stanley successfully went to court and regained title to
all his properties, including the lots on Little Prospect. These lots were re-platted by Stanley on
July 26, 1937. (See LCCR, Book 5, Page 29).
One of those lots, Lot 17, had been sold on July 12, 1937 to Charles Byron Hall, the contract to
which, like the one on the lot sold to the MacDonalds, remained outstanding at the time of
Stanley's death. The "Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Property," signed by both Stanley
and Hall, is included in the Stanley Estate Papers (Page 159). It contains seven terms and
conditions that Stanley himself had imposed upon the sale: (1) "that said premises herein
8
conveyed shall not be used for any commercial purposes whatsoever; (2) that not more than
one house shall be erected on each acre or portion thereof; (3) that the said house shall have a
______________
6. The original covenants and restrictions on Stanley Heights properties were replaced by a new set without a racial covenant
on August 17, 1961. See LCCR, Book 1148, Pages 101-110.
cement or stone foundation and shall have an exterior of logs, log siding, shingles or stone and
of shingles or composition roofing; (4) that only brick or stone chimneys shall be used therein;
(5) that the said house shall be equipped with sanitary plumbing; (6) that there shall not be
more than one garage for each house and said garage shall conform with the construction of
the house; (7) that there shall be no other outbuildings whatsoever." All of these conditions
have to do with the buildings to be erected.7 Nothing is said about owners themselves, let
alone the imposition of a restriction based on race. These exact same conditions are found on
the deed for a portion of Lot 21, which Stanley sold to Steve and Nellie Orlasky on June 24,
1938 and on the deed for a portion of Lot 20 that Stanley sold to Eddie Stokes on June 30, 1938.
(See LCCR, Book 670, Page 401 and Book 680, Page 277). A search of the deeds to properties in
the Little Prospect Mountain Subdivision, it should be added, has failed to reveal any carrying
racial covenants.8
22. Summary and Conclusion: Given what we know about his scores of land transactions in
Estes Park over three decades, the idea that F. O. Stanley, weeks before his death, should
instruct his agent, Charles Byron Hall, to impose a racial covenant on the sale of a lot to a local
celebrity and her husband is on the face of it absurd. Especially so when the lot in question was
located in a "proposed" subdivision that had yet to be legally platted. Yet this is precisely the
claim that has been made and repeated.
What the evidence shows is that the racial covenant found on the deed of the MacDonalds'
Stanley Heights lot was not the creation of F. O. Stanley. Rather, it was imposed by the
International Investment Company of Denver, acting under the broad authority granted to it in
July 1941 by Stanley's heirs--a full nine months after F. O. Stanley's death. It was the
International Investment Company that having "caused . . . [the] real estate to be designated as
'Stanley Heights,' and to be surveyed and divided into streets," "did adopt and declare the
restrictions, covenants, conditions, and easements" on the lots "heretofore sold and conveyed .
. . in said 'Stanley Heights.'" One of these "restrictions, convents, [and] conditions" was a
racially restrictive one.
It is our hope that the evidence offered here is sufficient to counter once and for all the
unfortunate public accusation that Freelan Oscar Stanley imposed "racially-restrictive
covenants on his property." F. O. Stanley's well-documented generosity to the Town of Estes
Park, the community which he adopted and served, is without parallel. His legacy is one that
deserves only our admiration and praise.
__________
7. Interesting to note is the fact that Hall's Petition for Specific Performance with the Macdonalds with respect to Lot 28 in
Stanley Heights and Hall's Petition for Specific Performance with respect to his own Lot 17 on Little Prospect are found together
9
in the Stanley Estate Papers (Pages 173-189). Attached to the former are the six conditions imposed by the International
Investment Company, to the latter the seven imposed by F.O. Stanley himself. The comparison is a stark one.
8. See, for example, F. O. Stanley's December 8, 1936 deed to Ralph and Ruth Pettit for Lot 19, and F. O. Stanley's November
25, 1937 deed to Della Snell for Lots 1 and 2. LCCR, Book 670, Page 174 and Book 639, Page 490.
Copies provided to:
Todd Jirsa, Mayor of Estes Park
Frank Lancaster, Estes Park Town Administrator
Derek Fortini, Director, Estes Park Museum
Tom Shamburg, President & CEO, Historic Stanley Home Foundation
John Cullen, Stanley Archives, The Stanley Hotel