Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board Study Session 2021-11-09 November 9, 2021 4:45 p.m. – 6:45 p.m. Board Room 4:30 p.m. -Dinner In Person Meeting – Mayor, Trustees, Staff and Public To view or listen to the Study Session by Zoom Webinar ONLINE (Zoom Webinar): https://zoom.us/j/91077906778 Webinar ID: 910 7790 6778 CALL-IN (Telephone Option): 877-853-5257 (toll-free) Meeting ID: 910 7790 6778 If you are joining the Zoom meeting and are experiencing technical difficulties, staff will be available by phone for assistance 30 minutes prior to the start of the meeting at 970-577-4777. 4:45 p.m. TABOR Restrictions/Debrucing. (Director Hudson) 5:30 p.m. Stormwater Utility. (Director Muhonen and Engineer Waters) 5:55 p.m. Community and Family Advisory Board. (Assistant Town Administrator Damweber) 6:15 p.m. Art in Public Places. (Board Discussion) 6:35 p.m. Trustee & Administrator Comments & Questions. 6:40 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Items. (Board Discussion) 6:45 p.m. Adjourn for Town Board Meeting. Informal discussion among Trustees concerning agenda items or other Town matters may occur before this meeting at approximately 4:30 p.m. AGENDA TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION Page 1       Page 2 FINANCE MEMO To: Mayor Koenig Town Board of Trustees Through: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator From: Duane Hudson, Finance Director Date: Nov 9, 2021 RE: Proposed 2022 de-Brucing Ballot Question Purpose of Study Session Item: To review with the Board the proposed de-Brucing ballot question for the upcoming Regular Municipal Election on April 5, 2022. Town Board Direction Requested: Staff requests direction from the Board if the proposed de-Brucing question should be brought forward for consideration during the upcoming election. Present Situation: The Town holds its regular Municipal Elections on even years on the first Tuesday in April as outlined by state statute. During these elections the Town elects its Board of Trustees and provides the Town with an opportunity to bring forward other questions for the voter’s consideration. Proposal: Staff intends to provide the Board with additional information at this study session on a potential ballot question related to the previous TABOR de-Brucing measure from 2000. The intent is to educate the Board on the issues, answer questions and determine if staff should devote additional resources to bring the question forward to the upcoming election in April 2022. Advantages: • To engage the Board in discussion on the proposed de-Brucing ballot question in an effort to prepare for the upcoming election and begin educating the voters. Disadvantages: • If not placed on the April 2022 ballot, the opportunity to consider this item would have to wait until the coordinated election in November 2022/2023 or during the next regular Municipal Election in 2024. Finance/Resource Impact: Staff time depending on the direction received by the Board. Level of Public Interest Low at this time. The level of interest may increase once the Board provides direction on the specific question. 1) de-Brucing Measure presentation 2) de-Brucing Measure detailed exhibits Page 3 Town of Estes Park TABOR Revenue Restrictions What is TABOR? TABOR (Taxpayers Bill of Rights) is sometimes referred toas the “Bruce Amendment” to the State Constitution Named after Douglas Bruce, one of the primary proponentsof TABOR TABOR requires tax increases or debt issuance besubjected to a public election A TABOR qualified enterprise is exempted from thisrequirement TABOR also places limitation on revenues a governmentcan generate and retain Indirectly controls government expenditures by limitingrevenues Page 4 What is this TABOR Revenue Limitation? ANNUAL TABOR BASE REVENUE CALCULATION An allowable base revenue amount was calculated in 1992, the year of TABOR adoption Each year after that, the Town must roll forward the TABOR base and adjust it for two factors 1) The annual change in the Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index for all items and all urban consumers 2) The percent change in actual value of all real property in the Town Provided by the County Assessor’s Office Historically, 3% to 5% a year increase What is this TABOR Revenue Limitation? ANNUAL TABOR BASE REVENUE CALCULATION The base is limited to the actual amount of revenues received If actual revenues are less than the calculated base, the amount of actual revenues become the new reduced base Result - TABOR base ratchets-down if the local government has a bad economic year We have not had a ratchet down year at Estes Park Excess or Surplus Revenues are the revenues subject to TABOR received in excess of the base for that year Page 5 What is de-Brucing? “de-Brucing” is a term commonly used to identify a voter approved measure that allows a local government to keep and spend the revenue received in excess of TABOR’s limits (the base). The de-Brucing ballot measure does not exempt the Town from TA BOR entirely It only provides that the Town may retain and use these excess funds as specified in the ballot measure itself Current de-Brucing Clause Nov 7, 2000 – Voters approved the De-Brucing ballot item 2,036 In Favor 823 Against Included restrictions on the use of these de-Bruced revenues SHALL THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO, INCLUDING THE ESTES PARK URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY, BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT AND RETAIN ALL OF THE REVENUE IN EXCESS OF THE REVENUE LIMITATIONS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION FROM SALES AND USE TAXES (WITHOUT ANY INCREASE IN SALES AND USE TAX RATES) AND ALL OTHER REVENUES OF THE TOWN, AND TO SPEND ALL OF SUCH REVENUES BY TRANSFERRING SAID REVENUES INTO THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ACQUISITION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT OF CAPITAL PROJECTS, INCLUDING EVENTS/RECREATION FACILITIES, OPEN SPACE, SIDEWALKS, TRAILS, LANDSCAPING, AND STREET AND PARKING LOT CONSTRUCTION, STORM DRAINAGE, AND MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES? Page 6 What is the Problem? Current Situation The de-Brucing measure approved by voters in Nov 2000 included specific accounting provisions and set intentions for the use of the de-Bruced revenues The specified accounting treatment creates a level of complexity to the annual budget and accounting processes with limited benefit The restrictions on use imposed in light of the intentions set in the Nov 2000 measure are beginning to constrain Town operations, including Police and 911 Emergency Communications Specified Accounting Treatment Specified Accounting Creates Challenges Involves transfers out of the General Fund into the Community Reinvestment Fund for these de-Bruced revenues This then results in transfers out of the Community Reinvestment Fund back to the General Fund for eligible costs Inflates both the General Fund and Community Reinvestment Fund with these specified transfers back and forth This is not needed to track the use of the funding for qualified purposes Page 7 Specified Uses The 2000 ballot language specified that these retained moneys were intended only to be used for: “…the purpose of the acquisition, maintenance, repair and replacement of capital projects, including events/recreation facilities, open space, sidewalks, trails, landscaping, street and parking lot construction, storm drainage, and municipal buildings and facilities.” This is referred to as “eligible costs” or “asset maintenance and acquisition activities”, as opposed to “ineligible uses” Ineligible Uses Police (patrol, investigations and more) 911 Emergency Communications Emergency Management Communications to residents Transit (trolleys and shuttles) Land use planning Workforce Housing initiatives Childcare initiatives Building Safety Outside Entity Funding – including FireDistrict and local non-profits Visitor Center Events Museum Legislative (Town Board) Town Attorney Municipal Court Town Administrator Town Clerk Finance Functions generally not considered eligible for use of the de-Bruced funding Page 8 Future Projections Surplus de-Bruced Net Revenues continue to increase as sales taxes and other revenues increase Deficit for Other Net Revenues continues to increase each year ‐$3,000,000 ‐$2,000,000 ‐$1,000,000 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Annual Net Revenues Surplus (Deficit) Specified Use Challenges 70% of the General Fund is not considered eligible for use of the De-Bruced revenues 59% of these costs are personnel Beginning in 2023, assuming that ineligible costs outpace the TABOR growth rate, these ineligible activities will be forced to start reducing costs unless a change is made Irony- If we do nothing, the result will be millions in de- Bruced revenues accumulating while staff positions in ineligible functions may eventually need to be eliminated Page 9 The accompanying exhibits provide details on the 2023 to 2030 projections Debrucing Language Net Impacts Use of TABOR de-Bruced Funding TABOR de-Brucing Projections TABOR Excess Revenue Calculations Summary of Personnel Pressure graph and table Projection Exhibits Proposed Solutions and Options Staff will continue to identify any operations or functions that can be exempted from TABOR and take appropriate actions to do so Options to address de-Brucing Language Restrictions A) Ask voters during a municipal election to remove these restrictions, or B) Do nothing and begin to plan for the necessary operational and service delivery reductions in future years Staff recommends asking voters to remove these restrictions Give the Town Board the discretion to use the money as needed to remain responsive to the needs of our community Not a limitation imposed over 20 years ago Staff also recommends adding wording to remove the 5.5 Statutory Property Tax limitation Temporary reduction in 2021 Property tax revenues by $29,447 Page 10 Current Proposed Ballot Language The proposed ballot language as of 10-22-2021 is as follows: WITHOUT INCREASING ANY TAX RATE OR IMPOSING ANY NEW TAX AND IN ORDER FOR THE TOWN TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC FACILITIES AND AMENITIES TO ITS CITIZENS, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION POLICE AND 911 COMMUNICATIONS, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, OTHER GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES, AND ANY OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSES, SHALL THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND OR RESERVE ALL REVENUES IT RECEIVES FROM ALL LAWFUL SOURCES INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION PROPERTY AND SALES TAXES, WITHOUT ANY OTHER CONDITION OR LIMITATION, AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION AND UNDER SECTION 29-1-302(2)(B) OF THE COLORADO REVISED STATUTES AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LAW, AND REMOVE ANY LIMITATIONS IMPOSED BY THE NOVEMBER 7, 2000 BALLOT INITIATIVE MEASURE 2A, BEGINNING IN FISCAL YEAR 2022, PROVIDED THAT THE TOWN’S TAX RATES SHALL NOT BE INCREASED WITHOUT FURTHER VOTER APPROVAL? TABOR REVENUE RESTRICTIONS Any Questions? Page 11 10/29/2021 TOWN OF ESTES PARK DEBRUCING LANGUAGE NET IMPACTS GENERAL & COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUNDS PROJECTIONS FOR 2023 TO 2030 Assumptions: Based upon 2022 proposed budget Sales tax revenue increase of 6% per year Operating cost increase of 5% per year 1A sales taxes expire in 2024 Removed Vehicle Replacement Fund Transfers Removed one time expenditures and capital projects Debruced Other Total 2023 Revenue 7,426,826 15,630,395 23,057,222 2023 Expenditures 6,537,412 15,806,740 22,344,152 Net Balance (Deficit)889,414 (176,345) 713,069 2024 Revenue 8,132,327 16,250,199 24,382,526 2024 Expenditures 6,817,180 16,597,077 23,414,257 Net Balance (Deficit)1,315,147 (346,878) 968,269 2025 Revenue 8,892,259 16,892,184 25,784,443 2025 Expenditures 7,110,751 17,426,931 24,537,682 Net Balance (Deficit)1,781,508 (534,747) 1,246,761 2026 Revenue 9,706,637 17,560,786 27,267,423 2026 Expenditures 7,423,830 18,298,277 25,722,107 Net Balance (Deficit)2,282,807 (737,492) 1,545,315 2027 Revenue 10,580,302 18,255,875 28,836,177 2027 Expenditures 7,747,030 19,213,191 26,960,221 Net Balance (Deficit)2,833,272 (957,316) 1,875,956 2028 Revenue 11,517,191 18,978,501 30,495,692 2028 Expenditures 7,571,251 20,173,851 27,745,102 Net Balance (Deficit)3,945,940 (1,195,350) 2,750,589 2029 Revenue 12,521,492 19,729,752 32,251,244 2029 Expenditures 7,929,817 21,182,543 29,112,361 Net Balance (Deficit)4,591,675 (1,452,791) 3,138,884 2030 Revenue 13,597,655 20,510,766 34,108,421 2030 Expenditures 8,306,312 22,241,670 30,547,982 Net Balance (Deficit)5,291,343 (1,730,904) 3,560,439 22,931,104 (7,131,822) 15,799,282 This schedule summarizes the detailed annual projections for the General Fund & Community Reinvestment Fund. The Debruced column presents the projected revenues allowed to be retained as a result of the Town's Debrucing ballot language approved by the voters in 2000. These funds can only be used for limited purposes. Other General Fund operations that do not qualify for usage of these Debruced amounts begin to reflect negative balances starting in 2023, requiring cost reductions in those operations. Projected Accumulated Balances Through 12-31-2030 Page 12 10/29/2021 U:\Budget\2022\Operating Budget\2022 Estes Park Bdgt-10-21-21vs1.xlsb Town of Estes Park Summary of Community Reinvestment Fund Use of TABOR Debruced Funding 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 204 204 204 5200 3100 3175 2400 1700 1700 Other Depts Other Depts Other Depts Other Depts Other Depts Year TABOR Revenues TABOR Base Excess to Transfer to CRF Parks Dept Streets Dept Stormwater Maintenance Engineering Buildings & Facilities Less Pkg Gar Reserve GF Capital Outlay Repairs and Maintenance on Equipment Community Reinvestment Capital / R&M Community Reinvestment Debt Svc Less CRF Fed Grants and Exempt Revenues Total Uses Net Remaining Balance 2000 9,244,675 8,835,051 409,625 561,190 2,674,362 - 363,501 235,303 3,834,356 (3,424,731) - 2001 6,709,676 6,709,676 - 564,493 797,288 - 279,120 988,683 2,629,584 (2,629,584) - 2002 7,137,052 7,137,052 - 435,803 586,342 - 282,985 2,500,032 3,805,162 (3,805,162) - 2003 9,515,682 7,385,152 2,130,530 439,709 652,328 - 63,606 302,633 1,148,971 (15,000) 2,592,247 (461,717) - 2004 9,600,409 7,618,767 1,981,642 462,789 629,296 - 63,923 349,272 1,530,559 (20,851) 3,014,988 (1,033,346) - 2005 10,052,493 8,011,592 2,040,901 587,441 825,480 - 2,337,287 3,750,208 (1,709,307) - 2006 10,763,009 8,538,900 2,224,109 764,160 1,015,282 - 95,929 414,043 2,175,527 (519,900) 3,945,041 (1,720,932) - 2007 11,596,837 9,029,243 2,567,594 787,029 1,192,683 - 82,727 457,483 218,959 2,738,881 (171,287) - 2008 12,561,701 9,494,631 3,067,070 925,298 1,261,466 - 112,618 413,052 144,993 2,857,427 209,643 209,643 2009 10,899,189 9,661,199 1,237,990 822,125 1,004,361 - 84,142 523,802 222,417 2,656,847 (1,418,857) - 2010 10,927,174 9,925,437 1,001,737 865,329 1,873,605 - 98,763 460,067 204,190 3,501,954 (2,500,217) - 2011 11,100,699 10,361,974 738,725 854,278 1,139,255 - 84,286 527,802 1,685,173 (1,081,168) 3,209,626 (2,470,901) - 2012 11,417,782 10,640,773 777,009 914,497 2,139,171 - 81,482 450,218 625,157 (96,712) 4,113,813 (3,336,804) - 2013 12,045,282 10,994,980 1,050,302 1,064,767 2,265,610 - 273,593 648,940 59,332 4,815,807 (195,740) 8,932,309 (7,882,007) - 2014 13,119,792 11,390,503 1,729,289 1,041,936 1,164,033 - 103,300 858,653 1,290,728 3,031,322 (1,825,756) 5,664,216 (3,934,927) - 2015 18,304,384 11,615,203 6,689,181 1,767,158 2,233,874 - 123,640 775,853 6,008 921,957 (13,700) 5,814,790 874,391 874,391 2016 15,534,033 12,052,150 3,481,883 1,781,912 799,145 - 303,313 846,519 1,490,792 1,361,049 (757,956) 5,824,774 (2,342,891) - 2017 17,715,420 12,558,709 5,156,711 1,731,714 782,948 - 669,046 938,061 4,800,693 8,433,308 (7,356,802) 9,998,968 (4,842,257) - 2018 18,054,575 13,030,972 5,023,603 1,131,559 1,217,558 - 588,661 909,820 535,826 2,029,886 932,621 (2,235,194) 5,110,737 (87,134) - 2019 18,201,332 13,432,380 4,768,952 1,087,145 1,003,385 - 314,032 956,492 (12,000) 369,343 995,000 935,583 (173,516) 5,475,464 (706,512) - 2020 18,095,819 13,850,435 4,245,384 965,428 847,706 - 332,073 842,297 (12,000) 669,947 182,205 915,328 - 4,742,984 (497,600) - 2021 21,830,485 14,397,562 7,432,923 1,157,910 1,332,579 - 392,638 1,148,556 (12,000) 574,128 315,298 2,018,749 918,001 (750,000) 7,095,859 337,064 337,064 2022 22,815,221 14,966,302 7,848,919 1,603,849 1,459,904 361,067 423,661 1,212,599 (12,000) - 440,342 2,404,128 928,135 - 8,821,685 (972,766) - 2023 22,984,336 15,557,509 7,426,826 1,615,537 1,331,862 379,120 440,490 1,256,723 - - 462,359 129,675 921,646 - 6,537,412 889,414 889,414 2024 24,304,397 16,172,070 8,132,327 1,696,314 1,398,455 398,076 462,514 1,319,559 - - 485,477 136,159 920,626 - 6,817,180 1,315,147 2,204,560 2025 25,703,167 16,810,908 8,892,259 1,781,130 1,468,378 417,980 485,640 1,385,537 - - 509,751 142,967 919,369 - 7,110,751 1,781,508 3,986,068 2026 27,181,618 17,474,981 9,706,637 1,870,186 1,541,797 438,879 509,922 1,454,814 - - 535,238 150,115 922,879 - 7,423,830 2,282,807 6,268,875 2027 28,745,589 18,165,287 10,580,302 1,963,696 1,618,887 460,823 535,418 1,527,555 - - 562,000 157,621 921,031 - 7,747,030 2,833,272 9,102,147 2028 30,400,053 18,882,862 11,517,191 2,061,881 1,699,831 483,864 562,189 1,603,932 - - 590,100 165,502 403,952 - 7,571,251 3,945,940 13,048,086 2029 32,150,275 19,628,783 12,521,492 2,164,975 1,784,822 508,058 590,298 1,684,129 - - 619,605 173,777 404,153 - 7,929,817 4,591,675 17,639,761 2030 34,001,825 20,404,169 13,597,655 2,273,223 1,874,064 533,460 619,813 1,768,335 - - 650,586 182,466 404,364 - 8,306,312 5,291,343 22,931,104 Allowable Usages - Acquisition, Maintenance, Repair and Replacement of Capital Projects, including Events/Recreation Facilities, open space, sidewalks, trails, landscaping, street and parking lot construction, storm drainage, and municipal buildings and facilities. Page 13 10/29/2021 Dept # Combined Total Other Funding De-Bruced TABOR Funding REVENUE Taxes 18,715,900 11,289,074 7,426,826 Licenses and permits 739,148 739,148 - Intergovernmental 440,584 440,584 - Charges for services 688,084 688,084 - Fines and forfeitures 33,600 33,600 - Rental income 205,581 205,581 - Investment income 184,275 184,275 - Donations 36,540 36,540 - Miscellaneous 563,723 563,723 - Transfers-In 1,430,888 1,430,888 - Sale of assets 18,900 18,900 - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 23,057,222 15,630,395 7,426,826 EXPENDITURES Legislative 1100 385,947 383,847 2,100 Attorney 1190 359,055 356,955 2,100 Judicial 1200 81,916 81,286 630 Town Administrator 1300 383,672 382,961 711 Town Clerk 1400 369,957 365,967 3,990 Finance 1500 692,159 689,796 2,363 Planning 1600 1,017,760 1,004,956 12,804 Facilities 1700 1,256,723 - 1,256,723 Human Resources 1800 430,561 429,931 630 Outside Entity Funding 1900 1,508,486 1,508,486 - Workforce Housing 1945 26,250 26,250 - Police - Patrol 2100 4,590,237 4,384,502 205,735 Police - Communications 2155 1,300,609 1,286,959 13,650 Police - Comm Svc 2175 401,715 394,365 7,350 Police - Code Enforcement 2185 138,375 132,559 5,816 Building Safety 2300 680,229 667,104 13,125 Engineering 2400 440,490 - 440,490 Visitor Services 2600 590,120 563,450 26,670 Streets and Highways 3100 1,331,862 - 1,331,862 Stormwater Maintenance 3175 379,120 - 379,120 Parks 5200 1,615,537 - 1,615,537 Senior Center 5304 - - - Community Reinvestment Fund 5400 129,675 - 129,675 Special Events 5500 2,330,373 2,179,153 151,220 Transit 5600 527,192 526,124 1,069 Parking 5690 - - - Museum 5700 454,486 442,089 12,397 Transfers Out 9000 - - - Capital Outlay - - - Debt Service 921,646 - 921,646 Use of Non-Debruced Funding - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 22,344,152 15,806,740 6,537,412 Net Income (Loss)713,069 (176,345) 889,414 Add Back One Time Usages Prior Year Debruced Reserves - - - - Net Rev vs Exp (176,345) 889,414 2023 TABOR DEBRUCING PROJECTIONS SUMMARY BY FUND & DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUND # 101 & COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND # 204 TOWN OF ESTES PARK Page 14 10/29/2021 Dept # Combined Total Other Funding De-Bruced TABOR Funding REVENUE Taxes 19,824,139 11,691,812 8,132,327 Licenses and permits 776,105 776,105 - Intergovernmental 462,613 462,613 - Charges for services 722,488 722,488 - Fines and forfeitures 35,280 35,280 - Rental income 215,860 215,860 - Investment income 193,489 193,489 - Donations 38,367 38,367 - Miscellaneous 591,909 591,909 - Transfers-In 1,502,432 1,502,432 - Sale of assets 19,845 19,845 - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 24,382,526 16,250,199 8,132,327 EXPENDITURES Legislative 1100 405,245 403,040 2,205 Attorney 1190 377,008 374,803 2,205 Judicial 1200 86,012 85,350 662 Town Administrator 1300 402,856 402,109 746 Town Clerk 1400 388,455 384,265 4,190 Finance 1500 726,767 724,286 2,481 Planning 1600 1,068,648 1,055,204 13,444 Facilities 1700 1,319,559 - 1,319,559 Human Resources 1800 452,089 451,427 662 Outside Entity Funding 1900 1,583,910 1,583,910 - Workforce Housing 1945 27,563 27,563 - Police - Patrol 2100 4,819,749 4,603,727 216,022 Police - Communications 2155 1,365,639 1,351,307 14,333 Police - Comm Svc 2175 421,801 414,084 7,718 Police - Code Enforcement 2185 145,294 139,187 6,107 Building Safety 2300 714,240 700,459 13,781 Engineering 2400 462,514 - 462,514 Visitor Services 2600 619,626 591,622 28,004 Streets and Highways 3100 1,398,455 - 1,398,455 Stormwater Maintenance 3175 398,076 - 398,076 Parks 5200 1,696,314 - 1,696,314 Senior Center 5304 - - - Community Reinvestment Fund 5400 136,159 - 136,159 Special Events 5500 2,446,892 2,288,111 158,781 Transit 5600 553,552 552,430 1,122 Parking 5690 - - - Museum 5700 477,211 464,193 13,017 Transfers Out 9000 - - - Capital Outlay - - - Debt Service 920,626 - 920,626 Use of Non-Debruced Funding - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 23,414,257 16,597,077 6,817,180 Net Income (Loss)968,269 (346,878) 1,315,147 Add Back One Time Usages Prior Year Debruced Reserves - 889,414 - 889,414 Net Rev vs Exp (346,878) 2,204,561 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 2024 TABOR DEBRUCING PROJECTIONS SUMMARY BY FUND & DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUND # 101 & COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND # 204 Page 15 10/29/2021 Dept # Combined Total Other Funding De-Bruced TABOR Funding REVENUE Taxes 20,998,136 12,105,877 8,892,259 Licenses and permits 814,910 814,910 - Intergovernmental 485,744 485,744 - Charges for services 758,612 758,612 - Fines and forfeitures 37,044 37,044 - Rental income 226,653 226,653 - Investment income 203,163 203,163 - Donations 40,285 40,285 - Miscellaneous 621,505 621,505 - Transfers-In 1,577,553 1,577,553 - Sale of assets 20,837 20,837 - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 25,784,443 16,892,184 8,892,259 EXPENDITURES Legislative 1100 425,507 423,192 2,315 Attorney 1190 395,858 393,543 2,315 Judicial 1200 90,312 89,618 695 Town Administrator 1300 422,998 422,215 784 Town Clerk 1400 407,878 403,479 4,399 Finance 1500 763,105 760,501 2,605 Planning 1600 1,122,080 1,107,964 14,116 Facilities 1700 1,385,537 - 1,385,537 Human Resources 1800 474,693 473,999 695 Outside Entity Funding 1900 1,663,105 1,663,105 - Workforce Housing 1945 28,941 28,941 - Police - Patrol 2100 5,060,736 4,833,913 226,823 Police - Communications 2155 1,433,921 1,418,872 15,049 Police - Comm Svc 2175 442,891 434,788 8,103 Police - Code Enforcement 2185 152,559 146,147 6,412 Building Safety 2300 749,952 735,482 14,470 Engineering 2400 485,640 - 485,640 Visitor Services 2600 650,607 621,204 29,404 Streets and Highways 3100 1,468,378 - 1,468,378 Stormwater Maintenance 3175 417,980 - 417,980 Parks 5200 1,781,130 - 1,781,130 Senior Center 5304 - - - Community Reinvestment Fund 5400 142,967 - 142,967 Special Events 5500 2,569,236 2,402,516 166,720 Transit 5600 581,230 580,051 1,178 Parking 5690 - - - Museum 5700 501,071 487,403 13,668 Transfers Out 9000 - - - Capital Outlay - - - Debt Service 919,369 - 919,369 Use of Non-Debruced Funding - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 24,537,682 17,426,931 7,110,751 Net Income (Loss)1,246,761 (534,747) 1,781,508 Add Back One Time Usages Prior Year Debruced Reserves - 2,204,561 - 2,204,561 Net Rev vs Exp (534,747) 3,986,068 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 2025 TABOR DEBRUCING PROJECTIONS SUMMARY BY FUND & DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUND # 101 & COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND # 204 Page 16 10/29/2021 Dept # Combined Total Other Funding De-Bruced TABOR Funding REVENUE Taxes 22,241,800 12,535,163 9,706,637 Licenses and permits 855,656 855,656 - Intergovernmental 510,031 510,031 - Charges for services 796,543 796,543 - Fines and forfeitures 38,896 38,896 - Rental income 237,985 237,985 - Investment income 213,321 213,321 - Donations 42,300 42,300 - Miscellaneous 652,580 652,580 - Transfers-In 1,656,431 1,656,431 - Sale of assets 21,879 21,879 - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 27,267,423 17,560,786 9,706,637 EXPENDITURES Legislative 1100 446,782 444,351 2,431 Attorney 1190 415,651 413,220 2,431 Judicial 1200 94,828 94,098 729 Town Administrator 1300 444,148 443,326 823 Town Clerk 1400 428,271 423,653 4,619 Finance 1500 801,261 798,526 2,735 Planning 1600 1,178,184 1,163,362 14,822 Facilities 1700 1,454,814 - 1,454,814 Human Resources 1800 498,428 497,699 729 Outside Entity Funding 1900 1,746,261 1,746,261 - Workforce Housing 1945 30,388 30,388 - Police - Patrol 2100 5,313,773 5,075,609 238,164 Police - Communications 2155 1,505,617 1,489,816 15,802 Police - Comm Svc 2175 465,036 456,527 8,509 Police - Code Enforcement 2185 160,187 153,454 6,733 Building Safety 2300 787,450 772,256 15,194 Engineering 2400 509,922 - 509,922 Visitor Services 2600 683,138 652,264 30,874 Streets and Highways 3100 1,541,797 - 1,541,797 Stormwater Maintenance 3175 438,879 - 438,879 Parks 5200 1,870,186 - 1,870,186 Senior Center 5304 - - - Community Reinvestment Fund 5400 150,115 - 150,115 Special Events 5500 2,697,698 2,522,642 175,056 Transit 5600 610,291 609,054 1,237 Parking 5690 - - - Museum 5700 526,125 511,773 14,351 Transfers Out 9000 - - - Capital Outlay - - - Debt Service 922,879 - 922,879 Use of Non-Debruced Funding - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 25,722,107 18,298,277 7,423,830 Net Income (Loss)1,545,315 (737,492) 2,282,807 Add Back One Time Usages Prior Year Debruced Reserves - 3,986,068 - 3,986,068 Net Rev vs Exp (737,492) 6,268,875 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 2026 TABOR DEBRUCING PROJECTIONS SUMMARY BY FUND & DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUND # 101 & COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND # 204 Page 17 10/29/2021 Dept # Combined Total Other Funding De-Bruced TABOR Funding REVENUE Taxes 23,559,273 12,978,971 10,580,302 Licenses and permits 898,438 898,438 - Intergovernmental 535,533 535,533 - Charges for services 836,370 836,370 - Fines and forfeitures 40,841 40,841 - Rental income 249,884 249,884 - Investment income 223,987 223,987 - Donations 44,415 44,415 - Miscellaneous 685,209 685,209 - Transfers-In 1,739,253 1,739,253 - Sale of assets 22,973 22,973 - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 28,836,177 18,255,875 10,580,302 EXPENDITURES Legislative 1100 469,122 466,569 2,553 Attorney 1190 436,433 433,881 2,553 Judicial 1200 99,569 98,803 766 Town Administrator 1300 466,356 465,492 864 Town Clerk 1400 449,685 444,835 4,850 Finance 1500 841,324 838,452 2,872 Planning 1600 1,237,093 1,221,530 15,563 Facilities 1700 1,527,555 - 1,527,555 Human Resources 1800 523,349 522,584 766 Outside Entity Funding 1900 1,833,574 1,833,574 - Workforce Housing 1945 31,907 31,907 - Police - Patrol 2100 5,579,461 5,329,389 250,072 Police - Communications 2155 1,580,898 1,564,306 16,592 Police - Comm Svc 2175 488,287 479,353 8,934 Police - Code Enforcement 2185 168,196 161,127 7,069 Building Safety 2300 826,822 810,869 15,954 Engineering 2400 535,418 - 535,418 Visitor Services 2600 717,294 684,877 32,418 Streets and Highways 3100 1,618,887 - 1,618,887 Stormwater Maintenance 3175 460,823 - 460,823 Parks 5200 1,963,696 - 1,963,696 Senior Center 5304 - - - Community Reinvestment Fund 5400 157,621 - 157,621 Special Events 5500 2,832,583 2,648,774 183,809 Transit 5600 640,806 639,506 1,299 Parking 5690 - - - Museum 5700 552,431 537,362 15,069 Transfers Out 9000 - - - Capital Outlay - - - Debt Service 921,031 - 921,031 Use of Non-Debruced Funding - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 26,960,221 19,213,191 7,747,030 Net Income (Loss)1,875,956 (957,316) 2,833,272 Add Back One Time Usages Prior Year Debruced Reserves - 6,268,875 - 6,268,875 Net Rev vs Exp (957,316) 9,102,147 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 2027 TABOR DEBRUCING PROJECTIONS SUMMARY BY FUND & DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUND # 101 & COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND # 204 Page 18 10/29/2021 Dept # Combined Total Other Funding De-Bruced TABOR Funding REVENUE Taxes 24,954,943 13,437,752 11,517,191 Licenses and permits 943,360 943,360 - Intergovernmental 562,309 562,309 - Charges for services 878,189 878,189 - Fines and forfeitures 42,883 42,883 - Rental income 262,379 262,379 - Investment income 235,187 235,187 - Donations 46,635 46,635 - Miscellaneous 719,469 719,469 - Transfers-In 1,826,215 1,826,215 - Sale of assets 24,122 24,122 - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 30,495,692 18,978,501 11,517,191 EXPENDITURES Legislative 1100 492,578 489,897 2,680 Attorney 1190 458,255 455,575 2,680 Judicial 1200 104,548 103,744 804 Town Administrator 1300 489,674 488,766 907 Town Clerk 1400 472,169 467,077 5,092 Finance 1500 883,390 880,374 3,015 Planning 1600 1,298,948 1,282,607 16,341 Facilities 1700 1,603,932 - 1,603,932 Human Resources 1800 549,517 548,713 804 Outside Entity Funding 1900 1,925,252 1,925,252 - Workforce Housing 1945 33,502 33,502 - Police - Patrol 2100 5,858,434 5,595,859 262,576 Police - Communications 2155 1,659,943 1,642,522 17,421 Police - Comm Svc 2175 512,702 503,321 9,381 Police - Code Enforcement 2185 176,606 169,183 7,423 Building Safety 2300 868,164 851,412 16,751 Engineering 2400 562,189 - 562,189 Visitor Services 2600 753,159 719,121 34,038 Streets and Highways 3100 1,699,831 - 1,699,831 Stormwater Maintenance 3175 483,864 - 483,864 Parks 5200 2,061,881 - 2,061,881 Senior Center 5304 - - - Community Reinvestment Fund 5400 165,502 - 165,502 Special Events 5500 2,974,212 2,781,213 192,999 Transit 5600 672,846 671,482 1,364 Parking 5690 - - - Museum 5700 580,052 564,230 15,823 Transfers Out 9000 - - - Capital Outlay - - - Debt Service 403,952 - 403,952 Use of Non-Debruced Funding - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 27,745,102 20,173,851 7,571,251 Net Income (Loss)2,750,589 (1,195,350) 3,945,940 Add Back One Time Usages Prior Year Debruced Reserves - 9,102,147 - 9,102,147 Net Rev vs Exp (1,195,350) 13,048,087 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 2028 TABOR DEBRUCING PROJECTIONS SUMMARY BY FUND & DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUND # 101 & COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND # 204 Page 19 10/29/2021 Dept # Combined Total Other Funding De-Bruced TABOR Funding REVENUE Taxes 26,433,458 13,911,966 12,521,492 Licenses and permits 990,528 990,528 - Intergovernmental 590,425 590,425 - Charges for services 922,098 922,098 - Fines and forfeitures 45,027 45,027 - Rental income 275,498 275,498 - Investment income 246,946 246,946 - Donations 48,967 48,967 - Miscellaneous 755,443 755,443 - Transfers-In 1,917,526 1,917,526 - Sale of assets 25,328 25,328 - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 32,251,244 19,729,752 12,521,492 EXPENDITURES Legislative 1100 517,206 514,392 2,814 Attorney 1190 481,168 478,354 2,814 Judicial 1200 109,775 108,931 844 Town Administrator 1300 514,157 513,205 953 Town Clerk 1400 495,778 490,431 5,347 Finance 1500 927,559 924,393 3,166 Planning 1600 1,363,895 1,346,737 17,158 Facilities 1700 1,684,129 - 1,684,129 Human Resources 1800 576,993 576,149 844 Outside Entity Funding 1900 2,021,515 2,021,515 - Workforce Housing 1945 35,178 35,178 - Police - Patrol 2100 6,151,356 5,875,652 275,704 Police - Communications 2155 1,742,940 1,724,648 18,292 Police - Comm Svc 2175 538,337 528,487 9,850 Police - Code Enforcement 2185 185,436 177,642 7,794 Building Safety 2300 911,572 893,983 17,589 Engineering 2400 590,298 - 590,298 Visitor Services 2600 790,817 755,077 35,740 Streets and Highways 3100 1,784,822 - 1,784,822 Stormwater Maintenance 3175 508,058 - 508,058 Parks 5200 2,164,975 - 2,164,975 Senior Center 5304 - - - Community Reinvestment Fund 5400 173,777 - 173,777 Special Events 5500 3,122,923 2,920,274 202,649 Transit 5600 706,488 705,056 1,432 Parking 5690 - - - Museum 5700 609,055 592,441 16,614 Transfers Out 9000 - - - Capital Outlay - - - Debt Service 404,153 - 404,153 Use of Non-Debruced Funding - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 29,112,361 21,182,543 7,929,817 Net Income (Loss)3,138,884 (1,452,791) 4,591,675 Add Back One Time Usages Prior Year Debruced Reserves - 13,048,087 - 13,048,087 Net Rev vs Exp (1,452,791) 17,639,761 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 2029 TABOR DEBRUCING PROJECTIONS SUMMARY BY FUND & DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUND # 101 & COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND # 204 Page 20 10/29/2021 Dept # Combined Total Other Funding De-Bruced TABOR Funding REVENUE Taxes 27,999,746 14,402,091 13,597,655 Licenses and permits 1,040,055 1,040,055 - Intergovernmental 619,946 619,946 - Charges for services 968,203 968,203 - Fines and forfeitures 47,279 47,279 - Rental income 289,272 289,272 - Investment income 259,293 259,293 - Donations 51,415 51,415 - Miscellaneous 793,215 793,215 - Transfers-In 2,013,402 2,013,402 - Sale of assets 26,594 26,594 - Financing Proceeds - - - Total Revenues 34,108,421 20,510,766 13,597,655 EXPENDITURES Legislative 1100 543,067 540,112 2,955 Attorney 1190 505,226 502,271 2,955 Judicial 1200 115,264 114,377 886 Town Administrator 1300 539,865 538,865 1,000 Town Clerk 1400 520,567 514,952 5,614 Finance 1500 973,937 970,613 3,324 Planning 1600 1,432,090 1,414,074 18,016 Facilities 1700 1,768,335 - 1,768,335 Human Resources 1800 605,842 604,956 886 Outside Entity Funding 1900 2,122,591 2,122,591 - Workforce Housing 1945 36,936 36,936 - Police - Patrol 2100 6,458,924 6,169,434 289,490 Police - Communications 2155 1,830,087 1,810,880 19,207 Police - Comm Svc 2175 565,254 554,912 10,342 Police - Code Enforcement 2185 194,708 186,524 8,184 Building Safety 2300 957,150 938,682 18,468 Engineering 2400 619,813 - 619,813 Visitor Services 2600 830,358 792,831 37,527 Streets and Highways 3100 1,874,064 - 1,874,064 Stormwater Maintenance 3175 533,460 - 533,460 Parks 5200 2,273,223 - 2,273,223 Senior Center 5304 - - - Community Reinvestment Fund 5400 182,466 - 182,466 Special Events 5500 3,279,069 3,066,287 212,782 Transit 5600 741,813 740,309 1,504 Parking 5690 - - - Museum 5700 639,508 622,063 17,444 Transfers Out 9000 - - - Capital Outlay - - - Debt Service 404,364 - 404,364 Use of Non-Debruced Funding - - - Rounding - - - Total Expenditures 30,547,982 22,241,670 8,306,312 Net Income (Loss)3,560,439 (1,730,904) 5,291,343 Add Back One Time Usages Prior Year Debruced Reserves - 17,639,761 - 17,639,761 Net Rev vs Exp (1,730,904) 22,931,104 SUMMARY BY FUND & DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUND # 101 & COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND # 204 TOWN OF ESTES PARK 2030 TABOR DEBRUCING PROJECTIONS Page 21 10/29/2021 101 204 211 220 236 238 244 256 260 606 612 625 635 645 Community Conservation Open Emergency Community Trails Parking Street Medical Fleet Information Vehicle Risk General Reinvestment Trust Space Response Recreation Expansion Services Improvement Insurance Maintenance Technology Replacement Management Totals Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Center Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Revenues Per Audit Revenues 21,606,909 19,425 35,805 500,850 107,883 1,077,772 539,096 856,900 2,607,653 3,502,136 600,311 986,656 525 404,250 32,846,171 Transfers in 6,860,207 8,241,365 - - - - - - - - - - - - 15,101,571 Debt Proceeds - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - Total Actual Revenues & Transfers 28,467,116 8,260,790 35,805 500,850 107,883 1,077,772 539,096 856,900 2,607,653 3,502,136 600,311 986,656 525 404,250 47,947,743 Less debt proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - - - Less interfund transfers in 6,860,207 8,241,365 - - - - - - - - - - 15,101,571 PILOT - L&P 101-0000-380-10-00 7,861 7,861 PILOT - Water 101-0000-380-60-00 7,368 7,368 Less exemptions - Federal Grants #333-xx-xx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sales of Fixed Assets #380-30-00 - 18,900 - - - - - - - - - - - - 18,900 Donations / Contributions #365-20-xx 36,490 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 36,490 Less interfund receipts - IT Transfer 625-0000-341-22-09 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 959,251 - - 959,251 Phone Maint Transfer -625-0000-341-25-01 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 23,205 - - 23,205 VRF Transfer 635-0000-341-25-44 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fleet Fund 612-0000-346-10-00 & 346-20-00 - - - - - - - - - - 576,586 - - - 576,586 Medical Fund 606-0000-380-20-60 & 606-0000- 341-80-00 - - - - - - - - - 3,481,136 - - - - 3,481,136 Risk Mgt Transfers In 645-0000-341.21-01 & 645-0000-341.21-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 404,250 404,250 Less Voter Approved Exceptions - IA Sales Taxes - - - - 107,778 1,077,772 538,886 - 2,586,653 4,311,089 Lottery Proceeds - - 35,700 35,700 - Revenues Per Amendment 21,555,190 525 105 500,850 105 - 210 856,900 21,000 21,000 23,726 4,200 525 - 22,984,336 Prior Year base 12,526,657 953,919 1,332 466,137 - - - - 1,014,262 - 3,996 - - - 14,966,302 Plus cost of living growth (Denver Boulder CPI)3.10% Plus local growth 0.85% Preliminary Base 13,021,491 991,601 1,385 484,550 - - - - 1,054,328 - 4,154 - - - 15,557,509 Plus voter approved revenue changes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Recalculated Base 13,021,491 991,601 1,385 484,550 - - - - 1,054,328 - 4,154 - - 15,557,509 TABOR BASE (lesser of line 36 or 45)13,021,491 991,601 1,385 484,550 - - - - 1,054,328 - 4,154 - - 15,557,509 TABOR Excess to transfer to CRF 8,533,699 (991,076) (1,280) 16,300 105 - 210 856,900 (1,033,328) 21,000 19,572 4,200 525 - 7,426,826 TOWN OF ESTES PARK TABOR EXCESS REVENUE CALCULATION 2023 ESTIMATE Special Revenue Funds Internal Service Funds Page 22 10/29/2021 101 204 211 220 236 238 244 256 260 606 612 625 635 645 Community Conservation Open Emergency Community Trails Parking Street Medical Fleet Information Vehicle Risk General Reinvestment Trust Space Response Recreation Expansion Services Improvement Insurance Maintenance Technology Replacement Management Totals Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Center Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Revenues Per Audit Revenues 22,859,698 20,396 37,595 525,893 114,355 1,142,438 571,440 899,745 2,763,903 3,677,243 630,327 1,035,988 551 424,463 34,704,034 Transfers in 7,203,217 8,653,433 - - - - - - - - - - - - 15,856,650 Debt Proceeds - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - Total Actual Revenues & Transfers 30,062,915 8,673,829 37,595 525,893 114,355 1,142,438 571,440 899,745 2,763,903 3,677,243 630,327 1,035,988 551 424,463 50,560,684 Less debt proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - - - Less interfund transfers in 7,203,217 8,653,433 - - - - - - - - - - 15,856,650 PILOT - L&P 101-0000-380-10-00 8,254 8,254 PILOT - Water 101-0000-380-60-00 7,736 7,736 Less exemptions - Federal Grants #333-xx-xx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sales of Fixed Assets #380-30-00 - 19,845 - - - - - - - - - - - - 19,845 Donations / Contributions #365-20-xx 38,367 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 38,367 Less interfund receipts - IT Transfer 625-0000-341-22-09 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 1,007,213 - - 1,007,213 Phone Maint Transfer -625-0000-341-25-01 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 24,365 - - 24,365 VRF Transfer 635-0000-341-25-44 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fleet Fund 612-0000-346-10-00 & 346-20-00 - - - - - - - - - - 606,961 - - - 606,961 Medical Fund 606-0000-380-20-60 & 606-0000- 341-80-00 - - - - - - - - - 3,655,193 - - - - 3,655,193 Risk Mgt Transfers In 645-0000-341.21-01 & 645-0000-341.21-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 424,463 424,463 Less Voter Approved Exceptions - IA Sales Taxes - - 114,244 1,142,438 571,219 - 2,741,853 - 4,569,754 Lottery Proceeds - - 37,485 37,485 - Revenues Per Amendment 22,805,341 551 110 525,893 110 - 221 899,745 22,050 22,050 23,366 4,410 551 - 24,304,397 Prior Year base 13,021,491 991,601 1,385 484,550 - - - - 1,054,328 - 4,154 - - - 15,557,509 Plus cost of living growth (Denver Boulder CPI)3.10% Plus local growth 0.85% Preliminary Base 13,535,873 1,030,772 1,440 503,691 - - - - 1,095,977 - 4,318 - - - 16,172,070 Plus voter approved revenue changes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Recalculated Base 13,535,873 1,030,772 1,440 503,691 - - - - 1,095,977 - 4,318 - - 16,172,070 TABOR BASE (lesser of line 36 or 45)13,535,873 1,030,772 1,440 503,691 - - - - 1,095,977 - 4,318 - - 16,172,070 TABOR Excess to transfer to CRF 9,269,467 (1,030,221) (1,329) 22,201 110 - 221 899,745 (1,073,927) 22,050 19,048 4,410 551 - 8,132,327 TOWN OF ESTES PARK TABOR EXCESS REVENUE CALCULATION 2024 ESTIMATE Special Revenue Funds Internal Service Funds Page 23 10/29/2021 AA 101 204 211 220 236 238 244 256 260 606 612 625 635 645 Community Conservation Open Emergency Community Trails Parking Street Medical Fleet Information Vehicle Risk 2022 Budget Calculations General Reinvestment Trust Space Response Recreation Expansion Services Improvement Insurance Maintenance Technology Replacement Management Totals Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Center Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Revenues Per Audit Revenues 24,185,473 21,416 39,475 552,187 116 - 232 944,732 23,153 3,861,105 661,843 1,087,788 579 445,686 31,823,784 Transfers in 7,563,378 9,086,105 - - - - - - - - - - - - 16,649,483 Debt Proceeds - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - Total Actual Revenues & Transfers 31,748,851 9,107,521 39,475 552,187 116 - 232 944,732 23,153 3,861,105 661,843 1,087,788 579 445,686 48,473,267 Less debt proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - - - Less interfund transfers in 7,563,378 9,086,105 - - - - - - - - - - 16,649,483 PILOT - L&P 101-0000-380-10-00 8,667 8,667 PILOT - Water 101-0000-380-60-00 8,123 8,123 Less exemptions - Federal Grants #333-xx-xx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sales of Fixed Assets #380-30-00 - 20,837 - - - - - - - - - - - - 20,837 Donations / Contributions #365-20-xx 40,285 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 40,285 Less interfund receipts - IT Transfer 625-0000-341-22-09 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 1,057,574 - - 1,057,574 Phone Maint Transfer -625-0000-341-25-01 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 25,584 - - 25,584 VRF Transfer 635-0000-341-25-44 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fleet Fund 612-0000-346-10-00 & 346-20-00 - - - - - - - - - - 636,550 - - - 636,550 Medical Fund 606-0000-380-20-60 & 606-0000- 341-80-00 - - - - - - - - - 3,837,953 - - - - 3,837,953 Risk Mgt Transfers In 645-0000-341.21-01 & 645-0000-341.21-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 445,686 445,686 Less Voter Approved Exceptions - IA Sales Taxes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lottery Proceeds - - 39,359 39,359 - Revenues Per Amendment 24,128,398 579 116 552,187 116 - 232 944,732 23,153 23,153 25,294 4,631 579 - 25,703,167 Prior Year base 13,535,873 1,030,772 1,440 503,691 - - - - 1,095,977 - 4,318 - - - 16,172,070 Plus cost of living growth (Denver Boulder CPI)3.10% Plus local growth 0.85% Preliminary Base 14,070,574 1,071,490 1,497 523,588 - - - - 1,139,270 - 4,488 - - - 16,810,908 Plus voter approved revenue changes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Recalculated Base 14,070,574 1,071,490 1,497 523,588 - - - - 1,139,270 - 4,488 - - 16,810,908 TABOR BASE (lesser of line 36 or 45)14,070,574 1,071,490 1,497 523,588 - - - - 1,139,270 - 4,488 - - 16,810,908 TABOR Excess to transfer to CRF 10,057,823 (1,070,911) (1,381) 28,599 116 - 232 944,732 (1,116,118) 23,153 20,805 4,631 579 - 8,892,259 TOWN OF ESTES PARK TABOR EXCESS REVENUE CALCULATION 2025 ESTIMATE Special Revenue Funds Internal Service Funds Page 24 10/29/2021 AB 101 204 211 220 236 238 244 256 260 606 612 625 635 645 Community Conservation Open Emergency Community Trails Parking Street Medical Fleet Information Vehicle Risk 2022 Budget Calculations General Reinvestment Trust Space Response Recreation Expansion Services Improvement Insurance Maintenance Technology Replacement Management Totals Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Center Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Revenues Per Audit Revenues 25,588,505 22,487 41,449 579,796 122 - 243 991,969 24,310 4,054,161 694,935 1,142,177 608 467,970 33,608,731 Transfers in 7,941,547 9,540,410 - - - - - - - - - - - - 17,481,957 Debt Proceeds - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - Total Actual Revenues & Transfers 33,530,051 9,562,897 41,449 579,796 122 - 243 991,969 24,310 4,054,161 694,935 1,142,177 608 467,970 51,090,687 Less debt proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - - - Less interfund transfers in 7,941,547 9,540,410 - - - - - - - - - - 17,481,957 PILOT - L&P 101-0000-380-10-00 9,100 9,100 PILOT - Water 101-0000-380-60-00 8,529 8,529 Less exemptions - Federal Grants #333-xx-xx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sales of Fixed Assets #380-30-00 - 21,879 - - - - - - - - - - - - 21,879 Donations / Contributions #365-20-xx 42,300 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 42,300 Less interfund receipts - IT Transfer 625-0000-341-22-09 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 1,110,452 - - 1,110,452 Phone Maint Transfer -625-0000-341-25-01 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 26,863 - - 26,863 VRF Transfer 635-0000-341-25-44 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fleet Fund 612-0000-346-10-00 & 346-20-00 - - - - - - - - - - 668,841 - - - 668,841 Medical Fund 606-0000-380-20-60 & 606-0000- 341-80-00 - - - - - - - - - 4,029,851 - - - - 4,029,851 Risk Mgt Transfers In 645-0000-341.21-01 & 645-0000-341.21-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 467,970 467,970 Less Voter Approved Exceptions - IA Sales Taxes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lottery Proceeds - - 41,327 41,327 - Revenues Per Amendment 25,528,575 608 122 579,796 122 - 243 991,969 24,310 24,310 26,094 4,862 608 - 27,181,618 Prior Year base 14,070,574 1,071,490 1,497 523,588 - - - - 1,139,270 - 4,488 - - - 16,810,908 Plus cost of living growth (Denver Boulder CPI)3.10% Plus local growth 0.85% Preliminary Base 14,626,398 1,113,817 1,556 544,271 - - - - 1,184,274 - 4,666 - - - 17,474,981 Plus voter approved revenue changes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Recalculated Base 14,626,398 1,113,817 1,556 544,271 - - - - 1,184,274 - 4,666 - - 17,474,981 TABOR BASE (lesser of line 36 or 45)14,626,398 1,113,817 1,556 544,271 - - - - 1,184,274 - 4,666 - - 17,474,981 TABOR Excess to transfer to CRF 10,902,178 (1,113,209) (1,434) 35,525 122 - 243 991,969 (1,159,964) 24,310 21,428 4,862 608 - 9,706,637 TOWN OF ESTES PARK TABOR EXCESS REVENUE CALCULATION 2026 ESTIMATE Special Revenue Funds Internal Service Funds Page 25 10/29/2021 AC 101 204 211 220 236 238 244 256 260 606 612 625 635 645 Community Conservation Open Emergency Community Trails Parking Street Medical Fleet Information Vehicle Risk 2022 Budget Calculations General Reinvestment Trust Space Response Recreation Expansion Services Improvement Insurance Maintenance Technology Replacement Management Totals Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Center Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Revenues Per Audit Revenues 27,073,313 23,611 43,521 608,786 128 - 255 1,041,567 25,526 4,256,869 729,682 1,199,286 638 491,368 35,494,550 Transfers in 8,338,624 10,017,431 - - - - - - - - - - - - 18,356,054 Debt Proceeds - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - Total Actual Revenues & Transfers 35,411,937 10,041,042 43,521 608,786 128 - 255 1,041,567 25,526 4,256,869 729,682 1,199,286 638 491,368 53,850,605 Less debt proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - - - Less interfund transfers in 8,338,624 10,017,431 - - - - - - - - - - 18,356,054 PILOT - L&P 101-0000-380-10-00 9,556 9,556 PILOT - Water 101-0000-380-60-00 8,956 8,956 Less exemptions - Federal Grants #333-xx-xx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sales of Fixed Assets #380-30-00 - 22,973 - - - - - - - - - - - - 22,973 Donations / Contributions #365-20-xx 44,415 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 44,415 Less interfund receipts - IT Transfer 625-0000-341-22-09 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 1,165,975 - - 1,165,975 Phone Maint Transfer -625-0000-341-25-01 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 28,206 - - 28,206 VRF Transfer 635-0000-341-25-44 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fleet Fund 612-0000-346-10-00 & 346-20-00 - - - - - - - - - - 702,776 - - - 702,776 Medical Fund 606-0000-380-20-60 & 606-0000- 341-80-00 - - - - - - - - - 4,231,343 - - - - 4,231,343 Risk Mgt Transfers In 645-0000-341.21-01 & 645-0000-341.21-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 491,368 491,368 Less Voter Approved Exceptions - IA Sales Taxes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lottery Proceeds - - 43,394 43,394 - Revenues Per Amendment 27,010,387 638 128 608,786 128 - 255 1,041,567 25,526 25,526 26,906 5,105 638 - 28,745,589 Prior Year base 14,626,398 1,113,817 1,556 544,271 - - - - 1,184,274 - 4,666 - - - 17,474,981 Plus cost of living growth (Denver Boulder CPI)3.10% Plus local growth 0.85% Preliminary Base 15,204,177 1,157,815 1,617 565,771 - - - - 1,231,056 - 4,850 - - - 18,165,287 Plus voter approved revenue changes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Recalculated Base 15,204,177 1,157,815 1,617 565,771 - - - - 1,231,056 - 4,850 - - 18,165,287 TABOR BASE (lesser of line 36 or 45)15,204,177 1,157,815 1,617 565,771 - - - - 1,231,056 - 4,850 - - 18,165,287 TABOR Excess to transfer to CRF 11,806,210 (1,157,177) (1,489) 43,015 128 - 255 1,041,567 (1,205,531) 25,526 22,056 5,105 638 - 10,580,302 TOWN OF ESTES PARK TABOR EXCESS REVENUE CALCULATION 2027 ESTIMATE Special Revenue Funds Internal Service Funds Page 26 10/29/2021 AD 101 204 211 220 236 238 244 256 260 606 612 625 635 645 Community Conservation Open Emergency Community Trails Parking Street Medical Fleet Information Vehicle Risk 2022 Budget Calculations General Reinvestment Trust Space Response Recreation Expansion Services Improvement Insurance Maintenance Technology Replacement Management Totals Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Center Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Revenues Per Audit Revenues 28,644,684 24,792 45,697 639,226 134 - 268 1,093,645 26,802 4,469,712 766,166 1,259,250 670 515,937 37,486,984 Transfers in 8,755,555 10,518,302 - - - - - - - - - - - - 19,273,857 Debt Proceeds - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - Total Actual Revenues & Transfers 37,400,240 10,543,094 45,697 639,226 134 - 268 1,093,645 26,802 4,469,712 766,166 1,259,250 670 515,937 56,760,841 Less debt proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - - - Less interfund transfers in 8,755,555 10,518,302 - - - - - - - - - - 19,273,857 PILOT - L&P 101-0000-380-10-00 10,033 10,033 PILOT - Water 101-0000-380-60-00 9,403 9,403 Less exemptions - Federal Grants #333-xx-xx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sales of Fixed Assets #380-30-00 - 24,122 - - - - - - - - - - - - 24,122 Donations / Contributions #365-20-xx 46,635 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 46,635 Less interfund receipts - IT Transfer 625-0000-341-22-09 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 1,224,274 - - 1,224,274 Phone Maint Transfer -625-0000-341-25-01 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 29,616 - - 29,616 VRF Transfer 635-0000-341-25-44 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fleet Fund 612-0000-346-10-00 & 346-20-00 - - - - - - - - - - 738,437 - - - 738,437 Medical Fund 606-0000-380-20-60 & 606-0000- 341-80-00 - - - - - - - - - 4,442,910 - - - - 4,442,910 Risk Mgt Transfers In 645-0000-341.21-01 & 645-0000-341.21-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 515,937 515,937 Less Voter Approved Exceptions - IA Sales Taxes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lottery Proceeds - - 45,563 45,563 - Revenues Per Amendment 28,578,612 670 134 639,226 134 - 268 1,093,645 26,802 26,802 27,730 5,360 670 - 30,400,053 Prior Year base 15,204,177 1,157,815 1,617 565,771 - - - - 1,231,056 - 4,850 - - - 18,165,287 Plus cost of living growth (Denver Boulder CPI)3.10% Plus local growth 0.85% Preliminary Base 15,804,781 1,203,552 1,681 588,121 - - - - 1,279,686 - 5,042 - - - 18,882,862 Plus voter approved revenue changes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Recalculated Base 15,804,781 1,203,552 1,681 588,121 - - - - 1,279,686 - 5,042 - - 18,882,862 TABOR BASE (lesser of line 36 or 45)15,804,781 1,203,552 1,681 588,121 - - - - 1,279,686 - 5,042 - - 18,882,862 TABOR Excess to transfer to CRF 12,773,832 (1,202,882) (1,547) 51,105 134 - 268 1,093,645 (1,252,884) 26,802 22,688 5,360 670 - 11,517,191 TOWN OF ESTES PARK TABOR EXCESS REVENUE CALCULATION 2028 ESTIMATE Special Revenue Funds Internal Service Funds Page 27 10/29/2021 AE 101 204 211 220 236 238 244 256 260 606 612 625 635 645 Community Conservation Open Emergency Community Trails Parking Street Medical Fleet Information Vehicle Risk 2022 Budget Calculations General Reinvestment Trust Space Response Recreation Expansion Services Improvement Insurance Maintenance Technology Replacement Management Totals Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Center Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Revenues Per Audit Revenues 30,307,687 26,031 47,982 671,187 141 - 281 1,148,328 28,142 4,693,198 804,474 1,322,213 704 541,734 39,592,101 Transfers in 9,193,333 11,044,217 - - - - - - - - - - - - 20,237,550 Debt Proceeds - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - Total Actual Revenues & Transfers 39,501,020 11,070,249 47,982 671,187 141 - 281 1,148,328 28,142 4,693,198 804,474 1,322,213 704 541,734 59,829,652 Less debt proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - - - Less interfund transfers in 9,193,333 11,044,217 - - - - - - - - - - 20,237,550 PILOT - L&P 101-0000-380-10-00 10,535 10,535 PILOT - Water 101-0000-380-60-00 9,874 9,874 Less exemptions - Federal Grants #333-xx-xx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sales of Fixed Assets #380-30-00 - 25,328 - - - - - - - - - - - - 25,328 Donations / Contributions #365-20-xx 48,967 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 48,967 Less interfund receipts - IT Transfer 625-0000-341-22-09 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 1,285,488 - - 1,285,488 Phone Maint Transfer -625-0000-341-25-01 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 31,097 - - 31,097 VRF Transfer 635-0000-341-25-44 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fleet Fund 612-0000-346-10-00 & 346-20-00 - - - - - - - - - - 775,908 - - - 775,908 Medical Fund 606-0000-380-20-60 & 606-0000- 341-80-00 - - - - - - - - - 4,665,056 - - - - 4,665,056 Risk Mgt Transfers In 645-0000-341.21-01 & 645-0000-341.21-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 541,734 541,734 Less Voter Approved Exceptions - IA Sales Taxes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lottery Proceeds - - 47,841 47,841 - Revenues Per Amendment 30,238,311 704 141 671,187 141 - 281 1,148,328 28,142 28,142 28,566 5,628 704 - 32,150,275 Prior Year base 15,804,781 1,203,552 1,681 588,121 - - - - 1,279,686 - 5,042 - - - 18,882,862 Plus cost of living growth (Denver Boulder CPI)3.10% Plus local growth 0.85% Preliminary Base 16,429,110 1,251,095 1,747 611,353 - - - - 1,330,237 - 5,241 - - - 19,628,783 Plus voter approved revenue changes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Recalculated Base 16,429,110 1,251,095 1,747 611,353 - - - - 1,330,237 - 5,241 - - 19,628,783 TABOR BASE (lesser of line 36 or 45)16,429,110 1,251,095 1,747 611,353 - - - - 1,330,237 - 5,241 - - 19,628,783 TABOR Excess to transfer to CRF 13,809,202 (1,250,392) (1,607) 59,834 141 - 281 1,148,328 (1,302,095) 28,142 23,326 5,628 704 - 12,521,492 TOWN OF ESTES PARK TABOR EXCESS REVENUE CALCULATION 2029 ESTIMATE Special Revenue Funds Internal Service Funds Page 28 10/29/2021 AF 101 204 211 220 236 238 244 256 260 606 612 625 635 645 Community Conservation Open Emergency Community Trails Parking Street Medical Fleet Information Vehicle Risk 2022 Budget Calculations General Reinvestment Trust Space Response Recreation Expansion Services Improvement Insurance Maintenance Technology Replacement Management Totals Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Center Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Fund Revenues Per Audit Revenues 32,067,686 27,333 50,381 704,746 148 - 295 1,205,744 29,549 4,927,858 844,698 1,388,324 739 568,820 41,816,321 Transfers in 9,652,999 11,596,428 - - - - - - - - - - - - 21,249,428 Debt Proceeds - - - - - - - - Other - - - - - - - - - - - Total Actual Revenues & Transfers 41,720,685 11,623,761 50,381 704,746 148 - 295 1,205,744 29,549 4,927,858 844,698 1,388,324 739 568,820 63,065,749 Less debt proceeds - - - - - - - - - - - - - Less interfund transfers in 9,652,999 11,596,428 - - - - - - - - - - 21,249,428 PILOT - L&P 101-0000-380-10-00 11,062 11,062 PILOT - Water 101-0000-380-60-00 10,367 10,367 Less exemptions - Federal Grants #333-xx-xx - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sales of Fixed Assets #380-30-00 - 26,594 - - - - - - - - - - - - 26,594 Donations / Contributions #365-20-xx 51,415 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 51,415 Less interfund receipts - IT Transfer 625-0000-341-22-09 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 1,349,762 - - 1,349,762 Phone Maint Transfer -625-0000-341-25-01 (Town Only)- - - - - - - - - - - 32,652 - - 32,652 VRF Transfer 635-0000-341-25-44 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fleet Fund 612-0000-346-10-00 & 346-20-00 - - - - - - - - - - 815,282 - - - 815,282 Medical Fund 606-0000-380-20-60 & 606-0000- 341-80-00 - - - - - - - - - 4,898,308 - - - - 4,898,308 Risk Mgt Transfers In 645-0000-341.21-01 & 645-0000-341.21-02 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 568,820 568,820 Less Voter Approved Exceptions - IA Sales Taxes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lottery Proceeds - - 50,233 50,233 - Revenues Per Amendment 31,994,841 739 148 704,746 148 - 295 1,205,744 29,549 29,549 29,417 5,910 739 - 34,001,825 Prior Year base 16,429,110 1,251,095 1,747 611,353 - - - - 1,330,237 - 5,241 - - - 19,628,783 Plus cost of living growth (Denver Boulder CPI)3.10% Plus local growth 0.85% Preliminary Base 17,078,101 1,300,516 1,816 635,503 - - - - 1,382,785 - 5,448 - - - 20,404,169 Plus voter approved revenue changes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Recalculated Base 17,078,101 1,300,516 1,816 635,503 - - - - 1,382,785 - 5,448 - - 20,404,169 TABOR BASE (lesser of line 36 or 45)17,078,101 1,300,516 1,816 635,503 - - - - 1,382,785 - 5,448 - - 20,404,169 TABOR Excess to transfer to CRF 14,916,740 (1,299,778) (1,669) 69,243 148 - 295 1,205,744 (1,353,236) 29,549 23,969 5,910 739 - 13,597,655 TOWN OF ESTES PARK TABOR EXCESS REVENUE CALCULATION 2030 ESTIMATE Special Revenue Funds Internal Service Funds Page 29 TOWN OF ESTES PARK TABOR REVENUE RESTRICTION PROJECTIONS SUMMARY OF PERSONNEL PRESSURE The following graph and data table summarizes the ineligible activity costs per year compared to the reductions that are needed based upon the financial projections for each year through 2030. 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Personnel Costs 9,323,018 9,789,168 10,278,626 10,792,558 11,332,188 11,898,794 12,493,733 13,118,421 Fire District Transfer 1,195,717 1,255,503 1,318,278 1,384,192 1,453,401 1,526,071 1,602,375 1,682,494 Safebuilt contract 548,258 575,670 604,454 634,677 666,410 699,731 734,717 771,453 Operations 4,739,748 4,976,736 5,225,573 5,486,851 5,761,191 6,049,254 6,351,718 6,669,302 Total ineligible costs 15,808,763 16,599,101 17,428,956 18,300,303 19,215,218 20,175,879 21,184,572 22,243,700 Reduction necessary 176,345 346,878 534,747 737,492 957,316 1,195,350 1,452,791 1,730,904 % of Operation $4%7%10%13%17%20%23%26% The pressures on personnel costs increase each year until at some point, there will not be operating costs that can be reduced. Eventually, there will be no option but to reduce staffing which will result in reduced service levels. This situation will continue indefinitely, getting worse each year, until something is done to remove these restrictions. $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 Summary of Ineligible Costs Operations Safebuilt contract Fire District Transfer Personnel Costs Page 30 PUBLIC WORKS Report To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Jennifer Waters, EIT, CFM, Civil Engineer I Date: November 9, 2021 RE: Estes Valley Stormwater Utility Purpose of Study Session Item: Update the Town Board on the stormwater utility organizational and fee structure discussed jointly with the Town Board and Larimer County Commissioners in 2019. Town Board Direction Requested: Provide direction to Public Works staff regarding the desire to pursue a stormwater utility in Estes Park. • Confirm the desired scope of infrastructure improvements. • Clarify if the desired service area should include only Town of Estes Park (about 5400 parcels) or also include Larimer County (about 3100 parcels) in the former Estes Valley Development Code boundary. • Clarify the desired funding approach: grants, user fees, sales tax, or a combination of these. Present Situation: After the 2013 flood, the Town’s Strategic Plan was revised annually in 2016 through 2021 to include various goals and objectives to address flood mitigation. Since 2017, several Town Board study sessions and meetings have focused on exploring this topic (the history is reflected in 7 attached Town Board reports and the sample user fee letter). The stormwater utility effort was paused in 2019 when the Town Board selected Option 4 (take no further action) while waiting to see if grant funding would materialize to pay for an initial stormwater infrastructure project on the Big Thompson River. These grant applications were denied in both 2019 and 2020. At the August 24, 2021, study session, Public Works staff provided updated information regarding stormwater utility efforts in other Colorado communities and a proposal for the Town to elevate our stormwater infrastructure maintenance efforts in 2022. At this meeting, the Town Board affirmed its interest in resuming dialogue regarding rate Page 31 structures and a potential partnership with Larimer County regarding the formation of a stormwater utility in the Estes Valley. On September 29, 2021, Public Works Engineering staff met virtually with the Larimer County Engineering staff to explore receptivity to resuming the joint stormwater effort. The County staff was receptive and clarified the need to confirm higher level interest with the County Manager and the new County Commissioners prior to taking any further action. Proposal: The Town Board has established 2022 Strategic Plan Objective 5.B.1: “Develop a funding proposal to expand stormwater infrastructure and maintenance through a stormwater utility.” An infinite number of options exist for implementing a new stormwater utility. Two detailed cost models for this utility were presented in February, 2019. Four additional options (including no action) were proposed to the Trustees and Commissioners in May of 2019. Public Works staff recommends the following: 1. Formation of a stormwater utility which achieves maintenance and aims to complete the full scope of infrastructure improvements identified in the Stormwater Master Plan over 30 years. 2. Inclusion of parcels within the former Estes Valley Development Code boundary as documented in a future Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County. 3. Include a sales tax revenue component (which must be approved by voters for 2024) to lower user fees and decrease dependence on grant sources. Advantages: The benefits associated with two funding options are detailed in the February 19, 2019, Report. Additional benefits are described for Options 1, 2, or 3 as proposed in the May 15, 2019, report. Disadvantages: • Fees are inherently controversial, but the Town already acknowledged this fact and will continue to take community feedback into account when considering any stormwater utility proposal • Revisiting a proposed stormwater utility rate structure will require investment of staff time which will divert work effort available for other work demands; however, Town staff feels strongly that a long-term solution to our stormwater challenges needs to be developed. Page 32 Finance/Resource Impact: Implementation of a Stormwater Utility proposal will provide the financial resources to provide sustainable funding for: • Maintenance of the existing Estes Valley drainage system; and • Modernization and upgrades for Estes Valley stormwater infrastructure which sets the stage for lower flood insurance premiums for all who participate in the National Flood Insurance Program. Level of Public Interest Public interest in the problem is low until flooding occurs. Public interest in new stormwater utility fees is expected to be high. Attachments: 1. Town Board Report (August 8, 2017) 2. Town Board Report (October 10, 2017) 3. Town Board Report (February 13, 2018) 4. Town Board Report (October 23, 2018) 5. Town Board Report (January 22, 2019) 6. Town Board Report (February 19, 2019 7. Town Board Report (May 15, 2019) 8. Sample Letter – Stormwater Management Fee (Spring, 2019) 9. Presentation Slides Page 33 PUBLIC WORKS Report To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: August 8, 2017 RE: Update on the Estes Valley Stormwater Master Drainage Plan & Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study Objective: This report introduces the progress update presentation by Anderson Consulting Engineers on the Estes Valley Stormwater Master Plan (SMDP) and the presentation by Headwaters Corporation on the Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study. Present Situation: The Town of Estes Park and the surrounding unincorporated Estes Valley suffer from the lack of adequate drainage facilities to capture and safely discharge stormwater runoff from storm events ranging from intense afternoon summer cloudbursts to sustained rainfall experienced in the 2013 flood. No inventory of existing stormwater infrastructure exists. While the Town has hired consultants to create two subbasin stormwater improvement plans, no comprehensive master plan exists to define the magnitude of the system-wide deficiencies and the associated projects to remedy them. Maintenance staff, equipment, and funding are insufficient to respond to the stormwater damage complaints received each year by the Public Works Department. In 2016, the Town received a $300,000 grant to fund a SMDP within the Estes Valley development code boundary area. Additionally, the Town Board appropriated $30,000 for the companion study to explore the potential of creating a Stormwater Utility to fund the masterplanned improvements and the requisite operation and maintenance. A public meeting introducing these two studies was held on May 11, 2017. It was sparsely attended. Conversations held with Larimer County staff indicate the County has reservations about implementing a Stormwater District that would obligate residents within unincorporated Larimer County to pay a new fee. Out of respect for this concern, the Town’s feasibility study will focus on a new Stormwater Utility that serves only Town residents. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 34 Page 2 of 2 Proposal: The consultants will present updates on the progress made to date on the two studies. The grant funding expires September 30, 2017. A joint study session with the Town Board and Larimer County Board of Commissioners is proposed for September 26, 2017 to discuss the drainage issues (problems and potential solutions) that transcend jurisdictional boundaries. A third study session with the Board of Trustees is tentatively scheduled for October 24, 2017 to discuss the potential revenue, setup, and operational issues associated with a new Stormwater Utility within the Town. Advantages: •A SMDP will tabulate and map the existing stormwater infrastructure. •The need for potential improvements will be quantified in terms of prioritized scope and cost. •A potential funding strategy will be recommended. •Implementation and sustained maintenance of the stormwater infrastructure will reduce risk and recurrence of repeated property damage. Disadvantages: The disadvantages for the Town to assume this maintenance responsibility include: •The Town is not staffed or equipped to take on this maintenance effort. The cost of maintenance equipment and personnel will need to be determined. •A new Stormwater Utility adds additional administrative effort to Public Works staff. •A new utility fee will be needed to fund this effort. Some residents will object. Action Recommended: This report is advisory only. No action is requested. Budget: New costs should be offset by new revenue. This will be evaluated further at the October study session. Level of Public Interest Public interest on this proposal will move from low to high once a new utility fee is proposed. Attachments: Page 35 PUBLIC WORKS Report To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Chris Pauley, PE, CFM Anderson Consulting Engineers Date: October 10, 2017 RE: Draft Estes Valley Stormwater Master Plan Objective: This report introduces the draft Estes Valley Stormwater Master Plan (SMP) prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers. Present Situation: The Town of Estes Park and the surrounding unincorporated Estes Valley suffer from the lack of adequate drainage facilities to capture and safely discharge stormwater runoff from storm events ranging from intense afternoon summer cloudbursts to sustained rainfall as experienced in the 2013 flood. Prior to this study, no inventory of existing stormwater infrastructure existed. While the Town has hired consultants to create two subbasin stormwater improvement plans, no comprehensive master plan exists to define the magnitude of the system-wide deficiencies and the associated projects to remedy them. Maintenance staff, equipment, and funding are insufficient to respond to the stormwater damage complaints received each year by the Public Works Department. In 2016, the Town received a $300,000 grant to fund a SMP within the Estes Valley development code boundary area. Additionally, the Town Board appropriated $30,000 for the companion study to explore the potential of creating a Stormwater Utility to fund the masterplanned improvements and the requisite operation and maintenance. A public meeting introducing these two studies was held on May 11, 2017. It was sparsely attended. A progress report was presented to the Town Board at a study session on August 8, 2017. Proposal: The consultant will present an overview and key findings contained in the draft SMP. The final SMP must be completed before the grant funding expires in December 2017. Public Works staff continues to collaborate with the Larimer County Engineer to formulate a staff recommendation to be forwarded to both the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer Board of Commissioners for consideration. A third study session with the ATTACHMENT 2 Page 36 Board of Trustees is tentatively scheduled for October 24, 2017 to discuss the potential revenue, setup, and operational issues associated with implementing the improvement recommendations contained in the SWP. Advantages: •The SMP tabulates and maps the existing stormwater infrastructure. •The need for potential improvements is quantified in terms of prioritized scope and cost. •A potential funding strategy will be recommended in the feasibility study. •Implementation and sustained maintenance of the stormwater infrastructure will reduce risk and recurrence of repeated property damage. Disadvantages: The disadvantages for the Town to assume this maintenance responsibility include: •The Town is not staffed or equipped to take on this maintenance effort. The cost of maintenance equipment and personnel will need to be determined. •A new Stormwater Utility adds additional administrative effort to Public Works staff. •A new utility fee will be needed to fund this effort. Some residents will object. Action Recommended: Review comments regarding the content of this draft SMP are encouraged. Responses will be incorporated into the final SMP before staff brings the document back to the Town Board for adoption at a future public meeting. Budget: New costs should be offset by new revenue. This will be evaluated further at the October 24th study session. Level of Public Interest Public interest on this proposal will move from low to high if a new utility fee is proposed. Attachments: Page 2 of 2 Page 37 PUBLIC WORKS Report To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Greg White, Town Attorney George Oamek, PhD, Headwaters Corporation Date: February 13, 2018 RE: Estes Valley Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study Objective: This report introduces the draft Estes Valley Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study (SUFS) (Volume III of the Stormwater Master Plan (SMP) prepared by Anderson Consulting Engineers) and the draft Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and Larimer County. Present Situation: The Town of Estes Park and the surrounding unincorporated Estes Valley suffer from the lack of adequate drainage facilities to capture and safely discharge stormwater runoff from storm events ranging from intense afternoon summer cloudbursts to sustained rainfall as experienced in the 2013 flood. Prior to this study, no inventory of existing stormwater infrastructure existed. While the Town has hired consultants to create two sub-basin stormwater improvement plans, no comprehensive master plan exists to define the magnitude of the system-wide deficiencies and the associated projects to remedy them. Maintenance staff, equipment, and funding are insufficient to respond to the stormwater damage complaints received each year by the Public Works Department (PW). In 2016, the Town received a $300,000 HUD Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) grant from the Colorado Dept. of Local Affairs to fund a SMP within the Estes Valley development code boundary area. Additionally, the Town Board appropriated $30,000 for this companion study to explore the potential of creating a Stormwater Utility to fund the masterplanned improvements and the requisite operation and maintenance. Possession of a relevant SMP is a common prerequisite for stormwater project grant funding eligibility. In 2017 the Town Board identified the following infrastructure objective: •Consider implementation of the Stormwater Master Plan and formation of a stormwater utility. ATTACHMENT 3 Page 38 Page 2 of 3 A public meeting introducing these proposed SMP and SUFS was held on May 11, 2017. It was sparsely attended. Progress reports were presented to the Town Board at study sessions on August 8, 2017, October 10, 2017, and October 24, 2017. The Board of Trustees included the following objectives in the 2018 Strategic Plan: •Pursue funding for flood mitigation projects. •Implement recommendations of the Stormwater Master Plan. •Prioritize and pursue projects and funding to reduce flood risk and flood insurance costs for the property owners and businesses of the Estes Valley. New FEMA floodplain mapping along the 5 major drainage basins in Estes Park will show many new properties within the expanded floodplains. Funding and construction of the Priority 1 projects shown in Table 1 of the SUFS are necessary to bring the floodplain boundary back to the historic limits. Proposal: The consultant will present an overview and key findings contained in the draft SUFS. The Town Attorney will present the draft Intergovernmental Agreement regarding imposition and collection of fees from County residents whose properties contribute to the flooding within our major drainage basins. Estes Park PW staff and the Larimer County Engineer will formulate a recommendation to form a new stormwater utility for consideration and adoption by both the Estes Park Town Board and Larimer Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Advantages: •The SMP tabulates and maps the existing stormwater infrastructure. •The need for potential improvements is quantified in terms of prioritized scope and cost. •The proposed stormwater improvement and maintenance program is fully fundable. A potential funding strategy consisting of user fees, impact fees, sales tax revenue, and grant funding is recommended in the feasibility study. See Appendix B for a detailed summary of annual revenue modeled for Scenarios 1 (user fees only), 3A (user fees + 0.4% sales tax starting in 2024), and 5A (user fees + 0.4% sales tax + grants). •Implementation and sustained maintenance of the stormwater infrastructure will reduce risk and recurrence of repeated property damage for both County and Town residents. •Adoption and implementation of the final SMP and SUFS will complete the Town Board Infrastructure Objectives listed above. Disadvantages: The disadvantages for the Town to assume this maintenance responsibility include: •The Town is not staffed or equipped to take on this maintenance and stormwater infrastructure expansion effort. The estimated cost of maintenance equipment and personnel is described in the SUFS. Page 39 •A new Stormwater Utility adds additional administrative effort to PW and Finance staff. •A new utility fee, and potential sales tax, will be needed to fund this effort. Some residents may object. Action Recommended: Staff requests guidance from the Town Board on the following issues: 1. Does the Town Board want PW staff to return with an ordinance to form a Stormwater Utility Enterprise within the Estes Park Public Works Department as outlined in the draft IGA? 2. Does the Town Board agree that stormwater user fees and impact fees should be established by the Town Board, and that a public vote is not required? 3. Is the Board ready for PW staff to present the draft fee structure (Table 6) to the public for comment? 4. Do the Trustees agree with the BCC request for the Trustees to approve the IGA before it is presented to the BCC for approval? 5. When does the Town Board wish to see the IGA and stormwater enterprise ordinance in a public hearing for adoption? 6. When would the Town Board prefer the fees be implemented to start the generation of revenue for stormwater projects? Budget: This report presents options to generate revenue to cover the new project costs. Note the estimated capital project costs shown in Table 1 are presented in 2017 dollars. The revenue generated to fund projects considers a 3% annual inflation adjustment and could generate funding in excess of $145M over the 30-year implementation time frame. Level of Public Interest Public interest on this proposal will move from low to high if a new utility fees or sales tax is proposed. Attachments: Page 3 of 3 Page 40 PUBLIC WORKS Report To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: David Hook, Engineering Manager Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Date: October 23, 2018 RE: Stormwater Management Project Update – Impervious Area, User Fees and Public Outreach PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER_Update_ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Present a summary of the results from the impervious measurement data project, discuss fee calculations and present plans for the next public outreach effort regarding the proposed Stormwater Management Project (SMP). Present Situation: The GIS consultant has completed the measurements of the impervious area on each improved parcel in the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) boundary. Public Works (PW) staff have utilized the impervious area data to recalculate a new estimated fee for each improved parcel based on the recommended SMP (a variant of Option 3A = a stormwater utility funded by fees ($60 million), sales tax ($70 million beginning in 2024), and grants (TBD) over a 30-year period). A data table is attached with information regarding the recalculated fees and anticipated sales tax to be used in this option to fund stormwater improvements. PW staff have coordinated with Larimer County Engineering staff to develop a draft letter and draft stormwater utility bill (attached) that would be sent to the owners of each of the approximately 7300 improved parcels within the EVDC boundary to inform them about the SMP proposal, their estimated fee for the staff recommended option and an invitation to provide their feedback on how best to fund stormwater problems in the area. The draft survey (attached) is intended to assist with obtaining public feedback for consideration by the Town Board and the County Commissioners. ATTACHMENT 4 Page 41 The Town and Larimer County PW staff conducted a work session with the County Commissioners on October 22, 2018. A verbal update of that discussion will be presented to the Town Board on October 23, 2018. Proposal: After updating both Boards and receiving their feedback in late October, PW staff proposes to conduct additional public outreach that will include mailing the educational and fee summaries and posting the new survey online for public response. PW staff will also hold one-on-one consultations during which property owners can meet with staff to discuss the details of the SMP and proposed utility fees. The outreach period is proposed to start about November 1 and run for about a month. We propose to return to the Town Board and Board of County Commissioners in January 2019 for further discussion of the feedback received from the public and to receive direction from both Boards about whether or not to move forward with a particular program for managing stormwater in the Estes Park area. Advantages: •Additional feedback from the community based on more accurate fee information and a better understanding of the proposed SMP will provide the Town Board and the County Commissioners with improved understanding of the community’s opinions about the acceptability/ unacceptability the proposed SMP. Disadvantages: •This new course of action will add time to the process of gathering additional feedback for Board consideration of the proposed SMP. Action Recommended: No Town Board action is required at this time. Finance/Resource Impact: The implementation of any SMP proposal will require funding of some sort. Staff’s recommendation uses a mixture of utility fees (if authorized by the Town Board and County Commissioners) and future sales tax (if authorized by Estes Park voters), as summarized in the attached data table. The range of values of fee and sales tax revenue can vary widely depending on the size of the stormwater program, its speed of implementation and preferences on how to balance revenue generation between user fees, grants and sales tax. Level of Public Interest Based on the outreach efforts to date and the survey responses received, staff believes that the level of public interest is moderate. Staff believes the interest level will increase with the new course of action described above. Attachments: Page 42 PUBLIC WORKS Report To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Date: January 22, 2019 RE: Stormwater Management Project Update PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE LAND USE CONTRACT/AGREEMENT RESOLUTION OTHER_Update_ QUASI-JUDICIAL YES NO Objective: Present an update on the proposed Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project. Present Situation: On October 22 and 23, 2018 PW staff received direction from the County Commissioners and Town Board to proceed with the distribution of proposed stormwater management fees and educational information through a direct mailing to the owners of 7676 improved parcels within the Estes Valley Development Code boundary. Additionally, a public opinion survey is to be conducted to learn property owner reactions to the proposed fee and funding structure for a future stormwater utility. As Town and County staff jointly worked through the data, monthly fees in excess of $35/month were noted for 449 parcels. This represents 5.8% of the total parcels. This week County PW staff presented concern to the Board of County Commissioners that fees greater than $30/month are unreasonably high for residential property owners, and recommended that the fee structure be revised into a capped or tiered system for residential properties only. Town PW staff suggested to the County that in this situation where impervious area data has been measured for all properties within the program area, it feels fundamentally unfair to lower the fees for select few residential property owners and then raise fees on other parcels to meet the program revenue objectives. The County Commissioners expressed a desire to understand the Town Board’s opinion of the high outlier fees before proposed fee data is finalized and shared with each property owner. Proposal: Staff has prepared and attached a summary of two options for calculating fees. The first proposes fees uniformly based on the measured impervious area of each lot as discussed in October. See the attached fee comparison spreadsheet. ATTACHMENT 5 Page 43 The second option applies a 12,000 SF limit on the fee calculation for “Residential”, “Agricultural”, and “Mobile Home” account types. This results in a maximum proposed monthly single-family residential stormwater management fee of $34.50 per parcel. The associated fee reductions for 136 individual parcels is as much as 86%, and is accomplished at the expense of raising all the other property owner fees by about 2%. See the attached fee comparison spreadsheet and Fee Distribution bar charts. A third option is to create a fee reduction formula that is more broadly available to all property owners who meet a specific set of criteria. Fee credit reductions could be based on the percentage of undeveloped land on each parcel, constructed stormwater detention or other flowrate controls on a parcel, or even civic/community contributions such as nonprofit status. Options 1 and 2 are complete, and the associated fees could be quickly distributed to property owners. Option 3 will take additional time to develop. The County staff has volunteered to develop a tiered residential fee structure, and has indicated acceptance of the proposed fees (including high outlier fees) for the nonresidential parcels. The delay associated with this option is expected to exceed two months. Upon receipt of direction on which fee structure to present to the public, Staff will launch an additional month of public outreach. When complete, Staff proposes to return to the Town Board and County Commissioners for further discussion of the feedback received from the public and to receive direction from both Boards regarding potential implementation of a stormwater utility for managing stormwater in the Estes Valley. Advantages: Careful study of fee amounts should improve fairness, reasonableness, & payer support. Disadvantages: The reconsideration of fee calculation methodology delays the process of gathering additional citizen feedback for consideration of the proposed stormwater utility. Action Recommended: Fee guidance as outlined above. Finance/Resource Impact: The implementation of any stormwater management program will require new funding. Staff’s previous recommendation uses a mixture of utility fees and future sales tax. Consideration of grants is now added in an effort to further reduce parcel owner fees. The range of values of fee and sales tax revenue can vary widely depending on the size of the stormwater program, its speed of implementation and preferences on how to balance revenue generation between user fees, grants and sales tax. Level of Public Interest The level of public interest seen to date is moderate for this program. Staff believes the interest level will increase when fee estimates are shared publicly. Attachments: Page 44 PUBLIC WORKS Report To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Board of County Commissioners Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Public Works Director Date: February 19, 2019 RE: Proposed Stormwater Management Fees Objective: Discuss with the Town Board and County Commissioners the foundational assumptions incorporated into the cost modeling and the associated stormwater management fees to be shared with the public for review and comment. Present Situation: In October, 2018 PW staff received direction from the County Commissioners and Town Board to proceed with the distribution of proposed stormwater management fees and educational information through a direct mailing to the owners of 7676 improved parcels within the Estes Valley Development Code boundary. Additionally, a public opinion survey is to be conducted to learn property owner reactions to the proposed fee and funding structure for a future stormwater utility. In January 2018 Town and County Public Works (PW) staff jointly worked through the parcel data and presented summaries of potential monthly user fees options separately to both the Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners. Concerns were expressed regarding potential modeled fees in excess of $35/month for a fraction of the larger residential parcels. Other concerns were expressed about asking only the owners of 7676 improved lots to bear the burden of sharing the local cost contribution to the program instead of all owners of the 8583 parcels within the Estes Valley Development Code boundary. It was pointed out that the flood runoff watershed contains 210 sq miles, the proposed stormwater program area (EVDC boundary) encompasses 36.8 sq miles which consists of 35.3 sq miles of vacant land and 1.5 sq miles of impervious area. Following the January meetings Town and County PW staff created several new cost models to temper the high outlier residential fees and more closely examine the annual cash flow needs to construct the $79M master planned projects. Fee charges on vacant land are omitted due to concern about elevated exposure to legal challenge of administrative imposition of a tax rather than a fee. ATTACHMENT 6 Page 45 Proposal: Staff prepared and attached a summary of two options (no grant revenue and 20% grant revenue) for calculating fees. Both options include the following key assumptions. •All fees are based on impervious area within 7676 improved parcels. No fees are proposed for the vacant 907 parcels (or the vacant fraction of improved parcels) within the Development Code boundary. •Non-residential property fees are individually calculated. This includes parcels with multi-family development. •Residential fees are based on the average impervious areas within four lot size tiers of 1656 parcels each. These quartile sizes are: under 0.04 ac, 0.05 to 0.44 ac, 0.45 to 1.01 ac, and over 1.02 ac. •Fees are proposed to be adjusted annually based on the rise or fall of the Construction Cost Index provided by CDOT for their transportation projects. Our inflation assumptions project a potential 238% increase in the fees over the program duration. •The program duration is assumed to be 30 years, and can be shortened depending on revenue (user fees, grants, and sales tax). •A sales tax of 0.4% is dedicated to this program from 2024 thru 2047 (27 years) to generate $70M. An election is necessary to approve this. •This is a no-debt, pay-as-you-go cost model. Low user fees and zero sales tax in the early years delay the start and increase the cost of construction projects. Before mailing proposed fees to our property owners, we need guidance from our policy makers on the following elements that impact the proposed user fees: 1.Do you agree with the assumptions listed above? 2.Grant revenue can accelerate construction timing and lower user fees. The user fees more than double if we assume no grant revenue in the cost model. Is there guiding direction on the grant revenue assumption to be used? 3.If a stormwater utility is created, a revenue stream would be established that could service debt incurred thru future revenue bonds. The timing of the construction could be accelerated which lowers the total program cost. Does this need to be considered/modeled before user fees are calculated and shared with the property owners? 4.Do you wish to see any new information before staff presents the calculated, first-year user fees to owners of improved parcels? Upon receipt of direction on which fee structure to present to the public, Staff will launch an additional month of public outreach. When complete, Staff proposes to return to the Town Board and County Commissioners for further discussion of the feedback received from the public and to receive direction from both Boards regarding potential implementation of a stormwater utility for managing stormwater in the Estes Valley. Advantages: Careful study of fee amounts should improve fairness, reasonableness, & payer support. Page 46 Disadvantages: Ongoing analysis of the numerous fee calculation options delays the process of gathering additional citizen feedback for consideration of the proposed stormwater utility by the Trustees and Commissioners. Action Recommended: Fee guidance as outlined above. Finance/Resource Impact: The implementation of any stormwater management program will require new funding. Staff’s previous recommendations used a mixture of utility fees and future sales tax. Consideration of grants is now added in an effort to further reduce parcel owner fees. The range of values of fee and sales tax revenue can vary widely depending on the size of the stormwater program, its speed of implementation and preferences on how to balance revenue generation between user fees, grants and sales tax. Level of Public Interest The level of public interest seen to date is moderate for this program. Staff believes the interest level will increase when fee estimates are shared publicly. Attachments: Page 47 Page 1 of 5 PUBLIC WORKS Report To: Honorable Mayor Jirsa Board of Trustees Board of County Commissioners Through: Town Administrator Lancaster From: Greg Muhonen, PE, Estes Park Public Works Director Mark Peterson, PE, Larimer County Engineer Date: May 15, 2019 RE: Proposed Stormwater Management Program Public Feedback Objective: Discuss with the Town Board and County Commissioners the public input received during the April 2019 survey period and options for future action regarding the formation of a Stormwater Management Program and utility to serve the Estes Valley. Present Situation: In 2013 the Town experienced extensive flooding which prompted pursuit of state grant funding to use current technological tools and stream gauge records to update the regulatory peak discharges used by FEMA for flood insurance purposes (mapping). This hydrologic analysis was completed in 2016. These flows are currently being used by FEMA to redefine new floodplain maps for the Estes Valley. In 2016 the Town received a grant to fund the development of a Stormwater Master Plan (SMP) and used local funds for a companion Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study. The SMP was completed and presented to the public in 2018. The SMP identified projects estimated to cost $62 million to contain the forecasted 1% probability flood flows nearer to the river channels and reduce the new floodplain limits closer to the pre- 2013 conditions. Another $17 million was proposed to address an estimated 350 neighborhood flooding problems. In 2017 thru 2019 the Town Board’s Strategic Plan directed staff to pursue projects and funding to reduce flood risk and flood insurance cost for properties in the Estes Valley, implement the recommendations of the SMP, and pursue funding for flood mitigation projects. These are the objectives of implementing a formal Stormwater Management Program in the Estes Valley. The replacement of the Moraine Avenue Bridge is an example of progress on these goals. Grants alone are insufficient to complete projects that will meaningfully reduce the new draft floodplains proposed by FEMA. Eligibility for future grant revenue is dependent ATTACHMENT 7 Page 48 Page 2 of 5 upon inclusion of local matching funds. The consultant and staff modeled a variety of funding strategies containing different combinations of new stormwater user fees, sales tax revenue, and grant funding. These revenue options were presented to the public in open houses, surveys, individual meetings, and study sessions with the elected officials. After the February 19, 2019 joint meeting between the Town Board of Trustees and Board of County Commissioners, staff sent a direct-mailed summary of two user fee options (no grant revenue and 20% grant revenue) to over 8500 recipients and invited them to share feedback on the proposed stormwater utility via an online survey. Over 900 respondents provided a broad range of comments and the following feedback: 63% agree stormwater drainage problems exist. 70% agree the Town and County should act to address flooding risk. 52% indicate a user fee of some amount should be part of the program funding solution. 48% feel the user fees should be zero or less than 5% of the program costs. 71% suggest a sales tax should be used to fund 40% to 100% of the program costs. 53% of respondents feel grants should pick up more than 20% of the program cost. 95% feel grants should provide more than 5% of the program revenue. [Note: additional local match funds (typically 20% -50%) are required in order to receive grant funding.] 71% feel their proposed stormwater management fees are too high. 71% favor funding some type of stormwater utility. 30% indicated a preference to get started now. 29% say take a different approach such as not moving forward. Proposal: There are a variety of different actions available for moving forward. Staff offers four options for discussion and consideration. The advantages and disadvantages listed below are representative for discussion purposes, and are not intended to be all- inclusive. OPTION 1. Refine the staff recommendation by lowering user fees, increasing assumed grant contributions, and eliminating tiered user fees. Implement a stormwater utility funded with a combination of user fees (20%--based on impervious area of improved parcels), sales tax (50%), and grants (30%) to build all the master planned improvements ($79 million) over a 30-year period. Advantages •Implements the Town Board strategic plan goals. Page 49 Page 3 of 5 •Respects the input of the majority of survey #2 respondents (52%) that indicate user fees, sales tax, and grants should all be used to fund a stormwater utility. •Responds to the feedback that proposed user fees should be reduced. •Responds to the feedback that proposed residential tiered fees are inequitable and should be based exclusively on impervious area instead of parcel size. •Provides funding to address 350 residential drainage problems. •Generates new revenue that can be leveraged as local match contributions for future grant funding applications as soon as 2020 •Spreads the funding burden of the stormwater program to a large pool of property owner, visitor, and federal funding participants. Disadvantages •Contains a mandatory user fee for owners of improved parcels within the Estes Valley Development Code (EVDC) boundary. Some owners argue this is a tax while the Supreme has ruled otherwise. •Non-Town residents cannot vote on a proposed sales tax that they would pay when making purchases at town businesses. •Modeled sales tax revenue is delayed until an approving public vote occurs. •Parcels with large impervious area will pay proportionately higher monthly fees. OPTION 2. Revise the funding source assumptions. Eliminate all user fees and ask Town voters if they wish to raise sales tax to implement a stormwater utility funded with a combination of sales tax (50%), and grants (50%) to build all the master planned improvements ($79 million inflated to over $150 million) over a 30-year period. Advantages •Implements the Town Board strategic plan goals. •Respects the input of the majority of survey #2 respondents (70%) that indicate the Town and County have a responsibility to address flooding risk that threatens the economic vitality of the Estes downtown. •Respects the survey respondent request to not implement user fees. •Provides funding to address 350 residential drainage problems. •Generates new revenue that can be leveraged as local match contributions for future grant funding applications. Disadvantages •No new local match funds available for grant applications until a sales tax election passes. •Non-Town residents cannot vote on a proposed sales tax that they would pay when making purchases at town businesses. •Increased sales taxes could discourage visitation and spending. OPTION 3. Reduce the program cost by reducing the scope of work to reach a target revenue cap/objective provided by others. Model different combinations of work scope, funding, and time of construction to develop a different stormwater management program. Page 50 Page 4 of 5 Advantages •No new fees are implemented in the short term while further study occurs. This respects the input of the majority of survey #2 respondents (71%) that the proposed user fees are too high. Disadvantages •Delays action and perpetuates uncertainty regarding flood damage risk. Effort and funds are directed toward studies instead of mitigative action and resiliency projects. •New strategic planning objectives and funding are needed from the elected officials to provide clear and specific direction for studying a different course of action. •The Town’s eligibility for stormwater mitigation and resiliency grants is severely reduced while no new revenue is generated for local match contributions. •Devalues four years of planning to implement the Town Board strategic plan goals to reduce the number of properties included in the updated floodplain and reduce flood insurance premiums. OPTION 4. Take no further action and do not implement a stormwater utility. Advantages •No new fees are imposed on property owners or visitors •Other flood mitigation options could be explored in the future. Disadvantages •The Town’s eligibility for stormwater mitigation and resiliency grants is severely reduced as no new revenue is generated for local match contributions. •The stormwater masterplan effort delivers no benefit to the community, and credibility with the grant funding agency is compromised. •Disrespects four years of planning to implement the Town Board strategic plan goals •No new revenue is generated to mitigate flooding risk in Estes. •Disregards the desire of 70% of survey #2 respondents that expect the Town and County to take action to mitigate flood risk in the Estes Valley. •Disregards 63% the majority opinion that stormwater drainage problems exist. Action Recommended: Staff requests guidance on the preferred next-steps. Do the elected officials want staff to bring back a draft stormwater ordinance and draft Intergovernmental Agreement modeled after any of the above options, or take a different action regarding the formation of a stormwater utility within the Town of Estes Park Public Works Department? Finance/Resource Impact: The implementation of any stormwater management program will require new funding. The range of values for fee and sales tax revenue can vary widely depending on the size of the stormwater program, its speed of implementation and preferences on how to balance revenue generation between user fees, grants and sales tax. Page 51 Page 5 of 5 Level of Public Interest The level of public interest is moderate for this program. About 12% of the impacted property owners have provided input. No input has been solicited from visitors regarding a potential sales tax. Attachments: Page 52 Public Works Engineering Streets Parks Facilities Fleet Parking & Transit 970-577-3587 publicworks@estes.org 170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG Unnamed Resident xyz CENTENNIAL DR ESTES PARK, CO 80517 YOUR PROPOSED ESTES VALLEY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FEE Parcel Address Parcel ID Proposed Monthly Fee 179 CENTENNIAL DR 2406321012 $9.91 501 SAINT VRAIN LN 201 2530361003 $4.12 501 SAINT VRAIN LN 203 2530361004 $8.19 **Please refer to our webpage for those fees associated to additional parcels you own** HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS PROPOSED STORMWATER UTILITY? Complete the questionnaire at www.estes.org/stormwater by Friday, March 29, 2019. Dear Estes Valley Property Owner: March 4, 2019 We have a problem in the Estes Valley. We flood. Repeatedly. In neighborhoods and roadways. We lack adequate river channel capacity, stormwater pipes and inlets. Not every property sees damage, but virtually all improved parcels shed water downstream and contribute to flooding in our community. It hurts all of us and it requires a community effort to reduce the damage. The Stormwater Management Project was conceived after the destructive 2013 Flood. The Town received a grant to complete a Stormwater Management Plan and Utility Feasibility Study, which led to the proposed Stormwater Management Program. Potential projects would cost $79 million (2017 dollars), constructed over 30 years. With inflation, operation and maintenance, program costs are modeled to exceed $152 million. After considering many ways to manage stormwater, staff determined a stormwater utility is the best approach to fix our drainage issues, with large projects along rivers and up to 350 smaller projects in neighborhoods (Table ES.4, page ES9 of the Stormwater Master Plan at estes.org/stormwater). The Town explored a dozen potential funding strategies. The strategy recommended by Town and County Public Works staff consists of 20% grants (goal), 29% user fees, and 51% sales tax (voters must approve). Parcel fees vary by man-made impervious area -- where rain does not soak into the ground. Aerial imagery allowed us to create four tiers of proposed monthly residential fees and individual monthly non-residential fees. ATTACHMENT 8 Page 53 Public Works Engineering Streets Parks Facilities Fleet Parking & Transit 970-577-3587 publicworks@estes.org 170 MACGREGOR AVE. P.O. BOX 1200, ESTES PARK CO. 80517 WWW.ESTES.ORG The estimated stormwater fee(s) shown in Table 1 reflects the rate at the beginning and end of the proposed 30-year program, and assumes we receive $28 million in grant funding AND voters approve a 0.4% sales tax for stormwater projects in 2024. The fee will adjust annually according to inflation. We estimate the fee will more than double in 30 years. Table 1—20% Grants ($28 Million). Program cost = $138 Million (Assumes 3% inflation) RESIDENTIAL PARCELS NON- RESIDENTIAL PARCELS LOT SIZE (acre) Under 0.04 0.05 to 0.44 0.45 to 1.01 1.02 to 204 varies Ave Imp Area (sq ft) 1195 3149 4110 5610 varies 2020 Est Fee/mo $3.13 $6.13 $7.61 $9.91 Median = $8.92 2050 Est Fee/mo $7.47 $14.61 $18.12 $23.61 Median=$21.26 If no grants were awarded to the Town during the 30-year term of the stormwater management program, the funding shortfall could be provided by increasing the monthly user fees as shown in Table 2. Table 2—Zero Grants received. Program Cost = $152 Million (Assumes 3% inflation) RESIDENTIAL PARCELS NON- RESIDENTIAL PARCELS LOT SIZE (acre) Under 0.04 0.05 to 0.44 0.45 to 1.01 1.02 to 204 varies Ave Imp Area (sq ft) 1195 3149 4110 5610 varies 2020 Est Fee/mo $5.57 $12.55 $15.99 $21.35 Median = $19.05 2050 Est Fee/mo $12.79 $28.82 $36.71 $49.02 Median=$45.40 For comparison, at 3% annual inflation, a gallon of gas that costs $2.00 in 2020 would cost $4.85 in 2050. When deciding on this proposal, the Town Board and County Commissioners must balance constituent desires with their commitment to protect the life, health and property of residents and visitors. Your voice matters. Visit estes.org/stormwater to learn more and complete the Stormwater Utility Questionnaire by March 29, 2019. To schedule time to talk with our staff, contact Christy Crosser at ccrosser@estes.org or 970-577-3574. Respectfully, Gregory P. Muhonen, PE Public Works Director Page 54 Stormwater Master Plan Implementation TOWN BOARD STUDY SESSION NOVEMBER 9, 2021 #3: Estes Valley Stormwater Utility _________________________________________________________________________________________________ #2: Stormwater Utilities in Colorado and Stormwater Infrastructure in Estes Park August 24, 2021 #1: Stormwater Master Plan Implementation Concepts January 12, 2021 Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project ✅Adopted Stormwater Master Plan (SWP) (July 9, 2019) ✅Potential start-up for drainage system maintenance (crew in 2022) What do we have? ✅Strategic Plan Objective 5.B.1. Develop a funding proposal to expand stormwater infrastructure and maintenance through a stormwater utility. •Build a program that implements the recommendations in the SWP. •Partner with Larimer County to more equitably allocate user fees to all benefitting parcel owners in the Estes Valley. •Consider moderating user fees by including sales tax and grant revenue in the funding model. What do we want? How do we get it? _________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENT 9 Page 55 Report attachments for seven meetings (2017 – 2019): 8/8/17 – Update on progress for SMP and SUFS (TB) 10/10/17 – Draft of SMP (TB) 2/13/18 – Drafts of SUFS and Larimer County IGA (TB) 10/23/18* – Results of impervious area survey and propose sample fee mailing (TB) 1/22/19 – Options for fee structure mailing (TB) 2/19/19 – Assumptions for fee structure in mailing, including slideshow (TB & LC-BCC) 5/15/19 – Results of sample fee mailing and sur vey; options for stormwater utility funding approach (TB & LC-BCC) *Work session with Larimer County held the day before___________________________________________________________________________________________________ Scope of infrastructure improvement? Page 56 Service area to include the Estes Valley? Funding approach (grants, user fees, sales tax—or combination)? Page 57 V. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.Establish a new Stormwater Enterprise . . . 2.Enact user fees based primarily upon their parcel’s impervious area. 3.For the initial years focus upon local, less expensive projects . . . 4.Track actual revenues . . . 5.Remain vigilant for grant funding . . . Volume II – Stormwater Utility Feasibility Study (SUFS) Slide 7 from TBSS on January 12, 2021 Public Works recommends that the Town Board provide direction to staff: •Confirm the desired scope of infrastructure improvements. •Clarify if the desired service area should include only Town of Estes Park (about 5400 parcels) or also include Larimer County (about 3100 parcels) in the former Estes Valley Development Code boundary. •Clarify the desire funding approach: grants, user fees, sales tax, or a combination of these. Estes Valley Stormwater Management Project ✅Stormwater utility concepts have been researched and discussed for the last four years. ✅Implementation relies on decisions about scope, service area, and funding combinations. ✅Stormwater utility concepts have been researched and discussed for the last four years. ✅Implementation relies on decisions about scope, service area, and funding combinations. Questions and discussion. ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Page 58 TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE Report To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Town Administrator Machalek From: Jason Damweber, Staff Liaison to the Community and Family Advisory Board Chair Date: November 9, 2021 RE: Community and Family Advisory Board Check-In Purpose of Study Session Item: The purpose of this Study Session is to provide the Town Board with an opportunity to discuss the Community and Family Advisory Board (CFAB), as initially requested by Board Liaison Younglund. Town Board Direction Requested: Staff requests direction from the Town Board regarding any potential changes to the CFAB, if any, including its charge, meeting frequency, membership, etc. Any desired changes would come before the Board as an action item at an upcoming regular Town Board meeting. Present Situation: Members of the Town Board as well as members of the Community and Family Advisory Board have brought up concerns about the CFAB in recent months. On one hand, some have felt there is a lack of clarity regarding direction to the CFAB from the Town Board. On the other, some have commented on the lack of productivity and/or initiative by the CFAB in terms of actionable recommendations provided to the Board. Some Town Board members have questioned the need for the continued existence of the CFAB in light of the fact that there are many nonprofits in the Estes Valley that exist to provide advocacy and address issues impacting families and the community, while others have instead expressed interest in discussing changes to the CFAB’s charge and/or structure in order to provide clearer direction and expectations. Along those lines, one suggestion was to convene the CFAB on an ad-hoc rather than regular basis, and another was to consider eliminating the need to specify focus area each year. While it is clear that there are pervasive issues impacting families and community members in the Estes Valley, it is less clear on how best the Town Board can be kept apprised of the issues and receive recommendations for action, and the role and effectiveness of CFAB in these efforts. Page 59 Proposal: That the Town Board discuss the CFAB and provide direction to staff regarding any potential changes it would like to act on at a future Board meeting. Advantages: N/A Disadvantages: N/A Financial/Resource Impact: N/A Level of Public Interest: Medium Page 60 To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees From: Nancy Almond, Vice-Chair, Community and Family Advisory Board Patti Brown, Member, Community and Family Advisory Board Date: November 9, 2021 RE: Community and Family Advisory Board Study Session A review of the minutes of the Family Advisory Board/Community and Family Advisory Board minutes over the past five years provides an excellent history of the concerns and initiatives of the advisory board. •The Family Advisory Board was constituted by the Estes Park Board of Trustees in 2017 to serve as an advisory board to the Mayor and Trustees pertinent issues affecting families in Estes Park. The FAB held its first meeting in May 2017. •Since its inception, the FAB, which changed its name in December 2020 to the Community and Family Advisory Board, has set an annual focus issue. The focus issues have included: o 2017: To identify gaps in support services to families in the Estes Valley o 2018: To identify the needs for childcare in the Estes Valley for working families o 2019: To identify barriers to family success in Estes Park o 2020: To identify barriers to family success in Estes Park o 2021: To 1) advance and ensure awareness of and equitable access to existing community resources, and 2) to provide a current report of childcare needs and gaps in the community. Defining Family and Community The Town Board has asked the CFAB how it defines family. A review of the board’s minutes shows that the advisory board has had many discussions about the definition of family. The board has struggled to narrowly define the understanding of family, because families come in many different shapes and sizes. Changes in our society have led to changes in the concept of a “traditional family structure” and to the emergence of new family structures. But, operationally, the CFAB board has understood that a family is broadly understood to be a household unit that may include people related by a bond of blood, marriage, or emotional commitment. A family may be made up of two or more people, it may include children, and it may be multigenerational. An expansive, inclusive definition of family is also mindful of individuals in the community who live alone. If the Town Board would prefer the CFAB to focus on a more narrowly defined family structure CFAB would welcome that direction. (ie: “Households with one or more children.”) Accomplishments •The FAB/CFAB Board has developed the Family Advisory Board Community Resource Guide which is included on the town’s webpage. This guide aggregates information about Childcare and Child Development services, Mental Health and Substance Abuse services, Housing and Services for Low-income Families, Disability services, Activities and Recreation, and Health and Wellness services. COMMENTS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD ON 2021-11-09 • CFAB has held learning and listening sessions with town stakeholders to understand the available resources, the needs, and the gaps in services utilized by families in the Estes Park community. • CFAB made a presentation to the Town Board regarding the current state of childcare in the Estes Valley based upon updates to the Estes Valley Childcare Needs Assessment. This report included demographic information the population of children in the Estes Park community, the availability of infant, toddler, preschool, after school, and summer childcare. Challenges • As with many volunteer boards, CFAB has experienced difficulties in recruiting and retaining board members. Board turnover has hampered cohesiveness. CFAB has sought to include a youth member, and representation from the Hispanic community, and these goals have proved challenging. The board requested that the Town Board reduce the size of the board from 10-15 members to 7-10 members. • The Covid-19 Pandemic has made it difficult for the advisory board to stay connected as a board, yet despite the constraints, CFAB has strived to bring pertinent issues affecting families in the Estes Park community to the attention of the Town Board. Future Opportunities for the CFAB Board • To continue to act as an advisory board to the Mayor and Town Board on pertinent issues affecting families in Estes Park • To explore issues of concern to families and the community which should be brought to the attention of the Mayor and Town Board. • Policy recommendations to Town Board will be driven by qualitative and quantitative data. • To bring to the table key organizations whose mission centers on families, gather information and data across the spectrum of services and programs, identify common barriers, challenges and issues impacting families, and share data and information with Town Board as appropriate to make Estes Park a community that is welcoming and family friendly for resident. • To continue to follow the community’s needs for childcare, particularly for infant and toddler childcare, as it relates to the Town’s Strategic Plan for a diverse, healthy year-round economy with a robust business and service community. TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S OFFICE Report To: Honorable Mayor Koenig Board of Trustees Through: Travis Machalek, Town Administrator From: Jason Damweber, Assistant Town Administrator Date: November 9, 2021 RE: Arts in Public Places Purpose of Study Session Item: The purpose of this Study Session is to provide the Town Board with an opportunity to discuss the content of a memorandum, sent by Chairperson Geoff Elliot on behalf of the Parks Advisory Board (PAB) to the Town Board in September 2021. The memorandum outlines the current situation with respect to the Town’s Art in Public Places program, which falls under the PAB’s purview, and provides lists of recommendations and other “possible actions” for the Board’s consideration. Town Board Direction Requested: Staff requests direction from the Town Board regarding the recommendations or other possible actions outlined in the memorandum, or any other potential changes to the Art in Public Places program. Present Situation: Please see the attached copy of the memorandum sent by PAB Chairperson Geoff Elliot on behalf of the Parks Advisory Board to the Town Board, in which the PAB recommends that the Town: 1. Develop an Arts Master Plan to chart the future of arts in Estes Park, provide oversight of arts activities (including visual, performing, and other art forms), and support funding requests to allow for increased arts programming and opportunities in the community. 2. Identify appropriate staff with relevant curatorial expertise and establishes an arts-focused board with members of the arts community to oversee the arts program. The Parks Division has limited capacity to oversee additional arts projects and insufficient training to properly maintain the Town of Estes Park’s art assets. 3. Engage existing, relevant community organizations to support future arts projects, maintenance of existing art assets, and local outreach. The success of recent grassroots efforts for the Women’s Monument Project demonstrates the possibilities of further community engagement in the arts program. Page 61 Proposal: That the Town Board discuss the content of the memorandum and provide direction to staff regarding the recommendations or other possible actions outlined in the memorandum, or any other potential changes to the Art in Public Places program. Advantages: • Public art can add value to the cultural, aesthetic, and economic vitality of a community. Disadvantages: • We expect that an Arts Master Plan would cost somewhere around $50,000. • Neither the 2022 Strategic Plan nor budget anticipate this work or added expense. • We would likely need to add staff or drastically alter the work of existing staff in order to complete and implement an Arts Master Plan. Financial/Resource Impact: Depends on direction from the Town Board. Level of Public Interest: Medium Attachments: 1. Parks Advisory Board AIPP Update Page 62 Town of Estes Park Trustees: When the Trustees expanded the former Tree Board into the Parks Advisory Board (PAB), the expanded duties included additional environmental and parks related work, as well as incorporation of the town’s public art efforts. These public art efforts primarily consisted of the bronze sculptures throughout Parks. In 2015, the PAB was formally assigned oversight of the town’s Art in Public Places (AIPP) program; staff support was assigned to the Parks Division of the Public Works Department. Most recently, the former Board of Trustees asked the PAB to investigate options for future funding of the AIPP program. Our research brought attention to a number of needs and opportunities with the AIPP program that have been discussed by the PAB. Below the PAB has identified the key takeaways from our conversations. First off, it is critical the Town of Estes Park solidifies the desired degree of importance the AIPP program has in the community. Based on this determination, the PAB recommends the Town of Estes Park: 1. Develops an Arts Master Plan to chart the future of arts in Estes Park, provide oversight of arts activities (including visual, performing, and other art forms), and support funding requests to allow for increased arts programming and opportunities in the community. 2. Identifies appropriate staff with relevant curatorial expertise and establishes an arts-focused board with members of the arts community to oversee the arts program. The Parks Division has limited capacity to oversee additional arts projects and insufficient training to properly maintain the Town of Estes Park’s art assets. 3. Engage existing, relevant community organizations to support future arts projects, maintenance of existing art assets, and local outreach. The success of recent grassroots efforts for the Women’s Monument Project demonstrates the possibilities of further community engagement in the arts program. In addition to these recommendations, please find a full summary of the current situation and options explored by the PAB for the AIPP program: Situation Assessment: 1. The main sources for funding public art in communities are: donors, grants, and a % of public project construction costs. Utilizing a % of public project costs is common at the federal and state levels. It is also utilized in municipalities with strong public art programs. a. When previously presented to Town of Estes Park Trustees, they did not seem interested in utilizing a % of construction costs to fund the arts program. 2. Funding from grants and donors typically requires a formal Arts Master Plan. It is very difficult for the Town of Estes Park to receive funding without an Arts Master Plan. 3. Based on the direction of the Town of Estes Park’s Trustees, the PAB investigated the possibility of developing an Arts Master Plan with in-kind or low-cost assistance from a local university with arts management expertise. The PAB identified and contacted three universities. Of those, Colorado State University initially expressed interest based on their community focus as a land grant university. ATTACHMENT 1 Page 63 4. After CSU coordinated with their faculty, PAB learned they did not have appropriate expertise to support the development of an Arts Master Plan for the Town of Estes Park. Based on this development, it is unlikely we will be able to receive support from a local university for an Arts Master Plan. a. CSU faculty recommended talking to an arts management professional working with the Fort Collins Museum of Art. After following up on this referral, the arts management professional provided an estimate of $15,000 to $25,000 and recommended pursuing grants to support these efforts (see Item 2). 5. The Town of Estes Park’s Strategic Plan does not include an Arts Master Plan. 6. The Downtown Master Plan (approved in 2018) includes numerous references to the importance of art and local artists to the community and our visitors. A primary driver for this focus is the positive impact public art has on economic development. While much of this is focused on the more commercial importance of art, the Plan cites the value of existing public art and emphasizes the need to further develop public art. It also states, “public improvements and private development projects should accommodate and showcase work by local, regional and national artists”. It further states that the Town should “Incentivize the Arts – Provide incentives for inclusion of public art in private development projects. The Town’s land use code permits public art to count towards a development’s landscape requirements” (Downtown Plan, pg 36). 7. Currently, the annual Decorating Utility Boxes (DUB) program has been put on hold due to limited capacity among the Parks and Power & Communications divisions. 8. Very limited public arts information is currently provided to citizens and visitors by the Town of Estes Park. Some information is provided by the Estes Arts District, Visit Estes Park and BEstes, but it is uncoordinated and incomplete. 9. The Town of Estes Park currently does not have consolidated arts & culture management specifically assigned to staff responsibility. 10. The Town of Estes Park Trustees have expressed interest in increased involvement from the local arts organizations in the AIPP program. 11. Feedback from the Women’s Monument Committee aligns with the PAB in calling for an Arts Advisory Committee to provide aesthetic and technical support for the Town AIPP program and that the local Arts community is interested and available. 12. The Town of Estes Park’s collectible fixed assets are currently above $1.75 million and probably appreciating. These Assets, while identified, do not have assessment for adequate management, storage, display or maintenance responsibilities/instructions. The bulk of these investments roughly fall into these categories: a. Bronze sculptures: >$347,000 b. Museum holdings: >$1,020,000 c. Misc. art: >$245,000 13. Public Works feels it “does not currently have sufficient staff or specialized training and experience to inventory, store and maintain the Town’s entire collectible arts assets.” 14. PAB members are uncomfortable making aesthetic and maintenance decisions about public art without assistance from the local arts community and curatorial experts. Page 64 Possible Actions: 1. Determine the desired degree of importance of the AIPP program to the community and an appropriate level of support. 2. Establish a consolidated program for arts and cultural activities. Appropriate staff should be designated to oversee Town-owned art and other collectible fixed assets. 3. Establish an arts advisory group to assist the designated staff with aesthetic and technical support for the AIPP program. 4. Enlist appropriate curatorial support to review the list of existing collectible fixed assets (including all Town-owned art) to determine appropriate insurance value, maintenance, storage and monitoring protocols. This could also include input from local arts organizations and artists. a. Based on the size of the Town of Estes Park’s assets, this can be prioritized and phased over several years. 5. Include an Arts Master Plan in the 2022 Strategic Plan. 6. Utilize the Downtown Master Plan to guide decision making in the downtown area. For the AIPP program, it recommends increasing our density of public art and a large emphasis on art of all types to further enhance our downtown environment. 7. Research and apply for grants to assist developing an Arts Master Plan with professional assistance. a. If external funding is unavailable, utilize existing planning and curatorial expertise among Town of Estes Park staff and the local arts community to develop an Arts Master Plan. 8. Upon establishing an Arts Master Plan, the Town can apply for grants to fund public art projects for the AIPP. These projects should be managed by appropriate Town staff efforts, which can be overseen by a volunteer advisory group. 9. Develop and provide descriptions of key public art pieces alongside a map for residents and visitors, available on the Town of Estes Park website, at the Estes Park Visitor Center, and through arts organizations such as: Estes Arts District, Art Center of Estes Park, Visit Estes Park, BEstes (Artists Trail). 10. Develop and promote a program for public art donations. We appreciate your time in reviewing our update on PAB’s work investigating opportunities for the AIPP program. If the Trustees find it necessary, representatives from the PAB would be happy to attend a study session on the topic. Please feel free to direct any questions or comments to Trustee Cenac or myself (geoffrey.d.elliot@gmail.com). Best, Geoff Elliot, Chairperson On Behalf of the Parks Advisory Board Page 65 Page 66 November 23, 2021 •Home Rule Overview •Thumb Open Space Management Plan Update December 14, 2021 •179 Stanley Use Options January 11, 2022 •Quarterly CompPAC Update January 25, 2022 •Downtown Estes Loop Update •Parks Master Plan Items Approved – Unscheduled: •Quarterly CompPAC Update •Downtown Loop Updates as Necessary Items for Town Board Consideration: •Governing Policies Updates •2021 Rocky Mountain National Park Overview & Plan for 2022, November 23, 2021 Future Town Board Study Session Agenda Items November 9, 2021 Page 67 Page 68