Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2021-09-14The 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, September 14, 2021 7:00 p.m. In Person Meeting – Mayor, Trustees, Staff and Public ADVANCED PUBLIC COMMENT By Public Comment Form: Members of the public may provide written public comment on a specific agenda item by completing the Public Comment form found at https://dms.estes.org/forms/TownBoardPublicComment. The form must be submitted by 12:00 p.m., Tuesday, August 24, 2021. All comments will be provided to the Board for consideration during the agenda item and added to the final packet. OPTIONAL REMOTE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION DURING BOARD MEETING Remote options for participation in the meeting will be available by call-in telephone option or online via Zoom Webinar which will be moderated by the Town Clerk’s Office. Instructions are also available at www.estes.org/boardsandmeetings by clicking on “Virtual Town Board Meeting Participation”. Individuals participating in the Zoom session should also watch the meeting through that site, and not via the website, due to the streaming delay and possible audio interference. CALL-IN (TELEPHONE OPTION):877-853-5257 (toll-free) Webinar ID: 982 1690 2040 ONLINE (ZOOM WEBINAR): https://zoom.us/j/98216902040 Webinar ID: 982-1690-2040. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. (Any person desiring to participate, please join the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance). PROCLAMATION CONSTITUTION WEEK. AGENDA APPROVAL. PUBLIC COMMENT. (Please state your name and address). TOWN BOARD COMMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. 1. POLICY GOVERNANCE MONITORING REPORT - POLICY 3.8. Board Policy 2.3 establishing reporting requirements for the Town Administrator under Policy Governance. Policy 3.8 is reported on each September. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills. 2. Town Board Minutes dated August 24, 2021 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated August 24, 2021. 3. Parks Advisory Board Minutes dated July 15, 2021 (acknowledgement only). Prepared 2021-09-03 *Revised NOTE: The Town Board reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 4. Transportation Advisory Board Minutes dated June 16, 2021 and July 21, 2021 (acknowledgement only). 5. Authorize Letters of Support to the Colorado Housing Finance Authority for the Trail Ridge and Park Ridge Apartments Rehabilitation Projects. 6. Resolution 64-21 Fourth Amendment to the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority Intergovernmental Agreement continuing the partnership to provide E911 infrastructure and support. 7. Resolution 65-21 Grant Funding Application to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs for the Planning Grant Program. 8. Acceptance of Town Administrator Policy Governance Monitoring Report. LIQUOR ITEMS: 1. LIQUOR SHOW CAUSE HEARING FOR GALEX LLC DBA CHELITOS MEXICAN RESTAURANT, 145 E. ELKHORN AVENUE, HOTEL AND RESTAURANT LIQUOR LICENSE. Town Clerk Williamson. ACTION ITEMS: 1. RESOLUTION 67-21 TERMINATION OF 2004 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR FALL RIVER VILLAGE, 200 FILBEY COURT. Director Hunt and Attorney Kramer. Effectively terminating the 2004 Development Agreement for the Fall River Village Final Planned Unit Development (PUD). The 2004 Agreement is now obsolete. 2. RESOLUTION 68-21 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS #6 TO THE 2021 BUDGET. Director Hudson. Amend the budget for transportation grants, the Museum annex foundation project, vacation home impact study, power construction work orders, and Trailblazer staffing reorganization. 3. RESOLUTION 66-21 CDOT AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION CRRSAA FUNDING TO SUPPORT ESTES TRANSIT (CDOT PO #491002603). Director Muhonen and Manager Solesbee. To support Estes Transit Administration and Operating Expenses. 4. 2022 STRATEGIC PLAN ADOPTION. Town Administrator Machalek. To consider adoption of the 2022 Town Board Strategic Plan. 5. POLICY 208 - NAMING OF TOWN-OWNED PARKS, OPEN SPACES, AND FACILITIES. Town Administrator Machalek. To clean up numbering and confusion stemming from two Policy 205s, and to clarify the differences between the process to name facilities and the process to name parks or open spaces. 6. ORDINANCE 12-21 AMENDING CHAPTER 10.06 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PAID PARKING. Manager Solesbee. To extend the free, daily time limit for residents from 30 minutes to 1 hour (60 minutes). 7. ORDINANCE 13-21 AMENDING SECTION 5.20.110 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TRANSFER OF BUSINESS LICENSES FOR VACATION HOMES AND BED & BREAKFAST INNS. Town Attorney Kramer and Town Clerk Williamson. ADJOURN. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees From: Town Administrator Machalek Date: September 14, 2021 RE: Policy Governance Monitoring Report – Policy 3.8 (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER: Policy QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Board Policy 2.3 designates specific reporting requirements for the Town Administrator to provide information on policy compliance to the Board. Reporting on Policy 3.8 – Compensation and Benefits is required in September of each year. Policy 3.8 states: “With respect to employment, compensation, and benefits to employees, consultants, contract workers and volunteers, the Town Administrator shall not cause or allow jeopardy to fiscal integrity.” This report constitutes my assurance that, as reasonable interpreted, these conditions have not occurred and further, that the data submitted below are accurate as of this date. Travis Machalek Town Administrator Page 3 Policy 3.8: With respect to employment, compensation, and benefits to employees, consultants, contract workers and volunteers, the Town Administrator shall not cause or allow jeopardy to fiscal integrity of the Town. Accordingly, pertaining to paid workers, he or she may not: 3.8.1: Change his or her own compensation and benefits Status: Compliance Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that I cannot take any action that would result in a personal financial benefit, including modifying my benefits, leave provisions, or compensation in any way that is not defined in my employment agreement or specifically approved by the Town Board. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: All of my compensation and benefits remain as approved by the Board through either my employment agreement or by specific action of the Town Board. Evidence: 1. The adopted budget and Comprehensive Annual Financial Report document that I have not taken any action to change my own compensation or benefits. Report: I report compliance. 3.8.2: Promise or imply permanent or guaranteed employment Status: Compliance Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that I cannot make any statements to current or potential employees that they can be assured of guaranteed employment with the Town of Estes Park. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: I did not make any comments, verbally or in writing to any employee that can be construed as implying permanent or guaranteed employment. Evidence: 1. Since this is a requirement NOT to do something, the evidence would be for non-compliance (a substantiated allegation that such a promise or implication was made). No such allegations have been raised with myself, Human Resources, or with the Town Board. Report: I report compliance Page 4 3.8.3: Establish current compensation and benefits which deviate materially for the regional or professional market for the skills employed Status: Compliance Interpretation: I interpret this to mean we regularly compare our compensation and benefits to the regional market. That market has been defined in Policy 301 as adopted by the Board. The specifics of the market comparison process are defined in Policy 301. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: I ensure we fully comply the procedures and steps outlined in the Board adopted Policy 301 regarding Classification and Compensation Evidence: 1. The compensation study, as prepared by the Town Compensation Consultant under the supervision of Human Resources staff. 2. Published Compensation schedules and Classification plan which is congruent with the results of the annual Compensation Study. 3. Specifics of the compensation model and most recent study are available for inspection upon request. Report: I report compliance. 3.8.4: Establish deferred or long-term compensation and benefits, without approval of the Town Board. Status: Compliance Interpretation: I interpret this to mean that I cannot take any action that would create or change any deferred or other long-term compensation for any employees without specific Board approval. Compliance with the policy will be achieved when: There have been no changes to anyone’s deferred or other long-term compensation or benefits without Board approval. Evidence: 1. The adopted budget and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report document that I have not taken any action to change any long-term compensation or benefits without the prior approval of the Board. Report: I report compliance. Page 5       Page 6 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, August 24, 2021 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 24th day of August, 2021. Present: Wendy Koenig, Mayor Patrick Martchink, Mayor Pro Tem Trustees Carlie Bangs Marie Cenac Barbara MacAlpine Scott Webermeier Cindy Younglund Also Present: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator Dan Kramer, Town Attorney Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Duane Hudson, Finance Director Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director and Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk Absent: None Mayor Koenig called the regular 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 (Bangs/Webermeier) to approve the Agenda, and it passed unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS. Adam Shake, Estes Park Economic Development Corporation President/CEO read a letter of commendation for retiring Community Development Director Randy Hunt for his contributions to the Town. Greg Rosener, Town Citizen stated all businesses affect workforce housing, therefore, vacation homes should not be burdened with fixing the problem through additional fees or taxes. He requested the Board consider input from the vacation home industry before finalizing decisions. Richard Mulhern, Town Citizen stated his concern with the lack of diversity in members appointed to the Environmental Sustainability Task Force as it relates to political affiliation. He stated support for short-term rentals. Naomi Hawf, Estes Park Housing Authority Director stated the community has diverse housing needs requiring diverse and various housing solutions. Opportunities to increase the housing stock should be thoroughly explored, including but not limited to taxes and fees, new development and rehab incentives, ADUs, development code and land use changes, and supporting employer assisted housing. She commented the answer does not rest on one solution or opportunity, rather our ability to close the gap on housing and maintain a sustainable community requires funding pulled from a variety of revenue sources. Kathy Albert, Town Citizen/Community Recycling Committee Chair stated a need for the visitors to see the Town caring about nature and as eco-friendly. She provided the following suggestions, including improving recycling downtown by making bins attractive, increasing recycling by guests and businesses, and promoting existing efforts. Judy Smith, Town Citizen commended the Town’s efforts on electric vehicles and energy base; however, waste disposal exists as a visible harm to the local ecology. DRAFTPage 7 Board of Trustees – August 24, 2021 – Page 2 Estes does not offer public composting and recycling has limitations compared to other communities. She mentioned the traveling public’s consciousness of global warming and ecological deficits, and she stated concerns on the perception that Estes Park does not recycle. Liz Mulhurn, Town Citizen stated her support for the cap on residentially zoned vacation homes. Her vacation homes serve approximately 200-250 groups annually which spend on average approximately $1000 per group locally. She stated Estes Park has become a year-round community and requested the Board consider the contributions which short-term renters make to the community. Donna Carlson, Estes Chamber of Commerce Director spoke on behalf of the Vacation Rental Council who offered input and data gathering capabilities to the Board to help contribute to workforce housing solutions and the vacation home philosophy discussion. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. Trustee comments were heard and have been summarized: Transportation Advisory Board reviewed a parking report; Estes Park Police Auxiliary are instituting a pilot program with members stationed at school crossing zones to assist with student safety; CompPAC heard presentations on parking/electric vehicle programs and vacation home rentals; on September 28, 2021 the Town Board would consider a recommendation from the Estes Park Planning Commission to amend the Development Code to increase the building height in the Downtown Commercial - CD zoning district from 30 feet to 42 feet; the Women’s Monument dedication would take place on September 30, 2021 and a smaller replica owned by the Museum would be displayed at the Estes Valley Library; concerns were heard regarding COVID-19 case numbers and the importance of wearing face coverings, and adhering to the advice from Larimer County Health officials regarding vaccinations was stressed. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR REPORT. Town Administrator Machalek relayed information from Larimer County Public Health officials regarding a resurgence in COVID-19 Delta variant cases locally, regionally and nationally. He stated the area has a higher level of infections than last year, reporting high in two of the four risk categories. A majority of cases are unvaccinated individuals with ICU capacity at 95% in Larimer County. He strongly recommended the use of masks and taking the necessary steps to reduce risks. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Bills. 2. Town Board Minutes dated August 10, 2021 and Town Board Study Session Minutes dated August 10, 2021. 3. Audit Committee Minutes dated August 11, 2021. 4. Estes Park Planning Commission Minutes dated June 15, 2021 and Estes Park Planning Commission Study Session Minutes dated July 20, 2021 (acknowledgement only). 5. Estes Park Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Minutes dated July 22, 2021 (acknowledgement only). 6. Policy 208 – Naming of Town-Owned Parks, Open Spaces, and Facilities. 7. Resolution 63-21 Approving an Intergovernmental Agreement with CDOT for FTA 5339(b) Grant Funding for the Design of Two Large Vehicle Bays to Store Two Electric Battery Trolley Buses (CDOT PO #491002610). It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Bangs) to approve the Consent Agenda with the removal of Item #6, and it passed unanimously. Consent Item #6 - Policy 208 – Naming of Town-Owned Parks, Open Spaces, and Facilities. Mayor Koenig questioned the limitation of naming a facility after an individual has been deceased for three (3) years. Staff stated the provision allows a DRAFTPage 8 Board of Trustees – August 24, 2021 – Page 3 sufficient amount of time after the passing of an individual to avoid renaming a facility should a person’s character be questioned. Trustee Younglund requested clarification on review recommendations in section 6 of the policy. Staff would review the section and bring the policy forward to the next Town Board meeting. It was moved and seconded (Marthink/Webermeier) to continue the item to the September 14, 2021 meeting, and it passed unanimously. ACTION ITEMS: 1. ACCEPT DELIVERY OF THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020. Director Hudson stated the report was reviewed at the August 11, 2021 Audit Committee meeting. The report contained the audit scope, required communication in accordance with audit standards, financial highlights and new accounting pronouncements and general observations. The most notable observation was related to the Town’s antiquated accounting system. A modern system would provide a number of improvements and capabilities as well as software support. The sales tax revenue reports reveal sales tax numbers higher than originally anticipated. The Board recommended staff consult with Haynie & Company regarding which accounting systems they would recommend. It was moved and seconded (Webermeier/Younglund) to accept the audit report and annual financial report for the year ending December 31, 2020, and it passed unanimously. 2. APPOINTMENT OF HAYNIE & COMPANY TO PERFORM THE AUDIT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2021. Director Hudson stated the audit process in 2020 was completed without an extension for the first time in several years and recommended appointment of Haynie & Company to perform the 2021 audit. It was moved and seconded (Younglund/Koenig) to award the engagement for the financial statement audit for the year ended December 31, 2021 to Haynie & Company, and it passed unanimously. 3. UTILITIES REORGANIZATION AND STAFFING INCREASE. Director Bergsten stated the Utilities department workload has increased with the addition of the implementation/operations of Trailblazer Broadband and the Water Division’s USDA financed capital projects. Staff proposed reorganization of Utilities to establish direct management of Trailblazer Broadband operations increasing workflow efficiency, reduce costs of consultants/contractors, and transition six (6) positions to Town employees to address workload issues. Staff requested approval of the reorganization and the Board authority to add additional staff. Board questions included: whether staff had adequate office space for additional employees, concerns related to housing, and concerns with filling the positions. There being no further discussion, it was moved and seconded (Younglund/Bangs) to approve the reorganization of the Utilities department and staffing increase, and it passed unanimously. REPORT AND DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. VACATION HOME PHILOSOPHY. Town Clerk Williamson provided a summary of the vacation home philosophy discussed at the August 10, 2021 study session. At the Board’s request staff reviewed transfer data, number of bedrooms licensed per home, number of vacation home owners living outside of the Estes Park School District, number of individuals owning two or more vacation homes, and potential revenues generated from a fee or tax applied to vacation home rentals to fund workforce housing. The data outlined an increase in the number of commercially zoned vacation homes with the adoption of a cap in 2016 for residentially zoned properties; 77% of vacation homes licensed have three or fewer bedrooms, approximately 75% of licensed vacation homes are owned by individuals living outside the Estes valley, and 63 property owners own two or more vacation homes.. The 2016 adopted code regulations stated the annual registration was valid for the year it was issued and did not guarantee future year registration. DRAFTPage 9 Board of Trustees – August 24, 2021 – Page 4 Staff requested Board direction regarding a fee study, continue to allow the transfer of vacation home license to new homeowners, modify residential cap, and the residential waitlist. Board discussion ensued and has been summarized: questioned the value of restricting transferability for newer vacation homes established after the adoption of the 2016 regulations; the number of vacation homes exempt from changes; whether there are grant opportunities available which can be applied to the fee study; questioned whether enacting a fee would require a fee study; the overall purpose or intent and when to establish parameters of the fee study; whether a correlation exists between people staying longer and spending more money in town, and whether staff have identified the total number of unutilized licenses and the total number of residential capabilities in the town limits. Additional discussion ensued regarding unutilized licenses, directives for fee or housing studies and timelines to complete the studies, and potential partnership with the Estes Park Housing Authority. The Board directed staff to pursue a fee study related to the nexus between residential short-term rentals and workforce housing with an option to expand the scope. Staff would bring forward a budget amendment, transferability options and waitlist procedures to the September 14, 2021 meeting. It was moved and seconded (Bangs/Younglund) to extend the meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. and it passed unanimously. REQUEST TO ENTER EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved and seconded (Martchink/Bangs) to enter into Executive Session for a conference with an attorney for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions – Section 24-6-402(4)(b) C.R.S., and for the purpose of determining positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, developing strategy for negotiations, and/or instructing negotiators – Section 24- 6-402(4)(e) C.R.S. – Regarding the Water Service Agreement with the YMCA of the Rockies, and it passed unanimously. Mayor Koenig recessed the meeting at 9:48 p.m. The Board entered executive session at 10:00 p.m. and concluded the executive session at 10:42 p.m. Mayor Koenig reconvened the regular meeting at 10:44 p.m. Whereupon Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 10:44 p.m. Wendy Koenig, Mayor Bunny Victoria Beers, Deputy Town Clerk DRAFTPage 10 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado August 24, 2021 Minutes of a Study Session meeting of the TOWN BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held at Town Hall in the Board Room in said Town of Estes Park on the 24th day of August, 2021. Board: Mayor Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink, Trustees Bangs, MacAlpine, Webermeier, and Younglund Attending: Mayor Koenig, Mayor Pro Tem Martchink, Trustees Bangs, MacAlpine, Webermeier, and Younglund Also Attending: Town Administrator Machalek, Assistant Town Administrator Damweber, Town Attorney Kramer, Recording Secretary Disney, Director Muhonen, and Engineer Waters Absent: Trustee Cenac. Mayor Koenig called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. STORMWATER UTILITIES IN COLORADO & STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE IN ESTES PARK. Engineer Waters presented the continued discussion on Stormwater Master Plan implementation. She provided background on previous Board discussions and highlighted utility fees in other Colorado communities, unmet maintenance needs in the Town’s drainage system, the 2022 Infrastructure Strategic Plan and goals, and Town staffing needs. The Board discussed the effects of flooding on roadways and recent infrastructure updates done by the Town, funding and time frame for increased staffing, maintenance needs, and a fee structure. The Board directed staff to bring forward options for a two- level and fixed rate fee structure for a stormwater utility in conjunction with previous recommendations provided to the Board in 2019. SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE CODE COMPLIANCE DISCUSSION. Director Muhonen presented the discussion on Sidewalk Maintenance Code Compliance and gave background on the public and private compliance obligations to repair damaged curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in the public rights-of-way, as set forth in the Estes Park Municipal Code. He stressed the need to update the current process of compliance through four options: maintaining the current regulations, increased enforcement, simplification of the current process, or creation of a new process combining Town project management resources and private property funds to complete concrete repairs on an annual basis. The Board discussed the liability of the Town for a dangerous condition, previous risk management claims filed with the Town, educating business owners of their responsibilities, issues which have occurred among business owners and maintenance issues, and a community wide repair program. The Board requested staff return with community wide repair program options. POLICY 671 – TOWN FUNDING OF OUTSIDE ENTITIES. Assistant Town Administrator Damweber presented Policy 671 and requested the Board provide staff direction on any desired changes. The Board discussed the base funding process, reasoning for implementing the policy, public access to entities seeking funds, increased accountability of funded entities, aligning funding with the Board’s yearly Strategic Plan, and previous iterations of the policy. The Board directed staff to bring forward updates to the policy including more detailed application processes. TRUSTEE & ADMINISTRATOR COMMENTS & QUESTIONS. DRAFTPage 11 Town Board Study Session – August 24, 2021 – Page 2 None. FUTURE STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEMS. Town Administrator Machalek requested and it was determined to schedule the Paid Parking Program Results and 2022 Parking Recommendations for October 26, 2021 and add the 2019 Stormwater Recommendation Overview to approved unscheduled items. There being no further business, Mayor Koenig adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Kimberly Disney, Recording Secretary DRAFTPage 12 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 15, 2021 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the PARKS ADVISORY BOARD of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually in said Town of Estes Park on the 15th day of July 2021. Committee: Geoffrey Elliot Chair, Rex Poggenpohl Vice Chair, Kirby Nelson-Hazelton, Vicki Papineau, Ron Wilcocks Attending: Geoffrey Elliot, Vicki Papineau, Rex Poggenpohl, Ron Wilcocks, Brian Berg, Town Board Trustee Marie Cenac Absent: Kirby Nelson-Hazelton Chair Elliot called the meeting to order at 8:33 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT No public comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made and seconded (Poggenpohl/Papineau) to approve the May meeting minutes and all were in favor. WOMEN’S MONUMENT PROJECT UPDATE Member Wilcocks stated that the Women’s Monument Project is on-track. All funds needed were raised by the end of May. The Women’s Monument Committee (“Committee”) is now working on planning the dedication. Wilcocks anticipates construction beginning in the coming weeks. Supervisor Berg is working directly with the artist on site planning. Wilcocks extended his appreciation to everyone and is excited that it’s happening. Berg shared that the stone should be ready within the next two to three weeks. Preconstruction begins next week to establish irrigation and needed site work. Chair Elliot shared his appreciation for Wilcocks leading this initiative. Papineau agreed and stated that it has been a terrific grassroots effort which should set an example moving forward. Wilcocks stated that support was shown through the readiness of individuals to donate to the project. 2021 PAB INITIATIVES Chair Elliot requested an update from Member Papineau, as an Estes Land Stewardship Association (ELSA) representative for the recent weed event. Papineau stated that the June noxious weed drop-off collected over 100 bags. The larger annual weed drop-off is scheduled for Saturday, July 17, 2021 from 9 am -12 pm which will have informational booths for citizens with questions and to provide added education about noxiou s weeds. The subsequent weed events will occur in August and September, which is reflected on the Town’s website. Papineau shared that the 2021 noxious weed booklet is provided through the area hardware stores and HOAs, while also electronically provided on the Town’s website. Elliot thanks Papineau for all her work with ELSA and the community. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY TASK FORCE Vice Chair Poggenpohl shared that the Trustees have been receiving many comments from citizens on how best to sustain the environment. The Trustees have decided to form an advisory task force to identify how to proceed in an environmentally friendly manner long-term needs. Poggenpohl shared that he feels Chair Elliot should draft a letter to the Trustees reminding them of PAB’s area of responsibility and in what ways the PAB could be involved with the task force. Trustee Liaison Cenac clarified that the task force was recommended to acquire expertise specifically in the environmental topics. Long-term solutions are needing to be determined as well as the type of group to construct. The items identified must be able to be handled by the Town. Cenac feels the group may come back to the Page 13 Parks Advisory Board – July 15, 2021 – Page 2 PAB for specific items. The Town continues to recruit members for this task force and, after contacting the Town Clerk’s office, confirmed that the deadline for applications has been extended. Chair Elliot sees value in moving the needle toward environmental sustainability. In his letter, he would introduce involvement in the various efforts that impact this topic. Poggenpohl stated that the PAB currently has environmental education responsibility. A motion was made and seconded (Poggenpohl/Papineau) to have Chair Elliot draft a response to the upcoming Environmental Task Force informing members that PAB is involved in environmental issues and desire participation in related deliberations moving forward and all were in favor. AIPP PROGRAM UPDATE Poggenpohl stated that the topic of AIPP funding has been discussed for awhile and action is desired. Some feel strongly about arts in Estes Park and would like to see progress. The revised document provided in the packet outlines issues that the program has to consider, and a response from Trustees is needed. Member Wilcocks documented actions that have taken place over the past couple years and provided to Poggenpohl. These items need canvassed by the group to determine how best to proceed. First, the PAB, being responsible for AIPP, see that certain things need to be done and feel the program should be expanded in order to enhance funding with items such as an Arts Master Plan. Second, Poggenpohl stated, the PAB feels staff support for such a program would more suitably reside with the Estes Park Museum. If the program is expanded to performing arts, the Events Department would need involved. Third, when a decision is made on where staff liaison will reside, said liaison should collaborate with the art community to proceed. Wilcocks expressed his uncertainty about the recommended appointment of the Estes Park Museum unless appropriately weighed by Town Administration. Wilcocks reminded the PAB that this doesn’t only related to maintenance, but also future implementation of a variety of different forms of art. Elliot informed the group that Member Hazelton, after review of the document, stated that direction is needing requested: Arts Master Plan, community engagement and future planning. Elliot recommended addition of the three bullet points in the introduction of the document. Wilcocks stated the Downtown Plan (DP) includes both the art industry and the craft industry which would require a bigger area of responsibility that what the museum could provide, and would prefer not to identify the museum specifically. Authority should be provided by Town Administration. Supervisor Berg stated that without item 2a nothing can happen. He recommended that when redrafting the document, emphasis be added to this fact. Poggenpohl recommended the item be pulled from the list and captured in the introduction. Berg agreed. Poggenpohl stated that it basically boils down to the lack of staff time prevents this from being achieved. Elliot agrees with the structure change to the document. Wilcocks asked that not all detail be lost during the document reconstruction as many hours were spent putting it together. Poggepohl made a motion, seconded by Wilcocks, for Chair Elliot to draft the final document with assistance, if needed for presentation to the Trustees. Elliot asked to clarify whether this document is to be submitted to the Trustees prior to the next PAB meeting. Wilcocks feels strongly that the PAB have final review and discussion and withdraws his second to the motion. With no other members providing a second, Chair Elliot announced that the motion dies. Member Wilcocks then made a motion to take the input provided and produce a final document, then present to the PAB for review prior to submittal to Town Board. Review can be provided via email but no vote. Papineau seconded the motion and all were in favor. Elliot will finalize document and provide to members for review prior to submittal to the Trustees. MRS. WALSH’S GARDEN UPDATE Page 14 Parks Advisory Board – July 15, 2021 – Page 3 Supervisor Berg stated that the work at Mrs. Walsh’s Garden (MWG) is moving along well despite the weather. The pond reconstruction is nearing completion, the pump is in and operable, and the waterfall is ready to be finalized. Wilcocks shared that he’s visited MWG and all is looking really, really good. Berg reminded the group that now is the time to see the garden. There are many native plants blooming at this time. PARKS DIVISION UPDATES (Parks Supervisor Brian Berg) Parks staff is working through their schedule and were able to get needed items complete by July 4. The roundabout at MacGregor Ave. & Wonderview Dr. (US 34) is now completed and irrigation for the MacGregor wall is in process. He stated the annual flowers are struggling due to weather anomalies. A new order has been received to revamp the annual beds. Berg shared his pride in his team. The Big Thompson River Recreation Area project is currently being reviewed by Community Development and may end up as a winter project as Parks waits for approval. The Women’s Monument will be the Parks Division’s top priority. A Request for Proposal (RFP) has been published for a Thumb Open Space Management Plan creation, and three consultants attended the pre -bid meeting. Additionally, the ecological survey of the Thumb has been completed. Berg has requested a letter be drafted by the ecological consultant allowing work to begin on some items in preparation for public access. OTHER BUSINESS Berg shared that once the Town Board begins in-person meetings, the advisory boards need to determine if they’d like to proceed with virtual or in-person meetings. The PAB agreed that in-person meetings were desired. Berg stated that design documents for the Downtown Estes Loop are at 95% completion. The plans have not yet gone to the public but are requesting staff reviews to identify potential fatal flaws or omissions. At time of review Berg reminded members that changes are not requested at this stage of the design. Berg then asked if the PAB would like the documents sent out for review or if a special meeting would be requested. PAB members agreed that reviewing them electronically would be appropriate and that no special meeting would be requested. A motion was made and seconded (Papineau/Wilcocks) to adjourn the meeting at 9:39 a.m. and all were in favor. Megan Van Hoozer, Recording Secretary Page 15       Page 16 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, June 16, 2021 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually on the 16th day of June 2021. Committee: Belle Morris, Tom Street, Ann Finley, Larry Gamble, Linda Hanick, Scott Moulton, Gordon Slack Attending: Belle Morris, Tom Street, Ann Finley, Larry Gamble, Linda Hanick, Scott Moulton, Gordon Slack, Public Works Director Greg Muhonen, Engineering Mgr. David Hook, Parking & Transit Mgr. Vanessa Solesbee, The Car Park Matt Eisenberg, Rocky Mountain National Park John Hannon, Pedi-Cab Business Owner Ryan Hale, Town Board Trustee Carlie Bangs Absent: Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:05 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT No electronic submissions of public comment were received prior to the deadline and no public was in attendance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Gamble) to approve the May meeting minutes with edits and all were in favor. PEDI-CAB IN ESTES PARK (Ryan Hale, Pedicab Business Owner) Chair Morris introduced Ryan Hale, owner of the local pedicab business. Hale’s participation and discussion today is intended to introduce members to another transportation mode as part of a multimodal discussion and share its successes and challenges. Hale shared that he owns Hale Pedicab. He stated that when he previously worked as a Community Service Officer (CSO), he saw someone walking from the parking structure to Performance Park at the opposite end of downtown. He concluded that short- distance transportation services would be helpful to many individuals. The pedicab business runs on zero emissions, using only leg power and serves the Estes Park downtown area. Additionally, pedicabs are made in Broomfield, Colorado. The original individuals operating Hale’s Pedicab now both have employment that is not conducive to continuing the performance of short-distance travel services. The pedicab, when operating is now provided as a public service, with rides being free and tips being welcomed. Hale invested $6K in the pedicabs. While it is now more of a hobby, Hale would love to see 2 dozen pedicabs downtown. He was able to earn back his investment in the first year of pedicab service. Member Hanick asked if people have the ability to call and request a ride. Hale stated that those seeking a ride can contact 970-215-4030 to make their request. At this time there is no existing website or Facebook page, however business cards are available and much of his service is generated based on word-of-mouth. Member Gamble extended his appreciation for Hale’s time in presenting to the TAB. He then asked Hale what demand he feels is accurate and how many pedicabs would be required to meet the demand. Hale stated that the service period would be May through October. Hale explained the business thoughts behind the plan, but stated it is difficult to determine business potential. Member Slack recommended Hale attend the upcoming Bike to Work day to visit with other participants. Page 17 Transportation Advisory Board – June 16, 2021 – Page 2 BYLAW TEMPLATE & POLICY 102 DISCUSSION (Director Greg Muhonen) The TAB has been working on bylaw updates for well over a year and have spearheaded much change. Muhonen shared that the recommended changes by TAB carried through to other advisory boards. The Code of Conduct and Job Description triggered broader discussion. Eventually the discussion resulted in a new template, with the Code of Conduct and Job Description being added to Policy 102 which is applicable to all Town advisory boards. Relating to process, the bylaws currently identify that if any revisions are made, 20 days must be allowed for review and comment. Muhonen asked the TAB to review the information, to be sent after the meeting, and be ready to discuss and vote at July meeting. Muhonen reminded the TAB that staff have limited discretion on changing the bylaws. COMPLETE STREETS POLICY DISCUSSION (Chair Belle Morris) Referencing last month’s discussion, a street hierarchy needs to be determined. Morris requested Director Muhonen guide the discussion. Muhonen stated the thought process behind the suggestion for added discussion spun from a couple things. The first being the Safe Routes to School Task Force evaluated the pedestrian facilities within one mile of the school, and had many findings. Although it is not reasonable to add sidewalks to every street in Town, the policy doesn’t clarify. The types of transportation modes on defined types of streets needs to be determined. The determination basically comes down to the average daily traffic in a given location. There are a variety of modes that the policy does not address, making the policy not accommodating, but restrictive. Morris agrees that based on the Task Force’s street survey, the improvements and desired upgrades would be very expensive and time consuming. The Task force identified a type of ranking and hierarchy during the walking audits which may be a good starting point. Member Gamble agreed and stated that the definition of a street, within the policy, is a bit broad and concurred with Muhonen that a hierarchy should be well-defined. Member Slack has understood that the current policy is working well, although only used a couple times. Muhonen stated the importance of defining this is due to the communications and comments that have been made indicating the policy is not being satisfied. TAB can attack this proactively and provide suggestions to staff or when staff is ready to implement new street standards, get involved at that time, either perform proactively or reactively. Slack further stated that Graves Avenue is a high-traffic street both for pedestrians and vehicles and suggested leaving it to Public Works to make the decisions on how to implement the projects. Morris stated that, for the Graves Avenue Improvements, the presentation only provided 3 options and the fact that there were no bike lanes was startling. The modifications to the designs were still not acceptable. Manager Hook offered his thoughts, stating that there had not been many applications of the policy. Although the policy was not created perfectly, these early applications have brought improvement opportunities to light and has initiated conversation. Work on the Complete Streets Policy will continue without great urgency. Morris agrees this is not a TAB top priority and recommended reviewing the policy again in December. Gamble stated that, based on feedback from Greg and knowing that the Complete Streets checklist has been used, there aren’t many modifications needed. PARKING & TRANSIT UPDATES (Parking & Transit Mgr. Vanessa Solesbee, The Car Park Mgr. Matt Eisenberg) Parking: Eisenberg shared information about the paid parking program launch, improvements, and successes. Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Dashboard is now available on the Town’s website. Page 18 Transportation Advisory Board – June 16, 2021 – Page 3 Identified areas for improvement: The signs are too high, are hard to read, and it is difficult to scan the QR codes. Feedback has also been received stating that the signs are confusing. Compliance: The Car Park has not seen the level of compliance expected. There are 25-40% of vehicles that are not paying or are not displaying the proper permit. Although improved signage may help, there is also a need for increased enforcement. Estes Parking App: Individuals that own the newer iOS Apple phones are having difficulty with the app. The Car Park is working with their vendor to correct the issues. Public Outreach – The Car Park and Town parking staff continue to communicate with individuals around town. Eisenberg has been walking into businesses to ask how everything is going. Additional steps are forthcoming. Eisenberg then listed the successes with this year’s program: • Since May 28 the free lots are up 48% in occupancy • When viewing the peripheral lots it is showing occupancy in the parking structure is up nearly 50% • The average revenue is at $5,614 per day which is good, but an increase is expected beginning in July • Mobile Payment Adoption is at 49%. Eisenberg shared that when working in Boise, Idaho the adoption was only at 20-30%. Solesbee stated that the Parking & Transit Division is also tracking all comments received from residents and visitors and qualitative perspectives to share with the Town Board. Member Slack stated that he has witnessed, when driving through the lots, that there are actually open parking spaces, specifically in the Town Hall lot which hasn’t been seen in the past. This is a good sign and has achieved the desired result. Solesbee stated she’s received this feedback as well. Member Hanick also feels the program is a success. She added that the only real problem is the Public Relations part of it, identifying that the signage definitely needs work. She reminded the TAB that the average reading is at a 4th grade level. Hanick also stated that the signs do not contain enough information, adding that they need hours of required pay and the charge. Managers Solesbee and Eisenberg are working toward solutions for signage improvement. Vice Chair Street has seen individuals lined up at the payment kiosks, adding some people don’t know they can use their phone to pay until they get to the kiosk. Street is still hoping the congestion lessens as was anticipated as being one of the points of paid parking. Eisenberg suggested that once the wayfinding signage is installed, it may help this situation. Muhonen will be working to establish traffic counts and has hired a traffic counting company to perform these measures. Once completed, Muhonen will perform a comparative analysis of past years. Transit: Solesbee shared that on July 3 there will be a ribbon-cutting for new trolley and the launch of Bustang services. Solesbee invited all to attend. Public Works would like to pursue FTA funding 5311 operating dollars. The Town is eligible and the Town’s Grant Specialist Christy Crosser will help complete and submit the grant application. The additional funding totals $360K with no required match. ENGINEERING UPDATES (Engineering Mgr. David Hook) Manager Hook provided project updates since the last meeting. Parking Wayfinding: Phase 1 destination signage installation is complete. The Phase 2 directional signage is scheduled to begin with installation next week. This phase includes the street name Page 19 Transportation Advisory Board – June 16, 2021 – Page 4 signs being installed that are located on mast arms, with the color and formatting of the other recently installed signage. Graves Avenue Improvements: A Virtual Open House was held since the May TAB meeting with 2 weeks allotted to provide input. There were also 2 different in-person open houses resulting in excellent turnout. The North side improvements received the highest ranks and the design concept is moving forward. The options presented have been merged resulting in the following plan: Extend the existing 5’ sidewalk on the North side; slim down travel lanes; maintain parking on both the North and South side. Install 10’ sidewalk on the South side. This work will be done using a phased approach as the budget for this project has been far exceeded with the suggested changes. The next opportunity for a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) grant would provide for improvements not captured in the initial phase, as well as provide for trail improvements along Community Drive for trail connectivity. PROJECT / ADMINISTRATION UPDATES (Public Works Director Greg Muhonen) Muhonen shared that advisory boards have been released to meet in-person after the first Town Board meeting is held in-person, potentially occurring in July but may not be until August. There is a funding shortfall for the Community Dr./US 36 Roundabout. There is however a Federal Invest in America grant opportunity for $850K. Additionally there is an opportunity for a Revitalizing Main Street Large Project Grant with a cap of $2M per agency. An application has been made for $1.7M to aid in the funding of this project. Muhonen provided the TAB with an update on the 2022 Strategic Plan and 2022 Budget. A special study session was held on Monday to go through the proposed 1-year objectives. Once the information is received by Public Works, the information will be distributed to the TAB, allowing an opportunity to provide feedback to the Town Board prior to the July deadline. OTHER BUSINESS (Chair, Belle Morris) There being no further business, Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 2:13 p.m. Megan Van Hoozer, Recording Secretary Page 20 Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, July 21, 2021 Minutes of a Regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held virtually on the 21st day of July 2021. Committee: Belle Morris, Tom Street, Ann Finley, Larry Gamble, Linda Hanick, Scott Moulton, Gordon Slack Attending: Belle Morris, Tom Street, Larry Gamble, Scott Moulton, Public Works Director Greg Muhonen, Engineering Mgr. David Hook, Parking & Transit Mgr. Vanessa Solesbee, The Car Park Matt Eisenberg, Town Board Trustee Carlie Bangs, Project Manager Ryan Barr Absent: Linda Hanick, Gordon Slack, Ann Finley Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:06 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT No electronic submissions of public comment were received prior to the deadline and no public was in attendance. Member Scott Moulton informed the TAB that he would need to leave the meeting at 1:00 p.m. A quorum wasn’t present at today’s meeting therefore there no votes would occur. Those items requiring a vote will be deferred to the August meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The meeting minute approval was deferred to the August meeting due to lack of quorum. DOWNTOWN ESTES LOOP (DEL) 95% PLANS (Public Works Director Greg Muhonen) Muhonen sent files to the TAB prior to the meeting. While it isn’t reasonable to walk through all design documents at the meeting, Muhonen hopes the members were able to perform their review and bring to the meeting any errors or omissions found so he’s able to pass the information along to the design team. It was made clear that this is not the time in the process for changes as that occurred long before the 95% design, but if something was missed from the earlier discussions it should be corrected. Gamble conducted a thorough review of the design documents and wanted to mention a few things. Gamble stated that in the section showing eastbound Moraine Ave. approaching the new roundabout, that the pavement markings show a left turn as though you’re making a left onto Moraine which is not the intent. Gamble also wanted to confirm that there will no longer be an access to Picadilly Square off Riverside Drive, which was confirmed by Muhonen. Eastbound on Riverside Dr. approaching Elkhorn Ave. shows that set back from intersection there is a sign that reflecting three lanes (turn right for two lanes, turn left on one). He stated the drawings reflect a 4-lane and suggested the sign may need upgraded. He stated he just wants to eliminate any confusion. Muhonen stated that due to the sign’s placement it may not be an issue but will note the issue and pass it along. Gamble stated that the plans show removal of pedestrian crossing signs on Moraine Ave. at Wiest Dr. and asked if the pedestrian crossing itself is being removed. Muhonen stated that it will remain and be refreshed. Gamble asked that the drawings be revisited at that location and believes the treatment should be identical to the treatment at Rockwell St. Gamble also wanted to advocate for another rapid flashing beacon at the Page 21 Transportation Advisory Board – July 21, 2021 – Page 2 pedestrian crossing at Wiest Dr. on Moraine Ave. Muhonen indicated the team may be installing a mast arm, and if so, there would be no need for an added pedestrian crossing warning sign, to which Gamble agreed. Muhonen indicated that the DEL Project Manager is unsatisfied with the detailing in the existing 95% plans and suggested an updated set would be forthcoming. Member Moulton asked how the transition from bike path to bike trail would be handled when heading south on Moraine Ave. Muhonen stated it would be a soft transition with potential for one-inch lip. Muhonen shared that construction is still anticipated for next year. Although FEMA identified half a dozen things needing addressed in CLOMR there doesn’t appear to be anything that should impact the schedule. GRAVES AVE. 30% DESIGN DOCUMENTS (Manager Ryan Barr) Manager Barr thanked the group for their input at the May TAB meeting, and for the suggestion to hold in-person public meetings, as many good suggestions were received. Based on the conceptual design open house survey results, the majority of individuals showed support for Option #1, which includes installation of a sidewalk on the north side of Graves Ave. connecting to the existing sidewalk. However, there were also many survey responses, comments, and discussions about the benefit and need to include a path on the south side of Graves as well, while potentially maintaining all existing parking spaces. Public Works prepared a sketch of the proposed design to guide the consultant, and the design includes a 5’ sidewalk on the north side of Graves and a 10’ wide multiuse path on the south side, while narrowing lane widths and maintaining on- street parking. As much as possible, this project will re-use existing sidewalks within the plan for cost-effectiveness. Barr shared a full rendering including both Phase 1 and Phase 2 work combined. Due to the cost estimates received, a phased approach is necessary. In Phase 1 the northern sidewalk will be constructed and will connect to the existing sidewalk. Phase 1 will also include the Brodie Avenue trail extension which will provide connectivity to the School District sidewalk. In Phase 2 the south sidewalk will be added. In order to optimize existing grant funding, the team is looking at Phase 2 items that may be included in the Phase 1 work timeframe and scope. Barr stated that the work will require an easement but believes it to be achievable. The Graves Ave. roadway width will be decreased with this work, narrowing the travel lanes which will act as a form of traffic calming. Barr shared, via screenshare, a visual of how the lanes would change. Barr shared that the consultant website is available to provide feedback, but TAB members are welcome to email him as well. He then opened the topic for questions. Chair Morris stated that there was a social trail on the north side of Graves Ave. connecting to the area apartments (east of cluster boxes) and asked if the new retaining wall would be in place of that trail. Barr stated the retaining wall should not impact the trail and will ensure that with the consultants. Member Gamble indicated his disagreement with the cluster boxes being located on sidewalk and asked if the sidewalk could be installed behind the cluster boxes for safety reasons and understands there is a 5’ utility easement. Barr stated that he had the consultant look into it and it would require a very large retaining wall and acquisition of an easement. All Phase 1 work, which this is in, was for work that could be done without the need to acquire easements. It will remain as is for the time being. Page 22 Transportation Advisory Board – July 21, 2021 – Page 3 Member Moulton asked if the sidewalk, as it reaches S. Saint Vrain, would be ramped. Barr stated the it appears that way in the drawing but added that the Town is not interested in adding curb and gutter within the state highway. Morris asked why there was no paved extension from Brodie Ave. to the school. Barr stated that due to the steep grade, the expense increased significantly as it would require switchbacks, retaining walls, rails, etc. Barr has discussed additional options with the school and they’ve settled on a location with 6’ sidewalk – requiring a revisit of retaining walls. While the addition seems small scale it goes a long way in getting the children safely to school. Barr stated there would be a review and comment period for the 30% design beginning next week and lasting for two weeks. Once the consultant receives and compiles all comments, updated plan sets will be provided to include drainage design and environmental surveys. The next round of public comments will be at the 90% design completion point, anticipated in September. At that time Barr will bring the design back to the TAB and will make it available to the public. At that point, comment will be only to identify fatal flaws and not to collect requested changes. Morris asked about whether the signage for the improvements will indicate that it is a multiuse trail with aggressive markings. Barr indicated signage will be ironed out as they approach 90% design completion. Barr has spoken to CDOT and are referencing the Trails Master Plan. BYLAW TEMPLATE & POLICY 102 DISCUSSION (Chair Belle Morris) Due to the lack of quorum, this discussion will be moved to the August TAB meeting agenda. PARKING & TRANSIT UPDATES (Parking & Transit Mgr. Vanessa Solesbee, The Car Park Mgr. Matt Eisenberg) Parking: Manager Eisenberg shared an update regarding the tracked Key Performance Indicators. A mid-year updated on the paid parking season will occur at a Town Board Study Session on August 10, 2021. While keeping the presentation brief and concise, the update is intended to remind the Trustees of the program goals and measurable performance. Additionally, the update will provide what we’ve learned related to signage, internet connectivity, payments over the network, and staffing. Eisenberg, working with the Chamber of Commerce, has been going door-to-door to each downtown business. The Farmers Market will be another venue used to solicit feedback. Eisenberg stated that the end of year data will be brought back to the TAB prior to presenting to the Town Board. Solesbee asked Chair Morris if it was permissible to send email to TAB members sharing opportunities for participation in outreach efforts, and Morris agreed. Morris then requested the Town rename the parking structure from ‘Badger’ to something more pleasant. Solesbee will note the request and consider. Eisenberg reminded the TAB that the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) Report is published on the Town’s webpage at www.estes.org/paidparking and proceeded to review the data with the group. He indicated that according to the data, the free lots are, on average, much fuller than in years prior: Davis lot, Performance Park lot, MacGregor Ave. on-street, and averaged over 50% occupancy in parking structure. Eisenberg then went over the revenue figures. He stated that in June, the revenue was approximately $174,000 averaging $8.62 per space per day. He went on to state that, related to parking space turnover, most people are not staying in a space for over two hours. Over 3,000 Residential 30-Min. Parking Permits have been provided this year, and over 470 Employee Convenience Permits were sold. Page 23 Transportation Advisory Board – July 21, 2021 – Page 4 Eisenberg will dig further into the data to provide the percentage of total permit holders that have used their permit. Director Muhonen and Chair Morris agreed it would be interesting to see those figures. Vice Chair Street asked how to answer questions regarding peak occupancy differences between 2019 and 2021 when the peak remains the same, and it is claimed that driver behavior is changing. Eisenberg discussed how it can be shown with the different datapoints contained in the KPI Reports. Solesbee reminded the group that a primary goal of the paid parking program is to churn the spaces, which is occurring based on the data and traffic analysis. Transit: Solesbee stated that the trolley began service on Memorial Day and they’ve since seen a steady return to transit. There were a total of 8,800 riders in the last week of May and the month of June and on July 4th there were approximately 4,000 visitors. The Town has been more proactive this year related to transit awareness, providing brochures at any and all locations in town. The new electric trolley has been running longer this season, but not yet the full 12 hours. The second electric trolley will not arrive this transit season but it anticipated to arrive in time for the 2022 season. Hometown Trolley will provide the Town with a standard trolley to fulfill the need for the 2021 season. Solesbee shared that new lines of communication have been established with the YMCA of the Rockies allowing an opportunity to revisit transit service to that location. Other lodging facilities are also incredibly interested in transit connectivity. The discussions occurring are at a high level at this point. Solesbee asked the TAB if there is interest in being involved with future transit route discussions, which Morris confirmed. Solesbee will also bring the Shuttle Committee to a future TAB meeting for this discussion as well. CDOT’s Bustang lauched Saturday, July 3. There have been a wide variety of users: 50% going to Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), and 50% coming to visit Estes Park. CDOT sees the increase in ridership and is already discussing next year’s service. Once CDOT’s ridership numbers are available, Solesbee will share with the TAB. Following shows the variety of different grant agreements assisting with the Town’s transit program: 1. Bus Facility (FTA 5339b) a. Charging Station, Design, Construction 2. Second Electric Trolley (FTA 5339c) a. Delayed: loaner trolley for Green 3. Federal Stimulus – Part 2 (CRRSAA) a. Agreement received ($361k) 4. Rural Admin/Operating (FTA 5311) a. Application submitted July 16 ($70k) 5. Visitor Ctr. Parking Lot Redesign (SB267) a. Pending CDOT – likely 2022 ENGINEERING UPDATES (Engineering Mgr. David Hook) Manager Hook provided project updates since the last meeting. Capital Project(s): Parking Wayfinding: Phase 1 (destination signage) is now limited to a short punch list. Phase 2 (directional signage) is complete. The most significant unfinished item is the new mast arm signs. There will be no lane closures during the summer traffic, deferring work to October 2021. Page 24 Transportation Advisory Board – July 21, 2021 – Page 5 Development Review: The Stanley Carriage House Restaurant is now open for business. The technical review committee required additional pedestrian facilities be installed. There will now be a new sidewalk from Steamer Dr. to the main parking lot in front of the building. A related sidewalk on the west side of the facility’s swimming pool, is now being deferred. The developer made a proposal to combine that sidewalk in a larger analysis considering historical significance and ensuring identified areas are left undisturbed. There will be future conversations regarding a “Grand Lawn”. Manager Barr provided updates on the projects he’s actively involved with: Fall River Trail Improvements: Barr said a portion of the 2020 project scope had carried over and was primarily located in RMNP. This has been completed and the Town is working toward closeout. For 2021, there are two associated projects. One is the Colorado the Beautiful grant portion which will continue the trail along Fish Hatchery Rd. The design documents for this portion have been received and the cost estimate came up short of expected. Barr is adding work to the scope in order to maximize grant dollars. The second project is CDOT’s Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) / Multimodal Options Fund (MMOF) grant-supported project which, from the current trail work endpoint, works the other direction and to the north. A Design Scoping Review meeting with CDOT was held two weeks ago and flushed out good details. The consultant was present to gather information for the requirements of their final design effort. Barr is currently working to schedule work alongside RMNP entrance station work beginning next year. That will take advantage of the lower volume of traffic as a lane closure will be necessary. 2021 Street Improvement Program (STIP): Crack seal work was completed in May, chip seal work was completed last week, and currently taking place is the striping and thermoplastic work. Overlay and patching work will begin in August and will involve patching and repaving some local roads. In addition to those roads, Performance Park parking lot will be repaved but will not begin until October after Elkfest. Member Gamble observed that with the recent chip seal work, there are chips being left on other roadways and asked if part of the contract addresses cleanup. Barr stated that cleanup is part of the contract and he would speak with contractor to address this concern. PROJECT / ADMINISTRATION UPDATES (Public Works Director Greg Muhonen) Director Muhonen encouraged TAB members to take a bicycle ride along the newly striped US 34 trail. All side streets now have crossbar and markings. The Town also installed parallel edge lines to delineate the parking lot from the trail. There doesn’t seem to be an issue with cars parking across the trail any longer. All was done in an effort to protect the trail users and define both a bicycle and pedestrian space. Muhonen stated that with the rollout of paid parking, internal discussions are occurring regarding traffic congestion reduction. In 2015 intersection counts and data analysis was performed as a result of consideration of the Barnes Dance. Adverse impact was documented as a result of taking green time from vehicles and giving it to pedestrians. During the same timeframe in 2016, a follow-up study occurred and the same study has occurred again in 2021. The analysis includes pedestrian counts, vehicular counts, and travel time. A simple summary is that intersection counts have gone up, pedestrian counts have gone up and travel time went down in 2021. There could be a variety of reasons for this notable change. Public Works concludes that paid parking did not make it slower to drive through downtown, and would argue that it makes traffic move faster going through downtown. Member Gamble stated it would be very interesting to look at the data alongside the entrance station statistics with their reservation system this year. Gamble will reach out to RMNP to request entrance station data. OTHER BUSINESS (Chair, Belle Morris) There being no further business, Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 2:06 p.m. Page 25 Transportation Advisory Board – July 21, 2021 – Page 6 Megan Van Hoozer, Recording Secretary Page 26 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: September 14, 2021 RE: Authorize Letters of Support to Colorado Housing Finance Authority for Trail Ridge Apts. and Park Ridge Apts. Rehabilitation Projects. (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER Authorize Signature QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letters of support for Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) funding for the two apartment-rehabilitation projects described. Present Situation: Two apartment complexes in Estes Park, Trail Ridge Apartments (Hwy. 7 at Community Drive) and Park Ridge Apartments (Acacia Drive), are among Estes Park’s older multi- family rental housing stock. Both complexes are predominantly inhabited by residents who meet the Town Development Code criteria (EPDC Sec. 11.4) criteria for attainable- housing need. Town Board may recall that very similar letters were requested and approved by the Board last September. Although the funding request wasn’t successful last year, optimism remains for this year’s cycle. Proposal: The Chrisman Company, an eastern Oregon-based company, is proposing to purchase and rehabilitate both apartment complexes. Chrisman proposes to partially fund the purchase and rehab with Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit Financing. This Federal Dept, of Housing and Human Services (HHS) program began in 1986 and has successfully funded many similar projects in Colorado through the Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) and nationwide. The Park Ridge project is described by Chrisman in the Project Fact Sheet (Attachment 3.) This is a first draft of a work in progress by Chrisman, but it gives a sense of the Page 27 scope and reach of that project. A Fact Sheet is underway for the Trail Ridge property, which is proposed to undergo the same type of rehabilitation shown in the Park Ridge Fact Sheet. The proposed rehabilitation and ownership would maintain the ability of current residents, or households meeting the same criteria, to live in affordable, safe housing. Staff has had a number of valuable in-depth discussions with Chrisman about the projects, and we believe both complexes will benefit from the proposed purchases and work, with benefits to the Town as a whole. While the projects will not add new units to our overall stock, the ability of residents to live in more comfortable circumstances at attainable cost is undoubtedly good for the community. HHS and CHFA administrative regulations specify that the local government’s Chief Executive Officer should be requested to comment on projects submitted to CHFA for funding. Local approval is not necessarily required for funding approval, but it is a plus in the tax-credit competitive environment. Town Board authorization for the Mayor to sign the letters (see Attachments 1 and 2.) Advantages: • Aligns with Town Board’s policy of supporting attainable / workforce housing. • Proposed project will benefit the households to be served and the community as a whole, at little or no local cost. Disadvantages: • None identified. Action Recommended: Staff recommends the Town Board authorize the Mayor to sign the attached letters on behalf of the Town. Finance/Resource Impact: N/A to Town (LIHTCs are Federally funded) Level of Public Interest Low. Sample Motion: I move to authorize the Mayor to sign the letters of Town support for LIHTC funding as outlined therein. Attachments: 1. Draft support letter, Trail Ridge Apts. (August 10, 2021) 2. Draft support letter, Park Ridge Apts. (August 10, 2021) 3. Project Fact Sheet: Park Ridge Apartments, Estes Park, CO (first draft: August 30, 2021) Page 28 NOTIFICATION TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTION CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2021 Round 2 - 4% Federal and Colorado State Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program August 10, 2021 Town of Estes Park Mayor Wendy Koenig 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mayor Koenig: The Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) is the administrator of the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) in Colorado. The LIHTC program was created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act to encourage the production and preservation of affordable rental housing. To receive the tax credits, property owners are required to maintain long-term rent affordability for individuals and families of low income, typically for 30 to 40 years. CHFA awards the credits statewide through a comprehensive selection process that is governed by its Qualified Allocation Plan (or QAP). The QAP is located on CHFA’s website at: http://www.chfainfo.com/arh/lihtc/Pages/qap.aspx We are notifying you that the referenced project has been proposed in your local jurisdiction in order to provide you an opportunity to comment on the project. Please provide us with your comments on the attached form, attach any additional information, and sign and return the form to our office as soon as possible. Additionally, if you would be interested in having CHFA staff provide you and your staff with an introduction to the LIHTC program and CHFA’s award process, please let us know and we will be happy to coordinate a meeting. Sincerely yours, Paula Harrison Tax Credit Program Administrator cc: Ms. Barbara McAlpine ATTACHMENT 1 Page 29 2 Mr. Travis Machalek NOTIFICATION TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTION Project Name: Chrisman Trail Ridge Project Address: 1256 Community Drive Project Sponsor: Chrisman Development, Inc. Type of Project: Acquisition/Rehabilitation Number of Units: 24 Total Units - 23 LI Units 1. Do you view this proposed project as being consistent with the development and preservation of the housing plan in your community? Yes. The 2016 Housing Needs Assessment indicates a need to facilitate rehabilitation of housing where necessary, including attainable and workforce housing. The project will help the community reach that goal. 2. If proposed project is not viewed as consistent with local housing needs and priorities, please explain why. Not applicable. The project is consistent with local housing needs and priorities. 3. Other Comments: None at this time. Signature Title Print Name CHFA, attention: Paula Harrison, Tax Credit Program Administrator Via email to: pharrison@chfainfo.com Page 30 NOTIFICATION TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTION CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2021 Round 2 - 4% Federal and Colorado State Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program August 10, 2021 Town of Estes Park Mayor Wendy Koenig 170 MacGregor Avenue Estes Park, CO 80517 Dear Mayor Koenig: The Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA) is the administrator of the Federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program (LIHTC) in Colorado. The LIHTC program was created by the 1986 Tax Reform Act to encourage the production and preservation of affordable rental housing. To receive the tax credits, property owners are required to maintain long-term rent affordability for individuals and families of low income, typically for 30 to 40 years. CHFA awards the credits statewide through a comprehensive selection process that is governed by its Qualified Allocation Plan (or QAP). The QAP is located on CHFA’s website at: http://www.chfainfo.com/arh/lihtc/Pages/qap.aspx We are notifying you that the referenced project has been proposed in your local jurisdiction in order to provide you an opportunity to comment on the project. Please provide us with your comments on the attached form, attach any additional information, and sign and return the form to our office as soon as possible. Additionally, if you would be interested in having CHFA staff provide you and your staff with an introduction to the LIHTC program and CHFA’s award process, please let us know and we will be happy to coordinate a meeting. Sincerely yours, Paula Harrison Tax Credit Program Administrator cc: Ms. Barbara MacAlpine ATTACHMENT 2 Page 31 2 Mr. Travis Michalak NOTIFICATION TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTION Project Name: Chrisman Park Ridge Apartments Project Address: 1250 Acacia Drive Project Sponsor: Chrisman Development, Inc. Type of Project: Acquisition/Rehabilitation Number of Units: 32 Total Units - 31 LI Units 1. Do you view this proposed project as being consistent with the development and preservation of the housing plan in your community? Yes. The 2016 Housing Needs Assessment indicates a need to facilitate rehabilitation of housing where necessary, including attainable and workforce housing. The project will help the community reach that goal. 2. If proposed project is not viewed as consistent with local housing needs and priorities, please explain why. Not applicable. The project is consistent with local housing needs and priorities. 3. Other Comments: None at this time. Signature Title Print Name CHFA, attention: Paula Harrison, Tax Credit Program Administrator Via email to: pharrison@chfainfo.com Page 32 67 PROPERTIES REHABILITATED 2,103 UNITS REHABILITATED 1,780 RENT ASSISTED UNITS PRESERVED 216M TOTAL PROJECT COSTS CHRISMAN DEVELOPMENT, INC. Since 1989, Chrisman Development, Inc. (CDI) has been a leader in the development, rehabilitation, and management of affordable housing projects. Serving our most vulnerable populations: low-income families, seniors, the disabled, and the chronically mentally ill, CDI provides housing its residents are proud to call home, and is dedicated to the development and long-term preservation of affordable housing opportunities within our communities. Independently, or working in partnership with local nonprofit organizations, Chrisman Development has developed or rehabilitated 67 affordable housing projects, representing a total of 2,103 units with total project costs exceeding $216,000,000. However, over the past decade alone, CDI has completed 12 scattered site rehabilitation projects representing 1,259 units across 33 individual properties (31 of which are USDA Rural Development projects). During this period, our company has experienced tremendous growth and we are committed to continuing our preservation efforts through the scattered site rehabilitation model that has led to much of our success. CDI has successfully combined 4% LIHTC tax credits with various Oregon state funding resources on multiple projects to create viable financing structures used to acquire and rehabilitate older rural properties, often times Rural Development properties, in order to preserve those units for rural low income residents. Chrisman Development is eager to implement this proven and successful model in Colorado to preserve affordable units that may otherwise be at risk of conversion to market-rate rents. 200 E Main Street • Enterprise, OR 97828 • chrismandm.com PARK RIDGE APARTMENTS ATTACHMENT 3 Page 33 200 E Main Street • Enterprise, OR 97828 • chrismandm.com200 E Main Street • Enterprise, OR 97828 • chrismandm.com200 E Main Street • Enterprise, OR 97828 • chrismandm.com PARK RIDGE APARTMENTS PROJECT OVERVIEW • Scattered-Site Acq/Rehab - four Rural Development (RD) properties in Brighton, Limon, and Estes Park • Current occupancy = 97.3% • Half of the 115 LIHTC units serve tenants with very low incomes: ° Average household income for rental assistance units = $13,597 ° 62 units with project-based rental assistance from RD • Income Averaging to prevent displacement of existing residents • AHTCs are critical because of rehabilitation needs • Based on feedback received from CHFA following the submission of last year’s funding application, the proposed scope of work includes the full rehabilitation of all interiors at all four properties. PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS • Kitchen and Bathroom Cabinets • Gas Furnaces • Sinks and Faucets • New Flooring • Toilets and Tubs • New Windows and Doors • Energy Efficient Lighting Upgrades • ADA Unit Conversions • New Smoke Detectors and Fire Extinguishers • Office and Laundry Room Upgrades • Energy Efficient Appliances • Addition of Dishwashers, Garbage Disposals, and AC Units EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS • New Sidewalks • New Paint • Energy Efficient Exterior Lighting • Trash Enclosures and Mailboxes • New Landscaping • Remediation of Site Drainage Issues • New Siding at Brighton, Limon, and Estes Park I SITE SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS • Brighton: Will receive new exterior stairs and playground. Parking lot will be repaired and receive new seal-coat and striping. • Limon: Will receive new exterior stairs and playground. • Estes Park I: Wooden pathways around the property will be replaced and the property will receive new exterior stairs. BRIGHTON LIMON ESTES PARK I ESTES PARK II PARK RIDGE APARTMENTS Page 34 200 E Main Street • Enterprise, OR 97828 • chrismandm.com PROJECT PHOTOS - BRIGHTON PROJECT PHOTOS - LIMON PROJECT PHOTOS - ESTES PARK I PROJECT PHOTOS - ESTES PARK II PARK RIDGE APARTMENTS Page 35 200 E Main Street • Enterprise, OR 97828 • chrismandm.com BEFORE & AFTER PHOTOS - COVE APARTMENTS, LA GRANDE, OR BEFORE & AFTER PHOTOS - CREST BUTTE APARTMENTS, BEND, OR BEFORE & AFTER PHOTOS - HOLIDAY GARDEN APARTMENTS, TALENT, OR PARK RIDGE APARTMENTS Page 36 POLICE DEPARTMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Wes Kufeld, Chief of Police Date: September 14, 2021 RE: Resolution 64-21 Fourth Amendment to the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority Intergovernmental Agreement continuing the partnership to provide E911 infrastructure and support. (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: To continue a vital partnership, along with multiple other political subdivisions, with the Larimer County Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) to provide E911 Emergency Telephone Service infrastructure within the Town of Estes Park. Present Situation: The Town of Estes Park Police Department maintains an Emergency Services Communications Center, otherwise known as a “Emergency Dispatch Center” which provides emergency communications for Police, Fire, EMS, throughout the Estes Valley as well as Rocky Mountain National Park. The Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority provides and maintains the E911 infrastructure for our local Emergency Services Communications Center. Proposal: To continue a partnership with the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority to provide E911 Infrastructure and support. Advantages: Enhanced 911 services for all persons who live, work and visit Estes Park. Disadvantages: None Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval on the Resolution 64-21. LETA Intergovernmental Agreement. Page 37 Finance/Resource Impact: None Level of Public Interest High Interest Recommended Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 64-21. Attachments: 1. Resolution 64-21 2. LETA Intergovernmental Agreement Page 38 RESOLUTION 64-21 APPROVING THE FOURTH AMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the Town of Estes Park first entered into an agreement with multiple political subdivisions in 1990 for the establishment of the Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) and for the implementation of an E-911 Emergency Telephone Service; and WHEREAS, the Town Board wishes to renew the amended intergovernmental agreement referenced in the title of this resolution for the purpose of maintaining E-911 infrastructure for the local Emergency Services Communications Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the intergovernmental agreement referenced in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this day of , 2021. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney ATTACHMENT 1 Page 39 1 FOURTH AMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY This Fourth Amended Intergovernmental Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into effective November 1, 2021, by and between the following political subdivisions and public entities of the State of Colorado, which are referred to herein collectively as “Parties” and are referred to herein individually by name or as “Party.” County (1)/Cities (2)/Towns (6) County of Larimer City of Fort Collins City of Loveland Town of Berthoud Town of Estes Park Town of Johnstown Town of Timnath Town of Wellington Town of Windsor Hospital/Health Services Districts (3) Health District of Northern Larimer County Park Hospital District Thompson Valley Health Services District State (1) Colorado State University Fire Authorities (2) Loveland Fire Rescue Authority Poudre Fire Authority Fire Protection Districts (15) Allenspark Fire Protection District Berthoud Fire Protection District Crystal Lakes Fire Protection District Estes Valley Fire Protection District Front Range Fire Rescue Fire Protection District (f/k/a Johnstown Fire Protection District) Glacier View Fire Protection District Livermore Fire Protection District Loveland Rural Fire Protection District Lyons Fire Protection District Pinewood Springs Fire Protection District Poudre Canyon Fire Protection District Poudre Valley Fire Protection District Red Feather Lakes Fire Protection District Wellington Fire Protection District Windsor-Severance Fire Protection District WHEREAS, on or about November 14, 1990, multiple political subdivisions entered into an “Intergovernmental Agreement concerning the implementation of an E-911 Emergency Telephone Service” (“the IGA”) to form a separate legal entity to serve as a governing body to provide emergency telephone service and to establish, collect, and disperse the emergency telephone charge in Larimer County, and they named the new entity Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority; WHEREAS, the IGA was thereafter amended three times effective July 7, 1999, April 5, 2002, and July 21, 2009, the July 21, 2009 amendment being known as the “Third Amended IGA”; WHEREAS, subject to an affirmative vote of three-quarters (3/4) of the 25 signatories to the Third Amended IGA, the Parties desire to update the IGA, as amended, to reflect changes in federal and state law, the signatories to the IGA, advancements in 911 call technology and infrastructure, and the intent and purposes as to Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority’s ATTACHMENT 2 Page 40   2   operations; WHEREAS, the Parties are authorized by Colorado statute (Title 29, Article 11, Part 1) to enter into a contract to establish a separate legal entity that serves as a governing body for the purpose of providing emergency telephone service and to establish and collect an emergency telephone charge in Larimer County; WHEREAS, the Colorado Constitution (Article XIV, Section 18) and Colorado statutes (Title 29, Article 1, Part 2) permit and encourage governments to make the most efficient and effective use of their powers and responsibilities by cooperating and contracting with each other; and WHEREAS, C.R.S. § 29-1-203 authorizes government, as defined in C.R.S. § 29-1-202, to cooperate or contract with one another to provide any function, service, or facility lawfully authorized to each of the cooperating or contracting units if: 1. such cooperation or contracts are authorized by each party thereto with the approval of its legislative body or other authority having the power to so approve; and 2. any such contract shall set forth fully the purposes, powers, rights, obligations, and the responsibilities, financial and otherwise, of the contracting parties and may provide for the joint exercise of the function, service, or facility, including the establishment of a separate legal entity to do so. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter contained, the Parties agree as follows: I. PREAMBLE The Parties agree that the recitals set forth above are true and correct and those recitals are hereby incorporated into the body of this Agreement. II. SUPERSEDING PRIOR AGREEMENTS The Parties agree that this Agreement shall supersede the IGA dated November 14, 1990, the amendments thereto dated July 7, 1999, and April 5, 2002, and the Third Amended IGA. III. DEFINITIONS As used herein: A. The definitions for the following terms shall be the same as set forth in C.R.S. § 29-11- 101, as may be amended: “emergency telephone charge,” “911 access connection,” “911 call,” “911 surcharge,” “emergency notification service” “emergency service provider,” “public Page 41   3   agency,” “public safety answering point” (“PSAP”), which is interchangeable with emergency communications center (“ECC”), “service supplier,” and “service user.”   B. “Agreement” means this Fourth Amended Intergovernmental Agreement for the Establishment of Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority;   C. “Board” means the Board of Directors described in Section V in which the powers of the Governing Body are vested.   D. “Bylaws” means the bylaws of the Governing Body as described in Section V(7).   E. “Emergency telephone service” means the receipt and processing of 911 calls by the PSAP for the purpose of providing responses from emergency service providers, and may include providing 911 call-related applications, services, programs, and systems.   F. “Governing Body” means Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority, per the definition set forth in C.R.S. § 29-11-101(16), as may be amended.   G. “Governing Body's jurisdiction” means within the geographic boundary of Larimer County, per the definition set forth in C.R.S. § 29-11-101(17), as may be amended. The Governing Body's jurisdiction differs from the Governing Body’s emergency telephone service area.   H. “Governing Body’s emergency telephone service area” means the collective boundaries of the emergency service providers that are used by the PSAPs for call routing and emergency response.   I. “Parties” means the signatories hereto, but, in the future, will not include any Party after the effective date of such Party’s withdrawal in accordance with Section X, and will include any new signatory admitted to this Agreement by the Board in accordance with Section VI(2)(q).   J. “Proportional basis” as used in Section X(3) means a percentage determined by the following formula: the number of 911 access connections within each boundary of the Identified Political Subdivisions divided by the total number of 911 access connections in the Governing Body’s jurisdiction. The Board shall determine the data to use for this calculation based on the Board’s determination of the most reliable source(s) and representative timeframes. For the purpose of this definition only: (1) “Identified Political Subdivisions” means Larimer County and each city and town that is a Party, and (2) the boundary of Larimer County means within the unincorporated areas of the County. If, at the time of the calculation, Larimer County, a city, or a town is not a Party, then the Board shall establish the formula to allocate its percentage among the Identified Political Subdivisions who are Parties. Page 42   4   IV. ESTABLISHMENT OF LARIMER EMERGENCY TELEPHONE AUTHORITY The Parties establish the separate legal entity and Governing Body known as Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority. The Governing Body may have also been referred to in prior intergovernmental agreements as the Larimer County Emergency Telephone Authority, which is hereby corrected. The Governing Body is created as a nonprofit, public entity established pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 29-1-203 and 29-11-102(1)(b), as may be amended. The Parties intend that the Governing Body be formed under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101 through 120, as may be amended, and meet the Act’s definition of a “public entity.” The Parties further intend that the Governing Body meet the definition of a “nonprofit organization” under C.R.S. § 13-21-115.5, as may be amended (the Volunteer Service Act), C.R.S. § 13-21-115.7, as amended, and C.R.S. § 13-21-116, as may be amended. The Governing Body is an independent legal entity, separate and distinct from the Parties. No debt, liability, or obligation of the Governing Body shall extend to or be an obligation of a Party, unless agreed to in writing. The Governing Body is responsible for the installation, administration, management, operation, maintenance, upgrade, and enhancement of emergency telephone service and emergency notification service in the Governing Body’s jurisdiction. The Parties will provide reasonable assistance and cooperation to the Governing Body as it carries out the functions, services, and facilities described in this Agreement for the Parties. The Parties believe that governing bodies created pursuant to Part 1 of Title 29, Article 11, including the Governing Body, are not subject to the revenue and spending limitations imposed by Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution ("Amendment 1"), and, to the extent that Amendment 1 may be deemed to apply to governing bodies, the Governing Body created hereby shall operate as an enterprise within the meaning of Amendment 1 and shall thereby be exempt from all revenue and spending limitations imposed by said Amendment. The Governing Body is formed in conformity with C.R.S. § 29-1-203.5. The provisions of C.R.S. § 29-1-203.5 apply to the Governing Body. A Party whose boundaries include portions of Larimer County and another county may be signatories on another intergovernmental agreement related to emergency telephone service and emergency notification service in such other county. V. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1. Board. The business and affairs of the Governing Body shall be managed by a Board of Directors consisting of seven (7) directors, each serving without compensation. The Board shall have the power to perform all acts necessary, to fulfill the purposes for which the Governing Body was established, whether express or implied. Page 43   5   2. Qualifications of Directors. Each director shall be either (a) a resident of Larimer County, or (b) an elected official or full-time employee of a Party with an established scope of responsibility and delegated authority to make and implement policy-making or management- level decisions for the Party.   3. Appointment to the Board. Each director shall be appointed as follows: a. The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners shall choose one (1) individual who meets the qualifications to serve as the director to represent Larimer County. The Larimer County Board of County Commissioners may determine the method for appointment from time to time and shall give to the Governing Body notice of any change in its method for appointment. b. The City of Fort Collins appoints the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee as its one (1) individual who meets the qualifications to serve as the director to represent the City of Fort Collins. The City Council of the City of Fort Collins may change its method for appointment from time to time and shall give to the Governing Body notice of any change in its method for appointment. c. The City Council of the City of Loveland shall choose one (1) individual who meets the qualifications to serve as the director to represent the City of Loveland. The City Council of the City of Loveland may determine the method for appointment from time to time and shall give to the Governing Body notice of any change in its method for appointment. d. The Town of Estes Park appoints the Town Administrator or the Town Administrator’s designee as its one (1) individual who meets the qualifications to serve as the director to represent the Town of Estes Park. The Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park may change its method for appointment from time to time and shall give to the Governing Body notice of any change in its method for appointment. e. The Board as then-comprised at the time of the appointment shall solicit nominees, nominate individually or as a slate, and appoint three (3) additional qualified directors as follows:   1. A director to represent the Parties that are fire districts and fire authorities; 2. A director to represent the Parties that are hospital and health services districts; and 3. A director to represent the Parties that are Colorado State University and towns not otherwise represented on the Board, with preference given to a Party with a PSAP.   4. Term and Removal. Directors shall serve a term of two (2) calendar years. There is no prohibition on consecutive terms or on the number of terms. A director may be removed if Page 44   6   permitted by and pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Bylaws.     5. Voting and Quorum. Each director shall have one (1) vote. No proxy voting shall be permitted. Directors may participate in a meeting remotely by means of telecommunication that permits the director to hear and be heard by all individuals in attendance (audio and/or video) and shall be deemed present for a quorum and entitled to vote at the meeting. A quorum of the Board shall consist of four (4) directors, except that, should there be four (4) or more vacancies at any time, then during that time, a quorum shall consist of three (3) directors. No official action may be taken by the Board on any matter unless a quorum is present. The affirmative vote of a majority of the Board shall be required for the Board to take action.   6. Vacancy. Any vacancy occurring as a result of a director’s resignation, removal, death, disqualification, or any other reason shall be filled for the balance of that director’s unfinished term in accordance with the applicable provision of the appointment process set forth in Section V(3). 7. Bylaws. The Board has promulgated Bylaws detailing all governance matters it deems necessary, including but not limited to: the scheduling and conduct of Board meetings, voting, and director removal; establishment and responsibilities of officer positions, their terms, and the filling of any vacancies; the establishment and responsibilities of committees; and Governing Body operating and fiscal procedures. Such Bylaws may be amended by the Board in accordance with the procedures set forth therein. In the event of a conflict, direct or indirect, between a provision the Bylaws and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. VI. POWERS OF THE GOVERNING BODY 1. Plenary Powers. The Governing Body may carry out all purposes of this Agreement and may exercise all powers related thereto, including all incidental, implied, expressed, or such other powers as necessary, except as expressly limited in this Agreement. The Governing Body shall not have the power to levy taxes or the power of eminent domain. 2. Enumerated Powers. Without in any way limiting the plenary powers set forth in subsection (1) above, the Governing Body is specifically authorized to undertake all actions for the installation, administration, management, operation, maintenance, upgrade, and enhancement of emergency telephone service and emergency notification service within the Governing Body's jurisdiction that the Governing Body believes are necessary and appropriate and consistent with applicable law, including but not limited to: a. imposing, collecting, and auditing all charges and surcharges in the Governing Body’s jurisdiction as set forth in Part 1 of Title 29, Article 11, as may be amended, and expending such funds as authorized by statute and this Agreement. b. owning, operating, maintaining, leasing (as Lessor or Lessee), selling, or otherwise disposing of any legal or equitable interest in real and personal property. Page 45   7     c. adopting budgets, maintaining bank accounts, and investing funds.   d. carrying over funds which have not been used in a given fiscal year to the following fiscal year.   e. negotiating, entering into, amending (if necessary), and performing contracts.   f. adopting, reviewing, and amending the Bylaws and passing resolutions not in conflict with this Agreement.   g. adopting, reviewing on an annual basis, and amending (if necessary) the Governing Body’s intergovernmental agreements other than this Agreement, as well as policies, protocols, procedures, or rules and regulations (collectively, "Policies") related to the provision of emergency telephone service and emergency notification service within the Governing Body's jurisdiction on subjects including but not limited to:   o Human Resources o cost sharing o street naming o pictometry o geographic information systems (GIS) o Master Street Address Guide (MSAG) o 911 Call Flow/Routing o use of the backup PSAP o 911 network o fiber optic cable (leasing and owning) o customer-premises equipment (CPE) and other equipment o computer aided dispatch (CAD) system o Combined Regional Information Systems Project (CRISP) o insurance for PSAP equipment owned by the Governing Body and located at a facility owned by a Party o emergency alert systems (selection and use) o complex emergency events o records retention and compliance with applicable law o training, accreditation, and certification o Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) o call boxes o finances and investments In the event of a conflict, direct or indirect, between a provision the Policies and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control. h. determining who is authorized to send emergency alerts and the circumstances Page 46   8   under which they may be sent.   i. adopting a policy regarding street naming after collaboration with the Parties in whose jurisdiction the street is located.   j. adopting systems (software, hardware, and protocols) for Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD).   k. conducting joint, partnership, cooperative, or other operations with other individuals and entities.   l. employing agents, accountants, attorneys, engineers, consultants, and other advisors. m. incurring and paying debts, liabilities, or obligations, including borrowing and executing documents incidental thereto. n. issuing bonds, notes, or other obligations payable from the revenues derived or to be derived from the revenue of the Governing Body as permitted by applicable law. o. suing and being sued in its own name.   p. receiving contributions, gifts, bequests, grants, cash, equipment, or services from the Parties or any other public or private individual or entity.   q. after a formal Resolution of the Board, admitting a new signatory to this Agreement who becomes a Party without formal amendment of this Agreement, so long as each new signatory qualifies under C.R.S. §§ 29-1-202 and 203, has the approval of its legislative body or other authority having the power to so approve, and signs a document memorializing its admission.   r. participating in committees, groups, and organizations at the federal, state, and local level whose work relates to emergency telephone service and emergency notification service, including laws, regulations, and rules related thereto.   s. any other act which the Governing Body believes is reasonably necessary for the exercise of its powers and the performance of its obligations under this Agreement. VII. BOOKS AND RECORDS The Governing Body shall keep accurate and correct books of account on a modified accrual basis, showing in detail the capital costs, costs of services, installation, maintenance and operating costs, and the financial transactions of the Governing Body. The Governing Body's books of account shall also correctly show any and all revenues, fund balances, costs, or charges, Page 47   9   as well as all funds received by and all funds expended by the Governing Body. The Governing Body's books and records shall be open to inspection during normal business hours upon reasonable notice by a Party, its attorneys, accountants, or agents. The books and records of the Governing Body shall also be made available to the public in accordance with the provisions of Colorado’s Open Records Act, as may be amended. The Governing Body shall cause an annual audit to be conducted by an independent Certified Public Accountant licensed to practice in the State of Colorado. The Governing Body shall comply with the Colorado Local Government Audit Law, C.R.S. § 29-1-601 through 608, as may be amended. The Governing Body shall comply with all other applicable federal and state financial reporting requirements. The Governing Body shall maintain an asset inventory list for any and all real and personal property acquired by the Governing Body in whole or in part. VIII. REPORTS TO PARTIES On an annual basis, the Governing Body shall submit a comprehensive annual report to the Parties summarizing the activities of the Governing Body during the preceding year and make available information concerning the finances of the Governing Body. IX. DURATION OF AGREEMENT The Agreement and the Governing Body shall have perpetual existence as permitted by C.R.S. § 29-1-203(1), as may be amended, unless sooner terminated in accordance with this Agreement. X. WITHDRAWAL, TERMINATION, AND DISSOLUTION 1. Withdrawal. Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement by providing notice to each other Party and to the Governing Body. The withdrawal shall not be effective until at least one calendar year after the last notice is delivered. 2. Termination by Mutual Agreement of the Parties. Upon a three quarters (3/4) majority vote of all then-Parties, this Agreement shall be terminated and the Governing Body dissolved so long as, at the time of the vote, at least three quarters (3/4) of the Parties have also agreed in writing as to one or more entities who will succeed the Governing Body and undertake all actions for the continued installation, administration, management, operation, maintenance, upgrade, and enhancement of emergency telephone service and emergency notification service within the Governing Body's jurisdiction. The effective date of termination shall be December 31st in the calendar year ending no less than six months after the three quarters (3/4) majority vote for termination.    Page 48   10     3. Dissolution of Governing Body. Upon the termination of this Agreement pursuant to subsection (2) above, the Board and the Parties shall take such actions necessary to finalize and conclude the Governing Body's operations, effect the orderly dissolution of the Governing Body, and transition emergency telephone service and emergency notification service to the entity or entities who will succeed the Governing Body, at the discretion of the Board. All assets of the Governing Body shall be distributed on a proportional basis either in-kind or after liquidation, at the discretion of the Board, except for any assets that the Board determines should be distributed to the entity or entities who will succeed the Governing Body. The Board shall be responsible for inventorying the assets of the Governing Body, distributing or liquidating any assets as appropriate, concluding the affairs of the Governing Body, and transitioning emergency telephone service and emergency notification service to the entity or entities who will succeed the Governing Body. Subject to the exercise of the Board’s discretion, a Party which has previously made a contribution toward the purchase of a jointly owned asset may receive full ownership of the asset upon termination; however, the Party must account to the Governing Body for the amount that the Governing Body contributed toward purchase of the asset upon distribution of the other assets of the Governing Body. The Parties’ rights related to distribution of assets shall survive termination of this Agreement. XI. LIABILITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, AND EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNING BODY The Governing Body and its directors, officers, and employees shall be immune from suit and civil liability as provided by applicable law because the Governing Body is a nonprofit, public entity and political subdivision of the State of Colorado established pursuant to C.R.S. §§ 29-1-203 and 29-11-102(1)(b), as amended; the Governing Body is a public entity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, C.R.S. § 24-10-101 through 120, as amended; and the Governing Body is a “nonprofit organization” under C.R.S. § 13-21-115.5, as amended (the Volunteer Service Act), C.R.S. § 13-21-115.7, as amended, and C.R.S. § 13-21-116, as amended. In addition, the Governing Body shall purchase insurance for the Governing Body and its Board, officers and employees which insurance will provide reasonable coverage against any claims, suit or proceeding arising out of or relating to any act or omission under this Agreement. XII. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended upon the affirmative vote of three-quarters (3/4) of the then-Parties to this Agreement.   Page 49   11   XIII. NOTICE   Notice to a Party is given by delivering a writing to its current address as listed by the Department of Local Affairs. The Notice shall be addressed as follows: (a) to the Board in the case of Larimer County, (b) to the Board and its Chief Executive Officer in the case of a special district, a fire authority, or the Governing Body, (c) to the City Council in the case of cities, and (d) to the Town Board, Town Council, or Board of Trustees in the case of Towns. A courtesy copy shall also be delivered to the attorneys for Larimer County, cities, and towns. Failure to deliver courtesy copies to the attorneys shall not invalidate a notice otherwise properly delivered as provided in this Agreement. Notice to a director is given by delivering a writing addressed to the director to the Governing Body’s current address. Notice shall be effective upon receipt if hand-delivered or three (3) days after mailing if sent by first-class or certified U.S. mail. XIV. SEVERABILITY In the event any provision of this Agreement is determined to be illegal or invalid for any reason, all other provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless and until otherwise determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. The illegality of any provision of this Agreement shall in no way affect the legality and enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement. XV. SUCCESSORS AND THIRD PARTIES This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of the Parties. This Agreement is not intended to, and does not, inure to the benefit of non-Parties to this Agreement. XVI. ASSIGNMENT AND DELEGATION No Party shall assign any of the rights nor delegate any of the duties created by this Agreement without the written approval of three-quarters (3/4) of the other then-Parties to this Agreement. XVII. COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed by original, scanned, or digital counterpart signatures and shall have the same force and effect as if all signatures appeared on the same original. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused their representatives to affix their respective signatures hereto. Page 50   12   COUNTY OF LARIMER STATE OF COLORADO By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: ALLENSPARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO By: Jeni Arndt, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Cyril Vidergar Date: BERTHOUD FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: CITY OF LOVELAND, COLORADO By: Stephen C. Adams, City Manager ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Laurie Stirman Date: CRYSTAL LAKES FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date:    Page 51   13   TOWN OF BERTHOUD, COLORADO By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: ESTES VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Wendy Koenig, Mayor ATTEST: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Dan Kramer Date: FRONT RANGE FIRE RESCUE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: TOWN OF JOHNSTOWN, COLORADO By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: GLACIER VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date:    Page 52   14   TOWN OF TIMNATH, COLORADO By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: LIVERMORE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: TOWN OF WELLINGTON, COLORADO By: Troy Hamman, Mayor ATTEST: Krystal Eucker, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Dan Sapienza Date: LOVELAND RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: TOWN OF WINDSOR, COLORADO By: Paul Rennemeyer, Mayor ATTEST: Karen Frawley, Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Ian McCargar Date: LYONS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date:    Page 53   15   HEALTH DISTRICT OF NORTHERN LARIMER COUNTY By: Michael D. Liggett, Board President ATTEST: Anita Benavidez, Asst. to E.D. APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: PINEWOOD SPRINGS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: PARK HOSPITAL DISTRICT By: Gary Hall, CIO/COO, Estes Park Health ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: POUDRE CANYON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: Gene Mericle, President ATTEST: Paula Collins, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: THOMPSON VALLEY HEALTH SERVICES DISTRICT By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: POUDRE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: Derek Bergsten, Chief ATTEST: Sean Jones, Battalion Chief APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: Page 54   16   COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: RED FEATHER LAKES FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: LOVELAND FIRE RESCUE AUTHORITY By: Jeff Swanty, Board Chair ATTEST: Kristen Cummings APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Emily Powell Date: WELLINGTON FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: Gary Green, Chief ATTEST: Ashley Macdonald, Deputy District Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: POUDRE FIRE AUTHORITY By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Emily Powell Date: WINDSOR-SEVERANCE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT By: ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM (if applicable): Date: Page 55       Page 56 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Christy Crosser, Grants Specialist Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator Date: September 14, 2021 RE: Resolution 65-21, Grant Funding application to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs for the Planning Grant Program (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Approve a resolution to submit a grant application for funds from the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) HS21-1271 Planning Grant Program to support a housing needs assessment and possibly other housing-related studies. This purpose of this grant program is to help local governments better understand their housing needs and adopt policy and regulatory strategies to reduce barriers for affordable housing development. Present Situation: The last housing needs assessment was conducted in 2016 and needs to be updated. In light of rapidly changing circumstances in the housing market – nationally and locally –and the current work being done on the new Comprehensive Plan, we believe the time is right. We are also considering other housing-related studies that may be eligible for grant funding. Proposal: Staff proposes submit a grant application to DOLA’s Planning Grant Program to support a professional consulting firm to work with Town staff and stakeholders to implement the necessary tasks for a housing needs assessment and other possible housing-related studies that reflect this community’s needs, opportunities and unique characteristics. The minimum requirements and process for this grant application includes the following: •Support from the Town Board of Trustees in the form of a resolution. •Rolling application with a first review cycle on September 20, 2021. Page 57 •A 25% local match. •The project must be completed by June 2024. Advantages: •If awarded, the grant will provide funding support to conduct a new housing needs assessment and other possible housing-related studies, leveraging Town funds. •Conduct community outreach. •Integrate this assessment effort with the Comprehensive Plan. •Learn about housing needs, opportunities and challenges from the community. •Position the Town to address the housing needs including funding opportunities. Disadvantages: •Project management with limited staff resources; however, staff believes this is a priority so will be available to manage this project. •25% local match requirement; however, funds are available to support this. •Housing can be a controversial subject for some citizens, especially workforce housing thus the reason the Town plans to work with skilled facilitators to manage this project. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution to support the DOLA Housing Planning Grant application. This resolution commits the Town to meet DOLA’s local match funding and grant management requirements, if awarded. Finance/Resource Impact: Staff will determine the total costs. The last housing needs assessment was about $65,000. With this in mind, and knowing there may be other housing-related studies this fund could help support, we can roughly estimate a total cost around $100,000. A grant award in the amount of $75,000 would require a $25,000 match from the Town. Level of Public Interest At this time and with the submission of this grant application the public interest is moderate. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial Resolution 65-21. Attachments: 1. Resolution 65-21 Page 58 RESOLUTION 65-21 APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDING TO THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS PLANNING GRANT PROGRAM WHEREAS, housing is a priority need for Estes Park as evidenced by the adopted Strategic Plan; and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to conduct a new housing needs assessment to update information from the previous assessment; and WHEREAS, the Town may desire to conduct other housing-related studies; and WHEREAS, DOLA is offering planning grants; and WHEREAS, it is reasonable and appropriate for the Board of Trustees to support a grant application and help shape the needs assessment process; and WHEREAS, The Town intends to appropriate funds for the required local match in the 2021 budget. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board supports and authorizes staff to submit the grant application referenced in the title of this resolution. DATED this day of , 2021. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney ATTACHMENT 1 Page 59 Page 60 LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY ESTES PARK, COLORADO RE: GALEX LLC, dIbIA CHELITOS MEXICAN RESTAURANT Attn: Erika Santana 145 E. Elkhorn Ave. P.O. Box 3345 Estes Park, CO 80517 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kristin N. Brown does hereby enter her appearance on behalf in the above captioned matter as special prosecutor. Counsel will prosecute the alleged liquor code violations involving licensee. Dated: September 17, 2021. Special Prosecutor P.O. Box 253 Longmont, CO 303-48s-1079 Certificate of Delivery I hereby certifli that on September _,2021,I delivered the foregoing document by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows; by hand delivery: Galex LLC, dlbla Chelitos Mexican Restaurant Attn: Erika Santana P.O. Box 3345 Estes Park, CO 80517 KnrsrrryNoRDECK pnowN, PC LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY ESTES PARK, COLORADO RE: GALEX LLC, d|b|a CHELITOS MEXICAN RESTAURANT Attn: Erika Santana 145 E. Elkhorn Ave. P.O. Box 3345 Estes Park, CO 80517 MOTION TO CONTINUE SHOW CAUSE HEARING COMES NOW, the special prosecutor, and moves the Local Licensing Authority for a continuance of the Show Cause hearing now scheduled for Tuesday, September 14,2021 at7:00 p.m. As grounds therefore, the special prosecutor states as fbllows: 1. The Local Licensing Authority issued the "Order to Show Cause and Notice of Hearing" in the matter involving Chelitos Mexican Restaurant on August 11,2021, having found probable cause to believe that specific alleged violations of the Colorado Liquor Code occurred. The show cause hearing was scheduled for September 14,2021at7:00 p.m. 2- On September 10,2021, town staff met with the undersigned counsel to discuss the matter and engage the legal services of counsel. Counsel was retained to prosecute the matter two business days before the hearing. 3. Counsel has a conflict and is unable to appear for the September 14 hearing. 4. This is the first request for continuance. 5. The continuance will not act to prejudice the Licensee, as upon infbrmation and belief, Ms. Santana is out of the country at this time. 6. Town staff and counsel are available for a hearing on October 12,2021, 7:00 p.m. WHEREFORE, the prosecution requests the Authority continue the Show Cause hearing to October 12,2021, 7:00 p.m. DATED: September \\, 2021. Respectfully sr.rbmitted, Special Prosecutor P.O. Box 253 Longmont, CO 80502 303-485-7079 Certificate of Delivery I hereby cerlify that on September _,2021,1 delivered the foregoing document by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows; by hand delivery: Galex LLC, dlbla Chelitos Mexican Restaurant Attn: Erika Santana P.O. Box 3345 Estes Park, CO 80517 KRrsrrN Nfioacx BnowN, PC LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY ESTES PARK, COLORADO RE: GALEX LLC, dlbla CHELITOS MEXICAN RESTAURANT Attn: Erika Santana 145 E. Elkhorn Ave. P.O. Box 3345 Estes Park, CO 80517 ORDER: CONTINUED SHOW CAUSE HEARING DATE This matter comes before the Authority on motion of the special prosecutor to continue the Show Cause hearing to October 72,2021at7:00 pm. The public hearing on the matter scheduled for Septernber 14, 2021 was opened, the Local Licensing Authority considered the motion and finds as follows: 1. The special prosecutor was just retained by the town to handle the prosecution of the matter before the Local Licensing Authority. 2. The request to continue the Show Cause hearing to October 12, 2021 is reasonable. 3. The public hearing for the Show Cause hearing shall be continued to October 12, 2027, at 7:00 p.m. 4. The licensee shall appear at that time to show cause why the Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License should not be suspended or revoked. DATED: September _, 2021. ESTES PARK LIQUOR AUTHORITY Wendy Koenig, Chair Certificate of Delivery I hereby certify that on September ,2021, I delivered the foregoing document by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows; by hand delivery: Galex LLC, dlbla Chelitos Mexican Restaurant Attn: Erika Santana P.O. Box 3345 Estes Park, CO 80517 .lackie Williamson Secretary to the Licensing Authority Page 62 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Randy Hunt, Community Development Director Date: September 14, 2021 RE: Resolution 67-21: Termination of 2004 Development Agreement for Fall River Village, 200 Filbey Court (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Request for Town Board to approve a Resolution effectively terminating the 2004 Development Agreement for the Fall River Village Final Planned Unit Development (PUD.) The 2004 Agreement is now obsolete, but remains as an element in the property chain of title. Present Situation: Prior to the early 2000s, the property at what’s now 200 Filbey Court was developed as an old-style mobile home park. Various events, including natural aging/weathering and (staff is told) a flood, made the mobile home park unsustainable. Meanwhile, the property was becoming valuable for other purposes, due to proximity to downtown and core services in Estes Park. The mobile homes were removed and the property was rezoned to PUD during this time frame and was redeveloped under that zoning for residential use. The history from this time is a bit cloudy to current staff, but what is clear is that the redevelopment permissions included a Development Agreement (see Attachment 3.) The 2004 Fall River Village PUD and plat were superseded in 2017 by a new subdivision plat (technically a Resubdivision) (see Attachment 4) and in 2018 by a new PUD, Fall River Village II, which rezoned the property (see Attachment 5.) The 2017 and 2018 actions were for the purpose of further redeveloping part of the property to include accommodations units, potential residential uses, and a new wedding/events Page 63 venue. The property has subsequently been completely redeveloped and today would be characterized as a type of resort. In typical American zoning and subdivision practice, a complete rezoning and replatting of property serves to automatically void any previous elements that may have lingered on from previous zoning or subdivision activities, except for intentionally “permanent” elements such as a recorded final plat. It seems this was arguably not the case with the Fall River Village II resubdivision in 2017 and the PUD rezoning in 2018. Staff’s legal advice is that: (a) the 2004 Development Agreement is still effective,; and (b) the appropriate way to ensure its removal from that status is for Town Board to approve a termination agreement voiding the Development Agreement, such as the one proposed here. Proposal: In early August, the owner of Fall River Village II, Mr. Paul Pewterbaugh, requested that staff provide an "estoppel" letter to accompany title work for the property. This type of letter essentially would state that the old (2004) Development Agreement for the Fall River Village property is no longer applicable. These types of requests are not uncommon in cases where title to a property is to be transferred or when refinancing or mortgaging is being considered. The purpose is to remove an element in the chain of title that can lead to uncertainty or ambiguity. Although in some cases an estoppel letter can be issued by staff to confirm that a property is in compliance with zoning regulations, in this case, as noted, the Town Attorney advised that a staff letter cannot nullify an agreement approved by the Board. Because the Board appears to have approved the Development Agreement, an action terminating the Development Agreement should come from the Town Board. In staff’s judgment, terminating the old Development Agreement does no harm. The new 2017 Resubdivision and 2018 PUD resulted in a project that is built and legally occupied under regulations that differ significantly from the 2004 project. The 2004 Agreement was perhaps useful in its day, but the Agreement no longer does anyone any good. In our judgment all major and minor potentially applicable conditions in the 2004 Agreement address matters that are long obsolete on this property, and/or taken care of elsewhere in Code or in the PUD specifics. For example, the Agreement effectively prohibits mobile homes on the property - however, mobile homes are already prohibited by the current zoning – specifically, by not being identified textually or graphically in the PUD plan (Attachment 5). By the same token, the Agreement’s prohibition on “overnight lodging” (defined in the Agreement as stays of 30 days or less) is specifically contraindicated in the 2018 PUD approval – see attachment 5, p, 1, “Statistical Information: Former Lot 1-7 & Outlot A Fall River Village”, note 3 et seq. In summary, this Development Agreement is something like the body’s vermiform appendix: it exists and can’t be ignored if it acts up (as this 2004 document is doing); taking it out does no harm and accomplishes some good for the body’s overall health and well-being. Page 64 Advantages: • Provides a clean(er) chain of title to the current and any prospective future owner(s) • Removes an element in the property’s development history that no longer serves a useful purpose Disadvantages: None identified by staff Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of Resolution 67-21. Finance/Resource Impact: N/A Level of Public Interest: Low. Sample Motion: I move that the Town Board approve Resolution 67-21. Attachments: 1. Resolution 67-21: Terminating Fall River Village Development Agreement 2. TERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT / Fall River Village 3. Fall River Village Development Agreement (rec. May 25, 2004) 4. Fall River Village II Resubdivision of Lots 1-7 and Outlot A, Fall River Village P.U.D. and Lot 5A of the Amended Plat of Lot 5, Sunny Acres Addition (approved Sep. 14, 2017) 5. Amended Fall River Village II P.U.D. (rec. June 15, 2018) Page 65 RESOLUTION 67-21 APPROVING A TERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FALL RIVER VILLAGE WHEREAS, the property currently known as Fall River Village II, and so designated by the Resubdivision plat (2017) and PUD Rezoning (2018), potentially remain subject to a pre-existing Development Agreement for Fall River Village, executed and recorded in 2004; and WHEREAS, the development specified in connection with the 2004 Development Agreement was completed and approved some years before the present; and WHEREAS, the Development Agreement has not heretofore been terminated, as evidenced by the absence of any recorded instrument accomplishing same; and WHEREAS, the current ownership of Fall River Village II has requested that the 2004 Development Agreement be terminated; and WHEREAS, there is no longer any reason for either the Town or the ownership to desire continued legal efficacy of the 2004 Development Agreement, inasmuch as newer resubdivision and rezoning of the property have effectively eliminated the need to retain the 2004 Development Agreement: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the TERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT / Fall River Village, attached hereto and incorporated by reference in this Resolution, in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this day of , 2021. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney ATTACHMENT 1 Page 66 TERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Fall River Village This TERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Termination”) is made and entered into by and between the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, a municipal corporation (“Town”) and Fall River Village, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (“Developer”), with respect to the property known as Fall River Village Development (the “Development”) which is referred to as the “Property” in the Development Agreement defined below. WHEREAS, the Town entered into a Development Agreement pertaining to the Development with the Robert A. Filbey Irrevocable Trust (“Trust”) on March 9, 2004, recorded in Larimer County on May 25, 2004 at rec. no. 2004-0050114 (“Development Agreement”); WHEREAS, Developer represents that it is the owner of the Development and the successor in title to the Trust; WHEREAS, the Town subsequently approved a resubdivision of the Development on September 14, 2017, and an amended plan for a planned unit development at the Development site on March 27, 2018; and WHEREAS, due to the completion of construction and ongoing operations at the Development site on the basis of the resubdivision and the amended plan, the Town no longer considers the Development Agreement to be in effect. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, and agreements by the respective parties hereto, it is mutually agreed as follows: The Development Agreement together with any terms, conditions, requirements, servitudes and encumbrances created in the Development Agreement is hereby terminated, has no further force or effect, and shall no longer burden the Development or succeeding owners of the Development. The parties warrant that they have taken all actions necessary or required by their own procedures, bylaws, or applicable law, to authorize their respective signatories to sign this Termination for them and to bind them to its terms. EXECUTED AND EFFECTIVE this ___ day of ___________________, 2021. (Signature pages to follow.) ATTACHMENT 2 Page 67 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor State of ) ) ss: County of ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by , as the of the Town of Estes Park, a Colorado municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation, this day of , 2021. Witness my hand and official seal. My Commission Expires . Notary Public APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Page 68 DEVELOPER Fall River Village, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company By: Metropia Management LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, its manager By: Paul Pewterbaugh, its manager State of ) ) ss: County of ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me by Paul Pewterbaugh, a manager on behalf of Metropia Management, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, as manager of Fall River Village, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, this day of , 2021. Witness my hand and official Seal. My Commission expires . Notary Public Page 69 SCOTT DOYLE, CLERK LARIMER COUNTY CO 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111 RCPTN~ 2004-0050114 05/25/2004 14:05:00 PAGES - 7 FEE $36.00 DOC $0.00 ~332372 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Development Agreement") is entered into the day and year hereinafter set forth, by the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, a municipal corporation established pursuant to the laws of the State of Colorado ("Town") and the Robert A. Filbey Irrevocable Trust, a trust established under the laws of the State of Colorado ("Trust"). WITNESSETH: THAT, WHEREAS, Trust is the owner of approximately 6.52 acres of real property located in the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached to and incorporated into this Development Agreement ("Property"). WHEREAS, the Property is proposed to be subdivided pursuant to the Fall River Viilage Final PUD (the "Final Plat") and developed pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Development Plan for Fall River Village Communities (the "Development Plan"). Pursuant to the Final Plat, the Property is divided into eight (8) lots and two (2) outlots. Lots 1 through 7 and Outlot A are hereby referred to as Parcel A, and Lot 8 and Outlot B are hereby referred to as Parcel B. The Final Plat and the Development Agreement are hereby incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, incidental to the Town's approval of the Final Plat and the Development Plan, the Town and the Trust have agreed on a number of matters regarding the Property which are set forth below; and WHEREAS, the size and phasing of the development of the Property pursuant to the Final Plat and Development Plan, economic cycles and marketing conditions will require a Vested Property Right of a duration longer than three (3) years as more fully set forth in this Development Agreement; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Town and the Trust agree as follows: SECTION I. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO PARCEL A: 1. The parties acknowledge that Parcel A currently is used as a mobile home park which is a nonconforming use pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Estes Valley Development Code. The Final Plat provides for seven (7) lots on Parcel A (the "Residential Lots"), on which residential dwellings are planned to be constructed upon approval of the Final Plat and the Development Plan which approval is contemporary with the approval of this Development Agreement by the Town. Not later than twenty-four (24} months following · recordation of the Final Plat, the Trust agrees that: (i) it shall have terminate4_ all leaseholds for mobile home placement and use; (ii) the operation of the mobile home park on Parcel A shall have ceased and no portion of Parcel A shall be used for, or availf1iE~sr~~if()ofAE TOWN OF ESTES PARK; v ATTN: TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE P.O. BOX 1200 ESTES PARK, CO 80517 ATTACHMENT 3 Page 70 .. -;., . ;}! p~k; and (iii) all mobile homes shall have been removed from Parcel A and any other portion of the Property. 2. The Residential Lots shall be restricted to prohibit any overnight rental of the residences that are anticipated to be constructed on the Residential Lots. Overnight rental shall be any rental ofless than thirty (30) day continuous duration. 3. The design and construction of any and all buildings on Parcel A shall be subject to review and approval by an architectural control or review committee that will be created to govern Parcel A. SECTION II. PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY {PARCEL A AND PARCEL B): 4. The design and construction of any structure on the Property shall conform to the International Building Code, 2003 Edition or any edition subsequently adopted by the Town. 5. On the Final Plat, Outlot B is identified and dedicated to the Town as a "non- motorized public access parcel." The parties agree that Outlot B shall be dedicated to the Town but that Outlot B shall be subject to, and burdened by, utility easements for the benefit of the present and future owners of all or any portion of Lot 8. 6. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in C.R.S. §24-68-102 et seq., the parties agree that any and all vested property rights that attach to and run with the Property (including but not limited to the right to undertake and complete the development and use of the Property under this Development Agreement, the Final Plat and Development Plan) shall run with the Property and remain vested for a period of eight (8) years from the date of recordation of the Final Plat. In the event that the Property has not been fully developed as contemplated in the Development Plan within the eight (8) year vesting period, the approval for the Development Plan shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect unless said vesting period is extended by mutual written agreement of the parties. 7. This Development Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Larimer County, Colorado. 8. Upon the default of any ofthe provisions ofthis Development Agreement by either party, the parties agree that this Development Agreement may be specifically enforced by any party or any party may proceed in any other matter authorized by law for breach of a contract. In addition, the Town may: (a) Issue a written notice to the Trust to appear and show clause why the Final Plat shall not be vacated and/or the approval of the Development Plan shall not be rescinded. The written notice shall be deemed complete upon mailing the same certified mail to the address of the Trust stated herein. The written notice shall designate the date, time, and place of a hearing to be conducted by the Board ofTrustees of the Town to consider either or both of the 2 Page 71 ~-· remedies. The hearing shall be not less than thirty (30) no more than sixty (60) days from the date of the written notice. (b) Proceed in any manner described in the Estes Valley Development Code or State statutes for a violation of this Development Agreement. (c) Withhold any building permits for the Property. The remedies set forth herein are cumulative and the election to use one shall not preclude the use of another. 9. This Development Agreement and the terms, conditions and covenants contained herein shall be deemed to complement and shall be used in addition to the conditions and requirements of the Estes Valley Development Code, the terms and conditions of the Final Plat, the terms and conditions of the approval of the Development Plan, and other applicable laws, rules and regulations. 10. This Development Agreement is intended to provide for the orderly construction and maintenance of structures and other improvements on the Property. This Development Agreement shall be a servitude running with the Property. Those owners of the Property or any portion of the Property who obtain title subsequent to the date of this Development Agreement, their heirs, successors, assigns or transferees, and persons holding under the Trust shall comply with the terms hereof. In the event the Trust transfers title to the Property, the Trust shall be released from liability under this Development Agreement with respect to any breach of the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement occurring after the date of any such transfer of interest. In such event, the succeeding Property owner(s) shall be bound by the terms of this Development Agreement. 11. The Trust shall cause all lenders, lien holders or other persons or entities who have any interest in the Property to subordinate their interest to this Development Agreement. 12. If any part, terms, or provisions of this Development Agreement are held by a court to be illegal or otherwise unenforceable, such illegality or unenforceability will not affect the validity of any other part, terms, or provision and the rights of the parties will be construed as if the part, terms, or provision was never part of this Development Agreement. 13. This Development Agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the Town and the Trust provided such amendment is in writing. 14. This Development Agreement shall be governed by the laws ofthe State of Colorado with venue in the District Court of Larimer County. 15. Any notice required or permitted by this Development Agreement will be deemed effective when personally deliver in writing or three (3) days after notice is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified, and return receipt requested, and addressed as follows: 3 Page 72 Town of Estes Park Attn: Town Administrator P 0 Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 8051 7 Robert A. Fi1bey Irrevocable Trust Rhonda Lee Lane, Trustee P.O. Box 637 Conifer, CO 80433 AGREED TO and signed by the parties this tf ~ay of~ , 2004. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a municipal corporation established under the laws of the State of Colorado By: ~R~ Title:tf_~~ STATE OF COLORADO COUNTYOF La_n~mer- ) ) ss. ) The foregoing DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT was acknowledged before me this ..!i.!!}_ day of March , 2004, by JOhn 6a.IA11ek, as M~ or of the Town of Estes Park, a municipal corporation established under the laws of the; ate of Colorado. Witness my hand and official seal. ~Ckd1u~ Notary Public My Commission expires: 4 Page 73 --------------------------~ -------------~~ ROBERT A. FILBEY IRREVOCABLE TRUST, a trust established under the laws of the State of Colorado STATE OF COLORADO CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER ) ) ss. ) The foregoing DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT was acknowledged before me this / w/ day of f2p I'-, 2004, by Rhonda Lee Lane, as Trustee of the Robert A. Filbey Irrevocable Trust, a trust established under the laws of the state of Colorado. l"l'.:·~ -~ ... r:-::..:c~ ...... . _ .... -~~ ~~~'-"-~.R .. £~~ ~ /f ;"::~_.;', :} :.~-~ Witness my hand and official seal. (SEAL) 5 Page 74 '\0 EXHIBIT A THAT PART OF LOTS 1,6,7,16, AND 17 OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF SUNNY ACRES SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 73 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1, OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF SUNNY ACRES; THENCE SOUTH 33%%D57'45" WEST, THIS AND THE FOLLOWING COURSE BEING ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID AMENDED PLAT, 349.09 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02%%D48'21" WEST, 186.55 FEET TO A CAPPED REBAR STAMPED VANHORN LS 9485; THENCE SOUTH 89%%D43'22" EAST 33.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 19%%D41'42" WEST 114.09 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02%%D48'21" WEST 100.60 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY OF US HIGHWAY NO. 34 AND A POINT OF NON-TANGENCY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CURVE TO THE LEFT WHOSE RADIUS POINT BEARS NORTH 41%%D59'45" EAST, 1051.40 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09%%D25'27", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 172.94 FEET TO A POINT OF NON-TANGENCY, SAID POINT LYING PERPENDICULAR TO AND 17.00 FEET WESTERLY OF THE WEST LINE OF LOT 17A OF SUNNY ACRES ADDITION TO THE TOWN OF OF ESTES PARK; THENCE NORTH 02%%D48' 18" EAST, PARALLEL WITH AND PERPENDICULAR TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 17 A, 66.23 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF FALL RIVER; THENCE NORTH 71%%D07'15" EAST, THIS AND THE FOLLOWING FOURTEEN (14) COURSES BEING ALONG CENTERLINE, 18.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53%%D42' 15" EAST 59.85 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84%%D32'15" EAST 81.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 80%%D27'45" EAST 24.50 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 51 %%D52'45" EAST 50.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 75%%D 17'45" EAST 44.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76%%D51'15" EAST 45.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 59%%D24'15" EAST 57.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 68%%D56' 15" EAST 64.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 52%%D41'15" EAST 26.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 29%%D54'15" EAST 21.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 05%%D09'45" WEST 27.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 18%%D07'15" EAST 30.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34%%D58'15" EAST 34.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53%%Dl3'15" EAST 18.28 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF LOT 16B OF SAID SUNNY ACRES ADDITION; THENCE NORTH OO%%D33'45" WEST, THIS AND THE FOLLOWING COURSE BEING ALONG THE PERIMETER OF LOT 16B, 129.33 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88%%D35'45" WEST 218.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH OO%%D10'45" EAST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF LOT 6 OF SAID SUNNY ACRES ADDITION, 187.05 FEET; THENCE NORTH 18%%D21'45" EAST, THIS AND THE FOLLOWING COURSE BEING ALONG THE 6 Page 75 ...... ~··: .-... . I\' EXHIBIT A PERIMETER OF LOT 1 OF SAID SUNNY ACRES ADDITION, 225.03 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 1; THENCE NORTH 89%%D22' 14" WEST 256.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 307,465 SQUARE FEET AND 7.058 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY OF RECORD 7 Page 76 ATTACHMENT 4 Page 77 ATTACHMENT 5 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81       Page 82 FINANCE Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director Date: September 14, 2021 RE: Resolution 68-21, Supplemental Budget Appropriations #6 to the 2021 Budget (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER______________ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Amend the budget to consider priority items such as transportation grant projects, the Museum Annex Foundation project, vacation home impact fee study, and Trailblazer staffing reorganization not yet included in the 2021 budget. Present Situation: The following explains the proposed changes by Fund: General Fund – Increase of $167,253 This increase includes $50,000 to fund an impact study of the vacation homes on available housing, $114,253 in additional funding for Transit expansion funded by a federal Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Allocation grant (CRRSAA), and $3,000 increase in Museum costs for a historic newspaper digitization project partially funded by $1,500 in donations from the Estes Park Museum Friends & Foundation, Inc. Community Reinvestment Fund – Increase of $110,000 This increase is to fund the repairs to the Museum Annex building foundation to strengthen it for collection storage needs. This is fully funded by a donation from the Estes Park Museum Friends & Foundation, Inc. Power and Communication Fund – Increase of $525,000 This increase is from additional external power line work orders and additional transformers for system maintenance. Some of this increase is partially funded by an estimated $200,000 in additional external work order fees and charges. The budget amendment also includes a reallocation of funding from the Trailblazer project line item Page 83 up to the Trailblazer operations for the reorganization and staffing changes approved August 17th. This is simply a reclassification so it has no impact on total fund appropriations. Proposal: Staff is seeking approval of the budget resolution to approve these budget amendments. Advantages: The Town will be able to operate in compliance with statutory requirements regarding municipal budget law. Disadvantages: None identified. Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the 2021 supplemental budget appropriation #6 resolution as presented. Finance/Resource Impact: The General Fund budget will increase by $167,253 with $53,000 coming out of fund balance and $114,253 coming out of grant revenues. After reflecting this change, the General Fund is currently projected to end 2021 with a 53.3% fund balance. Each fund is expected to end with a positive fund balance as well. Level of Public Interest Limited – no comments received. Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of Resolution 68-21 Supplemental Budget Appropriations #6 for the year ended December 31, 2021. Attachments: 1.Attachment A: Resolution 68-21 Supplemental Budget Appropriations # 6 to the 2021 Budget. 2.Attachment B: Recaps of Proposed Budget Adjustments #6 and Supporting Documents Link Page 84 RESOLUTION 68-21 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS # 6 TO THE 2021 BUDGET WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park has adopted the 2021 annual budget in accordance with the Local Government Budget Law on November 24th, 2020; and WHEREAS, additional projects and activities have been identified that were not known or included in the original annual budget; and WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the revenues provided in the budget to and for the purposes described below, so as not to impair the operations of the Town of Estes Park. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: That the appropriations for 2021 be increased by $802,253 for the funds specified below and these amounts are hereby appropriated from additional revenue or available fund balance of each fund. Fund # Fund Name Existing Appropriations Amendment Amended Appropriations 101 General Fund 24,564,258 167,253 24,731,511 204 Community Reinvestment Fund 5,264,750 110,000 5,374,750 211 Conservation Trust Fund 102,966 0 102,966 220 Larimer County Open Space Fund 1,957,151 0 1,957,151 236 Emergency Response System Fund 78,805 0 78,805 238 Community Center Fund 908,665 0 908,665 244 Trails Fund 3,038,994 0 3,038,994 256 Parking Services Fund 785,232 0 785,232 260 Street Fund 2,756,810 0 2,756,810 502 Light & Power Fund 39,635,382 525,000 40,160,382 503 Water Fund 32,522,084 0 32,522,084 606 Medical Insurance Fund 3,481,792 0 3,481,792 612 Fleet Maintenance Fund 1,346,350 0 1,346,350 625 Information Technology Fund 988,304 0 988,304 635 Vehicle Replacement Fund 450,693 0 450,693 645 Risk Management Fund 361,327 0 361,327 Total All Funds 118,243,563 802,253 119,045,816 ATTACHMENT 1 Page 85 DATED this ______ day of _____________, 2021. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Page 86 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Vanessa Solesbee, CAPP, CCTM, Parking & Transit Manager Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: September 14, 2021 RE: Resolution 66-21 CDOT Agreement for Federal Transit Administration CRRSAA funding to support Estes Transit [PO#491002603] (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Public Works staff seeks approval of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) agreement for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act funds to support Estes Transit administration and operating expenses. Present Situation: On December 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA) was signed into law. Of the $900 billion in total CRRSAA funding, $14 billion was allocated to the transit industry through the FTA. CDOT, as the direct recipient of the FTA-5311 Rural Formula Program, received over $78 million in CRRSAA assistance for Colorado rural public transportation providers. On February 5, 2021, the Town received notification from CDOT that Estes Park’s CRRSAA allocation would be allocated $361,017. Similar to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funding that the Town received in 2020, the purpose of CRRSAA is to support the transit industry during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Proposal: Public Works staff recommends acceptance of the available CRRSAA funding to support the following goals and activities (as outlined in the grant agreement): 1.Support transit operations to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19; 2.Enhance access to health care, education, employment, public services, recreation, social transactions, and other basic needs;Page 87 3.Assist in the maintenance, development, improvement and use of public transportation in our Transportation Planning Region (TPR); 4.Encourage and facilitate the most efficient use of all transportation funds used to provide passenger transportation in our TPR through the coordination of programs and services; and 5.Encourage mobility management, employment-related transportation alternatives, joint development practices, and transit-oriented development. CRRSAA funding can be used for administrative expenses (e.g., program manager salary, insurance, facilities and equipment rental, drug and alcohol testing expense, marketing, and office supplies) or for operating expenses (e.g., contracted transit services provided by Rocky Mountain Transit Management, cleaning supplies and any other cost related to system operation). Advantages: •The funds would reduce Estes Transit’s reliance on the General Fund for both 2021 and 2022, key years for post-COVID economic recovery. •Accepting these funds sends a strong message to both CDOT and the FTA (key grant funding partners) that the Town values public transportation for residents and visitors. •There is no cost share (local match) requirement. Disadvantages: •Grant administration is required to ensure accurate and complete documentation; however, the Town has resources including the Parking & Transit Manager, Finance Director, Grant Accountant and Grant Specialist to ensure compliance. Action Recommended: Staff recommend approval of Resolution 66-21 CDOT Agreement for Federal Transit Administration CRRSAA funds to support Estes Transit administration and operating expenses. Finance/Resource Impact: CRRSAA funding is 100 percent federal share; no cost share (local match) from the Town is required. Town staff involved in this program will track time through the Town’s electronic timesheet program for eligible reimbursement and the Town is allowed to use the CRRSAA funding to pay for eligible contracted transit services (through Rocky Mountain Transit Management). This funding provides support for the services described above for the performance period from October 1, 2020 to December 31, 2022. Level of Public Interest Public interest in continued transit services is moderate. Interest in this particular resolution for CRRSAA funding to support Estes Transit is likely low. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny Resolution 66-21. Attachments: 1.Resolution 66-21 2.CDOT Subaward Agreement Sample Page 88 RESOLUTION 66-21 APPROVING AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE AND RELIEF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT (CRRSAA) GRANT FUNDING TO SUPPORT ESTES TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION AND OPERATING EXPENSES FROM OCTOBER 1, 2020 TO DECEMBER 31, 2022 WHEREAS, the Town Board desires to enter into the intergovernmental agreement referenced in the title of this resolution for the purpose of supporting transit administration and operations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO: The Board approves, and authorizes the Mayor to sign, the intergovernmental agreement referenced in the title of this resolution in substantially the form now before the Board. DATED this day of , 2021. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney ATTACHMENT 1 Page 89 101 204 211 220 236 238 244 256 260 GENERAL FUND COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT CONSERVATION TRUST LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE EMERGENCY RESPONSE COMMUNITY CENTER TRAILS PARKING SERVICES STREET Revenues $23,913,535 $5,189,857 $33,300 $2,025,635 $101,027 $908,665 $2,456,078 $792,200 $2,223,797 Expenses 24,731,511 5,374,750 102,966 1,957,151 78,805 908,665 3,038,994 785,232 2,756,810 Net (817,976)(184,893)(69,666)68,484 22,222 0 (582,916)6,968 (533,013) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/21 11,926,778 215,642 117,972 (59,836)112,436 1 903,689 43,028 1,802,980 Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/21 $11,108,803 $30,749 $48,306 $8,648 $134,658 $1 $320,773 $49,996 $1,269,967 Budgeted Reserves Pkg Garage Maint Reserve 101-1700-417-37-99 36,000 - - - - - - - - CRRSAA Grant Fund Reserve 246,764 - - - - - - - - Nonspendable Prepaid Fund Bal & Restr Donations 248,771 - - - - - - - - Policy 660 Fund Balance Reserves 4,975,090 - - - - - - - - Total Reserved Fund Balance 5,506,625 - - - - - - - - Unreserved Budgetary Fund Balance $5,602,178 $30,749 $48,306 $8,648 $134,658 $1 $320,773 $49,996 $1,269,967 502 503 606 612 625 635 645 POWER AND COMMUNICATIONS WATER MEDICAL INSURANCE FLEET INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY VEHICLE REPLACEMENT RISK MANAGEMENT TOTAL Revenues, As Amended $19,185,875 $27,766,472 $2,784,228 $791,707 $976,491 $509,386 $361,327 $90,019,580 Expenses, As Amended 40,160,382 32,522,084 3,481,792 1,346,350 988,304 450,693 361,327 119,045,816 Net (20,974,507)(4,755,612)(697,564)(554,643)(11,813)58,693 0 (29,026,236) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance, 1/1/21 28,716,335 9,123,115 2,305,597 574,364 504,382 926,176 660 57,213,319 Estimated Ending Fund Balance, 12/31/21 $7,741,828 $4,367,503 $1,608,033 $19,721 $492,569 $984,869 $660 $28,187,084 Budgeted Reserves Pkg Garage Maint Reserve 101-1700-417-37-99 - - - - - - - 36,000 CRRSAA Grant Fund Reserve - - - - - - - 246,764 Nonspendable Prepaid Fund Bal & Restr Donations - - - - - - - 248,771 Equipment Reserve 2,055,991 620,117 - - - 984,869 - 3,660,977 Policy 660 Fund Balance Reserves 4,098,359 1,169,276 1,048,194 - 200,000 - - 11,490,918 Total Reserved Fund Balance 6,154,350 1,789,393 1,048,194 - 200,000 984,869 - 15,683,430 Unreserved Budgetary Fund Balance $1,587,478 $2,578,110 $559,839 $19,721 $292,569 $0 $660 $12,503,653 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET RECAP OF PROPOSED BUDGET ALL FUNDS ATTACHMENT 2 Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes 15,887,847 - 15,887,847 Licenses and permits 705,893 - 705,893 Intergovernmental 1,434,773 361,017 1,795,790 Charges for services 636,201 - 636,201 Fines and forfeitures 33,000 - 33,000 Rental income 189,569 - 189,569 Investment income 124,000 - 124,000 Donations 39,300 1,500 40,800 Miscellaneous 160,406 - 160,406 Transfers-In from other funds 4,340,029 - 4,340,029 Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 23,551,018 362,517 23,913,535 EXPENDITURES Legislative 1100 289,952 50,000 339,952 Attorney 1190 334,231 - 334,231 Judicial 1200 74,401 - 74,401 Town Administrator 1300 325,007 - 325,007 Town Clerk 1400 315,332 - 315,332 Finance 1500 606,248 - 606,248 Planning 1600 1,118,550 - 1,118,550 Facilities 1700 1,144,059 - 1,144,059 Human Resources 1800 295,188 - 295,188 Outside Entity Funding 1900 1,593,045 - 1,593,045 Police - Patrol 2100 4,188,244 - 4,188,244 Police - Communications 2155 1,047,150 - 1,047,150 Police - Comm Svc 2175 396,124 - 396,124 Police - Code Enforcement 2185 133,973 - 133,973 Building Safety 2300 547,544 - 547,544 Engineering 2400 381,019 - 381,019 Visitor Services 2600 515,891 - 515,891 Streets and Highways 3100 1,334,997 - 1,334,997 Parks 5200 1,143,628 - 1,143,628 Senior Center 5304 - - - Special Events 5500 2,206,802 - 2,206,802 Transit 5600 993,169 114,253 1,107,422 Parking 5690 - - - Museum 5700 424,247 3,000 427,247 Transfers Out 9000 5,155,457 - 5,155,457 Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 24,564,258 167,253 24,731,511 Net Income (Loss)(1,013,240) 195,264 (817,976) Beginning Fund Balance 11,926,778 - 11,926,778 Ending Fund Balance 10,913,539 195,264 11,108,803 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUND # 101 Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes - - - Licenses and permits - - - Intergovernmental 750,000 - 750,000 Charges for services - - - Fines and forfeitures - - - Rental income - - - Investment income 29,000 - 29,000 Donations - 110,000 110,000 Miscellaneous - - - Transfers-In from other funds 4,300,857 - 4,300,857 Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 5,079,857 110,000 5,189,857 EXPENDITURES Community Reinvestment Fund 5400 126,340 - 126,340 Capital Outlay 5400 1,892,409 110,000 2,002,409 Debt Service 6700 918,001 - 918,001 Transfers Out 9000 2,328,000 - 2,328,000 Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 5,264,750 110,000 5,374,750 Net Income (Loss)(184,893) - (184,893) Beginning Fund Balance 215,642 - 215,642 Ending Fund Balance 30,749 - 30,749 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND # 204 Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes - - - Licenses and permits - - - Intergovernmental 33,000 - 33,000 Charges for services - - - Fines and forfeitures - - - Rental income - - - Investment income 300 - 300 Donations - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers-In from other funds - - - Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 33,300 - 33,300 EXPENDITURES Conservation Trust Fund 102,966 - 102,966 Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 102,966 - 102,966 Net Income (Loss)(69,666) - (69,666) Beginning Fund Balance 117,972 - 117,972 Ending Fund Balance 48,306 - 48,306 CONSERVATION TRUST FUND # 211 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes - - - Licenses and permits - - - Intergovernmental 1,437,635 - 1,437,635 Charges for services - - - Fines and forfeitures - - - Rental income - - - Investment income 8,000 - 8,000 Donations - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers-In from other funds 580,000 - 580,000 Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 2,025,635 - 2,025,635 EXPENDITURES Open Space 4600 210,000 - 210,000 Capital Outlay 4600 1,537,151 - 1,537,151 Transfers Out 9000 210,000 - 210,000 Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 1,957,151 - 1,957,151 Net Income (Loss)68,484 - 68,484 Beginning Fund Balance (59,836) - (59,836) Ending Fund Balance 8,648 - 8,648 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND # 220 Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes 90,867 - 90,867 Licenses and permits - - - Intergovernmental 9,960 - 9,960 Charges for services - - - Fines and forfeitures - - - Rental income - - - Investment income 200 - 200 Donations - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers-In from other funds - - - Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 101,027 - 101,027 EXPENDITURES Emergency Response System 3600 30,260 - 30,260 Debt Service 3600 48,545 - 48,545 Capital Outlay 3600 - - - Transfers Out 9000 - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 78,805 - 78,805 Net Income (Loss)22,222 - 22,222 Beginning Fund Balance 112,436 - 112,436 Ending Fund Balance 134,658 - 134,658 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM FUND # 236 Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes 908,665 - 908,665 Licenses and permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for services - - - Fines and forfeitures - - - Rental income - - - Investment income - - - Donations - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers-In from other funds - - - Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 908,665 - 908,665 EXPENDITURES Community Center 3800 908,665 - 908,665 Transfers Out 9000 - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 908,665 - 908,665 Net Income (Loss)- - - Beginning Fund Balance 1 - 1 Ending Fund Balance 1 - 1 SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY CENTER FUND # 238 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes 454,333 - 454,333 Licenses and permits - - - Intergovernmental 1,818,706 - 1,818,706 Charges for services - - - Fines and forfeitures - - - Rental income - - - Investment income 3,000 - 3,000 Donations - - - Miscellaneous 180,039 - 180,039 Transfers-In from other funds - - - Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 2,456,078 - 2,456,078 EXPENDITURES Trails Expansion Operations 3400 34,027 - 34,027 Capital Outlay 3400 3,004,967 - 3,004,967 Transfers Out 9000 - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 3,038,994 - 3,038,994 Net Income (Loss)(582,916) - (582,916) Beginning Fund Balance 903,689 - 903,689 Ending Fund Balance 320,773 - 320,773 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT TRAILS EXPANSION FUND # 244 Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes - - - Licenses and permits 4,000 - 4,000 Intergovernmental - - - Charges for services 771,105 - 771,105 Fines and forfeitures 17,095 - 17,095 Rental income - - - Investment income - - - Donations - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers-In from other funds - - - Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 792,200 - 792,200 EXPENDITURES Parking Services Operations 5690 761,998 - 761,998 Capital Outlay 5690 23,234 - 23,234 Transfers Out 9000 - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 785,232 - 785,232 Net Income (Loss)6,968 - 6,968 Beginning Fund Balance 43,028 - 43,028 Ending Fund Balance 49,996 - 49,996 BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT PARKING SERVICES FUND # 256 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes 2,180,797 - 2,180,797 Licenses and permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for services - - - Fines and forfeitures - - - Rental income - - - Investment income 43,000 - 43,000 Donations - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers-In from other funds - - - Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 2,223,797 - 2,223,797 EXPENDITURES Street Improvement Operations 2000 803,686 - 803,686 Capital Outlay 2000 1,953,124 - 1,953,124 Transfers Out 9000 - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 2,756,810 - 2,756,810 Net Income (Loss)(533,013) - (533,013) Beginning Fund Balance 1,802,980 - 1,802,980 Ending Fund Balance 1,269,967 - 1,269,967 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT STREET IMPROVEMENT FUND # 260 Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes - - - Licenses and permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for services 18,638,875 200,000 18,838,875 Fines and forfeitures - - - Rental income - - - Investment income 241,000 - 241,000 Donations 10,000 - 10,000 Miscellaneous 96,000 - 96,000 Transfers-In from other funds - - - Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 18,985,875 200,000 19,185,875 EXPENDITURES Source of Supply 6100 8,218,997 - 8,218,997 Distribution 6301 4,670,524 352,946 5,023,470 Customer Accounts 6401 576,486 1,584 578,070 Admin & General 6501 2,354,651 46,329 2,400,980 Debt Service 6700 1,828,726 - 1,828,726 Broadband 6900 572,777 176,621 749,398 Capital Outlay 7001 19,743,192 (52,480) 19,690,712 Transfers Out 6600 1,670,029 - 1,670,029 Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 39,635,382 525,000 40,160,382 Net Income (Loss)(20,649,507) (325,000) (20,974,507) Beginning Fund Balance 28,716,335 - 28,716,335 Ending Fund Balance 8,066,828 (325,000) 7,741,828 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT POWER AND COMMUNICATIONS FUND # 502 Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes - - - Licenses and permits - - - Intergovernmental 8,916,000 - 8,916,000 Charges for services 6,206,272 - 6,206,272 Fines and forfeitures - - - Rental income - - - Investment income 166,000 - 166,000 Donations - - - Miscellaneous 45,200 - 45,200 Transfers-In from other funds - - - Sale of assets 265,000 - 265,000 Financing Proceeds 12,168,000 - 12,168,000 Total Revenues 27,766,472 - 27,766,472 EXPENDITURES Source of Supply 6100 123,000 - 123,000 Purification 6200 1,110,295 - 1,110,295 Distribution 6300 2,104,196 - 2,104,196 Customer Accounts 6400 372,315 - 372,315 Admin & General 6500 967,299 - 967,299 Debt Service 6700 391,836 - 391,836 Capital Outlay 7000 27,321,143 - 27,321,143 Transfers Out 6600 132,000 - 132,000 Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 32,522,084 - 32,522,084 Net Income (Loss)(4,755,612) - (4,755,612) Beginning Fund Balance 9,123,115 - 9,123,115 Ending Fund Balance 4,367,503 - 4,367,503 SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT WATER FUND # 503 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes - - - Licenses and permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for services 100,000 - 100,000 Fines and forfeitures - - - Rental income - - - Investment income 27,000 - 27,000 Donations - - - Miscellaneous 2,657,228 - 2,657,228 Transfers-In from other funds - - - Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 2,784,228 - 2,784,228 EXPENDITURES Medical Insurance Fund Operations 4200 3,481,792 - 3,481,792 Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 3,481,792 - 3,481,792 Net Income (Loss)(697,564) - (697,564) Beginning Fund Balance 2,305,597 - 2,305,597 Ending Fund Balance 1,608,033 - 1,608,033 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT MEDICAL INSURANCE FUND # 606 Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes - - - Licenses and permits - - - Intergovernmental 300,800 - 300,800 Charges for services 459,307 - 459,307 Fines and forfeitures - - - Rental income - - - Investment income 7,000 - 7,000 Donations - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers-In from other funds 24,600 - 24,600 Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 791,707 - 791,707 EXPENDITURES Fleet Maintenance 4300 433,350 - 433,350 Capital Outlay 7000 913,000 - 913,000 Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 1,346,350 - 1,346,350 Net Income (Loss)(554,643) - (554,643) Beginning Fund Balance 574,364 - 574,364 Ending Fund Balance 19,721 - 19,721 FLEET MAINTENANCE FUND # 612 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes - - - Licenses and permits - - - Intergovernmental 20,740 - 20,740 Charges for services 950,751 - 950,751 Fines and forfeitures - - - Rental income - - - Investment income 5,000 - 5,000 Donations - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers-In from other funds - - - Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 976,491 - 976,491 EXPENDITURES IT Operations 2500 903,204 - 903,204 Capital Outlay 2500 85,100 - 85,100 Transfers Out 9000 - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 988,304 - 988,304 Net Income (Loss)(11,813) - (11,813) Beginning Fund Balance 504,382 - 504,382 Ending Fund Balance 492,569 - 492,569 INFORMATION SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY FUND # 625 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes - - - Licenses and permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for services 508,736 - 508,736 Fines and forfeitures - - - Rental income - - - Investment income 650 - 650 Donations - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers-In from other funds - - - Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 509,386 - 509,386 EXPENDITURES Fleet Replacement Operations 3500 - - - Capital Outlay 7000 450,693 - 450,693 Transfers Out 9000 - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 450,693 - 450,693 Net Income (Loss)58,693 - 58,693 Beginning Fund Balance 926,176 - 926,176 Ending Fund Balance 984,869 - 984,869 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND # 635 Dept # 2021 Adopted Budget as of Sept 6, 2021 Amendment 2021 Amended Budget REVENUE Taxes - - - Licenses and permits - - - Intergovernmental - - - Charges for services 361,327 - 361,327 Fines and forfeitures - - - Rental income - - - Investment income - - - Donations - - - Miscellaneous - - - Transfers-In from other funds - - - Sale of assets - - - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 361,327 - 361,327 EXPENDITURES Risk Management Operations 4100 361,327 - 361,327 Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 361,327 - 361,327 Net Income (Loss)- - - Beginning Fund Balance 660 - 660 Ending Fund Balance 660 - 660 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY BY DEPARTMENT RISK MANAGEMENT FUND # 645 General Fund Community Reinvestment Fund Total Total Revenues 23,913,535 5,189,857 29,103,392 Less: Capital Grants (One time funds)553,266 750,000 1,303,266 Transfers between GF & CRF 2,328,000 4,300,857 6,628,857 2,881,266 5,050,857 7,932,123 Net Ongoing Revenues 21,032,269 139,000 21,171,269 Total Expenditures 24,731,511 5,374,750 30,106,261 Less: Transfers between GF & CRF 4,300,857 2,328,000 6,628,857 Less One Time Expenditures: Contingencies 250,000 - 250,000 Parking Garage Maintenance Reserve 12,000 - 12,000 Comprehensive Plan 300,000 - 300,000 CIP - Downtown Wayfinding 2021 - 142,268 142,268 Community Drive Intersection Project - 1,552,141 1,552,141 Facility Needs Study - 101,791 101,791 Town Hall AC Unit Replacement - 198,000 198,000 Event Center Roof/Grandstand Roof 101-5500-455-25-02 20,000 - 20,000 Visitor Center External Doors 101-2600-426-32-22 55,000 - 55,000 Electric Trolley #2 454,370 - 454,370 Community Initiative Funding 101-1900-419-91-47 35,000 35,000 1,126,370 1,994,200 3,120,570 Net Ongoing Expenditures 19,304,284 1,052,550 20,356,834 Net Ongoing Rev vs Exp 1,727,986 (913,550) 814,436 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET GENERAL & COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUNDS ONGOING REVENUES VS ONGONG EXPENDITURES General Fund Comm Reinvestment Fund Total Fund Balance 11,108,803$ 30,749$ 11,139,552$ Reserves to Exclude Parking Garage Maintenance Reserve 36,000 - 36,000 Prepaids and Restricted Donations Estimate 248,771 - 248,771 CRRSAA Grant Reserves 246,764 - 246,764 531,535 - 531,535 Fund Balance Subject to Reserve Calculation 10,577,268 30,749 10,608,017 Total Expenditures 24,731,511 5,374,750 30,106,261 Less Transfers Out Between GF & CRF 4,300,857 2,328,000 6,628,857 Less Grant Funding of Capital Projects 403,266 860,000 1,263,266 Net Expenditures 20,027,388 2,186,750 22,214,138 Less Capital Expenditures Second Electric Trolley 454,370 - 454,370 CIP - Downtown Wayfinding 2020 - 142,268 142,268 Community Drive Intersection - 1,552,141 1,552,141 Visitor Center External Door Replacement 55,000 - 55,000 Museum Annex Foundation - 110,000 110,000 Total Capital to Exclude 509,370 1,804,409 2,313,779 Total Expenditures Subject to Reserve Calculation 19,518,018$ 382,341$ 19,900,359$ Projected Reserve Ratio as of 12-31-2021 54.2%8.0%53.3% TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET GENERAL & COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUNDS FUND BALANCE RESERVE RATIO Fund Account # Project Code Project Descr Grant Program / Grantor Federal / State / Other 2021 Grants / Loans Adopted Amendment 2021 Amended Grants & Loans 101 101-0000-333.20-00 N/A COVID-19 SS CREDIT CARES Act F -$ -$ -$ 101 101-0000-334.20-00 WILL17 Willow Knolls Historic Historic Preservation S - - - 101 101-1300-334.20-00 CENS20 Census 2020 Grant Larimer County S - - - 101 101-1600-334.20-00 EVLTGT EV Land Trust Grant GOCO S 66,000 - 66,000 101 101-1600-334.20-00 COMPPL Comp Plan Grant DOLA S 150,000 - 150,000 101 101-1900-333.00-00 COVWRK COVID-19 CARES Act CARES Act F - - - 101 101-1900-334.20-00 COVBUS Colorado Small Business Relief Program State of Colorado S 200,000 - 200,000 101 101-2100-334.20-00 CDOT High Visibility Enforcement (Seatbelt and DUI Checkpoints)State of Colorado S 5,000 - 5,000 101 101-2100-334.20-00 PDPOST PD Post Grants State of Colorado S 820 - 820 101 101-2100-334.20-00 PDPOST PD Post Grants State of Colorado S 7,000 - 7,000 101 101-2100-334.20-00 LEAF LEAF State of Colorado S 5,436 - 5,436 101 101-2175-334.20-00 LPTOP2 Restorative Justice Remote Conferencing Tech CDOT-RMS Grant S 2,700 - 2,700 101 101-3100-334.20-00 *SIGNS Revitalizing Main St Program CDOT F 45,173 - 45,173 101 101-5500-334.20-00 *WINTR Revitalizing Main St Program CDOT S 50,000 - 50,000 101 101-5600-333.00-00 ELTRL2 Electric Trolley #2 CDOT F 403,266 - 403,266 101 101-5600-333.00-00 ELTROL Electric Trolley #1 CDOT F - - - 101 101-5600-333.00-00 COVTRN COVID-19 Transit Operations CARES Act F 77,605 - 77,605 101 101-5600-333.00-00 CRRSAA Coronavirus Response & Relief Suppl Approp Allocation CRRSSA Federal Grant F - 361,017 361,017 101 Total 1,013,000 361,017 1,374,017 204 204-0000-333.00-00 COMMDR Community Drive Intersection CDOT F 750,000 - 750,000 204 204-0000-334.30-00 ELKPAV Elkhorn Paving CDOT S - - - 204 Total 750,000 - 750,000 220 220-0000-333.00-00 FRTR3 Fall River Trail Phase 3 Dept of Interior - Nat'l Park Service F 302,336 - 302,336 220 220-0000-333.00-00 FRTR2A Fall River Trail Phase 2A Recreation Trail Grant Program F 244,073 - 244,073 220 220-0000-334.10-00 THUMB Thumb Open Space Acquisition GOCO S - - - 220 220-0000-334.10-00 PICNIC Big Thompson River Picnic Area (Pkg Gar)GOCO S 45,000 - 45,000 220 220-0000-334.30-00 FRTR3 Fall River Trail Phase 3 EV Parks and Rec District O - - - 220 220-0000-334.30-00 FRTR1B Fall River Trail Phase 1B MTF M405-026 S 448,226 - 448,226 220 220-0000-334.30-00 THUMB Thumb Open Space Acquisition Access Fund O - - - 220 220-0000-334.30-00 THUMB Thumb Open Space Acquisition EV Land Trust O - - - 220 220-0000-334.30-00 ROCK Climbing Rock Big Thompson River Picnic Area Visit Estes Park O 50,000 - 50,000 220 Total 1,089,635 - 1,089,635 236 236-0000-334.20-00 LPTOP3 Police EOC Computer Repl CDOT-RMS Grant S 9,960 - 9,960 236 Total 9,960 - 9,960 TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY OF BUDGETED GRANT & LOAN REVENUES ALL FUNDS Fund Account # Project Code Project Descr Grant Program / Grantor Federal / State / Other 2021 Grants / Loans Adopted Amendment 2021 Amended Grants & Loans TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SUMMARY OF BUDGETED GRANT & LOAN REVENUES ALL FUNDS 244 244-0000-333.00-00 BRODIE Brodie Trail Extension Safe Routes to School F - - - 244 244-0000-333.00-00 GRAVES Graves Ave Trail Grant Safe Routes to School F 500,000 - 500,000 244 244-0000-333.00-00 FRTR1A Fall River Trail Phase 1A TAP M405-025 F 955,000 - 955,000 244 244-0000-334.40-00 FRTR3 Fall River Trail Phase 3 Rocky Mnt Conservancy O 120,039 - 120,039 244 244-0000-334.30-00 FRTR2B Fall River Trail Phase 2B Colorado the Beautiful S 363,706 - 363,706 244 244-0000-334.40-00 FRTR2B Fall River Trail Phase 2B EV Parks and Rec District O 50,000 - 50,000 244 244-0000-334.40-00 FRTR2B Fall River Trail Phase 2B Larimer County Dept of Nat Res O 10,000 - 10,000 244 Total 1,998,745 - 1,998,745 256 256-0000-334.20-00 *EVPLN Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Plan DOLA - EIAF S - - - 256 Total - - - 503 503-0000-333.00-00 PMLOAN Prospect Mtn Water Dist Waterline USDA Grant F 6,547,000 - 6,547,000 503 503-0000-333.00-00 GCDOVE GC Disinfection Outreach & Verification Effort USDAGrant F 2,369,000 - 2,369,000 503 503-0000-388.40-00 PMLOAN Prospect Mtn Water Dist Waterline USDA Loan F 7,675,000 - 7,675,000 503 503-0000-388.40-00 GCDOVE GC Disinfection Outreach & Verification Effort USDA Loan F 4,493,000 - 4,493,000 503 503-0000-388.40-00 Hwy 34 to VISTA Water Main USDA Loan F - - - 503 503-0000-388.40-00 PEMPWC Park Entrance Water District USDA Loan F - - - 503 Total 21,084,000 - 21,084,000 612 612-0000-333.00-00 ELTRCH Trolly Charging Station CDOT Grant F 300,800 - 300,800 612 Total 300,800 - 300,800 625 625-0000-334.20-00 HOTSPT Wireless Hotspot Grant S 5,000 - 5,000 625 625-0000-334.20-00 PHONES Phone System Upgrade CDOT-RMS S 5,740 - 5,740 625 625-0000-334.20-00 LPTOP1 Laptop Grant CDOT CanDo Program S 10,000 - 10,000 625 Total 20,740 - 20,740 Grand Total 26,266,880$ 361,017$ 26,627,897$ Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2021 Adopted Projects BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET Amendment 2021 Amended Projects WILLOW KNOLLS LEGACY PROJECT WILL17 101-1300-413.31-13 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 1,064$ -$ 1,064$ DOCUMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE & EQUIP DOCMGT 101-1400-414.37-01 SOFTWARE 32,194 - 32,194 EV LAND TRUST OS & OUTDOOR REC PLAN EVLTGT 101-1600-416.22-13 CONTRACT/SKILLED SVCS 6,044 - 6,044 COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN COMPPL 101-1600-416.22-13 CONTRACT/SKILLED SVCS 300,000 - 300,000 FLEET/STREETS ROOF FLROOF 101-1700-417.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING - - - TOWN HALL WINDOWS (CD & BS SIDE)THWIND 101-1700-417.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING - - - PD ROOF REPLACEMENT PDROOF 101-1700-417.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING - - - PUBLIC RESTROOM REMODEL - MORAINE MOREST 101-1700-417.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING - - - CONFERENCE CENTER PORTE COCHERE CCPORT 101-1700-417.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING - - - COBB-MACDONALD CABIN RE-ROOF *CBNRF 101-5700-457.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 15,000 - 15,000 PARKING GARAGE MAINTENANCE RESERVE NA 101-1700-417.37-99 MAINTENANCE RESERVE 12,000 - 12,000 COVID SMALL BUSINESS RELIEF COVBUS 101-1900-419.91-55 COVID19 ECON ASSISTANCE 200,000 - 200,000 COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN WILDFR 101-1900-419-91-42 EV WATER COALITION 25,340 - 25,340 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE REMOTE CONFERENCING TECH LPTOP2 101-2175-421.XX-XX DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT & MEMBER DUES/SUBSCRIPTIONS 3,280 - 3,280 VISITOR CENTER MAIN DOOR REPLACEMENT VCDOOR 101-2600-426.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 55,000 - 55,000 FRONT END LOADER (BI-ANNUAL TRADE IN)LOADER 101-3100-431.34-43 VEHICLES/HEAVY EQUIPMENT - - - VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGNS (CDOT COVID GRANT)*SIGNS 101-3100-431.34-98 OTHER MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT 8,587 - 8,587 ASPEN DR DRAINAGE ASPDRN 101-3100-431.35-53 STORM DRAINAGE - - - 2 BOBCATS (ANNUAL TRADE IN)BOBCAT 101-5200-452.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT - - - COVID OUTDOOR WINTERIZATON EQUIPMENT *WINTR 101-5500-455.24-01 EQUIPMENT 24,790 - 24,790 EVENT CENTER ACOUSTIC IMPROVEMENT ECACST 101-5500-455.33-31 FURNITURE/FIXTURES - - - ELECTRIC TROLLEY #1 ELTROL 101-5600-456.34-42 VEHICLES/TRUCKS - - - ELECTRIC TROLLEY #2 - 2ND GRANT ELTRL2 101-5600-456.34-42 VEHICLES/TRUCKS 454,370 - 454,370 MUSEUM SECURITY CAMERAS MUSECC 101-5700-457.33-31 FURNITURE/FIXTURES - - - *TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,137,669 - 1,137,669 * TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SCHEDULE OF BUDGETED PROJECTS ALL FUNDS Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2021 Adopted Projects BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET Amendment 2021 Amended Projects TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SCHEDULE OF BUDGETED PROJECTS ALL FUNDS TOWN WIDE FACILITIES SPACE NEEDS STUDY *SPACE 204-5400-544.22-98 PROF SVCS - OTHER 101,791 - 101,791 MUSEUM COLLECTIONS AND RESEARCH FACILITY MUSCOL 204-5400-544.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING - - - MUSEUM ANNEX FOUNDATION REPAIRS MUSANX 204-5400-544.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 110,000 110,000 EVENT CENTER STALL BARN FLOOR LEVELING SBLEVL 204-5400-544.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING - - - TOWN HALL AC UNIT REPLACEMENT ACUNIT 204-5400-544.33-31 FURNITURE/FIXTURES 198,000 - 198,000 BOARD ROOM AV REPLACEMENT AVBDRM 204-5400-544.33-98 EQUIPMENT-OTHER - - - COMMUNITY DR INTERSECTION CONSTRUCTION CDINTR 204-5400-544.35-51 STREETS 1,338,244 - 1,338,244 COMMUNITY DR ENGINEERING DESIGN COMMDR 204-5400-544.35-51 STREETS 213,897 - 213,897 ELKHORN MILL & FILL - 34/36 TO MORAINE ELKPAV 204-5400-544.35-51 STREETS - - - DOWNTOWN WAYFINDING PROJECT WAYFND 204-5400-544.35-63 WAYFINDING SIGNAGE 142,268 - 142,268 *TOTAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND 1,994,200 110,000 2,104,200 * THUMB OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION THMBGO 211-5900-459.31-11 LAND 70,000 - 70,000 THUMB OPEN SPACE PARKING IMPROVEMENTS THMBPK 211-5900-459.35-61 PARK IMPROVEMENTS 19,000 - 19,000 *TOTAL CONSERVATON TRUST FUND 89,000 - 89,000 * SCOTT PONDS (CARRIAGE HILLS) DAM CDBGCH 220-4600-462.22-02 ENGINEERING - - - FISH CREEK TRAIL 11CATG 220-4600-462.22-02 WALKWAYS & BIKEWAYS - - - THUMB OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION THMBGO 220-4600-462.31-11 LAND 582,600 - 582,600 BRODIE TRAIL EXTENSION BRODIE 220-4600-462.35-60 WALKWAYS & BIKEWAYS 59,623 - 59,623 CIP-PARKS IRRIG SYSTEM BASE LINE CONTROLLERS PRKIRR 220-4600-462.35-61 PARK IMPROVEMENTS - - - BIG THOMPSON RIVER PICNIC AREA (PKG GAR PAVILION) (GOCO PICNIC 220-4600-462.35-61 PARK IMPROVEMENTS 51,000 - 51,000 THUMB OS - GATE ON CURRY DRIVE THGATE 220-4600-462.35-61 PARK IMPROVEMENTS 16,000 - 16,000 THUMB OS - KIOSK & SIGNS THKIOS 220-4600-462.35-61 PARK IMPROVEMENTS 6,500 - 6,500 THUMB OS - TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS THTIMP 220-4600-462.35-61 PARK IMPROVEMENTS 40,000 - 40,000 CLIMBING ROCK BIG THOMPSON RIVER PICNIC AREA ROCK 220-4600-462.35-61 PARK IMPROVEMENTS 50,000 - 50,000 FALL RIVER TRAIL PHASE 1B (MTF GRANT)FRTR1B 220-4600-462.36-60 FALL RIVER TRAIL IMPR 626,890 - 626,890 FALL RIVER TRAIL PHASE 3 FRTR3 220-4600-462.36-60 FALL RIVER TRAIL IMPR 44,556 - 44,556 FALL RIVER TRAIL PHASE 2A FRTR2A 220-4600-462.36-60 FALL RIVER TRAIL IMPR 153,920 - 153,920 *TOTAL LARIMER COUNTY OPEN SPACE FUND 1,631,089 - 1,631,089 * POLICE EOC COMPUTER REPL LPTOP3 236-3600-436.26-33 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT 14,960 - 14,960 RADIO REPLACEMENT PROJECT 19RADO 236-3600-436.33-36 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT - - - *TOTAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE SYSTEM FUND 14,960 - 14,960 Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2021 Adopted Projects BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET Amendment 2021 Amended Projects TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SCHEDULE OF BUDGETED PROJECTS ALL FUNDS * BRODIE TRAIL EXTENSION BRODIE 244-3400-434.35-60 WALKWAYS & BIKEWAYS 95,369 - 95,369 GRAVES AVE TRAIL (SRT SCHOOL GRANT PROJECT)GRAVES 244-3400-434.35-60 WALKWAYS & BIKEWAYS 783,000 - 783,000 FALL RIVER TRAIL FRTRL 244-3400-434.36-60 FALL RIVER TRAIL IMPR 100,000 - 100,000 FALL RIVER TRAIL PHASE 1A (TAP GRANT)FRTR1A 244-3400-434.36-60 FALL RIVER TRAIL IMPR 1,193,750 - 1,193,750 FALL RIVER TRAIL PHASE 2B FRTR2B 244-3400-434.36-60 FALL RIVER TRAIL IMPR 559,558 - 559,558 FALL RIVER TRAIL PHASE 3 FRTR3 244-3400-434.36-60 FALL RIVER TRAIL IMPR 273,290 - 273,290 *TOTAL TRAILS FUND 3,004,967 - 3,004,967 * EV INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN *EVPLN 256-5690-569.22-13 CONTRACT/SKILLED SERVICES - - - MISCELLANEOUS DATA PROCESSING EQUIP EQUIP 256-5690-569.33-33 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT 3,200 - 3,200 PARKING SERVICE SOFTWARE & EQUIP PKSOFT 256-5690-569.33-33 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT 20,034 - 20,034 *TOTAL PARKING SERVICES FUND 23,234 - 23,234 * BRODIE AVE IMPROVEMENTS BRODIE 260-2000-420.35-51 STREETS 81,462 - 81,462 CLEAVE STREET MAJOR REHAB CLEAVE 260-2000-420.35-51 STREETS 68,345 - 68,345 4TH STREET MAJOR REHAB 4STLR 260-2000-420.35-51 STREETS 2,318 - 2,318 3RD STREET MAJOR REHAB 3STLR 260-2000-420.35-51 STREETS 604,200 - 604,200 OVERLAY PROGRAM 2020 OVRLAY 260-2000-420.35-51 STREETS 604,594 - 604,594 PARKING LOT REHABILITATION PARKLT 260-2000-420.35-52 PARKING LOT 206,215 - 206,215 FLAP/RAMP ESTIMATED COSTS FLAP 260-2000-420.36-60 FED GRANT - FLAP 385,990 - 385,990 *TOTAL STREET FUND 1,953,124 - 1,953,124 * TRAILBLAZER BROADBAND OFFICE TBNBND 502-7001-580.32-21 BUILDINGS 514,975 - 514,975 REPAVE PARKING LOT AT WOODSTOCK FACILITY TBNBND 502-7001-580.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 50,000 - 50,000 WOODSTOCK FACILITY LANDSCAPING TBNBND 502-7001-580.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 25,000 - 25,000 WOODSTOCK OFFICE FURNITURE TBFURN 502-7001-580.33-32 FURNITURE/FIXTURES 75,174 - 75,174 WOODSTOCK OFFICE FURNITURE TBNBND 502-7001-580.33-32 FURNITURE/FIXTURES - - - UTILITY PLOTTER / PRINTER PLOTR 502-7001-580.33-32 FURNITURE/FIXTURES 6,500 - 6,500 METERS ELMTR 502-7001-580.33-34 METERS 150,000 - 150,000 TRANSFORMER PURCHASES TRANSF 502-7001-580.33-35 TRANSFORMERS 50,000 175,000 225,000 HWY 7 TRIP SAVERS TRANSF 502-7001-580.33-35 TRANSFORMERS 50,000 - 50,000 SMART METER PURCHASES SMRTEL 502-7001-580.33-36 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 70,000 - 70,000 NONSPECIFIC EQUIPMENT EQUIP 502-7001-580.33-41 TOOLS 15,000 - 15,000 Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2021 Adopted Projects BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET Amendment 2021 Amended Projects TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SCHEDULE OF BUDGETED PROJECTS ALL FUNDS 2 REEL TRAILERS - #93370 & 93371 REELTR 502-7001-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 48,000 - 48,000 SIDE BY SIDE WITH TRACKS 93389C 502-7001-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 35,000 - 35,000 BACKYARD MACHINE BYMACH 502-7001-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 6,620 - 6,620 L&P FORK LIFT REPLACEMENTS - 93387A 93387A 502-7001-580.34-42 TRUCKS 27,048 - 27,048 L&P FORK LIFT REPLACEMENT 93388A 93388A 502-7001-580.34-42 TRUCKS 10,463 - 10,463 FORD F-550 REPLACEMENT #93327 93327A 502-7001-580.34-42 TRUCKS 200,000 - 200,000 INTERNATIONAL 7400 REPLACEMENT #93325B 93325C 502-7001-580.34-42 TRUCKS 249,065 - 249,065 TRAILBLAZER F-350 TBNBND 502-7001-580.34-42 TRUCKS - - - TRAILBLAZER BUCKET TRUCK 93343 502-7001-580.34-42 TRUCKS - - - STREET LIGHTING, POLES & FIXTURES LIGHTS 502-7001-580.35-55 STREET LIGHTS 40,000 - 40,000 CARRIAGE HILLS CAHILL 502-7001-580.35-57 POWER LINE CONSTRUCTION - - - SMART FUSES (INTELLIRUPTER & TRIP SAVERS)SMTFUS 502-7001-580.35-57 POWER LINE CONSTRUCTION 152,084 - 152,084 LINE REBUILD 2020 LRBLDS 502-7001-580.35-57 POWER LINE CONSTRUCTION 400,000 - 400,000 NEW SERVICE CONNECTIONS WOKEXT 502-7001-580.35-59 CUSTOMER SERVICE LINES 968,430 - 968,430 SMART GRID FIBER OPTIC INSTALL SMTFBR 502-7001-580.35-66 FIBER OPTIC INSTALL 28,186 - 28,186 TRAILBLAZER BROADBAND CONSTRUCTION TBNBND 502-7001-580.35-66 FIBER OPTIC INSTALL 16,431,740 (227,480) 16,204,260 GIS MAPPING IMPROVEMENTS GIS18 502-7001-580.37-01 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT 114,907 - 114,907 UTILITY BILLING MODERNIZATON PROJECT UBPRTL 502-7001-580.37-01 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT 25,000 - 25,000 *TOTAL POWER & COMMUNICATIONS FUND 19,743,192 (52,480) 19,690,712 Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2021 Adopted Projects BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET Amendment 2021 Amended Projects TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SCHEDULE OF BUDGETED PROJECTS ALL FUNDS * GLACIER CREEK WTP - DISCHARGE OUT STRUCTURE GCDSCH 503-7000-580.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING - - - BROOK DRIVE WATER SHOP REMODEL (KEARNEY SHOP)KEARNY 503-7000-580.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 169,249 - 169,249 GCWTP ENGINEERING FOR INTAKE & PLANT IMPR GCTRET 503-7000-580.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 1,650,000 - 1,650,000 GC DISINFECTION OUTREACH AND VERIFICATION EFFORT GCDOVE 503-7000-580.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 465,932 - 465,932 BROOK DRIVE WATER SHOP FURNITURE & FIXT KEARNY 503-7000-580.33-31 FURNITURE/FIXTURES 25,315 - 25,315 GENERAL OFFICE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT EQUIP 503-7000-580.33-32 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 6,000 - 6,000 UTILITY PLOTTER / PRINTER PLOTR 503-7000-580.33-32 FURNITURE/FIXTURES 6,500 - 6,500 WONDERWARE SOFTWARE WONDER 503-7000-580.33-33 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT 19,000 - 19,000 METER REPLACEMENT PROJECT SMRTW 503-7000-580.33-34 METERS 659,813 - 659,813 SCADA UPGRADES AT GLACIER WTP GPSCAD 503-7000-580.33-36 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 289,732 - 289,732 SCADA RADIO & ANTENNA REPLACMENT EQUIP 503-7000-580.33-36 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT - - - MISC COMM EQUIP EQUIP 503-7000-580.33-36 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 50,393 - 50,393 VARIOUS LAB EQUIPMENT REPL EQUIP 503-7000-580.33-37 LABORATORY EQUIPMENT 16,000 - 16,000 VARIOUS PURIFICATION EQUIP REPL EQUIP 503-7000-580.33-40 PURIFICATION EQUIPMENT 34,000 - 34,000 CONFINED SPACE ENTRY EQUIPMENT WTTOOL 503-7000-580.33-41 TOOLS 15,000 - 15,000 SAFETY EQUIP (TRENCH BOXES AND SPEED SHORING EQUIP)WTTOOL 503-7000-580.33-41 TOOLS 10,000 - 10,000 SAFETY EQUIP WTTOOL 503-7000-580.33-41 TOOLS 25,000 - 25,000 LEAK CORRELATOR EQUIP LEAKCO 503-7000-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT - - - EXCAVATOR & SKID STEER ANNUAL TRADE-INS EQUIP 503-7000-580.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 7,500 - 7,500 DROP DECK TRAILER DROPDK 503-7000-580.34-42 TRUCKS - - - 60 SERIES MINI EXCAVATOR MINEXC 503-7000-580.34-42 TRUCKS - - - TRUCK FOR ADDITIONAL CREW 90315 503-7000-580.34-42 TRUCKS 32,000 - 32,000 344 LOADER 90382 503-7000-580.34-42 TRUCKS 104,759 - 104,759 JOBSITE UTV 90383 503-7000-580.34-42 TRUCKS 20,000 - 20,000 FORKLIFT 90384 503-7000-580.34-42 TRUCKS 50,000 - 50,000 2011 FORD F-350 UNIT 9037A REPL 9037B 503-7000-580.34-42 TRUCKS 62,471 - 62,471 2007 FORD F-150 UNIT 90311A REPL 90311B 503-7000-580.34-42 TRUCKS 30,319 - 30,319 PRV VAULT METERING PRVMTR 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - - - PEMPWCo SYSTEM DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION PEMPWC 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - - - PROSPECT MTN WATER DIST - LOAN IMPROVEMENTS PMLOAN 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 10,650,862 - 10,650,862 MORAINE BRIDGE SOUTH - WATER MOBS17 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - - - PRESSURE REDUCTION VALVE/METERING PRVLM 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - - - SCHOOL NEW SVC LINE SCHOOL 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - - - Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2021 Adopted Projects BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET Amendment 2021 Amended Projects TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SCHEDULE OF BUDGETED PROJECTS ALL FUNDS 18" MAIN VALVE INSTALLATIONS 18VALV 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 120,000 - 120,000 NCWCD MUNICIPAL SUBDISTRICT INCLUSIONS NCWCD 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 63,000 - 63,000 GLACIER CREEK WTP INTAKE ENGINEERING GCINTK 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 120,000 - 120,000 CIP ROCKWELL/WEST RIVERSIDE DR 16" MAIN ROCKWL 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 117,320 - 117,320 CIP BUREAU AREA PHASE 3 WTBRP3 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 524,367 - 524,367 CIP BUREAU AREA PHASE 4 WTBRP4 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 650,000 - 650,000 CIP BIG THOMPSON AVE (HWY 34) MAIN BTHOMP 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - - - MALL ROAD-HWY36 CROSSING MALL36 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM - - - 1360 BROOK DRIVE WATER SHOP WATERLINE (KEARNEY SHOP)KEARNY 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 39,950 - 39,950 PARKING STRUCTURE WATERLINE PKGWTR 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 100,000 - 100,000 BIG HORN DR WATER MAIN REPL BHWTRM 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 315,694 - 315,694 SPRUCE DRIVE WATER MAIN REPL SPWTRM 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 295,496 - 295,496 DEVILS GULCH WATER LINE EXTENSION DEVEXT 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 12,000 - 12,000 GC DISINFECTION OUTREACH AND VERIFICATION EFFORT GCDOVE 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 10,044,000 - 10,044,000 CARRIAGE DRIVE WATER MAIN REPL CAHILL 503-7000-580.35-54 WATER SYSTEM 271,079 - 271,079 UTILITY MASTER PLAN WTRMPL 503-7000-580.35-62 UT SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 30,000 - 30,000 WTR RISK ASSESSMT & EMERG RESPONSE PLAN UPDATE WTREMG 503-7000-580.35-62 UT SYSTEM MASTER PLAN 98,874 - 98,874 GIS WORK WTRGIS 503-7000-580.37-01 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT 25,721 - 25,721 LAB MGT/OVERALL DATA MGT SOFTWARE WLSOFT 503-7000-580.37-01 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT - - - UTILITY BILLING MODERNIZATON PROJECT UBPRTL 503-7000-580.37-01 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT 5,000 - 5,000 CIP USA WATER RIGHTS WITH BOR WTRRBR 503-7000-580.37-10 WATER RIGHTS 48,797 - 48,797 WATER RIGHT ACQUISITION/RENEWAL WTRRIT 503-7000-580.37-10 WATER RIGHTS 40,000 - 40,000 *TOTAL WATER FUND 27,321,143 - 27,321,143 * PURCH WATER SHOP FOR NEW FLEET MAINT FAC FLSHOP 612-7000-610.32-21 BUILDINGS 265,000 - 265,000 DESIGN FOR REMODEL OF WATER SHOP FOR PW FLSHOP 612-7000-610.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 272,000 - 272,000 ELECTRIC TROLLEY FACILITY & CHG STATION ELTRCH 612-7000-610.32-22 BUILDING REMODELING 376,000 - 376,000 *TOTAL FLEET MAINTENANCE FUND 913,000 - 913,000 * Project Name/Description Project Code ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION 2021 Adopted Projects BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET Amendment 2021 Amended Projects TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SCHEDULE OF BUDGETED PROJECTS ALL FUNDS LAPTOP COMPUTERS LPTOP1 625-2500-425.26-33 DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT 15,000 - 15,000 PHONE SYSTEM UPGRADE PHONES 625-2500-425.26-46 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 7,590 - 7,590 WIRELESS HOTSPOT GRANT HOTSPT 625-2500-425.33-36 COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 6,100 - 6,100 NEW NETWORK SERVER NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 44,000 - 44,000 NEW NETWORK SWITCHES / WIFI COMPONENTS NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 10,000 - 10,000 NAS/BACKUP COMPONENTS NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 20,000 - 20,000 VERIZON ROUTER REPLACEMENT NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT - - - EDGE ROUTER REPLACEMENT NETWRK 625-2500-425.33-98 OTHER EQUIPMENT 5,000 - 5,000 IT REMOTE ACCESS SOFTWARE (BONGAR)NETWRK 625-2500-425.37-01 SOFTWARE - - - *TOTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND 107,690 - 107,690 * POLICE G-106A 2004 FORD EXPLORER G-106A 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS - - - POLICE G-155 CRUISER G-155 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS - - - POLICE NEW UNIT FOR NEW OFFICER POSITION G-153 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS 8,649 - 8,649 POLICE CRUISER G-98A G-98B 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS 21,068 - 21,068 POLICE CRUISER G-140A G-140A 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS 60,000 - 60,000 STREETS -NEW STREET SWEEPER COMBINE G116A & G97B G116A 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS 248,526 - 248,526 PARKS G-66B G66C 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS 42,000 - 42,000 FLEET G-61 G61A 635-7000-435.34-42 TRUCKS 70,450 - 70,450 *TOTAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 450,693 - 450,693 * *TOTAL PROJECT RECAP 58,383,961$ 57,520$ 58,441,481$ TOWN OF ESTES PARK BA # 6 - 2021 BUDGET SCHEDULE OF BUDGET CHANGES ALL FUNDS Fund Fund Name Department Division Description Of Change Type (One Time or Ongoing)One Time Ongoing Total Changes 101 General Fund Legislative NA Vacation Home Impact Study One Time 50,000 - 50,000 101 General Fund Public Works Transit Expand transit service season as outlined in the May 25, 2021 Town Board memo - paid with CRRSAA grant funding One Time 114,253 - 114,253 101 General Fund Museum Historic newspaper digitization project partially funded by a $1,500 donation by the Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation, Inc.One Time 3,000 - 3,000 204 Community Reinv Museum Museum Annex foundation repairs fully funded by a $110,000 donationby the Estes Park Museum Friends and Foundation, Inc.One Time 110,000 - 110,000 502 Power and Comm Utilities Power Increase funding for unexpected amounts of external work orders and line repairs needed, partially funded by charges for these external work orders One Time 350,000 - 350,000 502 Power and Comm Utilities Power Increase funding for transformer replacement One Time 175,000 - 175,000 502 Power and Comm Utilities Power Reallocate bond funding from Trailblazer construction to operations as a result of the reorganization recently approved by the Town Board converting contracted services to actual Town employees Ongoing (227,480) 227,480 - Total Appropriation Changes 574,773 227,480 802,253 Page 90 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees From: Town Administrator Machalek Date: September 14, 2021 RE: 2022 Strategic Plan Adoption (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER: _Strategic Plan_ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Town Board consideration of adoption of the 2022 Strategic Plan. Present Situation: The Town Board held two strategic planning sessions on June 7 and June 14. The first section focused on the Town’s mission, vision, outcome areas, and strategic policy statements while the second session was dedicated to developing and finalizing a set of goals and objectives. The attached proposed 2022 Strategic Plan is the final product of these efforts. The Town has been soliciting public feedback on the proposed plan since the strategic planning session on June 14. We have received a number of public comments which are included in the packet materials for this item. Of note, there are a number of specific requests/recommendations pertaining to solid waste management and recycling. The Town Board has a number of options in evaluating these suggestions: •Decide which, if any, of the recommendations to include in the 2022 Strategic Plan tonight; •Direct staff to evaluate any/all of the recommendations and bring back a recommendation on which suggestions to include; or •Ask the Environmental Sustainability Task Force to evaluate the suggestions and include any recommendations in its final report and recommendations (due in January 2022). Proposal: The proposed 2022 Strategic Plan is attached. Advantages: Page 91 •Guides the allocation of the Town’s resources and provides direction to staff. •Comprehensive process to review and record the priorities of the Town Board. Disadvantages: •None Action Recommended: Staff recommends approval of the 2022 Strategic Plan. Finance/Resource Impact: N/A Level of Public Interest Medium Sample Motion: I move for the approval/denial of the 2022 Strategic Plan as presented. Attachments: 1.2022 Strategic Plan 2.2022 Strategic Plan Mind Map Link 3.Public Comment Page 92 KEY OUTCOME AREA STRATEGIC POLICY STATEMENTS GOALS (MULTI-YEAR)OBJECTIVES (ONE-YEAR) 1. We value broad collaboration in providing exceptional guest services, including, but not limited to working with organizations such as Visit Estes Park, the Economic Development Corporation, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Park Service, and other organizations representing business and commerce. 2.A. Develop events that attract guests to Town in the winter and shoulder seasons as well as mid-week events.2.B.1. Develop a new Town event to attract a new audience. 2.B. Continue to develop and attract diverse events and audiences. 4.A.1. Explore ways to use the Visitor Center to help promote current events in Estes Park. 2. We provide high-quality events that attract guests to the Town. 3.A. Work with public- and private-sector entities to encourage additional town destination opportunities for guests, particularly in case visitation limits in the National Park or elsewhere remain a factor.5.A.1. Develop an arena maintenance plan/fund for the Events Complex. 4.A. Continue to monitor and adjust marketing focus to events that are branded to and successful in Estes Park.5.A.2. Shore up Museum Annex Foundation. 3. We strive to balance the impacts of visitation with the needs and quality of life of our residents. 5.A. Implement the 2019 Stanley Park Complex Master Plan projects at the Events Complex. 5.A.3. Update the conceptual design and cost estimates for the Stall Barns and develop a plan to fund the improvement. 5.B. Maintain a high level of arena footing for horse shows and rodeos at the Events Complex. 6.A.1. Work with Visit Estes Park to develop a website page specific to Visitor Services for easy access to Visitor Services Guest Information Guides and other information useful to guests. 4. We make data-driven decisions in serving our guests and residents.6.A. Implement the Visitor Services Strategic Plan. 6.B. Visitor Services will work with Visit Estes Park on developing and implementing ways to introduce new technology to help educate and entertain guests at the Visitor Center. 5. We value a well-maintained Stanley Park Complex. 6. The Town provides and encourages a high level of customer service to our guests. 7. We should balance the events we have in Town to be compatible with the character of Estes Park. Exceptional Guest Services - We are a preferred Colorado mountain destination providing an exceptional guest experience. Governmental Services and Internal Support - We provide high-quality support for all municipal services. Town of Estes Park 2022 Strategic Plan Vision: The Town of Estes Park will be an ever more vibrant and welcoming mountain community. Mission: The Mission of the Town of Estes Park is to provide high-quality, reliable services for the benefit of our residents, guests, and employees, while being good stewards of public resources and our natural setting. THERE IS NO RANK-ORDERING OR PRIORITIZATION IN THIS PLAN. ALL NUMERICAL DESIGNATIONS ARE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 93 1. We will maintain a well-trained and educated Town Staff.1.A. Implement Human Resources Strategic Plan. 2.1. Evaluate the structure of Public Art for the Town of Estes Park and make recommendations. 3.A. Explore options to improve the Town's ability to ensure diverse membership representation on Boards and Commissions. 4.B.1. Implement top priority language translation tasks for public outreach materials and/or services based on the internal evaluation of translation gaps in 2021. 2. We will match service levels with the resources available to deliver them. 4.A. Conduct a citizen survey biennially in odd years to measure our performance and citizen preferences. 5.1. Evaluate the effectiveness of the central reception pilot program at Town Hall. 4.B. Evaluate inclusivity of Town community engagement processes. 6.A.1. Establish an initial set of Performance Measures for each department and develop centralized tool for tracking measures. 3. We will strive to ensure that the membership of our Boards and Commissions reflects the diversity of the community. 6.A. Implement a Town performance management system including appropriate measures. 6.B.1. Implement top priority process improvement tasks based on the recommendations of the internal task team. 6.B. Develop an organizational culture that encourages continuous process improvement. 6.C.1. Execute contract to scan and archive existing invoices. 4. We strive to gain meaningful input and participation from all community members. 6.C. Archive existing invoices in Laserfiche database. 8.A.1. Replace existing firewalls, conduct regular penetration tests, and enhance training and education for staff. 8.A. Minimize risk of becoming a victim of cybersecurity threats. 8.A.2. Evaluate ransomware risk and develop a mitigation plan. 5. We prioritize and support a culture of customer service throughout the organization. 9.A. We will continually evaluate the functionality of our website to ensure it serves the needs of our customers. 6. We support a culture of continuous improvement in our internal processes and service delivery. 7. We operate with transparency, maintaining open communication with all community members. 8. We will monitor for, and protect against, cybersecurity threats. 9. We will maintain a robust and transparent public-facing website. 1. We will ensure water service reliability and redundancy. 1.A. Secure a raw water supply from the Big Thompson River for the Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant by 2026. 3.A.1. Consider implementing the recommendations of the Environmental Sustainability Task Force to support renewable energy and storage sources for use by the Town and by individual residents. 1.B. Replace the Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant by 2026. 4.B.1. Develop and implement an annual budget contribution mechanism for facility expansion needs as identified in the Facilities Master Plan. Infrastructure - We have reliable, efficient, and up-to-date infrastructure serving our community and customers. Page 94 2. We provide high quality, reliable, and sustainable electric service. 1.C. Develop a dedicated water distribution crew with the knowledge skills and ability for capital construction projects capable of replacing one (1) mile of pipe per year.4.C.1. Install Phase 2 Town Hall Variable Refrigerant Flow cooling units. 2.A. Establish electric industry reliability metrics by 2022. 4.A.1. Develop, fund, and implement a stormwater drainage system maintenance program. 3. We will encourage and support renewable energy sources and storage. 3.A. Increase/enhance renewable energy sources and storage.5.B.1. Pursue grant funding for private and/or public flood mitigation projects. 4.A. Evaluate the service condition, safety, functionality, accessibility and land use restrictions of our 32 public buildings using a data-driven approach and document the outcomes in a Facilities Master Plan. 5.C.1. Develop a funding proposal to expand stormwater infrastructure and maintenance through a stormwater utility. 4. We will ensure that our facilities are well-maintained and meet the needs of Town Departments and the community. 4.B. Upgrade the quality, function and safety of the 5 busiest public facilities, to exceed the expectations of our guests by 2025. 5.D.1. Initiate discussions with the Colorado Water Conservation Board and FEMA regarding the process and costs of participating in the CRS program. 4.C. Pursue energy conservation projects that improve the efficiency of our buildings. 5. We will be proactive in our approach to mitigating flood risks including pursuing the implementation of the Stormwater Master Plan. 5.A. Upgrade and maintain our stormwater collection system to reduce the risk of flooding and damage to public and private property. 5.B. Pursue flood mitigation initiatives to reduce flood risk and increase public safety. 6. We will ensure access to high-speed, high-quality, reliable Trailblazer Broadband service. 5.C. Evaluate implementation options for a Stormwater Utility for the Estes Valley. 5.D. Explore the Community Rating System (CRS) program as a way to minimize flood insurance costs to the community. 6.A. We will complete construction of a broadband over fiber optic cable network for customers in the electric service area by 2024. Infrastructure.A. We will collaborate with community stakeholders to update our adopted transportation, drainage, and parking design standards and construction policies in the Development Code by 2025. 1. We will support a wide range of housing opportunities with a particular focus on workforce housing. 1.A. Allocate portion of excess revenue to workforce housing reserve fund. 1.A.1. Negotiate Development Agreement with AmericaWest for workforce housing on the Fish Hatchery site. 1.B. Prioritize Estes Park Development Code (EPDC) amendments on Community Development Master List that impact housing. 1.A.2. Evaluate additional funding streams for the workforce housing reserve fund. Outstanding Community Services - Estes Park is an exceptionally vibrant, diverse, inclusive, and active mountain community in which to live, work, and play, with housing available for all segments in our community. Page 95 2. We will support the needs of our senior community.1.C. Incentivize Downtown Housing. 5.C.1. Team with community stakeholders to create and adopt a Management Plan for the Thumb Open Space. 3.A. Investigate the possibility of establishing one or more pocket parks in residential areas. 6.1. Complete new Comprehensive Plan in concert with Town and Larimer County stakeholders. 3. We support a family-friendly community and strive to be a family-friendly employer. 4.A. Participate in County Strategic Plan childcare capacity team.7.1. Complete the Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan. 4.B. Establish a reserve fund to fund investments in childcare. 8.A.1. Pursue "first right of refusal" purchase options on the top three opportunity sites identified in the Facilities Master Plan. 4. We will support a wide range of child care opportunities with a particular focus on infants and toddlers. 5.A. Develop a master plan for Town Parks and Open Space, in cooperation with the Recreation District and Estes Valley Land Trust. 5.B. In accordance with National Fire Protection Association Firewise USA criteria, overhaul outdated and aging landscaping in Children's Park, Riverwalk, Parking Structure picnic area, and Wiest Park by 2025. 5. We will expand and improve the durability, functionality, and efficiency of open space and public park infrastructure. 5.C. Improve the Thumb Open Space for public recreation as regulated by the Management Plan and Location and Extent review. 5.D. Specify the additional equipment, personnel and space needed to deliver and maintain high-quality landscaping in accordance with National Fire Protection Association Firewise USA criteria as required by new capital projects. 6. We will develop a new Comprehensive Plan and associated development code. 6.A. Complete a full rewrite of the Estes Park Development Code. 8.A. Develop a strategy and funding source for Town facility site acquisitions as identified in the Facilities Master Plan. 7. We are committed to improving community accessibility for residents and visitors with disabilities. 8. We will pursue land-banking opportunities as they align with the Strategic Plan. 1. We will promote policies that encourage environmental stewardship. 1.A. Modify codes and regulations to support alternative and distributed energy. 1.B.1. Create a fact sheet for residents and businesses that provides information and steps to follow for adding solar options to buildings. 1.B. Encourage solar energy options on new and established homes and businesses, including Town Buildings. 1.C.1. Develop and implement a plan to make the Rooftop Rodeo concessions and hospitality functions zero-waste. 2. We are committed to safeguarding the lives and property of the people we serve. 1.C. The Events and Visitor Services Department will reduce the environmental impacts of Town events. 2.1. Adopt the 2021 International Code Council Building Code updates, including the International Property Maintenance Code. 2.A. Evaluate and meet the sworn officer and dispatch staffing needs of the Police Department. 2.B.1. Implement Phase 3 of the Security Camera Project to address the needs of the Event Center and the associated parking area. Public Safety, Health, and Environment - Estes Park is a safe place to live, work, and visit within our extraordinary natural environment. Page 96 3. We value the importance of maintaining a local emergency communication center to serve the residents and guests of the Estes Valley. 2.B. Integrate security camera systems in Town Hall, Visitor Center, Events Complex, and Museum. 9.1. Complete Community Planning Assistance for Wildfire (CPAW) process and begin implementation of recommendations. 2.C. Evaluate pandemic response plan. 4. We strive to enhance the safety of emergency responders in non-emergency and critical situations. 5. We support the County-wide Wasteshed Plan and will remain active partners with Larimer County in its implementation. 6. We believe in and support restorative practices as a way to build and repair relationships, as well as increase understanding about the impact of crime in the Estes Park Community. 7. We make data-driven decisions to improve and protect the quality of the environment in the Town. 8. We will train and prepare for responding to community emergencies. 9. We will be proactive in our approach to wildfire planning and mitigation in response to elevated fire risks in the Estes Valley and the surrounding area. 1. We will develop an inclusive, robust, and sustainable economy by making our economic development decisions based on a triple bottom line model, considering economic, social, and environmental impacts and benefits. 2.A. Evaluate and improve the Development Review process. 2.A.1. Work with the Estes Park Economic Development Corporation (EDC) to re- establish the EDC Code Committee. 4.A. Implement the Downtown Plan. 2. We will create and sustain a favorable business climate and we value building strong relationships with the business community. 5.A. In conjunction with the Comprehensive Plan process, identify and prioritize the Town's commercial corridors and prepare redevelopment plans and policies for them. 3. Our economy should be diverse, attracting and serving a broad range of current and potential stakeholders. 4. We recognize the importance of a vibrant, attractive, and economically-viable Downtown Core. 5. We support investment and revitalization in all of the Town's commercial corridors and centers. Robust Economy - We have a diverse, healthy year-round economy. Page 97 6. The Town will support economic development efforts led by other organizations, including business attraction, retention, and expansion. 7. The Town will lead specific economic development efforts identified by the Town Board, such as the continued implementation of the Broadband Utility, and provision of electric and water services. 8. Town policies and actions will reflect a preference for local businesses. 9. The Town's policies should collectively support all demographic segments of the community, and strive to minimize barriers to a diverse, family-friendly community and robust workforce. 1. The Town will maintain up-to-date financial policies, tools, and controls that reflect the financial philosophy of the Board.1.A. Replace our enterprise financial system. 1.A.1. Develop a plan to replace the 1992 financial accounting system, including both financial and staffing considerations. 1.B. Develop general budget policies (i.e. reserves, one-time money for one-time exp, budget for full project up front, vacancies budgeted at 50% level, etc.).1.B.1. Review and propose updates to Planning Division fees. 2. Financial decisions for capital projects should be data-driven.1.C. Evaluate capital project ranking criteria. 1. We support having a sustainable, accessible, and efficient multimodal transportation network. 1.A. Street rehabilitation efforts will result in an average Pavement Condition Index of 73 or greater for the Town street network by 2024. 1.A.1. Complete the design and public outreach for the Cleave Street Improvement. Confirm community support and alignment with the updated Comprehensive plan prior to commencing construction. 1.B. Upgrade and maintain our public trail network to comply with adopted safety and disability standards. 1.B.1. Develop, fund, and implement a public trail maintenance program. 2. We will continue to reduce traffic congestion and improve traffic safety throughout the Town. 1.C. Study the possibility of adopting impact fees and fee-in- lieu mechanisms to assist in funding multi-modal transportation improvements. 2.A.1. Complete the design, bid package, and construction of the Fall River Trail segment funded by the MMOF and TAP grants. 2.A. Complete the Fall River Trail using available trails expansion funds, open space funds, and grant funding. 2.A.2. Pursue grant funding opportunities for construction of future segments of the Fall River Trail. Town Financial Health - We will maintain a strong and sustainable financial condition, balancing expenditures with available revenues, including adequate cash reserves for future needs and unanticipated emergencies. Transportation - We have safe, efficient, and well-maintained multi-modal transportation systems for pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, and transit riders. Page 98 3. We will effectively communicate to residents and visitors the Town's parking and transportation options. 2.B. Develop funding options and strategies for street rehabilitation and trail expansion in advance of the 2024 expiration of 1A (including evaluation of renewing the 2014 1A sales tax initiative beyond 2024). 2.D.1. If funded, construct the Phase 1 roundabout improvements on US36 to accommodate safe access at Community Drive. 2.C. Develop funding strategies for the design, environmental clearance, and construction of the Moraine Avenue Multimodal Improvements. 2.E.1. Partner with CDOT to complete a corridor study for US 34 between Wonderview Avenue and Steamer Dr to include pedestrian, shuttle and general traffic accommodations, and options for direct access from US 34 to the parking structure. 4. We will make strategic, data-driven investments in technology that promotes the financial and environmental sustainability of the Town's parking and transportation assets. 2.D. Develop funding strategies and build the roundabout improvements at the intersection of US 36 and Community Drive. 2.F.1. Evaluate and refine the seasonal paid parking program (Phase 2 of the Downtown Parking Management Plan) implemented in 2021. 2.E. Develop funding and partnering strategies to commission a corridor study for US 34 between Wonderview Avenue and Steamer Drive to include pedestrian, shuttle and general traffic accommodations, and options for direct access from US 34 to the parking structure. 2.G.1. Partner with CDOT to explore expansion of Bustang to Estes service to include both the US 36 and US 34 corridors. 5. We will identify and leverage local, regional and national partnerships that strengthen and extend the Town's parking and transportation system.2.F. Implement the Downtown Parking Management Plan. 2.G.2. Create a new brand for Estes Transit and complementary strategic marketing plan to increase transit ridership. 2.G. Explore the potential for year-round local and regional transit service.2.H.1. Increase use of charging stations and electric vehicle tourism. 6. We will consider the potential impacts of technology changes, including electric and autonomous vehicles, in all transportation planning. 2.H. Implement the Electric Vehicle Infrastructure & Readiness Plan as grant funding opportunities coincide with Town needs.2H.2. Put the second electric trolley into service. 2.I. Develop a funding strategy to complete a Multimodal Transportation Master Plan within one year of completion of the Comprehensive Plan. 7.A.1. Apply for Safe Routes to Schools funding to implement sidewalk expansion on Graves Avenue and Community Drive to improve network connectivity with existing sidewalks on SH7, Community Drive, and Brodie Avenue. 7. We will continue to develop connectivity of trails in the Estes Valley in partnership with other entities, implementing the priorities in the Estes Valley Master Trails Plan. 7.A. Participate in the CDOT Safe Routes to Schools grant funding program to complete the bike and pedestrian network within one mile of Estes Park public schools. Page 99 Start dateAgenda_Item_Title Stance_on_itemNameComments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload6/23/2021 8:31 AM 2022 Strategic Plan Neutral Tom DorityDear Kate and Travis:   I am always pleased to learn of your ongoing strategic planning.  Kate’s letter is clear and professional, and I know that Travis well experienced in the process.  This may all seem unexciting to many residents, but for me it is fundamental and very gratifying to see you carry out the process.My only comment about this is that it may be helpful for residents to understand if any and all projects, programs and services discussed publicly are keyed to the specific objectives, goals, policies and/or priorities of the Plan.  You may already do that.  It helps residents to appreciate how the Plan guides the appropriate work and investments in a rational, reliable manner.Thanks for your diligence in this!  I don’t need to come to a meeting on the subject.     Tom Dority—Tom~Phone Numbers Removed by staff~8/1/2021 10:17 AM 2022 Strategic Plan Neutral Marina ConnorsThe 2022 Strategic Plan, in the Infrastructure Outcome Area, should include a solid waste management goal to reduce and eliminate adverse impacts of solid waste materials on human health and the environment.  Currently trash and recycling is handled either by a)  businesses and residences having their own contract for these services or by b) individuals using the Transfer Station or Residential Recycling Center.  The Transfer Station and Residential Recycling center is operated by a contract between Larimer County and a solid waste handling company.   The only role the town has at these facilities is that they own the land and have leased it to Waste Management.  For businesses, Waste Management charges more for recycling than trash resulting in a very low rate of waste diversion or recycling.  I encourage the town to take a more active role in reducing, reusing and recycling solid waste generated in Estes Park.8/18/2021 10:57 AM2022 Strategic Plan For Cathy AlperThe League of Women Voters/Community Recycling Committee collaboratively came up with the items for consideration for the 2022 Strategic Plan.  We hope these are helpful as together we try to make Estes Park known and respected by visitors, residents, and surrounding communities as eco‐friendly and moving toward zero waste.Strategic Plan Suggestions ‐ CRC.pdf ‐ Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ECWQmXaHdbQFyUQ9HzpxI1wQbfr0POyp/view?usp=sharingATTACHMENT 3Page 100 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE Memo To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees From: Town Administrator Machalek Date: September 14, 2021 RE: Policy 208 – Naming of Town-Owned Parks, Open Spaces, and Facilities (Mark all that apply) PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER: _Policy_______ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Town Board consideration of Policy 208 – Naming of Town-Owned Parks, Open Spaces, and Facilities. Present Situation: The Town Board adopted Policy 205 – Naming of Town-Owned Parks, Open Spaces, and Facilities on March 8, 2016. Unfortunately, policy number 205 was already in use and we now have two policies using that same number. Additionally, although the Town Board minutes from March 8, 2016 reflect the approval of the naming policy, staff cannot find the final signed copy. At the Town Board meeting on August 24, 2021, Trustee Younglund caught an error in the proposed policy that was a holdover from a previous policy draft (referencing a naming recommendation from the Leadership Team instead of the Parks Advisory Board). In correcting this error, staff also determined that it would be beneficial to ensure that the process differences between naming a facility and naming a park/open space were clear by separating these processes into two sections (the previous policy draft combined these two processes in a single section, Section 3.a.vi). Proposal: Staff is asking the Town Board to approve Policy 208 in order to clean up the policy numbering, to prevent any confusion stemming from having two Policy 205s, and to clarify the differences between the process to name facilities and the process to name parks/open spaces. There are only four significant changes from the previously adopted Policy 205 to Policy 208: •Correction of policy number from Policy 205 to Policy 208; Page 101 •Splitting Section 3.a.vi into two sections, one pertaining to naming parks/open spaces (now 3.a.vi) and one pertaining to naming facilities (now 3.a.vii). The naming processes themselves have not changed; •Updating the policy signatory to Mayor Koenig; and •Updating the footer date and department. Advantages: •Updates policy numbering to avoid confusion. •Clarifies a confusing section of the policy by separating the process to name a park/open space (Section 3.a.vi) and the process to name a facility (3.a.vii). Disadvantages: •None Action Recommended: Staff recommends the Town Board approve Policy 208 – Naming of Town-Owned Parks, Open Spaces, and Facilities. Finance/Resource Impact: No direct financial impact. Level of Public Interest Low Sample Motion: I move to approve Policy 208. Attachments: 1.Policy 208 Page 102 Policy 208 09/14/2021 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Administrator’s Office Page 1 of 7 Effective Period: Until superceded Review Schedule: Biennially Effective Date: 09/14/2021 References: Governing Policies 1.1.3 and 1.3.2 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE 208 Naming of Town-Owned Parks, Open Spaces, and Facilities 1.PURPOSE To establish a consistent and systematic approach for selecting names for Town-owned parks, open spaces, and facilities. 2. POLICY Maintaining consistent and understandable procedures for naming and re-naming Town-owned parks, open spaces, and facilities is crucial for identification purposes. These names aid emergency response, help to develop a sense of place, and help to honor community leaders. The Town of Estes Park will follow the procedures outlined in this policy to name or re- name any Town-owned park, open space, or facility. When choosing a name for a Town-owned facility, park, or open space, the Town will endeavor to ensure that such names: (1) are appropriate; (2) aid in the identification and location of the property or facility in question; and (3) encourage the donation of lands, facilities, and funds to the Town. 3.PROCEDURE a.Naming a New Town-Owned Park, Open Space, or Facility i.Working Name for Facilities under Consideration or Construction All new facilities under consideration or construction will be given a working name by staff. ii.Naming Criteria In order to be considered, proposed names for a new Town-owned park, open space, or facility shall be reflective of at least one of the following criteria: 1)Specific purpose of the facility (e.g., Museum, Events Complex) 2)Geographic location 3)Prominent geographic feature or local reference point 4)Adjoining subdivision/community ATTACHMENT 1 UPDATED 2021-09-10 Page 103 Policy 208 09/14/2021 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Administrator’s Office Page 2 of 7 5) Historical feature 6) A deceased individual (see section 3.a.iii) 7) An individual or group via a donation or sponsorship agreement (see section 3.a.iv) iii. Naming a Park, Open Space, or Facility after a Deceased Individual Consideration shall be given to the naming of a Town-owned park, open space, or facility after a deceased individual only if both of the following conditions have been met: 1) The individual has been deceased for at least three (3) years; and 2) The individual has made significant contributions to the Town through a long-term commitment to the residents and guests of the Town of Estes Park. iv. Individual or Group Donations or Sponsorships Consideration shall be given to the naming of a Town-owned park, open space, or facility after a group or individual based on a donation or sponsorship only if such donation or sponsorship comprises 75 percent or more of the overall value of the park, open space, or facility. This provision shall not apply to any naming rights sold for the Estes Park Events Complex. v. Sponsorship Naming Rights Sponsorship naming rights made by contract, for a specific period of time, are exempt from this policy. vi. Naming Process – Parks and Open Spaces The naming of a new Town-owned park or open space will follow the process below: 1) Public Announcement: When the Town signs a contract to create a new park or to purchase land to be used as a park or open space, the Town Clerk’s Office will publish a legal notice in the paper of record inviting the public to submit prospective names for the park or open space. The deadline for submitting names will be two weeks from the date of the printed legal notice. The legal notice shall refer to the property by description, in addition to common/informal names. The Public Information Office will also notify the community of the opportunity to participate through a news release and other appropriate channels. 2) Review and Recommendation: Within two weeks of the deadline to submit names, the Town Clerk will submit to the Parks Advisory Board all of the names received that meet the criteria in section 3.a.ii. The Parks Advisory Page 104 Policy 208 09/14/2021 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Administrator’s Office Page 3 of 7 Board will review the submitted names, and make a recommendation to the Town Board. 3) Notice of Recommendation: A legal notice shall be published in the paper of record as soon as reasonable after the Parks Advisory Board submits its recommended name to the Town Board. This legal notice shall include the proposed name, a description of the park or open space to be named, and the time and place of the Board Meeting at which the recommendation will be considered. The legal notice must be published at least 30 days prior to the Town Board meeting where the recommendation will be considered. The Public Information Office will also notify the community of the opportunity to participate through a news release and other appropriate channels. 4) Town Board Review and Approval: Upon receipt of the recommendation from the Parks Advisory Board, the Town Board will consider the recommended name at a regular Board meeting as an action item. vii. Naming Process – Facilities The naming of a new Town-owned facility will follow the process below: 5) Public Announcement: When the Town signs a contract to construct a new facility, the Town Clerk’s Office will publish a legal notice in the paper of record inviting the public to submit prospective names for the facility. The deadline for submitting names will be two weeks from the date of the printed legal notice. The legal notice shall refer to the facility by description, in addition to common/informal names. The Public Information Office will also notify the community of the opportunity to participate through a news release and other appropriate channels. 6) Review: Within two weeks of the deadline to submit names, the Town Clerk will submit to the Town Board all of the names received that meet the criteria in Section 3.a.ii. 7) Notice of Submitted Names: A legal notice shall be published in the paper of record as soon as reasonable after the Town Clerk submits the list of qualifying names to the Town Board. This legal notice shall include the qualifying proposed names, a description of the facility to be named, and the time and place of the Board Meeting at which the recommendation will be considered. The legal notice must be published at least 30 days prior to the Town Board meeting where the recommendation will be considered. The Public Information Office will also notify the community of the opportunity to participate through a news release and other appropriate channels. Page 105 Policy 208 09/14/2021 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Administrator’s Office Page 4 of 7 8) Town Board Review and Approval: Upon receipt of the list of qualifying names from the Town Clerk, the Town Board will consider the recommended name at a regular Board meeting as an action item. b. Re-Naming a Town-Owned Park, Open Space, or Facility i. Conditions The existing names of Town-owned parks, open spaces, and facilities are deemed to have historic recognition. The Town of Estes Park will not change the name of any existing Town-owned park, open space, or facility unless: (1) there are compelling reasons to consider such change; (2) there is a thorough study of the change consisting of a public hearing at a regularly scheduled Town Board meeting; and (3) there is a unanimous vote of the Town Board. Additionally, the Town Board will consider renaming a Town-owned park, open space, or facility to commemorate a person or persons only when said person or persons: (1) is/are deceased, (2) has/have made a major, overriding contribution to the Town; (3) has/have made contributions that have not been honored in another manner; and (4) has/have notable historic significance to the Estes Valley. Potential re-naming applicants should consider other appropriate options to memorialize individuals including, but not limited to, plaques, memorial benches, and memorial trees. ii. Requests to Re-Name a Town-Owned Park, Open Space, or Facility Any requests to re-name a Town-owned park, open space, or facility shall use the following procedure: 1) The applicant shall submit a completed “Request to Re-Name a Town- Owned Park, Open Space, or Facility” application form (Appendix A) to the Town Clerk. 2) The application will be reviewed for completeness based upon the naming criteria set forth in section 3.a.ii of this policy. 3) Completed applications will be forwarded to the Town Administrator and Town Board. 4) If the Town Board wishes to consider the proposed re-naming, the Board will set a date to consider the proposal as an Action Item on a Town Board Meeting Agenda. iii. Costs of Renaming The Town Board may request that any cost of renaming (e.g. the replacement of signs) be borne by the individual or group recommending the change. iv. Noticing of Google Upon any renaming, Town staff will endeavor to ensure that said renaming is reflected on Google Maps as soon as possible. Page 106 Policy 208 09/14/2021 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Administrator’s Office Page 5 of 7 c. Naming of Meeting Rooms in or on Town-Owned Parks, Open Spaces, or Facilities Meeting rooms located in or on Town-owned parks, open spaces, or facilities may be named administratively by the Town Administrator. d. Revocation of Name Under extraordinary circumstances that would cast a negative image upon the Town, any naming of Town-owned parks, open spaces, or facilities in honor of an individual, family, or group may be revoked at the discretion of the Town Board. e. Naming of Streets All streets will be named in accordance with Policy 421 (Addressing and Street Naming Policy). Approved: _____________________________ Wendy Koenig, Mayor _____________ Date Page 107 Policy 208 09/14/2021 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Administrator’s Office Page 6 of 7 APPENDIX 1 - Request to Re-Name a Town-Owned Park, Open Space, or Facility Town of Estes Park Request to Re-Name a Town-Owned Park, Open Space, or Facility 1. Applicant General Information Name: ______________________________________________ Date: ________________ Address: ____________________________________________ City/State: ________________ Zip Code: ___________________________________________ Telephone: ________________ Does the Applicant Represent an Organization? Y N If Yes, Name of Organization: ___________________________________________________________ 2. Nature of Re-Naming Request Park OR Open Space OR Facility Location: ____________________________________________________________________ Proposed Name: _______________________________________________________________ 3. Re-Naming Justification Page 108 Policy 208 09/14/2021 Revisions: 0 Town of Estes Park, Town Administrator’s Office Page 7 of 7 Specific Purpose Historical Feature Geographic Location Deceased Individual Geographic Feature Donation/Sponsorship Adjoining Community Explanation of Justification Attached (Required)?* Y N ________________________________________________ _________________________ Signature Date ________________________________________________ Print Name *Please ensure that the justification addresses the conditions for re-naming contained in Policy 208.3.b.i Page 109 Page 110 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 6. Ordinance 12-21 Amending Chapter 10.06 of the Estes Park Municipal Code Regarding Paid Parking.  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 item.  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 item. 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 item which are not in the Board packet.  Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the item.  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. 7.SUGGESTED MOTION.  Suggested motion(s) are set forth in the staff report. Page 111 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. *NOTE: Ordinances are read into record at the discretion of the Mayor as it is not required to do so by State Statute. Page 112 PUBLIC WORKS Memo To: Honorable Mayor Wendy Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Vanessa Solesbee, CAPP, CCTM, Parking & Transit Manager Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: September 14, 2021 RE: Ordinance 12-21 Amending Chapter 10.06 of the Estes Park Municipal Code Regarding Paid Parking PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER: QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Ordinance12-21 amends Chapter 10.06 of the Estes Park Municipal Code (EPMC), Section 10.06.050, pertaining to paid parking. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the free, daily time limit for residents from 30 minutes to 1 hour (60 minutes). Present Situation: In August, the Parking Division and The Car Park sent a survey to all of the 2021 parking permit holders who have a valid email address on file. The survey was sent to 2,265 account holders on August 6, 2021 and 871 responses were received by the deadline of August 13, 2021. This survey is one element of an extensive public outreach process that the Parking Division and The Car Park are conducting as part of the first paid parking season. Staff are using feedback from this summer’s outreach effort to make improvements to the paid parking program in a timely manner – this year if possible. One of the top comments that staff have heard anecdotally during the first paid parking season is the desire to extend the time limit on the Resident 30-Minute Exemption (referred to as the “Local 30-Minute Permit”). As such, two questions on the August survey were focused on the Local 30-Minute Permit. When asked if 30 minutes was enough time “to run quick errands in the downtown core without having to pay the hourly rate” (if one chooses to park in a paid lot), 46.7% of survey respondents selected “no”, while 27.8% indicated that it was “sometimes” enough time. When asked the “ideal time limit” for this permit, 47.8% responded 1 hour (60 minutes), 15% responded 90 minutes, 13.9% responded 30 minutes and 13.8% responded 2 hours (120 minutes). Page 113 Proposal: Staff propose to amend Title 10 of the Estes Park Municipal Code (EPMC), Section 10.06.050, to extend the Resident 30-Minute Exemption to 1 hour (60 minutes). The attached ordinance modifies Title 10 of the EPMC pertaining to Vehicles & Traffic. Advantages: • The proposed code amendment will allow staff to respond directly to community input about the new seasonal paid parking program in a timely manner. Disadvantages: • The increased time limit could encourage more permit holders to park in the Town’s busiest parking areas (the paid lots), potentially contributing to increased occupancy; however, staff feel that this proposed code amendment supports the Parking Division’s goal of managing public parking for all users – locals and visitors. Action Recommended: Public Works staff recommend adoption of Ordinance 12-21 Amending Chapter 10.06 of the Estes Park Municipal Code on Paid Parking. Finance/Resource Impact: There is no finance/resource impact for this item. Level of Public Interest Staff expects a moderate to high level of public interest in any item related to parking. Sample Motion I move to approve/deny Ordinance 12-21 Attachments: 1. Ordinance 12-21 Page 114 ORDINANCE NO. 12-21 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 10.06 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE ON PAID PARKING WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to amend a section of the Municipal Code of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section 10.06.050 of the Estes Park Municipal Code is hereby amended, by adding underlined material and deleting stricken material, to read as follows: 10.06.050– Resident 6030-Minute Exemption Parking by residents for brief errands downtown is essential to the Town’s livability and economy, such parking has only a de minimis impact on the Town, and charging fees for such parking would be counterproductive to the purposes of this chapter. Accordingly, notwithstanding the other provisions of this chapter, residents within the boundaries of the Estes Park R-3 School District are eligible to park in paid parking areas, free of charge, for up to 6030 minutes of cumulative use daily. To activate this exemption, these eligible residents must register their vehicle license plate numbers with the Manager annually. The exemption will then remain in effect for the duration of the seasonal enforcement period established by resolution. This exemption is non-transferrable. However, the exemption shall be automatically suspended for any residents with an unpaid parking citation aged 60 days or more until the Manager confirms that all fines have been paid. Section 2: 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 _______________, 2021. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk ATTACHMENT 1 Page 115 I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2021 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2021, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Page 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 6. Ordinance 13-21 Amending Section 5.20.110 of the Estes Park Municipal Code Regarding Transfer of Business Licenses for Vacation Homes and Bed & Breakfast Inns.  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 item.  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 item. 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 item which are not in the Board packet.  Ask the Board of Trustees if there are any further questions concerning the item.  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. Page 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. *NOTE: Ordinances are read into record at the discretion of the Mayor as it is not required to do so by State Statute. Page 118 TOWN CLERK OFFICE MEMO To: Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator From: Jackie Williamson, Town Clerk Date: September 14, 2021 RE: Ordinance 13-21 Amending Section 5.20.110 of the Estes Park Municipal Code Regarding Transfer of Business Licenses for Vacation Homes and Bed and Breakfast Inns PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: To consider amending the Estes Park Municipal Code as it relates to the transferability of residential vacation homes. Present Situation: Currently the EPMC allows for a vacation home license to transfer to a new property owner if done so within 30 days of the new ownership change. In 2016, the code clarified that an annual operating registration did not constitute a zoning entitlement to use the home as a vacation home, but was valid for only a single year. The ability to transfer a license has been questioned in the past by previous Board members and was discussed at the Town Board study session on August 10th and again during a Town Board meeting on August 24th. The Board requested staff bring options forward to address the transferability of residential vacation homes. Proposal: Staff has identified two options for the Town Board’s consideration in addressing the transfer of residential vacation home licenses. Option A would limit the transferability to properties registered prior to the effective date of Ordinance 29-16. Option B would restrict the ability to transfer a license to those currently licensed as of the effective date of the ordinance. All newly licensed residential vacation homes would not be transferable to a new property owner. Advantages: •Either option would address the transferability of residential vacation homes moving forward. Page 119 • Limiting the ability to transfer a vacation home license would allow additional properties on the waitlist to be processed. • The change may have an impact on the realized or perceived increase in value to properties that maintain a residential vacation home license. Disadvantages: • Option A would create approximately 155 grandfathered properties and Option B would create 322 grandfathered properties. Action Recommend: Approval of Option B. Finance/Resource Impact: Cost to codify the Municipal Code. Level of Public Interest Medium. Vacation homeowners, property managers, and neighboring properties have a strong interest in amendments to the regulations. Sample Motion: I move to approve/deny Ordinance 13-21 (Indicate Option). Attachments: 1. Ordinance 13-21 Option A 2. Ordinance 13-21 Option B Page 120 ORDINANCE NO. 13-21 (Option A) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.20.110 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TRANSFER OF BUSINESS LICENSES FOR VACATION HOMES AND BED AND BREAKFAST INNS WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to amend certain sections of the Estes Park Municipal Code. 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: Section 5.20.110(c) of the Estes Park Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of underlined material and the deletion of stricken material, to read as follows: 5.20.110 - Additional provisions for vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns. . . . (c)Transfer of business licenses and changes to local representatives. (1)Transferable to new owner. a.Pre-2017 licenses. An active license for a specific vacation home or bed and breakfast inn operating continuously (by renewal or approved transfer) under the required license since prior to the effective date of Ordinance 29-16 of the Town of Estes Park shall be transferable to a different owner in accordance with procedures in this Code, including paragraph (3) below, and in the form and manner established by the Town Clerk's Office. a.b.Other licenses. Effective January 31, 2022, licenses for vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns not addressed in subparagraph (a) above are not transferrable to any person upon sale or other transfer of ownership of the property. Upon such sale or transfer of ownership, the license shall terminate automatically and the new owner of the property shall apply for a vacation rental license if it wishes to continue the use of the property as a vacation rental. Such application shall be subject to any applicable waitlist. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 121 . . . (3)Application required upon transfer. If the property owner changes during the annual period for which the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn has been licensed, and the license is eligible for transfer as described in paragraph (1) above, a new property owner of record must file an application to transfer the license into their name within thirty (30) days of transfer of ownership, and must ensure the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn is in compliance with all other Town regulations. . . . Section 3: 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 _______________, 2021. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2021 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2021, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Page 122 ORDINANCE NO. 13-21 (Option B) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 5.20.110 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TRANSFER OF BUSINESS LICENSES FOR VACATION HOMES AND BED AND BREAKFAST INNS WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park, Colorado has determined that it is in the best interest of the Town to amend certain sections of the Estes Park Municipal Code. 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: Section 5.20.110(c) of the Estes Park Municipal Code is hereby amended by the addition of underlined material and the deletion of stricken material, to read as follows: 5.20.110 - Additional provisions for vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns. . . . (c)Transfer of business licenses and changes to local representatives. (1)Transferable to new owner. a. Transferable licenses. An active license for a specific vacation home or bed and breakfast inn operating continuously (by new license, renewal, or approved transfer) under the required license since prior to the effective date of Ordinance 13-21 of the Town of Estes Park shall be transferable to a different owner in accordance with procedures in this Code, including paragraph (3) below, and in the form and manner established by the Town Clerk's Office. a.b.Other licenses. Licenses for vacation homes and bed and breakfast inns not addressed in subparagraph (a) above are not transferrable to any person upon sale or other transfer of ownership of the property. Upon such sale or transfer of ownership, the license shall terminate automatically and the new owner of the property shall apply for a vacation rental license if it wishes to continue the use of the property as a vacation rental. Such application shall be subject to any applicable waitlist. ATTACHMENT 2 Page 123 . . . (3)Application required upon transfer. If the property owner changes during the annual period for which the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn has been licensed, and the license is eligible for transfer as described in paragraph (1) above, a new property owner of record must file an application to transfer the license into their name within thirty (30) days of transfer of ownership, and must ensure the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn is in compliance with all other Town regulations. . . . Section 3: 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 _______________, 2021. TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO By: Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the day of , 2021 and published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado, on the day of , 2021, all as required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado. Town Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Town Attorney Page 124 Start dateAgenda_Item_Title Stance_oNameComments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload9/9/2021 3:54 PM Ordinance 13-21. AgainstJanine Dawley, Executive Officer Estes Valley Board of REALTORSThe Estes Valley Board of REALTORS®, with close to one hundred members, respectfully asks that the Trustees reject the proposal to end the transferability of vacation rental home licenses. The options offered by the staff only address ending transferability of those licenses, without exploring any alternatives to freeing up licenses to those on the waiting list. Please see our attached letter that includes information that should be taken in to consideration before making decisions on vacation home licenses.Letter to Town Trustees on STR Issues 9.9.2021.pdf9/9/2021 4:32 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Nicole WhiteOne of the "advantages" listed in the proposal of this change is that there may be an impact on the realized or perceived increase in value to properties that maintain a residential vacation home license. However in the way that this proposed change goes about adjusting the transferability there are 155 or 322 properties grandfathered in. The realized or perceived value of the rental licenses on these homes that can continue to be transferred would suddenly increase - and this increase in value would be SOLELY due to the regulation change made by this town board decision.9/9/2021 6:39 PM General Public CommenAgainst Tina RileyAs the owner of a short term vacation rental in Estes Park, I oppose the recommendation to cease transfer of the short term rental license. It took personal time and expense to obtain the licenses with the explicit understanding that after the hard work to obtain the license it would be transferable. The housing shortage is a national issue. In Idaho where growth is the highest in the nation they are exploring tiny homes, incentivising ADUs and changing zoning to allow more duplexes. Changing the transferability of vacation rental licenses only impacts the amount of logistics needed within the town of Estes and causes a lack of trust around what the town says it will do vs what it actually does, which will encourage law suits for damages. Tina9/10/2021 11:35 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against Barbara BortzWe purchased our home in 2019 because we loved the home and it had a transferrable license which we really wanted for at least a few years until we can retire and spend more time in Estes Park. We also knew that if we needed to sell our home, the transferrable license would be an incentive for buyers. Option A is definitely out of the question for me because this one would not allow us to sell with the transferrable license. Option B would be better for us because we already have the license and could transfer it when selling. I feel this is a much fairer way to handle this and only apply the non-transferrable license moving forward. The other comment I have is; Do you ever check on people who have licenses who just keep paying for it but haven't used it in years? Perhaps these people should not have these licenses and this would open it for others who are on the wait list. Perhaps after a year of not renting their license would be cancelled. Thank you for your time.9/10/2021 12:34 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Seth SmithPlease do not limit the transferability of Vacation Rental Registrations1. It is unfair, many buyers have paid a premium for the ability to rent their homes.2. One of the "advantages" of passing such a regulation would be to address transferability. There is already a process inplace. This is an admission by the Town Board that the Town Board made a mistake in its previous regulations. Why wouldanother regulation solve this problem that you created?3. Another advantage is that this would allow for the processing of properties on the wait list. This assumes that the personwho buys a property and does not get to keep the Registration will not get right back into line. If they want to rent their propertythey will get right back in the same line.4.You do not know the unintended consequences of this regulation, just like you did not know the unintended consequencesof your initial regulations.5. If the waiting list is a problem, make it go away.ORDINANCE 13-21 PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED BY 2021-09-10 1:00 P.M.Page 125 DATE: 09/08/2021 TO: Town Trustees Planning Commissioners Community Development Staff FROM: Estes Valley Board of Realtors RE: Vacation Home Considerations As you consider Vacation Home regulations, members of the Estes Park Board of REALTORS® respectfully request that you: 1)Base regulations on facts that can be supported with verifiable data, including any direct correlation between STRs and affordable and workforce housing. 2)Continue to allow the transferability of Vacation Home rental licenses. 3)Partner with local organizations to identify solutions to our affordable and workforce housing crisis without levying additional taxes or fees on Vacation Rental Homes. REALTORS® facilitate sales of properties that include opportunities for providing lodging to guests, as well as sales to potential property owners who favor only long-term neighbors. We see first-hand the impact of Vacation Rental Homes on the entire spectrum of home ownership. Buyers often tell REALTORS® why they want to purchase a home here: planning for an eminent relocation or making certain they will be able to live in Estes Park when they retire are two key reasons. Many buyers who purchase today make periodic visits and plan on full-time residency later, choose to offer their home to Vacation Rental guests. By eliminating the opportunity to transfer a vacation rental license on properties licensed, either all together or after a specific date, the Town may create an unintended, and undesirable, consequence. Homes that still qualify for license transfer may become so sought after that hyper-inflated prices result, driving property taxes up for all residents, making it less affordable for them to own their homes. An alternative solution might be to determine which license holders are not actively renting, by analyzing low rental activity, and revoking those licenses, rather than penalizing successful rental owners. We understand that Estes Park is facing the same lack of housing that the nation faces. Californians are looking at dividing existing residential lots so duplexes, or other accessory dwelling units (ADUs) can be constructed to make way for more housing availability. A study by the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs suggests that loosening restrictions on ADUs could lessen the current strain. REALTORS® are aware of the challenges with affordable and workforce housing issues just like you and want to help be part of the solution. However, we don’t see a correlation between Vacation Rentals and a lack of workforce housing and are concerned that without accurate data and a concentrated effort by all who are affected by our lack of housing, well-meaning efforts could backfire and only worsen the situation. The data shows that the average affordable home price is between $115,000 and $350,000. The average vacation rental sells for $785,992. Dawley BOR - Letter to Town Trustees on STR Issues 9.9.2021. The 2016 Estes Park Area Housing Needs Assessment also noted that Estes Park needs 1480 – 1690 housing units to fulfill our housing needs. If every one of the 322 STR homes in residential zoned neighborhoods was deemed “affordable” and converted to a long-term rental, it would not make a significant impact on housing. According to the data, these homes far exceed the price range of the affordable housing market. Let us work with you to find solutions that do not dilute current property rights, including the opportunity for individuals to use STR status as they make long-range plans for permanent residence, without extraordinary taxes or fees. Please know, we are committed to partnering with you to find ways to expand affordable housing stock. With respect, The Estes Valley Board of REALTORS® Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> STRs and affordable housing 1 message Linda Neely <neelysixteen@bellsouth.net>Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 12:46 PM To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "cbangs@estes.org" <cbangs@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "swebermeier@estes.org" <swebermeier@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>, "jwilliamson@estes.org" <jwilliamson@estes.org>, "jgarner@estes.org" <jgarner@estes.org>, "rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com" <rickdawnjames@tdsmail.com>, "steve_sherry@q.com" <steve_sherry@q.com>, "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "krusch@estes.org" <krusch@estes.org> I have owned a home in Estes Park since 2013 and have done short term rentals for that time period. Prior to my owning the house there was one owner before me who was a business owner. The home is valued at over $600,000.00. Obviously, it would not be a candidate for low income housing if I was not renting it. I do feel it is important for Estes to have affordable housing for employees. However, the cost should be spread out among all homeowners and residents and visitors. I would not mind a modest surcharge of $5.00 a night. That would probably mean I would contribute about $1000.00 for this initiative since I probably rent around 200 nights a year. I think that is more than enough for me to pay since my home is not taking away from the pool of affordable places. If the surcharge goes up so will the STR rates. As rates go up prospective visitors will look to other mountain areas instead of Estes. Thanks for considering my thoughts, Linda Neely 920 Elkridge Court, Estes Park Page 126 Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Revise VR licensing code rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com <rebecca.l.urquhart@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 10:16 AM To: townclerk@estes.org Cc: tmachalek@estes.org (Clerk, sent to all Trustees & Mayor). For years, I have been asking the Town to revise the VR license code to 1) prohibit corporate ownership of VRs and 2) limit ownership of VRs to 1 per owner 3) to require a home to be a primary residence for 12 months before a license is granted. This also would require the license to go back in to the pool when it is sold. This is what Denver has done, and they enforce it by criminal penalties. Sadly, we would have to grandfather those with licenses now, so this should be done ASAP (if Hunt can make changes, this is one. It affects housing. If a VR goes into primary residence for 12 months, there is pool of long term rentals for workers). The Town Attorney can draft so houses can be owned by family trusts, but not commercial entities. This converts residential zones to lodging. See the new move for coporate purchase of houses: https://www.npr.org/sections/ money/2021/08/24/1030151330/a-unicorn-startup-is-turning-houses-into-corporations?utm_source=pocket-newtab Rebecca Lynn Urquhart Attorney At Law 970-586-7586 Page 127 Jim Dubovsky and Connie Young-Dubovsky 5681 S Queen Street Littleton, CO 80127 cnjd616@msn.com September 9, 2021 Dear Mayor and Town Board Members; We are writing regarding the recent discussions by the City Council considering an additional fee (nightly) that would be assessed when renting out properties as short-term rentals (STRs). The discussions apparently are in response to a need for affordable housing in Estes Park, and these fees would be collected to support providing such housing. While we see the need for affordable housing in town for the workers who work in and support the community, we disagree that STR assessments should be the sole focus of efforts to raise funds to that end. To us, such fees would be just another in a series of regulations we have had to comply with in recent years to continue renting our condominium, which has raised our costs for doing business substantially in recent years. The entire city, and every business that operates in the area benefits by people who vacation in Estes Park through the monies they spend to enjoy the amenities of the city and surrounding areas. As such, placing the entire burden of raising funds on STRs is not only “unfair,” it is shortsighted and likely would not solve the problem at hand. A more balanced (and equitable) approach would be to assess such a fee at least to all entities that provide lodging in the area (i.e., STRs, hotels, motels, etc.). The rate that we currently charge our renters is at or below the nightly costs that customers would incur at most hotels in the area. I suspect that is the case for most STRs. And we do offer longer-term rentals at a reduced rate from our weekly rate. Yet, with your proposal, lodgers’ nightly/weekly rate likely would increase, because most owners who would continue to rent their places as STRs probably would simply raise their rates to accommodate the new fees and maintain their income streams. Ultimately, this may result in fewer vacationers coming to the area and spending funds in the city, reducing revenue not only for homeowners who rent, but also the city itself. Again, we understand the need for affordable housing. However, we believe a more balanced approach in which all the beneficiaries of vacationer’s dollars would be assessed should be considered, rather than singling out STRs as the sole source of funds to provide such housing. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns. Sincerely, s/ Jim Dubovsky and Connie Young-Dubovsky Page 128 Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> STR, Zoning Comments 1 message The Maxwells <pdmaxwell@gmail.com>Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 12:56 AM To: townclerk@estes.org, kswanlund@estes.org ** Please distribute to all Town Board members and the Planning Commission ** Town Leaders, Thank you for starting to discuss action around Short Term Rentals in Residential Zones and their impact on resident housing. To be honest I've struggled with this from a property owners' rights perspective. STR in residential zones, however, seems to be such an aberration of the law that it defies and has completely overrun any sort of realistic expectation for our growth as a community. Locals that live and work here are the consistent backbone and fiber of the town, providing a baseline that we can fall back on and grow from as the economy and our greater society ebbs and flows. When you remove that unifying fiber, however, you see hallmarks of our community deteriorate, the most tragic of which is manifest at our critically important local school district. In a greatest hits format for your reading pleasure, a couple points to consider... 1) "STRs aren't to blame for the lack of housing! You're targeting us unfairly!!" This is a common theme. "It's not just us, it's everyone's problem." It reminds me of the Cheeto commercials where the family has Cheeto dust all over them and denies they're to blame for the Cheetos being eaten when Dad realizes the bag is empty. It's an unfathomable disconnect. If you search in ANY community around the globe that is dealing with a housing shortage in vacation communities, STRs are at the heart of the discussion. In EVERY scenario the area has wrestled how to reign in STRs (businesses by any other word) in residential zones. It's a complete non-starter to argue that STRs are not the absolute root cause of our housing shortage and are a huge market disruptor. Why build ADUs further diluting our residential zones when the homes are already here!? Return our residential zones to neighborhoods, not lone families surrounded by pockets of businesses. 2) "Fees should be levied against hotels and other places that provide lodging." Why stop at hotels? Why stop at accommodations at all? Why stop at retail? Why not just tax everyone here to help build more housing? Well, obviously that doesn't make sense. See point #1. Again, a disconnect and disingenuous denial. Hotels/Motels don't take active long term housing off the market, and that's what has greatly accelerated any shortage that we've seen. If anything, in a strange twist of reality, hotels pull people away from the STR market and help to reduce the profitability of turning a residential zoned home into a nightly rental, thereby keeping more homes for families. Weird, right? If STRs are levied fees, should legitimate accommodations in commercial or accommodations zones get a credit for helping the situation? I'm kidding... 3) "Fees would make my rental too expensive to operate nightly." That's interesting... welcome to owning and operating a legitimate business. Fees and taxes are part of doing business, and are regularly levied to offset particular services and support in a given field. Commercial property tax, which the STR community currently doesn't have to pay, is probably the most egregious oversight. Commercial property rates would immediately make a lot of theses commercial undertakings in residential zones known as STRs untenable, and there isn't a good reason that they aren't paying that amount already based on impact of operation. Unlike nearly all other "at-home" businesses, the majority of STR units completely make the home uninhabitable by the owner while the business is in operation. It's not an "and" play, it's an "or" play. That's a commercial business by any reasonable definition, and should be paying commercial property taxes. Interestingly, some cities have taken this approach and run with it - requiring that the owner be on-site and occupying the same home while a portion of the home is rented. Boy, that'd change things quick. 4) "We're businesses, and we've invested like a business owner would and you'll be liable if you shut us down" AND "I'm just helping to pay for my dream, don't punish me." See Point #3 and then see point #1. Interesting juxtaposition.Page 129 5) "My home is worth X00,000, it doesn't fit the mold for a starter or low income home." This is an interesting take. If the nightly rental income wasn't factored into the appraisal, most of the $600k homes in the valley would come back down to earth in value. I think folks would be surprised to see what families can scrape together when it comes to not having to commute from the valley just to stock the shelves, to deliver the supplies, to build the homes, to put out the fires, to patrol our streets, to teach our students. Suffice it to say - people will pay a LOT to secure a home for their family, but no working family should have to compete against a bidder whose offer is supplemented by nightly income from a home in a residential zone. The practice actively displaces critical members of our community from all walks of life. Lastly, for now, it's clear that there are two groups who are activating and pushing STR owners to speak up. And it's the two groups that have made the MOST money out of the STR business. Realtors and Property Managers. What's 6% of a $200,000 increase in valuation because of a rental license? What's 20% of the nightly rate of 800 rentals in town? It's also abundantly clear that litigation from these groups as a whole or individually is on the horizon - this is the golden goose, after all. For every email you receive from an STR owner encouraged by their Property Manager or Realtor to "let their voice be heard", consider the innumerable families that looked at that same home to live and grow in that you'll never hear from because they were priced out by a buyer supplementing their mortgage with nightly rental income, pulling the fiber of community apart one thread at a time. Regarding the push for action from those interest groups (for lack of a better term), I strongly believe that this is precisely why no one has taken action on this since the original cap implementation. No one wants to anger their friends, and everybody knows a realtor or property manager. That's understandable. But the situation as it stands is untenable. Building ADUs on 30% of homes in the Estes Valley will just further dilute our already delicate residential zones. It's time to rip the band-aid off. Deal with the lawsuits (yes, these groups will file, not because of their interest in the town, but because of money) and get it over with. Lowering the Res Zone cap, implementing fees based on rental square footage in Res Zones, and future zoning considerations should all be at play here. Reduce the cap in Residential Zones, sunset licenses at transfer. Use accommodation, commercial, and commercial outlying zones, etc for nightly rentals - where they should be. Consider a tiered fee structure inversely related to rental square footage for STRs in Residential Zones. That 1500sqft home under a normal (not STR income boosted) valuation would provide for a local family - a stable household for parents and children alike - the future of Estes Park. Nightly stayovers have no place in our residential-zoned neighborhoods. That's where families should live. That's where kids should play. That's where neighbors should shovel each others driveways and where where old men with nothing else to do should yell at the kids to get off their lawn. A lot of emotion goes into this for anyone who is interested in how this town has changed just in the last decade. Look no further than the school. Look at class sizes. Look at community involvement by young families. The choice is clear. Aggressively address this immediately, or continue sending our SCHOOL and our COMMUNITY on a race to the bottom moving further and further away from what we all know to be right for the long term sustainability of our special town. Thanks all, Pete & Dana Maxwell Page 130 Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Short Term Rentals 1 message Becky Robbins <beckyrobbins50@outlook.com>Sat, Sep 4, 2021 at 6:00 AM To: "wkoenig@estes.org" <wkoenig@estes.org>, "pmartchink@estes.org" <pmartchink@estes.org>, "cbangs@estes.org" <cbangs@estes.org>, "mcenac@estes.org" <mcenac@estes.org>, "bmacalpine@estes.org" <bmacalpine@estes.org>, "swebermeier@estes.org" <swebermeier@estes.org>, "cyounglund@estes.org" <cyounglund@estes.org>, "tmachalek@estes.org" <tmachalek@estes.org>, "jwilliamson@estes.org" <jwilliamson@estes.org>, "steve_sherry@q.com" <steve_sherry@q.com>, "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org>, "krusch@estes.org" <krusch@estes.org> Cc: Jeff Robbins <jeff.robbins03@sbcglobal.net>, Janine Dawley <jldawley@gmail.com>, Donna Carlson <donna@esteschamber.org>, Estes Realtors <epboard@estesparkrealtors.org> Dear Madam Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and Estes Park Town Board of in Trustees: Something that hasn’t been addressed is the perspective of owners of short term rentals who have rented to people in the workforce: My husband and I own a STR and I’m a realtor. The town seems to be alluding that STRs should rent to the workforce. When we first bought the house, we rented to some of the workforce in Estes Park. We were remodeling and we found that there was a big demand for rooms. We were also in the process of getting our vacation licenses, which took more than two years. Because it wasn’t affordable for one person to rent a room, 3 or 4 people went in together to rent the rooms. It seemed like it would be a good idea since they needed rooms from May to October. It was a disaster for us. They all have more than one job, so they were coming and going at all hours. Also, they had to use our kitchen. (Our guests now do not cook in our kitchen). My pots and pans were ruined, dishes were broken, silverware lost, spills everywhere. And these people, even though we asked them to clean up after themselves, they didn’t clean the way I do, if they cleaned at all. Especially the stove and microwave. They never cleaned those, so I was constantly cleaning up after they cooked. The dishwasher had garbage in it after they loaded it. We had to reload the dishwasher after them. Both of these things were a lot of extra work for us. Cigarette butts were dropped all over our driveway and outside the house. Plus they kept food in their rooms, so we had a mice infestation. It took months to conquer this problem. Their clothes were often left in the washer or dryer when I needed use them. Also, clothes were crammed into both the washer and dryer and they used too much soap. We had to buy another washer and dryer. We ultimately insisted thatPage 131 they go to a laundromat. We couldn’t block rooms for our family and friends to visit when we wanted to since the workers lived here full time from May to October. We couldn’t travel either as we needed to watch the house and make sure that it was locked, lights were turned off and that no one who wasn’t renting stayed here. Not all of the workforce is this messy. They work so much, though, that they don’t have any time to clean their rooms, so they rarely, if ever, did that. In all of the years that we have rented rooms (since 2015) the only complaint we’ve ever had for noise was when the workforce was renting here. On one occasion, 4 or 5 of them were on our roof having a party. My husband had to get out of bed after midnight, go out on the roof and have them get off the roof and quiet down. We have now been renting rooms to tourists since 2017….None of the above ever happens. Mayor Pro tem, Patrick Martchink, lives across the street and can vouch that it is quiet. We never have complaints. Vacation rental properties are not workforce housing! They are very nice and sometimes luxury accommodations. All that being said, we’ve never hired any of the workforce to help us with our business. There are many businesses in Estes who do. Why aren’t they contributing to housing for their employees? Regarding transferability: In the application for a short term rental license under additional provisions it says (I am copying) Transfer of a business license “(1) Transferable to new owner. An active license for a specific vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall be transferable to a different owner in accordance with procedures in this Code.” Whoever said that the licenses were never meant to be transferrable never read the code. If there aren’t any owners of STRs on the Town Board, and you decide to hire a consultant to decide if we should be charged a fee or a tax, we will be taxed with no representation on the board. “Taxation without representation is tyranny.” James Otis, lawyer opposing the Stamp Act, 1775. Are any of the Trustees business owners? This is house our nest egg. When we purchased our licenses, they were definitely transferrable. I copied my husband here, he may want to add something. Thank you for listening. Becky Robbins | mobile 281-989-5587 Page 132 Board of Trustees Public Comment Form Please enter your full name. (This information is required to ensure the Town keeps accurate records of public comment. Name * Stance on item:* The Board of Trustees want to hear from members of the community. The following form was created for general public comment or public comment on any agenda items. The Town Board of Trustees will participate in meetings 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. Regular meetings of the Town Board are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 7 p.m. Agendas and the agenda item list below will be posted the Wednesday prior to each meeting. Click here to view the current Agenda. Public comment must be received by noon the day of the Town Board meeting. All comments will be compiled for Board distribution prior to the meeting. Agenda items are available the Wednesday prior to each Town Board meeting. To provide public comment on an upcoming item please use the drop down below to select the Agenda item title. Agenda Item Title * Public comment can be attached using the Upload button below or typed into the text box below. File Upload Comments for the Board of Trustees:* Maureen A Kanwischer For Against Neutral Ordinance 13-21. If you do not see the Agenda Item Title please email public comment to townclerk@estes.org. Files are limited to PDF or JPG. ordinance 13-21.pdf 283.54KB 25 MB limit. Video files cannot be saved to the final packet and must be transcribed before submitting. Limited to a maximum of 1000 characters. For comments over 1000 characters please use the Upload feature above. We support ORDINANCE 13-21 AMENDING SECTION 5.20.110 OF THE ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING TRANSFER OF BUSINESS LICENSES FOR VACATION HOMES AND BED & BREAKFAST INNS. Please note, all information provided in this form is considered public record and will be included as permanent record for the item which it references. ORDINANCE 13-21 PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED BY 2021-09-10 4:00 P.M. Page 133 Hello, We are the owners of 1151 Scott Ave., Estes Park. We would like to express our support for Ordinance 13-21. Having just gone through the effort of purchasing a home in Estes Park, it became very apparent to us that sellers were inflating prices on the property if they came with a transferable short-term license. That practice proves there is value in the license and is precisely the reason that all new property owners who want a short-term license should be treated equally in the distribution. We find the transfer of short-term licenses with property to be very unfair for a number of reasons: 1. It causes some new property owners to wait longer for a license on a property. All new owners should be treated the same way when applying for the limited short-term licenses in the town and county. 2. Just because a seller has invested in ensuring their property is qualified for short-term rentals, does not mean that new buyers should inherit a license. New owners should have to apply for a license and adhere to existing regulations regardless of a previous owner’s status. 3. Like other small businesses, licenses are generally not transferable. For example, if one purchases a restaurant, the liquor license is not transferable. New owners must apply for their own license. 4. When short-term licenses are transferable, it creates a new commodity that should not be bartered or sold. Again, this refers back to the fairness – equivalent to new owners “cutting in line” for the limited number of licenses. In summary, we support Ordinance 13-21 and encourage the Town Board of Trustees to vote to pass Ordinance 13-21 on September 14, 2021. Sincerely, Maureen Kanwischer Scott Kanwischer Owners of 1151 Scott Ave. Estes Park Page 134 Start dateAgenda_Item_Title Stance_onNameComments_for_the_Board_of_Trustees_File_Upload9/10/2021 7:03 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Gary T NaifehA Vacation Rental Registration is an asset. When the value of this asset is diminished, there will be fewer buyers and property values will be adversely affected, resulting in less property tax revenue. Less revenue means beneficiaries will receive fewer dollars for community programs and projects. Is this an ordinance chasing a problem that does not exist? If I leave our cabin to our children, who want to leave it to their children, so each generation is provided a meaningful future revenue stream, this ordinance inserts itself into my family's affairs. Is that your intention? if so, reconsider.9/11/2021 1:46 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Molly PatrickThank you for taking comments for these issues. My concern is that the STR cap has nothing to do with Bed and Breakfast Inn permits. They are two difference permit processes.9/12/2021 5:11 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Roger HalperinAs an Estes Park home owner with a current STR license, I agree with the sentiments contained in the Estes Valley Board of Realtors letter to the Town Trustees, Planning Commissioners, Community Development Staff dated 9/8/2021. I am in favor of continuing to allow the transferability of Vacation Home rental licenses. In addition, I would like to see the Town of Estes Park partner with local organizations to identify solutions to the affordable and workforce housing crisis without levying additional taxes or fees on Vacation Rental Homes. As my wife and I are strongly considering retirement in Estes Park, I would like the Town to find solutions that do not dilute current property rights, including the opportunity for individuals to use STR status as we make long-range plans for permanent residence, without extraordinary taxes or fees. Thank you for your consideration.9/12/2021 7:18 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Karen RandinitisI'm writing in opposition to the vote for vacation rental permit transferability. I'm fearful this is a quick decision based on just minutes of conversation over the last couple of meetings. I would respectfully request you to take your time on making this decision, gather evidence, talk to communities that transfer and those that don't and why, talk to homeowners and real estate brokers. I request you to truly vet all aspects of this vote to avoid unintended and unknown consequences. This seems like a very rushed agenda item that needs more time, focus, and energy to understand the full impact this will have as well as what problem removing transferability is truly solving.9/12/2021 10:26 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Arlene AslanianI oppose the restrictions in transferability of vacation home licenses. I perceive that it would diminish the value of my property. Also, please note that my home would not be suitable for workforce housing since the assessed value is over $600,000. Thank you for your consideration and for your public service.Sincerely,Arlene Aslanian9/13/2021 9:09 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against William KieferTown of Estes Officials and Board of Trustees,I am not in favor of the Board changing the rules I and other citizens purchased to own and rent my property. Instead of not keeping the agreement you made with us I propose you consider changing the agreement with future licenses. Example: Current owners could be a Type A agreement and the future could be a Type B with different rules or regulations. We have made significant investments in our properties to refurbish and bring the properties up to current regulations.I do not feel it is proper for the City to change an agreement you have made with Estes citizens.Thanks for your consideration,William Kiefer1530 Sunny Mead Lanebkiefer720@gmail.comORDINANCE 13-21 PUBLIC COMMENT RECEIVED BY 2021-09-14 3:00 P.M. 9/13/2021 4:34 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Lawrence DreesAs an owner of two licensed vacation rental properties for over three years I believe the town of Estes is now trying to change the rules in the middle of the game on property owners like myself. I have complied and paid all fees and taxes as a part of the agreement we made to obtain our transferable rental licenses. To revoke that right without an appropriate time frame for owners to make future business decisions is irresponsible and unfair. It seems more reasonable to make a change to all future licensing, rather that take options way from those with current licenses. If the right needs end, the right to transfer should be allowed until at least the end of the next license renewal period, which is March 31, 2022. Respectively Lawrence Drees9/13/2021 4:59 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Dana ChristiansenTo the Board of Trustees,I am writing as I am strongly opposed to removal of the STR vacation license to be able to be transferable. I bought my Condo at Mary’s Lake in 2019. I love Estes and it is my escape. Renting it is a business like every other business in Estes. Why would you make restrictions that could hurt to only the individual owner but all the other businesses that benefit from the many tourists. The existing code regarding vacation rental licenses has a clause in it that says the right to transfer to a new owner is allowed. By removing this, will hurt Estes now and definitely in the future. Sincerely,Dana Christiansen9/13/2021 5:03 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against randi jonesAffordable housing is an issue in the Estes Valley as well as all of Colorado and the USA. An extra fee charged to 300+ STR homeowners will not solve affordable housing. I support a sustainable affordable housing solution that has an equitable cost shared by everyone.STR homes are an important component of the tourism economy in Estes Park and channel money to all businesses and employees in town. An STR is an affordable option for families.I grew up in Larimer County and went to school here. I purchased my home in Estes Park and paid more because it came with a transferable STR license. If the board chose to revoke the transferability clause that was in the city code at the time of my purchase, I would lose valuable equity that I need for retirement. That could be construed as a case of “Regulatory Taking”, and I would need to seek compensation from the town for value lost. A broad attack on all STR business owners is un-American.9/13/2021 5:28 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against jim meekmy comments were uploaded - PDF file 13-2113-21.pdf9/13/2021 5:44 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Daniel BrannonTo Whom It May Concern, We purchased a property in Estes last summer that had a STR license. We do not view the property strictly as a business, as we often spend time in our condo. However, as a young family, we must use the STR funds in order to support the payment of mortgage, property taxes, repairs etc. Just this year, we have had to replace the furnace at a cost of $7k and we are scheduled to repair the deck at a cost of $5k. I want to emphasize that we keep our property in very good condition and have had the pleasure of seeing visitors to our condo have a great Estes experience. We make almost no profit off of short term renting..it is merely a way to make it economically feasibly to have a home in Estes. A move to end short term license transfers would likely remove any equity that we've gained on the property, as we paid a premium for the license only a year ago. We believe that our upkeep of our property provides a valuable service for Estes tourism...we hope you agree Transfer of STR permits I want to weigh in on the Transferability issue on the table for Sept 14 meeting, and from a couple of perspectives. When the regulations were established several years ago, I was supportive, as I recognized that not all STR owners/landlords/property managers, were the same, and some owners were not respective of neighbors, did not keep their homes updated and/or in a safe condition. The permit application process, the inspection and the entire process to final approval was laborious, and at times confusing, but ultimately has worked out well for everyone. Upon purchase of my home in 2011, I immediately put on a new roof, and over the years have invested over $80,000 in my home. I utilize local businesses, services and vendors whenever possible (which is almost all of the time). I also established relationship with neighbor before the permit was initiated, and have advised neighbor to call me personally if there is ever an issue. To the point of transfer of permit, it is clear the regulations allowed for transfer when they were put in place. To retroactively change the rules is inherently unfair, and not a good business practice. Is this really the business environment the Town wants to create? From a legal perspective, I will not advocate a position, but rather state to change the rules, specifically and only for STR’s, will no doubt strike many as a “taking”, and could prompt a lawsuit, possibly a class action one, as most Americans take their property rights very seriously. I do not say this as a threat, but simply to say that whether or not the Town would win would not be the issue. It would be costly, very public, very contentious, and harm the reputation of the Town; and would not help the affordable housing issue, and possibly be harmful to tourism as well. As noted earlier, the Town created a set of regulations for STR’s, and they are working fine. The Town is now considering a study, and possible implementation of an STR “tax” to address the issue of affordable housing in Estes Park. Why the Town wants to not allow transfer of permits is not at all clear in regard to the affordability issue. As I understand, there is (and most likely will be for years to come) a waiting list for those who want to get an STR permit. So, taking one STR “off the market”, while another property becomes an STR does nothing from a housing point of view. I do not see any correlation, and perplexed why the Town wants to limit transfer of permits. Lastly, when I purchased my home, I made sure there were no regulations (HOA or otherwise) to prevent me from renting it as a short term rental. Our plan was to use the rental income to pay mortgage, taxes, insurance, while investing additional funds for major projects (new roof, new boiler, landscape work, etc…). The plan was to retire, but that plan is a bit up in the air since my company laid me off 4 years and I have not been able to get full time employment since. We still hope to spend more time in Estes Park, even if we rent less. My point is that every owner of an STR has a different story, and different reasons/circumstances for buying a home in Estes Park. If I am unable to transfer my permit, I most likely will keep the home as an STR; I will not sell and leave money on the table. The Town of Estes Park and RMNP continue to be attractive tourist destination and if the only way I can benefit is to keep the home, then that will be what I do. Jim Meek Meek - 13-21 9/13/2021 6:05 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Elizabeth MulhernWe have owned and managed several vacation homes since 2013. We currently own three properties. It is a challenge to keep up with the changing requirements, manage the business, and make significant investments in our properties. We do this so can enjoy and invest in Estes Park and RMNP.Why the rush? Please to wait until the study is completed. This is an expensive study and it must include the ramifications of the transfer of STR licenses. Could it get worse? What if STR's that licenses were not transferred become $$$ long term/furnished rentals...oops! They will probably not become affordable housing. Does 17% or 322 STR's in residential areas really make a difference in the affordable housing issue? This is a pretty big burden you are asking us to carry.It's a bigger issue than 322 homes used to serve the guests that invest in Estes Park. Liz and Dick Mulhern131 Stanley Circle Drive, Estes Park9/13/2021 8:39 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Christian CollinetThis seems rushed and without all the data needed to make an informed decision. -eliminating the transferability of str permits is a logistical nightmare. What happens to the guests who booked a year in advance and theproperty needs to be sold? Who calls them to tell them their vacation has been cancelled by a town ordinance? What kind of publicity wouldthat be for Estes Park? Who is going to find those visitors another place to stay, in July? Logistical nightmare that is poised for lawsuits/badpress-How about a TRANSFER FEE on Short Term Rental Permits? $1000? $2000? $5000? What a great new revenue source for the town tocontinue to manage vacation rentals here in our great town.I urge you to table this one until more information and creative discussion can be had by trustees and community members.9/13/2021 8:48 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Earl ColmI love Estes Park, so is why my wife and I bought a cabin in the mountains and it is clear there is a strong need for rentals to allow guests to also enjoy RMNP and all Estes Park has to offer. These guests(tourists) spend time & money across all of Estes Park and a key reason is short term rentals. This revenue is vital to the growth of Estes Park and creates jobs across the entire spectrum. I find it absolutely absurd for anyone to think going after Short Term rentals will be good for Estes Park - it will be the absolute opposite. As a short term rental owner we work to pay our cleaning team a very good amount of money to help ensure the homes are clean & guests taken care of. This money goes right back into the town and helps to keep food on everyone's table. I think it is beyond short sighted for anyone to think trying to go after short term rentals will be good for Estes - doing so will cause more harm then good & create a large gap for tourists to stay.Earl9/13/2021 8:49 PM Ordinance 13-21. Neutral Jesse NoahTRANSFERABILITY:OPTION B: When a modification to a rule is to take place, it should be made to take effect point forward, not retroactive to 2016. The new rule change should be applicable to new STRs (grandfathering existing STR units).WORKFORCE HOUSING:Workforce housing has been an issue in Estes Park for decades. It is a stretch to associate STR’s with a shortage of workforce housing and unsubstantiated. Statistics can be read and used to support any viewpoint. The number of STRs can also be associated with a large tourism increase resulting with the excellent national and overseas promotions / advertisement during the same time period. STRs would not have increased if the demand was not present, STRs helped alleviate the demand for tourism housing. All businesses should share in the tax. Hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, and other lodging venues are excluded. These businesses require a larger number of workers. Similarly to all other businesses in Estes.Ordinance 13-21 (Jesse Noah comments).pdf9/14/2021 5:02 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against Dennis and Janet ByarsWe are submitting this letter for your consideration.Thank you!Dennis and Janet ByarsLetter to Town of Estes Park.August 23, 2021.pdf TRANSFERABILITY: OPTION B: When a modification to a rule is to take place, it should be made to take effect point forward, not retroactive to 2016. The new rule change should be applicable to new STRs (grandfathering existing STR units). WORKFORCE HOUSING: Workforce housing has been an issue in Estes Park for decades. It is a stretch to associate STR’s with a shortage of workforce housing and unsubstantiated. Statistics can be read and used to support any viewpoint. The number of STRs can also be associated with a large tourism increase resulting with the excellent national and overseas promotions / advertisement during the same time period. STRs would not have increased if the demand was not present, STRs helped alleviate the demand for tourism housing. If you look at the property value of every licensed STR property, there will likely be a minimal number of houses which would qualify as workforce housing based on that matrix alone. It is also likely that most owners would not switch STRs to LTRs. BOARD TO LEVY A USE FEE ON STRs USING IT TO SUBSIDIZE HOUSING INITIATIVES CITYWIDE: Workforce housing has been an issue in Estes Park for decades, long before the current number of STRs. All businesses should share in this tax. Quite disturbing that hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, and other lodging venues are excluded. These businesses require a larger number of workers. Similarly, most business through town require many workers. Sincerely, Jesse Noah Noah - Ordinance 13-21 Date: August 23, 2021 To: The Mayor and Town of Estes Park Town Board From: Dennis and Janet Byars RE: STR fees, taxes, and affordable homes Dear Mayor and Town of Estes Park Board Members: We have owned a vacation home in Estes Park since 1999. During that period of time, we have had short term rentals and paid the Vacation Rental License fee each year. We are in opposition to the fees and taxes that would affect just the Short-Term Rental Properties. The value of Short-Term Rentals in Estes Park has had a very positive economic impact on the residents and business owners of Estes Park. First, the Vacation Rental Licenses fees collect ed on 592 properties brings over $200,000 to the Town of Estes Park annually. The sales tax collected on the rental of vacation rental properties is significant and could well run into millions of dollars that are poured back into the Town of Estes Park. Second, the visitors who rent the vacation homes eat at your restaurants, shop at your stores and businesses, and bring significant sales tax dollars to the Town of Estes Park. Your businesses could struggle to survive without these outside dollars coming into your community. We all saw the impact on Estes Park businesses this past year when visitors were not coming to Estes Park due to COVID -19 and the wildfires. Many are still struggling to survive and thrive from the economic impact the loss of business presented. Why would you want to potentially reduce the number of people coming to your community? Third, the property taxes being paid by dollars outside of the community by people who own vacation property plays a significant role in supporting the town. Residents of Estes Park have benefited financially by the increase in valuation due to vacation homes being purchased in their community and their ability to sell their properties at a higher price as well. Owners of vacation rental properties have invested in your community, have spent significant d ollars meeting the licensing and requirements of being an STR, and, have a vested commitment to your community. We want Estes Park to be the fantastic getaway for people to enjoy the beauty of the mountains and we want your businesses to be successful. Lastly, the STR license should continue to be transferable. Families that have had a STR property should be able to transfer to other family members. Also, by eliminating transferability, you are reducing the ability to sell a property at fair market value. We believe that STR properties are not the sole reason for an affordable housing shortage and to place an unfair financial burden on a specific group of property owners in the community is discriminatory. We would urge you to consider the long-term economic impact to the Town of Estes Park and re-consider the value of spending up to $50,000 prior to making a final decision. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Dennis M. and Janet A. Byars 1070 Camelot Court, Unit 2 Estes Park, CO 80517 Registration #3109 Byars - Letter to the Town of Estes Park August 23, 2021 9/14/2021 7:32 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against Joseph KvideraCompletely against the concept of changing the rules after the rules have been set. The Town requires significant investment into properties to adhere to the Life Safety Survey. We purchased our home in 2018. We use it in off-peak times from November to May, but were required this past year to spend almost $40,000 to maintain our rental permit. We didn't need to spend this money to live in it, or sell it. No, this ONLY applies to vacation rental permits. The value of those changes should absolutely stay with the permit and stay with the home if we ever decided to sell the home again. There is no life safety survey requires to sell or live in a home, but there is to rent it out. We rely upon the income from this and the value it adds to our home. Changing the rules after these investments are made is beyond unethical, outright wrong and we completely object to this continued abuse and treating STR owners in such a negative way.9/14/2021 7:41 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against Penny McCordI am against option A for Ordinance 29-16 and do understand that the current wait list for rental permits of 4-5 years is not acceptable to the city. We purchased our home in 2020 as an investment with the expectation that the existing rental permit would continue to transfer with the sale of the property. We were told that previous annual rentals totaled a little over $30,000 a year. We are retired and try to come to Estes a minimum of one week per month because we enjoy being in the mountains. We are in our 70’s and recognized that we would eventually not be able to continue driving to Estes and would need to sell our property. Our rentals for 2021 will be close to $35,000. Loss of the transferability of this type of revenue potential will decrease the resale value of our property. Option B will allow us to recognize the resale potential we were expecting when we purchased our home. Increasing the number of rental permits will also decrease wait time for new permits.9/14/2021 7:53 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against Uly FloresHello, we are a retired couple that loves EP. We have owned our condo in EP for five years now, and we do short term rentals (STR) our unit when we’re not there in summers to enjoy the beautiful EP climate and environment.We totally disagree with having another tax levied on STRs, now to fund an affordable housing initiative. We pay an annual permit fee and required lodger EP taxes. It is not fair to only expect STR‘s to carry the load to fund and provide affordable housing in EP.We cannot understand the logic that excludes hotels and motels from the study OR that would exempt them from any possible taxes. We urge you to reconsider the scope of the study to include all forms of rentals in EP. Thank you!Uly Flores1280 Fall River Rd no 3Ulyaustin@aol.com512-689-3661 cell9/14/2021 7:56 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against Jesse HueyDear Board,I own currently two properties with short term licenses. I have followed the codes and the mandates as provided by the town clerk and planning offices to the exact letter incurring literal costs in the area of around $30,000 to make my homes meet the codes as defined by the STR license requirements. I have retroactively been forced to pull permits for work completed in the 70s for hot water heaters, furnaces, electrical work that was completed before town codes required inspections etc. I have hired plumbers, electricians, contractors, sewer line companies, to name a few, to bring my properties to standards way above and beyond what existed prior. I feel my investment simply in the upgrading and retroactive permitting, was completed in the good faith that I was creating a business that would have the same rights as any other business. Please honor the agreement that I bought into with the standards at the time of those investments. Sincerely,Jesse Huey9/14/2021 7:57 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against Rita MetcalfWe ask that you vote for Option B to protect our vacation license in perpetuity as long as any transfers are executed within the towns 30-day requirement.Thank you!Rita Metcalf702 Bird CircleMountain River Cabins9/14/2021 9:38 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against Jeff RobbinsUploaded letter to board originally sent on 9-4STR Ltr to Town Board_9-4-21.pdf Dear Madam Mayor and Town Trustees, I would like to weigh in on this the STR issue we all are debating at present. Specifically on 2 issues: 1.On the advice of staff, you are currently considering eliminating the existing granted right to transfer a VHR business licenses to new owners of a licensed STR property when it is sold. Staff is saying this change is needed due to the long (and getting longer) list of people waiting for STR licenses. This combined with the cap, means people may have to wait years to get a license. 2.The work force housing dilemma. The town is currently considering charging a fee on all STR stays in Estes. This notion has a statutory requirement that says the Town must hire a consultant to perform a study to determine if there is any correlation between the STR business and our workforce housing shortage. Transferability of STR License I wrote a letter to the board some months ago when I first heard about the staff’s recommendation to the board to consider revoking the transferability clause currently in the code. In that letter, I stated such an action can and would be construed as a case of “Regulatory Taking”, and those effected could exercise their 5th Amendment right to seek compensation from the town for value lost. Specifically, this regulation change would be a revocation of a statutory property right to transfer their business license upon the sale of their property/business. This statutory right does indeed have demonstrable value. At the last town board meeting and the study session held a couple of weeks prior Ms. Williamson & Town Attorney Kramer commented on this saying that the STR licenses issued by the town are only good for a single year, and furthermore completely expire at the end of the calendar year. As such, the transferability of these licenses is not a property right, and the Town does not have to worry about people coming back at them with lawsuits claiming 5th amendment losses. I have informally consulted with an attorney on this matter and determined that this advice given by staff to the board is at best arguable, and more likely not valid at all. The reasons being: 1.The STR license regulations do state that they are “valid for a single year”. The fact is, these licenses are “in practice” routinely renewed on an automatic basis (provided the license fee is paid in a timely manner); the same as any other business license issued by the town. My annual renewal comes to me as such – an automatic renewal titled “Town of Estes Park Annual Vacation Home Registration Renewal”. If the license truly expired every year a new application process would need to be engaged in by the “new” applicant. 2.Important and relevant, is the existing code regarding vacation rental licenses has a clause in it that says the right to transfer to a new owner is allowed: (2) Not transferable to different home. A license assigned to a vacation home or bed and breakfast inn shall not be transferred to another location of the same or different ownership. (3) Application required upon transfer. If the property owner changes during the annual period for which the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn has been licensed, a new property owner of record must file an application to transfer the license into their name within thirty (30) days of transfer of ownership, and must ensure the vacation home or bed and breakfast inn is in compliance with all other Town regulations. Robbins - STR Ltr to Town Board 9-4-21 3. Furthermore, not only has the town established precedent by transferring licenses to new property owners for years now, the board also saw fit to amend this clause recently to give these transfers 30 days instead of the original 15 days to get the transfer – lending more credence to the fact this is a statutory property right STR owners have been granted. I would like to say in closing on this subject, it appears from the last meeting that staff and a majority of the board members voiced in favor of abolishing the transferability of STR licenses. In my opinion, what you have failed to grasp is every STR license holder is a business owner. They engage in commerce, provide a service that customers pay for, and in turn pay their fair share of taxes – which the town benefits from. They have purchased business assets, otherwise invested substantially in their business, and are entitled to reap the rewards of their success (should it go that way) both from the ongoing operation of the business as well as from selling their business – the same as every other business owner in this town. There was talk at the 2 meetings about a large percentage of these STR operators being from out of town and or they bought property in Estes only to live here part time and want to subsidize that luxury with an STR biz. It does not matter where these STR business owners have their primary residence, or what their reasons are for being in the business. You do not impose those judgements or conditions on any other types of business owners. The Town, Larimer County, and the State all treat STR owners as business operators and collect their taxes from them. To single out STR business owners with discriminatory treatment is wrong. Should this change be made, you are telling them you can engage in this STR business, but if/when you decide to sell, you can only sell your physical assets. The substantial intangible value you have built up in your business is forfeit. If you pulled that on the rest of the business owners here in town – it would not go well for anyone. If the problem you are trying to solve truly is to get rid of STR license holders that do not contribute any revenue because they do not engage in the business, there are better and more equitable ways to go about it. Ms. Williamson said it is difficult to determine which of the STR license holders are not engaging in the business. That is just not good enough of a response. There is certainly a way to find out and then weed them out. Perhaps you can require STR license holders to provide proof of sales tax payments?? Another option, is of course, to increase the cap. Virtually all of the board members have patently declined to increase the cap, some vehemently so. What is curious to me is that not one of you have given any justification whatsoever for having that point of view. As one of your constituents, I would like to know what your justifications are for that opinion. I am not saying you do not have valid justifications; I just want to know what they are. Work Force Housing Dilemma I gather from being at attendance at the past 2 Board meetings, that you are considering imposing a (nightly, or per stay) fee on short term rentals due to their being a “nexus” between the workforce housing crisis in Estes and the onset of the STR business. There was also talk of imposing a tax, but that idea seemed to die out because it would require voter approval. My understanding is that a fee study must be commissioned by the board to determine how much STRs have contributed to the workforce housing shortage as a condition to imposing any fee. I am speculating here but will say: If the study points to STR businesses as being a major cause in the housing shortage then the board will be justified in imposing a fee on STR business. Here are my comments on this: 1. I have been a member of this community for over 21 years. It is no secret to anyone that workforce housing has been an issue for longer than I have been a resident here in Estes Park. 2. It is also no secret to anyone that the cost of real estate here in Estes Park has always been higher than the national average, and recently has skyrocketed to be perhaps some of the more expensive real estate in the country. 3. There is very little (if any) qualified workforce housing in Estes Park – STR or otherwise, just by sheer virtue of property market value. So, to pay a consultant tens of thousands of dollars to point out what is abundantly clear seems to be a genuine waste of time and money. If you want to zoom in on STRs, just look up the value of every property with a license. I am confident to predict you will find very few properties that would qualify as workforce housing – the property values are just too high. To be clear, I realize we have an affordable housing crisis, and concur that we need to figure it out as quickly as possible. I just think you all are looking in the wrong places for answers. The crisis is driven by global real estate market pressure. The fact that we live in such a fabulous, coveted area with so little privately owned developable property does not help matters. I can confidently say that is the primary cause of the affordable housing crisis. The vast majority of existing homes in Estes will not qualify as affordable. A better place to start would be to start thinking outside the box we have been having this conversation inside of for over 20 years that I know of. Meet with real estate developers about what options they can suggest. Take a good hard look at existing accessory dwelling laws for places they can be relaxed – I guarantee that will put a dent in the issue. Look at some of the successes other communities are starting to experience with new ideas. Winter Park recently came up with a scheme to subsidize STR owners to rent long term – not saying that is what we should do, but what a great example of thinking outside the box. These issues do appear at times to be quite divisive, but that is how our system operates sometimes. I really feel that if we are willing to really work together and listen to each other we can make it work. I do appreciate your time and your service to our community. Jeff Robbins 441 Chiquita Lane Estes Park 9/14/2021 10:21 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against BJ WakelyPlease do not punish home owners with Vacation Rental Licenses.Town of Estes Park- Vacation Rental Letter.pdf9/14/2021 10:30 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against Ruth TraupeI would like vacation rental to stay the way they are.9/14/2021 11:24 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against Scott ReichlePlease see attached letter for reasons we oppose restricting the transferability of vacation rental licenses.Letter to Board of Trustees 9 14 21.pdf9/14/2021 11:36 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against Maury Birdwellsee attachedEstes 13-21 comment.pdf9/14/2021 11:36 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against Thomas SpencerThe STR license was part of the investment we made in our home in Estes Park. Making it non-transferable is a direct hit to our investment in the city. I would suggest considering a minimum on sales tax paid as criteria to retain the license. I suspect there are home owners that obtain a license to enhance their property value but do not actually use the licenses. Unused or under-utilized licenses should be recirculated to property owners who will use them for the intended purpose.Thank you for protecting our investment in Estes Park9/14/2021 11:53 AM Ordinance 13-21. Against Lindsay MeeksI am concerned that the board will convert STR licences to be non-transferable without DATA to support that doing so will result in the changes hoped for. Additional study should be conducted before action is taken. I cannot believe that short term rentals are impacting the lack of affordable housing in Estes Park. This shortage will not be impacted when one of these units is sold. There are many second houses used as vacation homes. I believe the short term rental community is being unfairly targeted. Many of us are simply trying to use our rentals to help us through retirement, or support living in Estes when our properties are not rented. We are, simply put, small business people. We pay the town quite a bit in taxes and fees. Adding this restriction -- which was NOT in effect when the licences were issued -- hurts us in ways our retirement budgets may not have anticipated.A better solution may be to allow a certain number of houses build ADUs for long term rental only.9/14/2021 12:18 PM Ordinance 13-21. For Sarah Present and Carl MerryConcerning ACTION ITEM 6. Ordinance 13-21 Amending Section 5.20.110 of the Estes Park Municipal Code Regarding Transfer of Business Licenses for Vacation Homes and Bed & Breakfast Inns.Bottom Line: We support the recommendation of Option B. The question at hand is not whether to allow grandfathered short term rental (STR) licensing, but how many licenses are initially grandfathered in.STR Owner support of option B:Current STR license holders purchased their home with an existing license or obtained the license with the understanding that it would be transferableCurrent properties holding STR licenses may have invested in capital property improvements to increase appeal and usability as a vacation rental which could possibly reduce full time residential usability, e.g. reduce storage, convert garage)Loss of STR would mean that current STR holders can only sell to those not looking to allow short term rentals, and modifications listed above may further decrease market valueComm13-21 statement.pdf9/14/2021 12:24 PM Ordinance 13-21. For Sarah Present and Carl MerryPrior Comment may not have addressed correct ordinance and may have cut off comment intended--- see below for updated:We support the recommendation of Option B. Community support of OPTION B:Estes Park is a vacation destination with many seasonal returning visitors.Returning visitors with positive experiences often attempt to return to the same lodgingOption A would increase vacation home location turnover and reduce return visitor option consistency which may deter return visitorsEstes Park limits the total number of STRs in an effort to not adversely impact neighborhoodsOption A would increase vacation home location turnover and thus increase variability of STR density in neighborhoodsNeighbors of established STRs understand the nature of STRs and can establish relationships with STR owners to help mitigate concernsIncreased turnover would may result in additional disruption13-21 statement.pdf Town of Estes Park, RE: Vacation Rental Home Philosophy Dear Board Members, As members of the Estes Park community, we also have a Vacation Rental License. We strongly oppose the proposed fees and tax solely on Short Term Rental Properties. We feel we are being singled out as one of the 592 Vacation Rental Licenses in our community. We understand that you are trying to raise revenues from our source of business but we feel this proposed process is very unfair. We had to pay premium price for our home when we purchased it because it had one of the Vacation Rental Licenses already in place. We’ve had to make many property upgrades to meet all the criteria set forth by the City to legally operate. Some of these were at significant costs to us we would have otherwise not chosen to incur. We have made substantial upgrades to our property to ensure guests have a comfortable stay. This upgrade of bedding, furniture, flooring & other amenities makes our property a much more comfortable environment than staying at a budget hotel. For the city to decide not to allow us to sell our property with our Vacation Rental License is extremely unreasonable & unfair. The cost of homes in Estes Park are at a high price point & demand not because housing is competing with 592 Vacation Rental permit properties but because people want to live in Estes Park & enjoy the surrounding beautiful area & access to the National Park. We are those people & have called Estes our second home since 1967. We believe that spending $35-$50k to conduct a study is a waste of time & effort. Those studies generally will only support the viewpoint of the Board & not the people of the community. That money could certainly be used toward Affordable Housing, which is a long-standing issue of our community. Creating a new tax to subsidize affordable housing on just the Vacation Licensed homeowners feels very problematic & divisive. Thank you for listening to our comments & we truly hope that you hear the community on this issue. Respectfully, Ann & BJ Wakely 1070 Crestview Court Estes Park, CO 80517 Registration License 3206 Wakely - Town of Estes Park Vacation Rental Letter To: Estes Park Board of Trustees From: Scott and Julie Reichle Date: September 14, 2021 Re: Opposition to Proposed Ordinance 1321 – Restriction on Transferability of Vacation Rental Licenses My wife, Julie, and I own a vacation rental at 541 Heinz Parkway in Estes Park. I am writing to express our opposition to the board’s consideration of restricting the transferability of vacation rental licenses. We worked actively with interested parties in 2016 to help find, establish and implement equitable regulations that gave consideration to the respective interests of everyone in the community. The board at the time recognized the obvious economic benefits of vacation rentals to the local businesses and community as a whole. We, along with others at the time, provided extensive data establishing the significant financial contributions of vacation rentals to the local economy resulting from not just tax generation, but also multiple other revenue streams, including money for home maintenance, cleaning, repairs, and money spent by guests in the community. The vacation rental cap was implemented as a mean of controlling the total number of vacation rentals in the town and this has worked effectively. Because existing license holders at the time were concerned about the impact of the cap on the potential sale of their properties, assurances were given that the licenses could be transferred. The summer bookings for our home are typically made a year in advance. I expect this is also the case for many other vacation rentals in the town. If licenses are not transferrable, this would also inevitably mean that many reservations would need to be cancelled when a home is sold, as it is just not practical to stop booking rentals over a year in advance of selling a home. There are many unexpected events in life that can necessitate the sale of home, including health related issues. These types of cancellations would almost certainly result in significant backlash against the town. As a final note, we have continued to invest heavily in our home, partially in reliance of the assurances of transferability given to us at public meetings years ago (“the license will go with the house”). For example, we just hired many local contractors to undertake a significant renovation of our home. For these reasons, we ask you to not restrict the transferability of vacation rental licenses. Thank you for your consideration. Scott L Reichle Scott Reichle Reichle - Letter to Board of Trustees In 2017 I purchased a small home in Estes Park with a friend of mine, both residents of Boulder. We are avid climbers and users of the outdoor recreation in Estes Park as well as connected to many members of the community. We acquired a short term rental license for the property prior to completing our purchase, knowing that vacation housing was a continued need in Estes and that it could provide a viable business. Our vision was to secure a close to home getaway that would also pay returns on the investment through short term rentals. In short, the 100 year home was in need of serious repair and updating. It had never been permitted in any sense, in fact the town only had a rectangle drawing in place of a floor plan. In order to maintain our rental license we invested heavily in inspections, plumbing and electrical services to certify everything in the home, as well as complying with the numerous aspects of the life safety inspection (which by the way, I support as a common sense regulation for those acquiring any sort of rental license). This in addition to the overall renovation of the home which was falling into disrepair as it was. All in all, we invested nearly $100,000 between the above in our home, and much of this was made in reliance upon the security, maintenance, and transferability of our short term rental license. We complied with everything asked of us by the city, far above and beyond and more costly by orders of magnitude than what would ever be required of a regular homeowner. The result is a safer and more attractive place to stay for visitors of Estes Park. I know many others who have done the same, and the collective result of all these efforts is a clear boon to the tourism and economy of Estes Park. To rescind the transferability of our rental license would not only be a complete abdication of the good faith in our compliance with the city’s requests to-date, but would also make future homeowners far less likely to invest in the quality of their homes and visitor experiences, which would have a direct effect on the tourism economy of Estes as a whole. Birdwell - Estes 13-21 comment Concerning ACTION ITEM 6. Ordinance 13-21 Amending Section 5.20.110 of the Estes Park Municipal Code Regarding Transfer of Business Licenses for Vacation Homes and Bed & Breakfast Inns. Bottom Line: We support the recommendation of Option B. The question at hand is not whether to allow grandfathered short term rental (STR) licensing, but how many licenses are initially grandfathered in. STR Owner support of option B: Current STR license holders purchased their home with an existing license or obtained the license with the understanding that it would be transferable Current properties holding STR licenses may have invested in capital property improvements to increase appeal and usability as a vacation rental which could possibly reduce full time residential usability, e.g. reduce storage, convert garage) o Loss of STR would mean that current STR holders can only sell to those not looking to allow short term rentals, and modifications listed above may further decrease market value Community support of option B: Estes Park is a vacation destination with many seasonal returning visitors. o Returning visitors with positive experiences often attempt to return to the same lodging o Option A would increase vacation home location turnover and reduce return visitor option consistency which may deter return visitors Estes Park limits the total number of STRs in an effort to not adversely impact neighborhoods o Option A would increase vacation home location turnover and thus increase variability of STR density in neighborhoods Neighbors of established STRs understand the nature of STRs and can establish relationships with STR owners to help mitigate concerns Increased turnover would may result in additional disruption Merry - 13-21 Statement 9/14/2021 1:27 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Rebecca CaldwellWhen we purchased our house and decided to make it into a vacation rental we were under the understanding that the STR permit would be transferable if selling, which adds value to my home and business. I believe the town has done their due diligence for housing by limiting STR permits. If we are creating new rules (non-transferability of STR permits), those new rules should only apply to the people who are entering the permit system after those rules have been put in place. Having a STR is the business that allows me to create income to live in Estes Park, employ other locals for cleaning and maintenance, create a desirable accommodation for tourists to stay to help our local economy. We have invested in creating a beautiful home to draw people to come stay, and return for years. If I sell the home I am renting, I'm not just selling my home, but also my business that I have worked to build up and I would hope that opportunity would not be taken from me.9/14/2021 1:43 PM Ordinance 13-21. Against Chris LozingIf a property already has a STR permit, then if that property sells, the STR permit should transfer to the new owner of said property. there likely should be a transfer fee. Revoking an STR for a property that is already licensed seems arduous, and people may be purchasing the property with the STR in mind. The STR permit should be based solely on the property, then secondarily to who owns and then manages the property. September 13, 2021 Jackie Williamson Town Clerk 170 MacGregor Ave. P.O. Box 1200 Estes Park, CO 80517 Via email to: townclerk@estes.org; jwilliamson@estes.org Re: Ordinance No. 13-21 Dear Ms. Williamson: Please be advised that my firm represents the interests of PMI Estes Park, a local property manager. PMI Estes Park works with a number of current rental license holders, and all are opposed to any change or restriction on the transferability of licenses. The purpose of this letter is to advise you of my client’s (and its clients’) opposition to the passage of Ordinance No. 13-21, regardless of which option could potentially come into effect. The underlying principle espoused in both proposals is the abrogation of rights conferred upon the license holders. While each license holder has the right to rent out their properties (and such right would be unchanged), the freedom to transfer these licenses was part and parcel in the decision to proceed through the application process or purchase a home with a valid rental license. The scarcity of rental licenses, which is something the town created, has caused them to become coveted and increased the value of properties that are licensed. Eliminating or reducing the transferability of these licenses interferes with the respective owners’ reasonable expectations with the rights associated with their licenses. To the extent these licenses impact the property value, modifying the transferability could impair the license holders’ use of the property, including the ability to sell the property. Aside from the impacted property rights, the municipal code includes this rental license as a business license. By limiting or eliminating the transferability of the business license, Estes Park would essentially deprive the license holder of the ability to sell a significant asset of the business, if not the entirety of their business. Such a deprivation would constitute significant government overreach. Gerald L. Jorgensen Anne B. Jorgensen Todd A. Brownell Rebecca M. Pepin Matthew A. Crowther Matthew A. Athey John D. Konz Stephanie M. Fournier James C. Shanor Ashley A. Geary Hannah J. Wurl Geoffrey C. Gardner Kevin L. Berndt Katherine C. Burke Yasaman H. Hosseini Bijan C. Bewley Cassondra E. Britton Rebecca Blazquez Chelsea J. Leyden 900 S. Main St. #100 Longmont, CO 80501 (303) 678-0560 5285 McWhinney Blvd. #100 Loveland, CO 80538 (970) 304-0075 8001 Arista Place #415 Broomfield, CO 80021 (303) 678-0560 Option A contains provisions that appear arbitrary and capricious, including the various timing provisions. There is a cutoff for licenses acquired after 2017. It is unclear how this cutoff date would justify a grant of different rights to license holders that are otherwise similarly situated. Option B preserves the transferability for existing license holders, which is a much more reasonable position. However, by depriving future owners from the ability to transfer such a license, it would presumably have an impact on the sale of properties that have a valid license, either by chilling the market or limiting the value of the license. One of the stated advantages for the proposals is allowing further properties to be processed off the waitlist. It is unclear how much of an advantage this is. New properties may receive a license, but given the capped nature of the licenses, it seems likely the waiting list will always exist. Eliminating or limiting the transferability may also make rental property ownership more stagnant as the benefit of the license is lost when owners elect to sell (under the proposals). Furthermore, changing the transferability of the licenses could deprive prospective licensees that are on the waitlist of an expected benefit. Not stated as an advantage, but seemingly implied in some of the public comments, is that limiting the transferability will somehow enable greater access to affordable housing. This logic seemingly ignores that there will still be the same number of rental licenses available. Limiting transferability does not increase the amount of affordable options by osmosis. There will still be property owners or prospective owners that operate rental properties or acquire properties with the specific intent to rent them out. This ordinance change is more likely to precipitate legal challenges than it is to adequately address housing issues or solve the wait list problem. If the true goal of the proposals is to move properties off the waitlist, then simply increase the number of available licenses. Proposed Ordinance No. 13-21 is an inequitable and ineffectual purported solution and should not be adopted. Sincerely, Geoffrey Gardner Cc: Client September 14, 2021 Town of Estes Park Regarding your discussions of a proposed VRBO pillow tax and the transferability of licenses Dear Mayor and Trustees: With all due respect to the real Estes Park workforce that makes Estes Park such a great place to live, work, raise a family, worship God, and play, there is no special connection between our family guesthouses on East Riverside Drive and the issues our community now faces regarding “workforce” housing. Since 1914, before the "Town of Estes Park”, our property has functioned as short-term traveler guest cabins. As a whole, they are not suitable for extended occupancy having extreme size, parking, storage, maintenance, and other limitations. When we purchased the property in 2010, it was teardown candidate having been unoccupied and on the market for sale many years. No one would buy it until the third bank auction when we were the only bidder. No one in the “workforce” expressed any interest in acquiring the distressed property and doing the hard work to make it livable again. We were hoping they would. Up to time of purchase, Town officials were encouraging our private urban renewal project, investment, and rebuilding as “Short Term Rentals” with no strings attached. It took us nine years of hard physical and administrative labor, lifelong savings and our retirement capital to complete the full restoration. We do not want to be speak unkindly. But, no one of the Town or workforce needing housing ever lended us a hand (except our son). The Town just burned our time and made us much Loop trouble. After buying 10 different Town “permits” (maybe more) to demo and rebuild the structures as “Short Term Rentals”, you asked us to buy “Business Licenses”, then raised our utility bills to commercial rates, then converted us to triple fees on 3 “Vacation Rental Licenses”, then our real property taxes increased some 4 fold, and somewhere in the mix you added a 2% tax to market the Town, not us. Then you converted Loop Section 4(f) property set aside for parks into dirt parking lots and instituted downtown paid parking. Enough. Our traveling guests make the best of the Estes Park experience and have never caused any problems for our neighbors, workforce like us, or the Town. We rightly should recoup our own workforce time and invested money and should be able to freely transfer our licenses on future sale of the property. If our property is selected for special inclusion in your workforce housing/ vacation rental bed tax and fee fix, we will work hard to defeat your official acts and raise constitutional challenges. There is no “nexus” to raise new taxes or fees on hard working “vrbo” people like us who redeemed old grandfathered property for new specific permitted “non-workforce housing”. Our class of property demands exclusion. We do not harm the workforce and increase Estes Park’s quality of living for all concerned. If you decide to do a nexus study, please put our property (260 - 264 E Riverside) on the list for your consultants to evaluate. Thank you, Rick & Cheryl Grigsby 1950 Cherokee Drive Estes Park, CO
 970.231.4016 I wanted to voice my concern with the potential restriction of transfer for STR permits with the sale of property. As a permit holder in good standing and one that has been a part of the process from conception of the permit, I have been under the impression for the past 5 years that this permit was transferable with our property sale (if/when that occurs). This has played heavily into our exit strategy for the property and resale potential. Additionally, if option A is passed those that have already sold were able to realize these gains while those that continue to hold continue to pay taxes and annual licencing to the Town. I strongly recommend a positive vote for option B to allow those of us that have held this permit for years to be able to realize the gains from this permit. The permit seems to be a contract and one that both parties have benefited from, but removing the transfer ability changes the dynamic of the permit, the potential benefit to the homeowner and what has been an agreed upon term of the permit for the past 5 years. As a permit holder I would prefer the ability to transfer the licence with the sale of the property, which is what we have agreed and in the Town's Code. However, I also agree with affordable housing and wages and am in support of increasing licence fees to meet those needs. I think we can work together to make Estes economically sustainable for all. -- Sincerely, Ben Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Non Transfer of Vacation Rental Licenses 1 message WILLIAM WAKELY <bjwakely@comcast.net>Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 9:02 AM To: "townclerk@estes.org" <townclerk@estes.org> Dear All Members of the Estes Park Town Council, I would like you to strongly consider dropping your proposal to make Vacation Rental Licenses non transferable at time of sale. This is a complete overreach on your part. Most Vacation Rental License holders had to pay top dollar for their Estes Park property in order to secure the rental license. On top of that, we have had to make many expensive upgrades to our property to meet the town's criteria for having a vacation rental property. To then say we can't sell our property with a license is quite unfair. That would be telling owners they can't place premium dollar selling their properties if they have river access, access to downtown, mountain views etc.. Please rethink your position on this. Sincerely, BJ Wakely Town Clerk <townclerk@estes.org> Public comments link is not working Anne Private <annelieshall@gmail.com>Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 12:45 PM To: Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org> Thank you. Here you go: Thank you for your discussions on Short Term Housing as well as your service for the community of Estes Park. We are proud Estes Park homeowners since 2017, and we also run a Short Term Rental when we are not able to stay in town. We agree that affordable housing is an issue in Estes Park, as in many mountain communities across Colorado. A first principle is that affordable housing is about maintaining a quality hourly workforce: people who work in our shops, our restaurants, the hospitality & tourism industries, etc. Thus, the needs of a quality workforce come from many businesses in Estes Park, from the hotels to short term rentals, from restaurants to shops, from the trekking guides to other entertainment venues. Affordable housing is an issue for our entire community, and the economic burden of resolving the issue should not fall to a single economic class such as Short Term Rental owners. If "fixing" affordable housing is a priority for Estes Park, we strongly urge the Trustees to consider a comprehensive plan that shares the economic burden across all economic classes that rely on a quality hourly workforce. Lacking such a comprehensive plan to address affordable housing, an arbitrary nightly surcharge of $25-50 for Short Term Rental owners will lead to unintended consequences and is unlikely to resolve the issue whatsoever. Additionally, we strongly urge the Trustees to retain the transferability of the Short Term Rental licenses upon sale of properties for established licenses. Like many other owners, we purchased our property with the understanding that the license would transfer upon sale. In the past few years, many other sellers enjoyed the ability to transfer their licenses upon sale, thus establishing the convention of transfer upon sale. Revoking this convention would be like revoking the ability of a hotel to operate upon sale or a downtown shop to lose its ability to conduct commerce upon sale. We are unable to attend today’s meeting but hope you take into consideration our comments above. Kind Regards, Annelies & Jason Hall (720)608-1995 Sent from my iPhone On Sep 14, 2021, at 4:48 PM, Town Clerk <TownClerk@estes.org> wrote: [Quoted text hidden]