HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2021-01-12
January 12, 2021
5:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.
Board Room/Virtual
The Town Board of Trustees will participate in the meeting remotely due to the Declaration of
Emergency signed by Town Administrator Machalek on March 19, 2020 related to COVID-19 and
provided for with the adoption of Ordinance 04-20 on March 18, 2020.
To view or listen to the Study Session by Zoom Webinar
ONLINE (Zoom Webinar): https://zoom.us/j/92649678441 Webinar ID: 926 4967 8441
CALL-IN (Telephone Option): 833-548-0276 (toll-free) Meeting ID: 926 4967 8441
5:30 p.m. Stormwater Next Steps.
(Floodplain Administrator Waters & Manager Hook)
6:15 p.m. Trustee & Administrator Comments & Questions.
6:25 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items.
(Board Discussion)
6:30 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting.
Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this
meeting at approximately 5:00 p.m.
AGENDA
TOWN BOARD
STUDY SESSION
Page 1
Page 2
PUBLIC WORKS Report
To: Honorable Mayor Koenig
Board of Trustees
Through: Town Administrator Machalek
From: David Hook, PE, Engineering Manager
Jennifer Waters, EIT, CFM, Floodplain Manager
Date: January 12, 2021
RE: Stormwater Master Plan Implementation Concepts
Objective:
Reintroduce concepts related to implementation of the Board-adopted Stormwater
Master Plan. This presentation includes information about the plan, examples of
stormwater facilities in the community, a history of efforts to establish a stormwater
utility in 2018-19, and a request for selection of next steps to be undertaken in support
of implementation.
Present Situation:
Since 2017, infrastructure objectives addressing flood mitigation and funding needs
have existed in the Town’s Strategic Plan. The Estes Valley Stormwater Management
Project, completed in 2018, consists of a Stormwater Master Plan (SMP) and the
Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study (SUFS). The SMP defines the magnitude of the
system-wide deficiencies and the associated projects to remedy them. Maintenance,
equipment, and funding are insufficient to respond to the stormwater damage
complaints received each year by the Public Works (PW) Department. Therefore, the
funding sources described in the SUFS are needed.
During the year following the submittal of the final SMP and SUFS, the Town and
Larimer County Commissioners (LCC) engaged in public outreach and studied the
merits of different cost models to fund the recommended infrastructure improvements. A
funding proposal based on impervious area for Estes Valley parcels was determined
through a GIS study, and estimated monthly utility costs were mailed to all landowners.
On May 15, 2019, at a joint meeting between the TB and LCC, officials decided to table
further consideration of a stormwater utility until the results of grant applications for
major projects played out. PW submitted two grant applications, in 2018 and 2019, for a
proposed project in the Plan. Neither application was awarded.
Proposal:
PW staff are providing the Town Board with this update and asking for input on next
steps to evaluate implementation of the SMP through Utility funding. Staff request
guidance on which funding options (with cost and revenue models), if any, should be Page 3
researched and updated for presentation at a future TB Study Session. Utility funding
options requiring updated research include user assessments, impact fees, and sales
tax revenue.
Advantages:
• Evaluating implementation options for a stormwater utility would fulfill objective
5.B in the Strategic Plan.
• Implementing the SMP using utility proceeds would potentially enhance efforts to
secure the grant funding being pursued to fulfill objective 5.A.1 in the Strategic
Plan.
• Implementing the SMP using utility proceeds would fulfill objective 5.A in the
Strategic Plan by reducing flood risk and increasing public safety due to drainage
system improvements.
• Achieving Strategic Plan Objective 5 to pursue the implementation of the
Stormwater Master Plan would be realized by funding the Plan.
• Supporting the Board-adopted SMP by actually implementing it would be a step
toward making this community more resilient.
Disadvantages:
• Fees and increased taxes are inherently controversial.
• Public education campaigns are challenging, especially during the present
pandemic crisis.
• Revisiting a proposed stormwater utility will require investment of staff time which
will divert work effort available for other work demands.
Action Recommended:
PW recommends that the Board affirm its desire to fulfill Strategic Plan objective 5.B by
considering utility funding options at a series of future Study Sessions during 2021.
Finance/Resource Impact:
None at this time.
Level of Public Interest
Based on previous citizen input, the expectation is for moderate public interest.
Attachments:
1. Stormwater Master Plan (May 16, 2018) – Executive Summary
2. Town Board Report (May 15, 2019)
3. Slide presentation
Page 4
Town of Estes Park FINAL-Revised
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project Volume I. Stormwater Master Plan
ES.1 May 16, 2018
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE
The purpose of the Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project (the Project) is to produce an
implementable Stormwater Master Plan (SWMP, the Plan) and to perform a Stormwater Utility Feasibility
Study (SUFS, the Study). The SWMP is provided in this Volume I while the SUFS documentation is provided in
Volume II.
The SWMP identifies flood hazard locations and addresses the drainage and flood control needs in the Estes
Valley. The plan is a flexible-living road map of the drainage and flood control needs of the Upper Big
Thompson River Basin that will be an easily updated in response to future: development, drainage problems,
and updated modeling techniques. The comprehensive storm drainage master plan identifies and prioritizes
capital improvement projects to mitigate flood hazards, improve public health and safety, reduce flood losses
and improve the quality of storm runoff entering the Big Thompson River, as well as assisting and guiding
development within the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) Boundary. Ultimately the goals of the Project
and specifically the stormwater master plan are: a) identify the most economical and optimal system of
drainage improvements; b) maximizing the flood mitigation and water quality enhancements; and c)
developing improvements that are constructible.
The plan identifies a minor drainage system that will be evaluated for at least 10 Percent Annual Chance (PAC)
discharges and a major system will be able to convey the 1 Percent Annual Chance discharge. The major
drainage system is defined along the primary drainages of Dry Gulch, Black Canyon Creek, Fall River, Upper
Big Thompson River, and Fish Creek. Major drainage system improvements on these flooding sources will
focus on protecting existing and future road crossings and other major infrastructure and property located
within the 1 Percent Annual Chance floodplain. To the maximum extent possible the planning and design of
drainage improvements will be coordinated with and integrated into the use of open spaces, right of ways,
drainage tracts, and easements to develop environmentally sound and resilient drainage hydraulic designs.
PLANNING PROCESS
The scope of work followed during the stormwater master planning process included the tasks described
below:
1.Project Management and Coordination. This task included scoping meetings and coordination
meetings to discuss project status, overall direction of the project and promote the exchange of
information.
2.Technical Analyses. A detailed review of all available reports, mapping and data pertinent to the
planning efforts was conducted. Base mapping was prepared. In conjunction with the collection and
review of available data, field reconnaissance were conducted to further define and verify locations
of existing drainage or flooding problems and formulate plans for conceptual improvements at these
locations. Select existing facilities were hydraulically evaluated. The Town’s current drainage criteria
(Larimer County’s/UDFCD’s stormwater manuals) were reviewed for the purposes of the SWMP.
3.Capital Improvement Program. A GIS database was developed and populated to inventory and assess
the condition of the Town’s surface water collection system. Concept level improvements were
developed to bring existing facilities that are deficient, and any future needed stormwater facilities,
into compliance with drainage criteria. Cost estimates for the improvements and an implementation
plan were developed. Maps were prepared showing the location of the proposed improvements. If
detailed data was not available to support the development of potential improvements in specific
individual basins or drainageways; recommendations were provided for further in-depth study in
those areas.
4.Regulatory Recommendations and Planning Coordination. A review of the Town’s drainage
protocols and the Estes Valley Development Code related to stormwater management was
performed. Information from the reviews and Larimer County, Urban Drainage and Flood Control
District, and Colorado Floodplain and Stormwater design and construction standards, guidelines,
practices were utilized to develop evaluation and concept design criteria for the Estes Valley SWMP.
5.Stormwater Master Plan. The results of the Estes Valley master planning efforts are summarized in
this master plan document. Recommended improvements were developed using conceptual
sketches and cost estimates. Documentation in the form of technical appendices and a project
notebook are provided. The master planning products including the report, appendices, and GIS
database are provided in electronic formats.
6.Public Outreach. Public outreach was performed in support of obtaining buy-in from various
stakeholder groups (including Larimer County Board of County Commissions and Engineering
Department), Town Board, and the public. A public kickoff meeting and status update meetings with
Town Board of Trustees were held. Numerous other contacts were made with stakeholder groups
and the public during field reconnaissance visits.
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 5
Town of Estes Park FINAL-Revised
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project Volume I. Stormwater Master Plan
ES.2 May 16, 2018
The Estes Valley Stormwater Master Plan was prepared in cooperation with the Town of Estes Park and
Larimer County. Representatives involved with the current study are listed below in Table ES.1.
Table ES.1 Project Participants.
Name Representing Assignment
Greg Muhonen, P.E. Town of Estes Park Public Works Director
David Hook, P.E. Town of Estes Park Engineering Manager
Kevin Ash, P.E. Town of Estes Park Engineering Manager (former)
Justin Kearney Town of Estes Park Streets Supervisor
Tina Kurtz, CFM Town of Estes Park Planner III/Floodplain Administrator
(former)
Megan Van Hoozer Town of Estes Park Administrative Assistant
Jill Fisher InVision GIS/Town of Estes Park GIS Contractor
Christy Crosser &
Sam Phillips Town of Estes Park Flood Recovery Grant
Administration
Tim Katers State of Colorado
Department of Local Affairs
CDBG-DR Resilience Planning
Program Manager
Mark Peterson, P.E., CFM Larimer County County Engineer
Traci Shambo Larimer County MS4 Coordinator
Eric Tracy, P.E., CFM Larimer County Stormwater Engineer
Chris Pauley, P.E., CFM Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. Senior Project Manager
Jason Albert, P.E. Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. Senior Engineer
Brian Thompson Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. Senior GIS Analyst
Ben Ackert Anderson Consulting Engineers, Inc. Senior GIS Analyst
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
The Town of Estes Park is surrounded by: a) unincorporated Larimer County; b) Rocky Mountain National Park;
and c) the Roosevelt National Forest. Figure ES.1 shows the Town of Estes Park’s boundary and its relationship
to the Estes Valley Development Code Boundary and the five major drainage basin boundaries. The Vicinity
Map in Figure ES.2 shows the five major drainage basins in relation to the Town of Estes’s Boundary
HYDROLOGY
Peak discharges for the SWMP were obtained from two previously completed hydrologic analyses:
1. Fish Creek Hydrology Report, Matrix Design Group, Inc. (MDG), August 21, 2014; and
2. Hydrologic Analysis of Fall River, Upper Big Thompson River, Black Canyon Creek & Dry Gulch,
Estes Park, Colorado, Wright Water Engineers, Inc. (WWE), January 25, 2017.
The previously completed hydrologic analyses were developed utilizing post 2013 Flood: data, procedures,
and hydrology models to represent the existing conditions in the five watersheds contributing runoff to the
EVDC boundary. Table ES.2 reports hydrologic modeling results from the previous studies at select locations.
The available hydrologic modeling results were utilized to evaluate capacity of existing facilities inventoried
during the Estes Valley SWMP. Results were also used to develop concept designs for improvements to
existing facilities and development of new drainage facilities. Future landuse was reviewed; however, it was
estimated that less than 4% of the total land area within the Estes Valley’s watersheds is available for future
development and most of that development will occur at the bottom of the watersheds. Therefore, it was
concluded that future development in the valley will have negligible impact on the peak discharges presented
in Table ES.2
Page 6
Town of Estes Park FINAL-Revised
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project Volume I. Stormwater Master Plan
ES.3 May 16, 2018
Figure ES.1 Major Drainage Basin Boundaries and the Estes Valley Development Code Boundary.
Page 7
Town of Estes Park FINAL-Revised
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project Volume I. Stormwater Master Plan
ES.4 May 16, 2018
Page 8
Town of Estes Park FINAL-Revised
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project Volume I. Stormwater Master Plan
ES.5 May 16, 2018
Figure ES.2 Vicinity Map.
Page 9
Town of Estes Park FINAL-Revised
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project Volume I. Stormwater Master Plan
ES.6 May 16, 2018
Table ES.2 Estes Valley Major Drainageway Peak Discharges [WWE 2017 & MDG 2014].
Location
HEC-HMS
Model
Element
Drainage
Area Peak Discharges (cfs)
(sq.mi.) 50-PAC 20-PAC 10-PAC 4-PAC 2-PAC 1-PAC 0.5-PAC
Dry Gulch [WWE 2017]
Confluence with Big Thompson River downstream of Lake Estes 1 6.3 40 70 100 150 415 715 1,580
Approx. 500 feet upstream of Dry Gulch Road & N Lake Avenue 2 --- 35 65 95 145 400 685 1,510
Approx. 400 feet downstream of Dry Gulch Road & Wildfire Road 3 --- 35 65 90 140 380 655 1,450
Dry Gulch Road Crossing just upstream of Stone Gate Drive 8_10 --- 30 50 70 110 305 525 1,160
Dry Gulch Road & Little Beaver Drive 16 --- 30 50 70 110 305 525 550
Dry Gulch Road & Eagle Rock Drive 17 --- 10 20 25 40 110 190 420
Black Canyon Creek [WWE 2017]
Confluence with Upper Big Thompson River 1 10.0 65 120 170 265 285 310 910
Approximately 800 feet Upstream of W. Wonderview Avenue 2 --- 65 115 170 255 280 305 890
Near MacGregor Avenue & Evergreen Lane 3 --- 65 115 165 255 275 300 875
Upstream of Devils Gulch Road 3NE --- 60 110 160 240 265 285 835
Fall River [WWE 2017]
Confluence with Upper Big Thompson River 1 ~40.0 260 465 665 1,020 1,370 1,860 3,370
Between W Elkhorn Avenue and Filbey Court 2 --- 260 465 665 1,020 1,370 1,860 3,360
Approx. 200 feet Downstream of Old Ranger Dr 3 --- 260 460 660 1,010 1,360 1,850 3,350
Approx. 260 feet Upstream of Fall River Lane bridge 4 39.4 255 460 660 1,010 1,360 1,840 3,330
At Fish Hatchery Road 20_21_23 --- 225 405 580 890 1,200 1,650 2,950
Approx. 900 feet Downstream of Cascade Cottages 24 --- 205 370 530 815 1,090 1,490 2,690
Upper Big Thompson River [WWE 2017]
At Visitors Center (downstream of Black Canyon Creek) N/A ~137.0 995 1,390 1,660 2,000 2,600 3,010 3,870
Downstream of Confluence with Fall River N/A ~127.0 995 1,390 1,660 2,000 2,600 3,010 3,870
Upstream of Confluence with Fall River 1_2 ~87.0 735 925 995 1,200 1,400 2,170 3,700
Moccasin Street 3_4 --- 735 925 995 1,200 1,400 2,170 3,690
Near Fun City 5_6 --- 735 925 995 1,200 1,400 2,160 3,690
Pine River Lane 7_8 --- 730 920 990 1,200 1,390 2,160 3,690
Riverside Drive & Turquoise Trail 11_12 --- 730 920 985 1,190 1,390 2,150 3,670
At WorldMark Estes Park 15_16 --- 725 915 985 1,190 1,380 2,150 3,660
Mary’s Lake Road 22_26 --- 715 895 965 1,160 1,360 2,100 3,590
Fish Creek [MDG 2014]
At Lake Estes n/a 15.9 23 --- 181 --- 651 990 ---
Downstream of Powelly Lane n/a --- 22 --- 177 --- 637 970 ---
Upstream of Johnsen Lane n/a --- 20 --- 154 --- 568 870 ---
Upstream of Scott Avenue n/a --- 18 --- 141 --- 515 786 ---
Upstream of Little Valley Road n/a --- 14 --- 58 --- 266 426 ---
Upstream of Rockwood Lane n/a --- 10 --- 23 --- 111 178 ---
Page 10
Town of Estes Park FINAL-Revised
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project Volume I. Stormwater Master Plan
ES.6 May 16, 2018
HYDRAULICS
The inventory of existing stormwater facilities was performed within the Estes Valley Development Code
Boundary (EVDC). Due to the extensive and numerous nature of stormwater facilities located in the Estes
Valley, the inventory of stormwater facilities was performed on a priority bases as described in Table ES.3.
Table ES.3 Priority Focus of Stormwater Inventory.
Hydraulic evaluations were performed to determine the flow capacity of each primary facility inventoried.
Hydrologic modeling results in Table ES.2 were utilized to identify which facilities and crossings may expose
the public to flooding hazards and property to flood damages.
ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
A community wide alternative analysis was not performed for the Town of Estes Park’s inaugural SWMP.
Community wide alternatives to address stormwater capacity issues could focus on: a) local detention and/or
over-detention requirements on new developments; and b) large regional storm drain and channel systems
in attempts to reduce the magnitude and control the passage of large watershed flows. Given the steepness
and size of the watershed areas located outside the EVDC Boundary driving the peak discharges through Town,
combined with the limited amount of new development potential relative to the overall size of the
watersheds; discharge reducing solutions applicable across the whole valley were not deemed practical.
Therefore, the development of improvements focused on solutions along the streams and at site specific
locations.
MASTER PLAN
Description of Drainage Improvements
The two general types of major stormwater drainage improvements that were the focus of this initial
stormwater master planning effort in the Estes Valley were crossing structures and conveyance channels.
Capacities of existing facilities were evaluated, and the deficient major stream crossing facilities were noted.
Many of the recommended major improvements are new or enlarged drainage structures that will safely
convey stormwater flows to established or proposed stormwater facilities. The locations of proposed major
improvements are shown on Figure ES.3. While not shown on Figure ES.3, consideration was given to the
Estes Valley’s needs for minor and local drainage improvements which are numerous and widely scattered
across the valley. It is estimated that as many as 600 minor improvements are needed. These typically minor
projects are accounted for in the stormwater planning process, but specific improvements were not
developed on an individual basis.
Dry Gulch
No major improvements were required along the major drainageway in the Dry Gulch Watershed. However,
isolated non-specific local improvements (e.g. local street/channel culvert replacements, etc.) are provided
for in the Dry Gulch Watershed. As development occurs in the watershed additional consideration maybe
needed along the minor drainageways and along recreation trail corridors (e.g. the informal trail crossing
south/downstream of U.S. 34 may need to be formalized).
Black Canyon Creek
In the Black Canyon Creek Watershed, a major storm drain improvement is proposed to carry flows around
Town Hall/Library building, through the library parking lot, past several downtown businesses, and under East
Elkhorn Avenue. The existing facilities have minimal capacity to convey large discharges around existing
buildings resulting in costly damages during previous flood events.
Priority
Focus
Crossings Over Drainageways Other Drainage Facilities Crossing Type Drainageway Type
Primary
Arterials/Collectors Major
Arterials/Collectors Secondary
Local/Pedestrian Major
Secondary Local/Pedestrian Secondary Storm Sewers Downtown
Tertiary
Local/Pedestrian Others Storm Sewers Located
Outside of Downtown
Driveways, Privately Owned if
Access Permitted All Detention Ponds
All Swales, Roadside
Ditches, etc.
Page 11
Town of Estes Park FINAL-Revised
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project Volume I. Stormwater Master Plan
ES.7 May 16, 2018
Figure ES.3 Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project Improvement Overview.
Page 12
Town of Estes Park FINAL-Revised
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project Volume I. Stormwater Master Plan
ES.8 May 16, 2018
MASTER PLAN (Continued)
Description of Drainage Improvements (Continued)
Fall River
Major improvements to channels and crossing structures are proposed in the downtown area along the Fall
River from the Big Thompson River confluence to the upper West Elkhorn Avenue crossing. Crossing structure
improvements are also identified on the Fall River upstream of the downtown area as shown on Figure ES.3.
Fall River improvements from the confluence to West Elkhorn at the Water Wheel will generally need to be
constructed in a downstream to upstream order due to the potential alteration of the 1-PAC flow splits along
this reach of Fall River that could adversely impact insurable structures. The improvements were developed
assuming a fully consolidated Fall River 1-PAC discharge. The potential to enhance habitat and aesthetic
characteristics of this reach of Fall River should be pursued however due to the presence of existing
infrastructure constraints opportunities maybe limited.
Fall River improvements upstream of the downtown area were primarily selected to promote emergency
access during large flood events for residence and businesses located on the south side of the river.
Big Thompson River
Major improvements to channels and crossing structures are proposed in the downtown area along the Upper
Big Thompson River from U.S.36/St. Vrain Avenue to Crags Drive. These improvement projects will be
developed in conjunction with other transportation, recreation, and river restoration planning studies and
improvements to develop a resilient stream system. Improvements include: a) stream restoration between
U.S.36/St. Vrain Avenue and Riverside Drive, b) bridge enlargements and channel improvements at Riverside
Drive and Rockwell Drive; and c) bridge enlargement at Crags Drive.
Fish Creek
No improvements are currently proposed along the major drainageway in the Fish Creek Watershed as the
channel and the major crossing structures were restored during a post 2013 Flood Public Infrastructure
Project. However, numerous maintenance issues and several local drainage improvement projects have been
identified in the Fish Creek Basin such as: a) the High School Outfall, b) Brodie Avenue storm drain, c) Matthew
Circle Outfall, and d) Brook Drive storm drain.
Conceptual Improvements Cost Estimates
Costs estimates (in 2017 dollars) were developed for the proposed improvements and provide the basis for
the opinion of costs generated for the comprehensive projects in the Estes Valley. Data utilized to develop
unit costs were obtained from recent (generally 2014 to 2017) bid tabulations, quotations from various
suppliers and manufacturers, and information supplied by local contractors, and the Town of Estes Park. The
proposed project’s total concept cost estimates for master drainage planning included: (a) the base
construction cost for the drainage infrastructure; (b) general construction cost items; (c) a construction cost
contingency; (d) engineering, permitting, legal, fiscal and administrative costs; and (e) property acquisition
costs.
The cost estimates for the recommended basin improvement projects are summarized in Table ES.4. It was
assumed for planning purposes, that approximately one-half of the potential 600 local stormwater issues (350
total) would be addressed in the initial planning cycle of 20-30 years at an average cost of $50,000 to address
each issue.
To promote the construction of the drainage improvements as funding becomes available; implementation
priorities are established, and an implementation plan was developed. The basin specific prioritization and
phasing is provided here while the community wide stormwater program priorities are summarized in
Table ES.4.
The implementation and phasing of the drainage improvements are dependent on several factors. The factors
described below were utilized to establish the priority for the master implementation plan of the
improvements:
Improvements that reduced the health and safety hazards to the public and vehicular traffic were
considered the highest priority. For example, crossings of downtown street, State Highways, major
arterials a high priority as well as those areas where potential flooding occurs in highly urbanized areas.
Improvements to areas likely to incur the most flood damages were the next highest priority.
Construction phasing of adjacent improvements was also considered. For example, improving a culvert
crossing may significantly reduce flood damage upstream of the crossing; however, the downstream
channel must be improved in conjunction with the roadway crossing to prevent an increase in flood
damages on downstream property.
Additionally, given the numerous volume of relatively minor storm drainage problems scattered across
the valley, and the assumption that 350 of the issues would be address during the initial planning cycle
the prioritization plan assumed 50 Priority No. 1s, 100 Priority No.2s, and 200 Priority No.3s.
Results of the implementation planning efforts are presented in Table ES.4. It should be noted that this is a
recommended implementation plan and that the actual implementation will occur based on a host of other
factors, the least of which is the availability of funding. The amount and timing of funding will be a major
factor in the actual implementation of the master planned drainage improvements. A discussion of the
financial implementation scenarios for the improvements is provided in the Stormwater Utility Feasibility
Study.
Page 13
Town of Estes Park FINAL-Revised
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project Volume I. Stormwater Master Plan
ES.9 May 16, 2018
Table ES.4 Summary of Stormwater Drainage Improvement Priorities. MASTER PLAN (Continued)
Operation and Maintenance
All infrastructure in the Estes Valley’s storm drainage infrastructure portfolio will require regular maintenance
to ensure optimal performance of the facilities over time. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs were not
specifically evaluated for each proposed improvement during the stormwater master planning process.
However, it is recommended that O&M costs be incorporated into a holistic Stormwater Management
Program for the Estes Valley.
In general, O&M requirements should at a minimum consist of:
Inspecting and cleaning storm drains, inlets, and outlets.
Inspecting, cleaning, and mowing regional detention and water quality facilities and their associated
appurtenant structures.
Enforcing the inspecting, cleaning, and mowing of local/neighborhood detention/water quality facilities
and stormwater channels/structures.
Inspecting, cleaning, and generally maintaining master planned regional stormwater channels and
associated appurtenant structures including culverts and bridges.
Operation and maintenance requirements will be refined and customized to site specific issues upon standing
up a Stormwater Management Program in the EVDC boundary.
Priority SWMP Reach-Item Description
2017
Conceptual
Cost
Estimate
Notes
PRIORITY NO. 1 FR-004-01 Fall River Lane Bridge $1,630,000
BT-008-01 BTR Improvements: Upstream U.S.36/St.Vrain Ave. to Downstream
Riverside $11,900,000
BT-007-02 BTR Improvements: Riverside Bridge Replacement $5,240,000
FR-006-08 Fall River Improvements: Confluence to West End Parking Lot $1,420,000
FR-006-07 Fall River Improvements: W. End Parking Lot to Downstream of
Moraine $1,440,000
FR-006-06 Fall River Improvements: Upstream Moraine to Upstream Wiest $4,000,000
FR-006-05 Fall River Improvements: Upstream Wiest to Upstream Elkhorn $8,530,000
FR-006-04 Fall River Improvements: Upstream Elkhorn to Upstream Spruce $3,300,000
FC-005-01 Brook Drive storm drain $121,000
BT-007-02 BTR Improvements: Rockwell Bridge Replacement $4,090,000
Additional Local Drainage & Site/Property Specific Improvements $2,500,000 50 Assumed at $50,000
each
PRIORITY 1 SUBTOTAL = $44,171,000
PRIORITY NO. 2 BC-001-01 Town Hall Improvements: MacGregor to Elkhorn $3,250,000
FC-007-01 High School: Outfall Channel Improvements $40,000
FC-007-02 Matthew Circle: Outfall Improvements $62,000
FR-005-01 Old Ranger Road: Channel & storm drain $1,030,000
BT-010-01 Prospect Road: Drainage Improvements $100,000
Estimated. Improvement
and cost sheets not
prepared.
BT-007-02 Crags Drive Bridge Replacement $4,500,000
FR-006-03 Fall River Improvements: Upstream Spruce to Downstream Murphy's $2,790,000
FR-006-02 Fall River Improvements: Downstream Murphy's to Downstream
Filby $1,350,000
FR-006-01 Fall River Improvements: Downstream Filby to Upstream Elkhorn $5,140,000
Additional Local Drainage & Site/Property Specific Improvements $5,000,000 100 Assumed at $50,000
each
PRIORITY 2 SUBTOTAL = $23,262,000
PRIORITY NO. 3 FR-001-01 Fish Hatchery Road Bridge (Downstream One) $1,630,000
Additional Local Drainage & Site/Property Specific Improvements $10,000,000 200 Assumed at $50,000
each
PRIORITY 3 SUBTOTAL = $11,630,000
TOTALS = $79,063,000
Page 14
Page 1 of 5
PUBLIC WORKS Report
To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa
Board of Trustees
Board of County Commissioners
Through: Town Administrator Lancaster
From:Greg Muhonen, PE, Estes Park Public Works Director
Mark Peterson, PE, Larimer County Engineer
Date:May 15, 2019
RE:Proposed Stormwater Management Program Public Feedback
Objective:
Discuss with the Town Board and County Commissioners the public input received
during the April 2019 survey period and options for future action regarding the formation
of a Stormwater Management Program and utility to serve the Estes Valley.
Present Situation:
In 2013 the Town experienced extensive flooding which prompted pursuit of state grant
funding to use current technological tools and stream gauge records to update the
regulatory peak discharges used by FEMA for flood insurance purposes (mapping).
This hydrologic analysis was completed in 2016. These flows are currently being used
by FEMA to redefine new floodplain maps for the Estes Valley.
In 2016 the Town received a grant to fund the development of a Stormwater Master
Plan (SMP) and used local funds for a companion Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study.
The SMP was completed and presented to the public in 2018. The SMP identified
projects estimated to cost $62 million to contain the forecasted 0.1% probability flood
flows nearer to the river channels and reduce the new floodplain limits closer to the pre-
2013 conditions. Another $17 million was proposed to address an estimated 350
neighborhood flooding problems.
In 2017 thru 2019 the Town Board’s Strategic Plan directed staff to pursue projects and
funding to reduce flood risk and flood insurance cost for properties in the Estes Valley,
implement the recommendations of the SMP, and pursue funding for flood mitigation
projects. These are the objectives of implementing a formal Stormwater Management
Program in the Estes Valley. The replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge is an
example of progress on these goals.
Grants alone are insufficient to complete projects that will meaningfully reduce the new
draft floodplains proposed by FEMA. Eligibility for future grant revenue is dependent
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 15
Page 2 of 5
upon inclusion of local matching funds. The consultant and staff modeled a variety of
funding strategies containing different combinations of new stormwater user fees, sales
tax revenue, and grant funding. These revenue options were presented to the public in
open houses, surveys, individual meetings, and study sessions with the elected officials.
After the February 19, 2019 joint meeting between the Town Board of Trustees and
Board of County Commissioners, staff sent a direct-mailed summary of two user fee
options (no grant revenue and 20% grant revenue) to over 8500 recipients and invited
them to share feedback on the proposed stormwater utility via an online survey. Over
900 respondents provided a broad range of comments and the following feedback:
➢ 63% agree stormwater drainage problems exist.
➢ 70% agree the Town and County should act to address flooding risk.
➢ 52% indicate a user fee of some amount should be part of the program funding
solution. 48% feel the user fees should be zero or less than 5% of the program
costs.
➢ 71% suggest a sales tax should be used to fund 40% to 100% of the program
costs.
➢ 53% of respondents feel grants should pick up more than 20% of the program
cost. 95% feel grants should provide more than 5% of the program revenue.
[Note: additional local match funds (typically 20% -50%) are required in order to
receive grant funding.]
➢ 71% feel their proposed stormwater management fees are too high.
➢ 71% favor funding some type of stormwater utility. 30% indicated a preference to get
started now. 29% say take a different approach such as not moving forward.
Proposal:
There are a variety of different actions available for moving forward. Staff offers four
options for discussion and consideration. The advantages and disadvantages listed
below are representative for discussion purposes, and are not intended to be all-
inclusive.
OPTION 1. Refine the staff recommendation by lowering user fees, increasing
assumed grant contributions, and eliminating tiered user fees. Implement a stormwater
utility funded with a combination of user fees (20%--based on impervious area of
improved parcels), sales tax (50%), and grants (30%) to build all the master planned
improvements ($79 million) over a 30-year period.
Advantages
• Implements the Town Board strategic plan goals.
Page 16
Page 3 of 5
• Respects the input of the majority of survey #2 respondents (52%) that indicate user
fees, sales tax, and grants should all be used to fund a stormwater utility.
• Responds to the feedback that proposed user fees should be reduced.
• Responds to the feedback that proposed residential tiered fees are inequitable and
should be based exclusively on impervious area instead of parcel size.
• Provides funding to address 350 residential drainage problems.
• Generates new revenue that can be leveraged as local match contributions for future
grant funding applications as soon as 2020
• Spreads the funding burden of the stormwater program to a large pool of property
owner, visitor, and federal funding participants.
Disadvantages
• Contains a mandatory user fee for owners of improved parcels within the Estes
Valley Development Code (EVDC) boundary. Some owners argue this is a tax while
the Supreme has ruled otherwise.
• Non-Town residents cannot vote on a proposed sales tax that they would pay when
making purchases at town businesses.
• Modeled sales tax revenue is delayed until an approving public vote occurs.
• Parcels with large impervious area will pay proportionately higher monthly fees.
OPTION 2. Revise the funding source assumptions. Eliminate all user fees and ask
Town voters if they wish to raise sales tax to implement a st ormwater utility funded with
a combination of sales tax (50%), and grants (50%) to build all the master planned
improvements ($79 million inflated to over $150 million) over a 30-year period.
Advantages
• Implements the Town Board strategic plan goals.
• Respects the input of the majority of survey #2 respondents (70%) that indicate the
Town and County have a responsibility to address flooding risk that threatens the
economic vitality of the Estes downtown.
• Respects the survey respondent request to not impleme nt user fees.
• Provides funding to address 350 residential drainage problems.
• Generates new revenue that can be leveraged as local match contributions for future
grant funding applications.
Disadvantages
• No new local match funds available for grant applica tions until a sales tax election
passes.
• Non-Town residents cannot vote on a proposed sales tax that they would pay when
making purchases at town businesses.
• Increased sales taxes could discourage visitation and spending.
OPTION 3. Reduce the program cost by reducing the scope of work to reach a target
revenue cap/objective provided by others. Model different combinations of work scope,
funding, and time of construction to develop a different stormwater management
program.
Page 17
Page 4 of 5
Advantages
• No new fees are implemented in the short term while further study occurs. This
respects the input of the majority of survey #2 respondents (71%) that the proposed
user fees are too high.
Disadvantages
• Delays action and perpetuates uncertainty regarding flood dam age risk. Effort and
funds are directed toward studies instead of mitigative action and resiliency projects.
• New strategic planning objectives and funding are needed from the elected officials
to provide clear and specific direction for studying a different course of action.
• The Town’s eligibility for stormwater mitigation and resiliency grants is severely
reduced while no new revenue is generated for local match contributions.
• Devalues four years of planning to implement the Town Board strategic plan goals to
reduce the number of properties included in the updated floodplain and reduce flood
insurance premiums.
OPTION 4. Take no further action and do not implement a stormwater utility.
Advantages
• No new fees are imposed on property owners or visitors
• Other flood mitigation options could be explored in the future.
Disadvantages
• The Town’s eligibility for stormwater mitigation and resiliency grants is severely
reduced as no new revenue is generated for local match contributions.
• The stormwater masterplan effort delivers no benefit to the community, and
credibility with the grant funding agency is compromised.
• Disrespects four years of planning to implement the Town Board strategic plan goals
• No new revenue is generated to mitigate flooding risk in Estes.
• Disregards the desire of 70% of survey #2 respondents that expect the Town and
County to take action to mitigate flood risk in the Estes Valley.
• Disregards 63% the majority opinion that stormwater drainage problems exist.
Action Recommended:
Staff requests guidance on the preferred next-steps. Do the elected officials want staff
to bring back a draft stormwater ordinance and draft Intergovernmental Agreement
modeled after any of the above options, or take a different action regarding the
formation of a stormwater utility within the Town of Estes Park Public Works
Department?
Finance/Resource Impact:
The implementation of any stormwater management program will require new funding.
The range of values for fee and sales tax revenue can vary widely depending on the
size of the stormwater program, its speed of implementation and preferences on how to
balance revenue generation between user fees, grants and sales tax.
Page 18
Page 5 of 5
Level of Public Interest
The level of public interest is moderate for this program. About 12% of the impacted
property owners have provided input. No input has been solicited from visitors
regarding a potential sales tax.
Attachments:
Page 19
Stormwater Master Plan
Implementation
Objective: Reintroduce Stormwater Master Plan
and Stormwater Utility concepts
Town Board Study Session
January 12, 2021
Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project
On the shelf: Volume I – Stormwater Master Plan (SMP)
Volume II – Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study (SUFS)
On the ground: stormwater infrastructure and facilities
What do we have?
Strategic Plan: Infrastructure Objectives 4 and 5
2018-19: Attempted stormwater utility (events & meetings)
2021: Revisit implementation funding concepts?
What do we want?
How do we get it?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 20
In 2016, the Town received $300,000
from DOLA to fund a stormwater plan
covering the EVDC area. The Town
contributed $30,000 to add a stormwater
utility plan component.
Estes Valley Stormwater Management
Project is issued May 16, 2018:
Volume I – Stormwater Master Plan*
Volume II – Stormwater Utility
Feasibility Study
*Adopted by Town Board on 7/9/19.
History of funding
and expendituresBudget Expense
2013 15,000$ 34,995$
2014 25,000$ 17,412$
2015 -$ -$
2016 5,000$ 1,133$
2017 11,000$ 7,603$
2018 744$ 744$
2019 11,000$ 1,104$
2020 20,896$ -$
-$ COVID
2021 10,256$ -$
Storm Drainage
Page 21
Executive Summary (provided in Study
Session packet).
Table ES. 4:
•Priorities 1, 2, 3
•Total $79M conceptual
•Additional Local Drainage &
Site/Property Specific Improvements
($50,000 each conceptual)
•Subtotal $17.5M for 350 neighborhood
flooding problems
On the shelf:
Volume I – Stormwater Master Plan
Table 1:
•Priorities 1, 2, 3
•Total $79M conceptual
•Local drainage and property-specific
improvements –Ongoing
On the shelf:
Volume II – Stormwater Utility
Feasibility Study
Page 22
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Establish a new Stormwater
Enterprise . . .
2. Enact user fees based primarily upon
their parcel’s impervious area.
3. For the initial years focus upon local,
less expensive projects . . .
4. Track actual revenues . . .
5. Remain vigilant for grant funding . . .
On the shelf:
Volume II – Stormwater Utility
Feasibility Study
•Culverts – damaged, blocked by sediment/debris/trash
•Drainage channels – reduced capacity due to overgrowth, blockage
•Detention basins – private facilities that drain to public channels
•Streets – drainage problems that degrade asphalt and flood private
property
•Bridges – inadequate capacity (span and freeboard)
On the ground:
Like National Parks and National Forests, the Town’s water
distribution system, buildings, and stormwater facilities have
deferred maintenance problems.
Page 23
Questions regarding what do we have?
Next:What do we want?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Infrastructure – We have reliable, efficient, and
up-to-date infrastructure serving our community
and customers.
Town of Estes Park 2021 Strategic Plan
4. We will ensure that our facilities are well-maintained and
meet the needs of Town Departments.
5. We will pursue the implementation of the Stormwater Master Plan.
A. Pursue flood mitigation measures to reduce flood risk and increase public safety, while
minimizing flood insurance costs to the community.
1. Pursue grant funding for private and/or public flood mitigation projects.
B. Evaluate implementation options for a Stormwater Utility for the Estes Valley.
Page 24
2021 Strategic Plan –Infrastructure
4. We will ensure that our facilities are well-maintained and meet the needs of
Town Departments.
•Building facilities and stormwater facilities
should meet the needs of Town
Departments.
•Well-maintained facilities should include
both buildings and drainage system
elements (culverts, basins, channels),
known as stormwater facilities.
2021 Strategic Plan –Infrastructure
4. We will ensure that our facilities are well-maintained and meet the needs of
Town Departments.
Public Works:
•Streets – Crew must react to crises as time
and funds allow.
•Development – New subdivisions required to
submit stormwater maintenance plan.
•Grant applications – Absence of stormwater
maintenance plan are strike against.
The Town’s stormwater facilities are not well-maintained and do not meet the needs of the
Public Works Department or the community.
Page 25
2021 Strategic Plan –Infrastructure
4. We will ensure that our facilities are well-maintained and meet the needs of
Town Departments.
Community:
•Presentation – Town invests in flowers and
holiday lights while trash and poor drainage
situations exist nearby.
•Property – Sustained maintenance of
stormwater facilities reduces risk of flooding
and damage.
The Town’s stormwater facilities are not well-maintained and do not meet the needs of the
Public Works Department or the community.
2021 Strategic Plan –Infrastructure
5. We will pursue the implementation
of the Stormwater Master Plan.
Operation and Maintenance
Inspecting and cleaning :
•Drains, inlets, and outlets.
•Mowing detention and water quality
facilities . . .
•Enforcing the inspecting and
cleaning . . .
•Maintaining regional channels . . .
On the shelf:
Volume I – Stormwater Master Plan
Page 26
2021 Strategic Plan –Infrastructure
5. A. Pursue flood mitigation measures to reduce flood risk and increase public safety,
while minimizing flood insurance costs to the community.
One of FEMA’s basic strategies for hazard
mitigation is:
Prevention – Drainage system maintenance
reduce flood risk and increase public safety
Hazard mitigation: all actions that can be taken to reduce property damage and the threat
to life and public health from flooding.
(FEMA Publication 480)
2021 Strategic Plan –Infrastructure
5. A. Pursue flood mitigation measures to reduce flood risk and increase public safety,
while minimizing flood insurance costs to the community.
*FEMA program for reducing flood insurance
costs in participating communities. Fort Collins is
a CRS community.
minimizing flood insurance costs to the community.
FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS)* gives
credit for flood damage reduction activities.
(FEMA Publication 480)
Page 27
2021 Strategic Plan –Infrastructure
5. A. 1. Pursue grant funding for private and/or public flood mitigation projects.
Another of FEMA’s basic strategies for hazard
mitigation is:
Structural projects – Channel modifications
and enlarging culverts or bridge openings
Hazard mitigation: all actions that can be taken to reduce property damage and the threat
to life and public health from flooding.
(FEMA Publication 480)
(Recent BUILD grant applications attempted
to fund this type of structural project.)
2021 Strategic Plan –Infrastructure
5. B. Evaluate implementation options for a Stormwater Utility for the Estes Valley.
If a Stormwater Utility were actually implemented,
Strategic Plan objectives 5. and 5.A. would be fulfilled.
Implementation: the process of putting a decision or plan into effect; execution.
Page 28
Questions regarding what do we want?
Next:How do we get it?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2019 Strategic Plan –Infrastructure
5. B. Evaluate implementation options for a Stormwater Utility for the Estes Valley.
2009 Estes Park Master Drainage Plan (RG Constulting Engineers)
2016 Town receives funding for development of Stormwater Master Plan (SMP)
2017 Public meeting (May 11) & TB Study Sessions (Aug 8, Oct 10, and Oct 24) to report progress
2/13/2018 TB Report - Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study
5/16/2018 Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project (Volumes I and II)
7/24/2018 TB Report - Stormwater Management Project Update
8/14/2018 TB Report - Stormwater Management Project Update - GIS Measurements of Impervious Area
10/16/2018 Proposed Monthly User Fee Summary
10/23/2018 TB Report - Stormwater Management Project Update - Impervious Area, User Fees and Public Outreach
1/22/2019 Stormwater Management Fee Proposal Comparison
1/22/2019 TB Report - Stormwater Management Project Update
2/15/2019 Program Funding Option Summary
2/19/2019 TB/BCC Report - Proposed Stormwater Management Fees
5/15/2019 TB/BCC Report - Proposed Stormwater Management Program Public Feedback
7/9/2019 TB Memo - Resolution #20-19 to adopt the Estes Valley Stormwater Master Plan
2019 BUILD grant application - 1st try
2020 BUILD grant application - 2nd try
1/12/2021 TB Report - Stormwater Master Plan and Utility Concepts
2021 FEMA mitigation project scoping - grant application
Timeline
Page 29
2018. Three Town Board Study Sessions to discuss a stormwater utility
July 24 – Public outreach and survey results.
August 14 – Contracting for GIS services to
determine impervious area. Work completed for
7280 parcels (4603 in Town).
October 22 & 23 – With completed impervious
area results, further public outreach is proposed
including communicating specific parcel
assessments.
2019. Three Town Board Events (one Study Session and two Joint meetings
with Larimer County Commissioners) to discuss a joint stormwater utility
January 22 – Stormwater Management Fee
Proposal Comparison presented with plans for a
direct mailing to parcel owners.
February 19 – Joint meeting. Program Funding
Option Summary provides cost models.
Guidance from officials determines the model
selected for use in the direct mailing to include a
sample bill and a survey (sent in March).
Page 30
2019. Three Town Board Events (one Study Session and two Joint meetings
with Larimer County Commissioners) to discuss a joint stormwater utility
May 15 – Joint meeting. Results of mailing and
survey sent in March presented. Officials
recommend pursuing federal BUILD grants.
The utility is not approved.
Town Board Report for May 15, 2019 (provided
in Study Session packet):
•Summarizes 2018-19 research and events
•Lists the four options* considered on May 15
*Option 4 is selected by default.
2019. Three Town Board Events (one Study Session and two Joint meetings
with Larimer County Commissioners) to discuss a joint stormwater utility
May 15 – Joint meeting. The official result was Option 4.
Page 31
2019. Adoption of Stormwater Master Plan
July 9 – Town Board adopts the Stormwater
Master Plan. This vote of confidence in the
Plan is beneficial for grant applications.
Changes since 2019.
•IGA between Larimer County and the Town for
the Development Code no longer exists.
•CHAMP draft floodplain maps are regulatory
boundaries due to the new Town floodplain
ordinance adopted in late 2019.
•BUILD grants not awarded after two applications
in 2019 and 2020.
Page 32
2021 Strategic Plan –Infrastructure
5. B. Evaluate implementation options for a Stormwater Utility for the Estes Valley.
Public Works recommends that the Board affirm its
desire to fulfill Strategic Plan objective 5.B. by
considering utility funding options at a series of future
Study Sessions during 2021.
Proposed next steps:
•Confirm partnership with Larimer County again.
•Continue to seek grant funding opportunities.
•Research stormwater enterprises in other
communities.
•Return for more TBSS discussions on stormwater
utility funding options.
Questions and discussion.
Next:Future Study Sessions during 2021?
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 33
Page 34
January 26, 2021
•Commercial Enterprises in
Residential Zones
•Parking Enforcement Municipal
Code Changes
•Review Draft Electric Vehicle
Infrastructure and Readiness
Plan – January 26, 2021
Items Approved – Unscheduled:
•Cameron Peak and East Thompson
Zone Debrief
•Revisit Fee Waiver/Subsidy Policies
•Discussion with County Assessor
regarding Assessment of Vacation
Rentals
•Distributed Energy Discussion
•Reverse Decriminalization of
Municipal Code
•Rooftop Rodeo Financial Overview
•Oral History Program Discussion
Items for Town Board Consideration:
•None.
Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items
January 12, 2021
Page 35
Page 36